robotclubmember wrote:i'm still curious what tomwatt's rap sheet has on it. a 180 and the guy doesn't go to law school? i think he actually killed somebody or something.
They'll never prove it!
robotclubmember wrote:i'm still curious what tomwatt's rap sheet has on it. a 180 and the guy doesn't go to law school? i think he actually killed somebody or something.
Scrivener wrote:I appreciate Tom's work, but I think he is filling in a lot of gaps with assumptions.
genrader wrote:how many people don't "make the cut" but get in with URM of some sort?
genrader wrote:Is there a way to factor in URM status?
tomwatts wrote:genrader wrote:Is there a way to factor in URM status?
However, if we just take this question, the answer might be yes. One of LSAC's Research Reports puts the number of African-American test-takers at 12,152 and gives the mean score as about 142, with a standard deviation of about 8 or so. The mean for all test-takers is about 150, with about the same standard deviation, which suggests that an African-American getting a 170 or above is about as common as a generic test-taker getting about a 178 or so. (A graph on later pages shows that this holds true for a comparison between African-Americans and "Caucasians," where the percentage getting a score is equal for scores that are about 8-10 apart between those two groups. This suggests that 99.8% or 99.9% of African-Americans score below a 170 (since that's the percentile associated with a 178 generally). That means that... good lord. Even if it's only 99.8%, that still puts the number of African-Americans with a 170+ at a solid 24. That seems ridiculously low. Even if we take a 170 to be 99.5th percentile for African Americans (equivalent to a 175 for the general population), that's still only about 60 African-Americans each year who score 170 or above.
Just to get some idea how ridiculous that is, if the test didn't show racial bias, we'd expect over 300 African-Americans each year to score 170+.
Journal of Blacks in Higher Education wrote:In 2004, 10,370 blacks took the LSAT examination. Only 29 blacks, or 0.3 percent of all LSAT test takers, scored 170 or above. In contrast, more than 1,900 white test takers scored 170 or above on the LSAT. They made up 3.1 percent of all white test takers. Thus whites were more than 10 times as likely as blacks to score 170 or above on the LSAT. There were 66 times as many whites as blacks who scored 170 or above on the test.
r2b2ct wrote:Your estimates here seem pretty accurate. We know how many blacks got 170+ in 2004:Journal of Blacks in Higher Education wrote:In 2004, 10,370 blacks took the LSAT examination. Only 29 blacks, or 0.3 percent of all LSAT test takers, scored 170 or above. In contrast, more than 1,900 white test takers scored 170 or above on the LSAT. They made up 3.1 percent of all white test takers. Thus whites were more than 10 times as likely as blacks to score 170 or above on the LSAT. There were 66 times as many whites as blacks who scored 170 or above on the test.
http://www.jbhe.com/news_views/51_gradu ... _test.html
well-hello-there wrote:cool thread. I know of someone with a 172 who ended up at a school in the second tier. 80's or so.
stargazin wrote:well-hello-there wrote:cool thread. I know of someone with a 172 who ended up at a school in the second tier. 80's or so.
Why? Below average GPA or softs?
FlanAl wrote:Soooooo I'm kinda slow with numbers and it looks like the people in this thread especially tomwatts (thanks for the wonderful work!) are pretty on it and can probably answer my dumb question super fast.
So with applications down by about 10% compared to last year are there enough 170+ people to fill all the seats in the t14?
beachbum wrote:FlanAl wrote:Soooooo I'm kinda slow with numbers and it looks like the people in this thread especially tomwatts (thanks for the wonderful work!) are pretty on it and can probably answer my dumb question super fast.
So with applications down by about 10% compared to last year are there enough 170+ people to fill all the seats in the t14?
Yes, but not all 170+ applicants will head to the T14, and the T14 will not exclusively take 170+ applicants.
lastch2 wrote:after scouring LSN and TLS i've found that unless i made a huge error on my applications (typo, misspelled my name, some other idiot thing) my lack-luster cycle can mostly be boiled down to lower GPA and later application date. but how late is too late? and does each day have some value of negative effect after a certain date?
tomwatts wrote:r2b2ct wrote:Your estimates here seem pretty accurate. We know how many blacks got 170+ in 2004:Journal of Blacks in Higher Education wrote:In 2004, 10,370 blacks took the LSAT examination. Only 29 blacks, or 0.3 percent of all LSAT test takers, scored 170 or above. In contrast, more than 1,900 white test takers scored 170 or above on the LSAT. They made up 3.1 percent of all white test takers. Thus whites were more than 10 times as likely as blacks to score 170 or above on the LSAT. There were 66 times as many whites as blacks who scored 170 or above on the test.
http://www.jbhe.com/news_views/51_gradu ... _test.html
Wow, interesting. To continue with the discrepancy:
"There were 108 blacks scoring 165 or better on the LSAT in 2004. They made up 1 percent of all black test takers. For whites, there were 6,689 test takers who scored 165 or above. They made up 10.6 percent of all white students who took the LSAT examination."
