Top Law Schools

jdhopefully wrote:FYI - if you will be applying for student loans though, the FAFSA and WashU Student Online Application are both due TOMORROW (soft deadline, but I don't push the envelope regarding finances)!

Ooh, good to know. I'm burned out after FAFSA/Need Access, been putting off the Wash U supplement

Ubermaus wrote:

jdhopefully wrote:FYI - if you will be applying for student loans though, the FAFSA and WashU Student Online Application are both due TOMORROW (soft deadline, but I don't push the envelope regarding finances)!

Ooh, good to know. I'm burned out after FAFSA/Need Access, been putting off the Wash U supplement

Wut? Is there something on top of FASFA you have to do for WashU?

STLMizzou wrote:

Ubermaus wrote:

jdhopefully wrote:FYI - if you will be applying for student loans though, the FAFSA and WashU Student Online Application are both due TOMORROW (soft deadline, but I don't push the envelope regarding finances)!

Ooh, good to know. I'm burned out after FAFSA/Need Access, been putting off the Wash U supplement

Wut? Is there something on top of FASFA you have to do for WashU?

There's an online application in addition to the FAFSA. They emailed me about it directly and I posted about it earlier in February ITT. If you can't find it I'm sure emailing them or searching around their website will bring it up.

Done. Glad you all said something. I totally missed that

I also had missed this. It is now done and taken care of.

Several 167s with below median GPAs in...I suppose that doesn't bode well for maintaining their 168 LSAT median next year does it?

2014 wrote:Several 167s with below median GPAs in...I suppose that doesn't bode well for maintaining their 168 LSAT median next year does it?

All it tells me is they need somebody to pay full-tuition.

STLMizzou wrote:

2014 wrote:Several 167s with below median GPAs in...I suppose that doesn't bode well for maintaining their 168 LSAT median next year does it?

All it tells me is they need somebody to pay full-tuition.

I suppose that is logical too.

Will be interesting to see where they end up here in the next 2 weeks when the USNWR list comes out. Everything indicates WUSTL being on the rise and it would be great if they at the very least moved out of a tie with USC and better if they end up with Vandy and UCLA.

Or they are admitting some people with 167 LSAT's because they are confident they can and still maintain a 168 median?

Randomnumbers wrote:Or they are admitting some people with 167 LSAT's because they are confident they can and still maintain a 168 median?

No, this would only make sense if they were trying to pad their GPA medians with 167 and below. Taking 167s with below median GPAs may mean that the median will slide back to 167 this year.

stillwater wrote:

Randomnumbers wrote:Or they are admitting some people with 167 LSAT's because they are confident they can and still maintain a 168 median?

No, this would only make sense if they were trying to pad their GPA medians with 167 and below. Taking 167s with below median GPAs may mean that the median will slide back to 167 this year.

I think it means they're secure in their GPA median, but I haven't really thought about what it means for the LSAT median. They haven't taken that many 167 and below people.

fltanglab wrote:

stillwater wrote:

Randomnumbers wrote:Or they are admitting some people with 167 LSAT's because they are confident they can and still maintain a 168 median?

No, this would only make sense if they were trying to pad their GPA medians with 167 and below. Taking 167s with below median GPAs may mean that the median will slide back to 167 this year.

I think it means they're secure in their GPA median, but I haven't really thought about what it means for the LSAT median. They haven't taken that many 167 and below people.

We don't know that, TLS nor LSN are representative samples.

I just know it's worth pointing out and asking. If U.Va. for example were to take even a single below median GPA, 169 LSAT applicant there would probably be a 9 page thread about it

fltanglab wrote:

stillwater wrote:

Randomnumbers wrote:Or they are admitting some people with 167 LSAT's because they are confident they can and still maintain a 168 median?

No, this would only make sense if they were trying to pad their GPA medians with 167 and below. Taking 167s with below median GPAs may mean that the median will slide back to 167 this year.

I think it means they're secure in their GPA median, but I haven't really thought about what it means for the LSAT median. They haven't taken that many 167 and below people.

I don't know how WUSTL could ever be secure in their GPA median if they admit everyone with a pulse and 168+. Their model is partly dependent on boosting their GPA median with those below their LSAT median.

2014 wrote:

fltanglab wrote:

stillwater wrote:

Randomnumbers wrote:Or they are admitting some people with 167 LSAT's because they are confident they can and still maintain a 168 median?

No, this would only make sense if they were trying to pad their GPA medians with 167 and below. Taking 167s with below median GPAs may mean that the median will slide back to 167 this year.

I think it means they're secure in their GPA median, but I haven't really thought about what it means for the LSAT median. They haven't taken that many 167 and below people.

We don't know that, TLS nor LSN are representative samples.

Good point. Then I don't think we should speculate too much.

FINALLY updated again...third overall update but first since 1/24...hopefully a decision is soon on the horizon!!

2014 wrote:Several 167s with below median GPAs in...I suppose that doesn't bode well for maintaining their 168 LSAT median next year does it?

Because they already knew that their USNEWS Ranking would fall this year, it's hard to maintain their 168 LSAT median with the new ranking. They have to take more reality strategy to prevent UIUC tragedy. The employment data really screwed their ranking.

comet_halley wrote:

2014 wrote:Several 167s with below median GPAs in...I suppose that doesn't bode well for maintaining their 168 LSAT median next year does it?

Because they already knew that their USNEWS Ranking would fall this year, it's hard to maintain their 168 LSAT median with the new ranking. They have to take more reality strategy to prevent UIUC tragedy. The employment data really screwed their ranking.

