How do Splitters Perform Once in Law School?

[keg411]

A tale of two laws schools: I was a splitter for school A (shitty GPA and LSAT significantly higher than median). Owned 1L (top 5%) and transferred to a T10 where my GPA was well below the median. Proceeded to do about median, if not a bit below at school B. For some people, it makes a difference. And I didn't slack off at school B or revert to my old study habits.

[PDaddy]

I don't even really know where to look for data on this, so perhaps personal anecdotes will assuage my curiosity.

How do splitters do once they are actually in law school? I'd imagine that it's a bit of a bi-modal distribution, with some people who finally grew up and worked hard in law school (resulting in success), and another group of people carrying their laziness and self-entitlement with them to law school (resulting in poor grades).

Also, what about reverse splitters? It would seem to me that reverse splitters would follow a more natural distribution, as a lot of times reverse splitters are just victims of test-taking anxiety.

I would suspect that reverse-splitters would perform better than splitters, because one's LSAT score purports to predict whether or not you can do the work, while your GPA purports to measure whether you are willing to do the work.

The LSAT is a controversial measurement tool that has proven to be largely ineffective, on its own. Lots of students perform poorly on the LSAT but do well in law school, while the slackers with the high LSAT's probably tend to slack in law school as well as their careers. If given a choice between students with high GPA's or high LSAT's, but not both (and all else being held equal), I would pick the former.

[imjustjoking22]

I don't even really know where to look for data on this, so perhaps personal anecdotes will assuage my curiosity.

How do splitters do once they are actually in law school? I'd imagine that it's a bit of a bi-modal distribution, with some people who finally grew up and worked hard in law school (resulting in success), and another group of people carrying their laziness and self-entitlement with them to law school (resulting in poor grades).

Also, what about reverse splitters? It would seem to me that reverse splitters would follow a more natural distribution, as a lot of times reverse splitters are just victims of test-taking anxiety.

I would suspect that reverse-splitters would perform better than splitters, because one's LSAT score purports to predict whether or not you can do the work, while your GPA purports to measure whether you are willing to do the work.

The LSAT is a controversial measurement tool that has proven to be largely ineffective, on its own. Lots of students perform poorly on the LSAT but do well in law school, while the slackers with the high LSAT's probably tend to slack in law school as well as their careers. If given a choice between students with high GPA's or high LSAT's, but not both (and all else being held equal), I would pick the former.

The major disclaimer here is that there are plenty of schools where someone who is both a slacker and an idiot can still earn a decent gpa

[ilovesf]

I'm not a splitter for TLS, but I was for my school. I was far under the 25% for the GPA, and at the 75% for the LSAT. I did pretty well (12%). Being a splitter means nothing, because people can be separated from their GPAs by years. I didn't study AT ALL in UG, and now I study a lot. Habits change.

[Flips88]

Reverse splitter. 25%ile LSAT, >75% GPA. Did well.

[IAFG]

Lots of splitters and reverse splitters do well. Lots of splitters and reverse splitters do fine. Lots of splitters and reverse splitters do shitty. I haven't noticed any trends in either direction. Maybe mattered more when there was more variation within a class, but all the top schools have tightened up to quite narrow LSAT ranges.

If I were going to go around making predictions though, I would say it helps to not go through anything like an emotionally wrenching breakup or the death of a parent.

But I do always appreciate threads like these to out the douchebags who can't help but take advantage of the opportunity to brag in the name of being a data point.

[ben4847]

In law school, splitters tend to have horrible GPA's, but do really well on the bar.

[IAFG]

In law school, splitters tend to have horrible GPA's, but do really well on the bar.

If by horrible GPAs you mean horrible UG GPAs, I agree whole-heartedly.

[howell]

It would be interesting to see the data on this. My guess is that splitters would do slightly better than reverse splitters as a whole, because UGPA has a much broader meaning. What school? What major? At least with the LSAT, the test is essentially the same across the board, no matter the student's approach (caring/not caring, prepared/unprepared, current life drama, etc.). I also feel that I have used the skills that it takes to succeed on the LSAT more than the skills I would have learned from actually having a decent GPA, although there is a lot to be said for knowing how to study.

At the individual level, this is going to be all over the place. The level of "reform" mentioned earlier in the thread matters. An engineering student with no intentions of attending law school who 7 years later decides to start studying for the LSAT and go to law school is going to be a different animal than someone who skated through an education major at East Bumblefuck U. The background stories of people will make a huge difference. Some people just walk into the LSAT and take it without significant prep. Someone who winds up with a 4.0/159 because they had never needed to prepare for a standardized test in their life is going to "outperform" that LSAT score.

[canesfan1986]

I went to a crappy UG because it was free. My GPA was median and my LSAT was 75% for my T2 school. I finished #1. Then again, I didn't try in UG, but I did in law school. Also, I have no idea how the LSAT is relevant on a daily basis in law school. I was also waitlisted at my school before I retook the LSAT, but I doubt I wouldn't have finished with the same rank if I were admitted the first time. The LSAT measures how well you take a random test with random subjects. In LS, you get to focus and learn what issues will be tested on an exam. Don't count on your LSAT score to push you through.