That's... dramatic.
dabbadon8 wrote:I think applying early was over rated. I saw people who applied later much later then me having similar cycles w/ similar numbers. I think instead of applying early being an advantage I think applying super late is a disadvantage. I mean I applied to schools the first day apps came out and I can't think it made any difference in my cycle.
tomwatts wrote:So I was curious if I could data mine an answer to the question, "What happens to people who get 170+ on the LSAT?" That is, do people who score 170 and above virtually all go to t14 schools, or what? Here's what I found.
From my IRR from my 2010 LSAT, for 2006-2009, a 170 is 97.5th percentile, so 2.5% of LSAT test-takers get 170+. I assume that this doesn't change radically from moment to moment. According to LSAC's Volume Summary, there were roughly 87,500 applicants to law school for Fall 2010 (the most recent year for which data is available). Of those, 2.5% would mean that 2187.5 should have 170 or higher on the LSAT — or maybe more, because applicants probably are disproportionately higher-scoring than test-takers, but probably not by much.
Just to put an upper bound, LSAC says that about 171,500 tests were administered in the 2009-2010 cycle, and in 2008-2009 68.9% took the test once, 25.3% twice, and 5.9% more than twice. If we take those numbers to be relatively stable (70% once, 25% twice, 5% three times, let's say for simplicity), that means that there were roughly 134,000 independent test-takers in the cycle, which would give 3,350 people with 170 or above, and if we take all of those 171,500 LSATs, there were 4287.5 scores of 170 or above handed out (presumably several to the same people). At the end of the day, I'd guess that there were 2500-3000 people applying with scores of 170 or above, though the number could be higher.
Now, here are the 75th-25th percentiles for top schools (and median where useful), with number of matriculants (from LSAC's Official Guide to ABA schools):
Yale: 176-170, 214
Harvard: 176-171, 559
Stanford: 172-167 (median 170), 180
Columbia: 175-170, 400
Chicago: 169-173 (median 171), 191
NYU: 169-173 (median 171), 450
Berkeley: 165-170, 292
Penn: 166-171 (median 170), 255
Michigan: 167-170, 371
Virginia: 165-171 (median 170), 368
Duke: 167-171 (median 169), 228
Northwestern: 166-172 (median 170), 271
Cornell: 165-168, 205
Georgetown: 168-172 (median 169), 590
UCLA: 164-169, 320
UT Austin: 164-168, 379
Vanderbilt: 164-169, 195
Nothing below this has 170 or above as any part of the percentiles, though all the way down to Washington & Lee, there are schools with a 75th percentile within spitting distance of 170 (in that case, 167 — and that's for a school ranked 34th).
Now the calculations begin. Here's the basic concept of the methodology: Yale, for example, has a 25th percentile of 170. That means that 75% of matriculants have 170 or better. Since it has 214 matriculants, that's 160.5 people with 170's accounted for (round that up to 161 for sanity). At Harvard, the 25th percentile is 171, which means more than 75% have 170 or above, so I'll calculate a lower limit number of 170's by taking the 559 matriculants and finding 75% of that, which is 419.25 (so 420). Here are the lower limits for the relevant schools:
Yale: 161
Harvard: 420
Stanford: 90
Columbia: 300
Chicago: 96
NYU: 225
Berkeley: 73
Penn: 128
Michigan: 93
Virginia: 184
Duke: 57
Northwestern: 134
Cornell: 0
Georgetown: 232 (the median for the FT program is 170, and there are 463 in that)
That accounts for 2193 people altogether, which is pretty darn near the number of people with 170's that I estimated there were in a given application cycle at the beginning. Also, I'm probably underestimating the number of people with 170's at Harvard, Chicago, NYU, and Duke, all of which have a percentile at 171 instead of 170, but that's probably not more than 100 additional people. For that matter, obviously, some people with 170 and above go to Cornell and to the schools outside the t14, though interestingly we can put upper limits on that (for example, it's fewer than 80 people at UCLA, or else the 75th percentile would be higher). If I had to guess randomly, I'd probably put it at 40-50 each at UCLA and UT Austin and maybe 20-30 at Cornell and Vanderbilt, which accounts for another 100+ people. At that point, I've accounted for something like 2400-2500 people.
Thus, I'd estimate that roughly 2500-3000 people apply with scores of 170 or above each year, and at least 85% (and perhaps nearly every single one) matriculates to a school in the t17. If the number really is 2500, something like one in six of them go to Harvard, and nearly half of them go to Harvard, Columbia, NYU, or Georgetown.
I imagine that this is not a surprise to anyone, but this is what happens to people who get 170+ on the LSAT.
dabbadon8 wrote:I think applying early was over rated. I saw people who applied later much later then me having similar cycles w/ similar numbers. I think instead of applying early being an advantage I think applying super late is a disadvantage. I mean I applied to schools the first day apps came out and I can't think it made any difference in my cycle.
Return to “LSAT Prep and Discussion Forum”
Users browsing this forum: tabstreet, Yahoo [Bot] and 6 guests