People keep mentioning that but I don't fully understand. How does employment statistic reporting impact LSAT medians, and why are other schools not facing the same ramifications of higher reporting standards?

I'm all for speculation, but there's some really bad speculation going on here. Just look at last year and compare it to this year. Same thing.

Kabuo wrote:I'm all for speculation, but there's some really bad speculation going on here. Just look at last year and compare it to this year. Same thing.

Except last year, though recognizing the limited sample size of LSN, they admitted no one under the GPA median with a 167 or less. I see maybe one exception. Whereas this year, they have admitted several below the GPA median with a 167. I recognize the sample is not perfect but is certainly speculation worthy.

2014 wrote:

comet_halley wrote:

2014 wrote:Several 167s with below median GPAs in...I suppose that doesn't bode well for maintaining their 168 LSAT median next year does it?

Because they already knew that their USNEWS Ranking would fall this year, it's hard to maintain their 168 LSAT median with the new ranking. They have to take more reality strategy to prevent UIUC tragedy. The employment data really screwed their ranking.

People keep mentioning that but I don't fully understand. How does employment statistic reporting impact LSAT medians, and why are other schools not facing the same ramifications of higher reporting standards?

The employment data is bad, so the usnews ranking falls,
The USNEWS ranking falls, then more high LSAT student would not choose the school even with Scholarship.
So the LSAT Median would be affected by employment data.

comet_halley wrote:

2014 wrote:

comet_halley wrote:

2014 wrote:Several 167s with below median GPAs in...I suppose that doesn't bode well for maintaining their 168 LSAT median next year does it?

Because they already knew that their USNEWS Ranking would fall this year, it's hard to maintain their 168 LSAT median with the new ranking. They have to take more reality strategy to prevent UIUC tragedy. The employment data really screwed their ranking.

People keep mentioning that but I don't fully understand. How does employment statistic reporting impact LSAT medians, and why are other schools not facing the same ramifications of higher reporting standards?

The employment data is bad, so the usnews ranking falls,
The USNEWS ranking falls, then more high LSAT student would not choose the school even with Scholarship.
So the LSAT Median would be affected by employment data.

Thanks, UIUC. Just going to re-post this here. My thoughts after listening to the dean:

Supremely unconcerned. Our LSAT still went up, and last time I paid attention to how USNews worked, that was weighted heaviest. Plus, even if we do drop, it will only be a couple spots, should not have much effect on this incoming class, and will generate nothing but great press.

There is going to be a ton of pressure on peer schools to follow suit in how to report next year, and in the meantime ATL, campos, most of TLS, and the NYT will generate only positive reviews. The NYT has a guy who pretty much does nothing but report on LS stuff now. He would love to portray a school "doing the right thing" as a martyr.

stillwater wrote:

Kabuo wrote:I'm all for speculation, but there's some really bad speculation going on here. Just look at last year and compare it to this year. Same thing.

Except last year, though recognizing the limited sample size of LSN, they admitted no one under the GPA median with a 167 or less. I see maybe one exception. Whereas this year, they have admitted several below the GPA median with a 167. I recognize the sample is not perfect but is certainly speculation worthy.

As you said, LSN is not the best sample size. I can tell you that the average numbers for people accepted to WashU last year from my undergrad were 166 and a 3.4. Some of those were most likely splitters or reverse splitters or URMs but it's not different from any year in the past as Kabuo said. A 167 is not a death sentence for WashU this year clearly and hasn't been in the recent past.

I don't think any school would dare not to follow the new methods of reporting its data under the pressure of suits and UIUC scandal, especially those peer schools.

Mizz wrote:

stillwater wrote:

Kabuo wrote:I'm all for speculation, but there's some really bad speculation going on here. Just look at last year and compare it to this year. Same thing.

Except last year, though recognizing the limited sample size of LSN, they admitted no one under the GPA median with a 167 or less. I see maybe one exception. Whereas this year, they have admitted several below the GPA median with a 167. I recognize the sample is not perfect but is certainly speculation worthy.

As you said, LSN is not the best sample size. I can tell you that the average numbers for people accepted to WashU last year from my undergrad were 166 and a 3.4. Some of those were most likely splitters or reverse splitters or URMs but it's not different from any year in the past as Kabuo said. A 167 is not a death sentence for WashU this year clearly and hasn't been in the recent past.

if they took 2 students from your school, one 168/3.1, the other 164/3.7 , it could still maintain a 168/3.7 median. however there was no way to maintain a LSAT/GPA median if they took large number students below both median.

comet_halley wrote:

Mizz wrote:

stillwater wrote:

Kabuo wrote:I'm all for speculation, but there's some really bad speculation going on here. Just look at last year and compare it to this year. Same thing.

Except last year, though recognizing the limited sample size of LSN, they admitted no one under the GPA median with a 167 or less. I see maybe one exception. Whereas this year, they have admitted several below the GPA median with a 167. I recognize the sample is not perfect but is certainly speculation worthy.

As you said, LSN is not the best sample size. I can tell you that the average numbers for people accepted to WashU last year from my undergrad were 166 and a 3.4. Some of those were most likely splitters or reverse splitters or URMs but it's not different from any year in the past as Kabuo said. A 167 is not a death sentence for WashU this year clearly and hasn't been in the recent past.

if they took 2 students from your school, one 168/3.1, the other 164/3.7 , it could still maintain a 168/3.7 median. however there was no way to maintain a LSAT/GPA median if they took students below both median.

There are more than 2 people from my undergrad that are current 1Ls at WashU this year, so the sample size is larger than that. They can accept people with both numbers below the median and balance it out with people above the medians and still end up with the same median.