If you are committed to learning the material, figuring out what you need to study, doing the work, and conveying it well on paper, you will do well.

[jimmythecatdied6]

...

[FlanSolo]

No more phish references? Come on...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AQ3qj1ethFE&t=0m59s?

[Icculus]

No more phish references? Come on...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AQ3qj1ethFE&t=0m59s?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y0L_-OTHz6o

Probably my favorite from the 2011 tour. NYE Madison Square Garden, best way to spend new year's eve.

[JoeFish]

The LSAT measures how well you take a random test with random subjects. In LS, you get to focus and learn what issues will be tested on an exam.

You make these two statements like they're opposite... but aren't they really saying the same thing?

[McQueen]

As a point of reference I am a splitter, much higher GPA than LSAT. However, my practice tests were always in the high/mid-170s. On the exam, my score was disappointedly in the upper-mid 160s. Good enough for a T-10, but not the right score for H/Y. If not for the much higher practice scores, I would have questioned if LS was a good fit.

As a 1L I ended up at median. Without exception, I thought I had nailed every exam . . . not so. I have a handful of Bs, a few B+ and a couple A-. Disappointed not to have any As, but glad about not having anything lower than a B. I do not know if my results are “typical splitter,” or not.

[HeavenWood]

As a point of reference I am a splitter, much higher GPA than LSAT. However, my practice tests were always in the high/mid-170s. On the exam, my score was disappointedly in the upper-mid 160s. Good enough for a T-10, but not the right score for H/Y. If not for the much higher practice scores, I would have questioned if LS was a good fit.

As a 1L I ended up at median. Without exception, I thought I had nailed every exam . . . not so. I have a handful of Bs, a few B+ and a couple A-. Disappointed not to have any As, but glad about not having anything lower than a B. I do not know if my results are “typical splitter,” or not.

TBF, most people at those schools are (a) smart, (b) accustomed to getting decent grades, and (c) not used to being graded on a curve. I think the last factor gives engineering/hard science majors a distinct advantage, even though their UG grades are more prone to being on the lower side. Either way, median at a T10 is respectable--not bragworthy--but certainly decent.

[PolySuyGuy]

I was a reverse splitter and finished 1L in the top 5 students in my class.

Isn't that rare?

Congratulations either way!

[androstan]

I don't even really know where to look for data on this, so perhaps personal anecdotes will assuage my curiosity.

How do splitters do once they are actually in law school? I'd imagine that it's a bit of a bi-modal distribution, with some people who finally grew up and worked hard in law school (resulting in success), and another group of people carrying their laziness and self-entitlement with them to law school (resulting in poor grades).

Also, what about reverse splitters? It would seem to me that reverse splitters would follow a more natural distribution, as a lot of times reverse splitters are just victims of test-taking anxiety.

I would suspect that reverse-splitters would perform better than splitters, because one's LSAT score purports to predict whether or not you can do the work, while your GPA purports to measure whether you are willing to do the work.

The LSAT is a controversial measurement tool that has proven to be largely ineffective, on its own. Lots of students perform poorly on the LSAT but do well in law school, while the slackers with the high LSAT's probably tend to slack in law school as well as their careers. If given a choice between students with high GPA's or high LSAT's, but not both (and all else being held equal), I would pick the former.

Except LSAT correlates better with LS GPA than does UGPA.

[HeavenWood]

I was a reverse splitter and finished 1L in the top 5 students in my class.

Isn't that rare?

Congratulations either way!

For sure. Only 5% of a given law school class will end up in the top 5%.

But seriously, people who think there's a sizable difference in potential between run-of-the-mill splitters and reverse splitters need to take a statistics course.

[IAFG]

As a point of reference I am a splitter, much higher GPA than LSAT. However, my practice tests were always in the high/mid-170s. On the exam, my score was disappointedly in the upper-mid 160s. Good enough for a T-10, but not the right score for H/Y. If not for the much higher practice scores, I would have questioned if LS was a good fit.

As a 1L I ended up at median. Without exception, I thought I had nailed every exam . . . not so. I have a handful of Bs, a few B+ and a couple A-. Disappointed not to have any As, but glad about not having anything lower than a B. I do not know if my results are “typical splitter,” or not.

TBF, most people at those schools are (a) smart, (b) accustomed to getting decent grades, and (c) not used to being graded on a curve. I think the last factor gives engineering/hard science majors a distinct advantage, even though their UG grades are more prone to being on the lower side. Either way, median at a T10 is respectable--not bragworthy--but certainly decent.

Bolded is suuuuper meaningless, primarily because in many engineering programs, a guy in the top 5% is going to have a GPA below a 3.6.

Besides that, I seriously doubt that most humanities majors, with 4.0s or 2.0s, would have been able to even complete an engineering degree.

[Perseus_I]

The reason why this thread is retarded is because it doesn't account for multiple LSATs. Some people just take the LSAT once and do poorly. Some people take it multiple times and do well. Maybe splitters are more likely to study for the LSAT than non-splitters. Who knows?

I took the LSAT once. Bombed: I was a reverse splitter. I took the LSAT again. Suddenly, I was a splitter at a few schools and neither a splitter nor a reverse splitter everywhere else.

[HeavenWood]

As a point of reference I am a splitter, much higher GPA than LSAT. However, my practice tests were always in the high/mid-170s. On the exam, my score was disappointedly in the upper-mid 160s. Good enough for a T-10, but not the right score for H/Y. If not for the much higher practice scores, I would have questioned if LS was a good fit.

As a 1L I ended up at median. Without exception, I thought I had nailed every exam . . . not so. I have a handful of Bs, a few B+ and a couple A-. Disappointed not to have any As, but glad about not having anything lower than a B. I do not know if my results are “typical splitter,” or not.

TBF, most people at those schools are (a) smart, (b) accustomed to getting decent grades, and (c) not used to being graded on a curve. I think the last factor gives engineering/hard science majors a distinct advantage, even though their UG grades are more prone to being on the lower side. Either way, median at a T10 is respectable--not bragworthy--but certainly decent.

Bolded is suuuuper meaningless, primarily because in many engineering programs, a guy in the top 5% is going to have a GPA below a 3.6.

Besides that, I seriously doubt that most humanities majors, with 4.0s or 2.0s, would have been able to even complete an engineering degree.

That's why I said they have an advantage. Getting that top 5% 3.6 is a lot more meaningful than a 4.0 in a humanities major where the lack of grading curve/general grading culture makes everyone get A's.

As far as my tiny pink liberal arts degree goes, I probably would have been fine with engineering math, but I would have definitely been fucked with science.

[HeavenWood]

The reason why this thread is retarded is because it doesn't account for multiple LSATs. Some people just take the LSAT once and do poorly. Some people take it multiple times and do well. Maybe splitters are more likely to study for the LSAT than non-splitters. Who knows?

I took the LSAT once. Bombed: I was a reverse splitter. I took the LSAT again. Suddenly, I was a splitter at a few schools and neither a splitter nor a reverse splitter everywhere else.

Clearly your IQ jumped 10 points in the interim.

[manofjustice]

As a point of reference I am a splitter, much higher GPA than LSAT. However, my practice tests were always in the high/mid-170s. On the exam, my score was disappointedly in the upper-mid 160s. Good enough for a T-10, but not the right score for H/Y. If not for the much higher practice scores, I would have questioned if LS was a good fit.

As a 1L I ended up at median. Without exception, I thought I had nailed every exam . . . not so. I have a handful of Bs, a few B+ and a couple A-. Disappointed not to have any As, but glad about not having anything lower than a B. I do not know if my results are “typical splitter,” or not.

TBF, most people at those schools are (a) smart, (b) accustomed to getting decent grades, and (c) not used to being graded on a curve. I think the last factor gives engineering/hard science majors a distinct advantage, even though their UG grades are more prone to being on the lower side. Either way, median at a T10 is respectable--not bragworthy--but certainly decent.

Bolded is suuuuper meaningless, primarily because in many engineering programs, a guy in the top 5% is going to have a GPA below a 3.6.

Besides that, I seriously doubt that most humanities majors, with 4.0s or 2.0s, would have been able to even complete an engineering degree.

Okay.

[Perseus_I]

As a point of reference I am a splitter, much higher GPA than LSAT. However, my practice tests were always in the high/mid-170s. On the exam, my score was disappointedly in the upper-mid 160s. Good enough for a T-10, but not the right score for H/Y. If not for the much higher practice scores, I would have questioned if LS was a good fit.

As a 1L I ended up at median. Without exception, I thought I had nailed every exam . . . not so. I have a handful of Bs, a few B+ and a couple A-. Disappointed not to have any As, but glad about not having anything lower than a B. I do not know if my results are “typical splitter,” or not.

TBF, most people at those schools are (a) smart, (b) accustomed to getting decent grades, and (c) not used to being graded on a curve. I think the last factor gives engineering/hard science majors a distinct advantage, even though their UG grades are more prone to being on the lower side. Either way, median at a T10 is respectable--not bragworthy--but certainly decent.

Bolded is suuuuper meaningless, primarily because in many engineering programs, a guy in the top 5% is going to have a GPA below a 3.6.

Besides that, I seriously doubt that most humanities majors, with 4.0s or 2.0s, would have been able to even complete an engineering degree.

Okay.

Unless there is a huge--I mean huge--discrepancy in SAT/ACT math scores between humanities majors and engineering majors, this is an unwarranted assumption.