Law School Discussion Forums
https://www.top-law-schools.com/forums/
https://www.top-law-schools.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=9&t=140490
Several applicants on here have been accepted into Top 30 schools with those numbers.Total Litigator wrote:Canadian Wolf - How bout you actually make YOUR argument. 3.65 163 non-URM with an unextraordinary MBA is not going to get you top 30, and definitely not top 20... I'm sure everyone is wondering what your angle is.
Pro tip: Failure to prove an argument is false, does not make said argument true.Patriot1208 wrote:lol, offer me something that disproves that statement. I may only have anecdotal evidence, but there is STRONG anecdotal evidence that backs up my point. You just have wishes and dreams, nothing substantial. There is absolutely nothing to suggest that LSN isn't indicative of the average applicants cycle.
Yeah, and if her softs weren't "I'm white, I have an MBA from a nondescript school, and I am currently unemployed" I might be more forgiving.oshberg28 wrote:Several applicants on here have been accepted into Top 30 schools with those numbers.Total Litigator wrote:Canadian Wolf - How bout you actually make YOUR argument. 3.65 163 non-URM with an unextraordinary MBA is not going to get you top 30, and definitely not top 20... I'm sure everyone is wondering what your angle is.
I am pretty sure I just laid out the reality of the situtation pretty well....CanadianWolf wrote:Fortunately your degree of "forgiveness" doesn't really affect the reality of the situation.
I'm not saying LSN is statistically significant, but you do realize you don't need too many data points to accurately predict an outcome, don't you?BrownBears09 wrote:You may "hate" it, but you can't deny the small size of the sample pool. For example, Fordham had 8,843 applications last year. On LSN, Fordham had 536 data points. you're telling me this is "pretty damn accurate?"Patriot1208 wrote:I hate when people make this argument, sure, it's not comprehensive, but it's pretty damn accurate. Sure, OP has a chance at those schools, but that chance is SLIM.CanadianWolf wrote:LSN is not comprehensive as it represents only a very small percentage of applicants.
I'd say it's pretty damn self selecting, and an average metric at best.
OP didn't ask whether he/she should apply. OP asked whether he/she has a chance.CanadianWolf wrote:My angle ? The OP should apply. According to the above advice, OP should just type his numbers into LSN or lawschoolpredictor.com & abide by that tiny sampling. Why even fill out applications ? If it was that simple, then admissions officers would be replaced by computers & decisions would be instantaneous.
FuManChusco wrote:I genuinely think canadianwolf is a troll
Thus suggesting that the OP has a chance....come on guys, this isn't that difficult.thisguy456 wrote:OP didn't ask whether he/she should apply. OP asked whether he/she has a chance.CanadianWolf wrote:My angle ? The OP should apply. According to the above advice, OP should just type his numbers into LSN or lawschoolpredictor.com & abide by that tiny sampling. Why even fill out applications ? If it was that simple, then admissions officers would be replaced by computers & decisions would be instantaneous.
lol, you aren't that stupid are you? If someone offers evidence for an argument, then you say that evidence is wrong/faulty/etc, then yes, you do have to offer evidence for why their evidence is wrong. You seriously cannot be this dumb.BrownBears09 wrote:Pro tip: Failure to prove an argument is false, does not make said argument true.Patriot1208 wrote:lol, offer me something that disproves that statement. I may only have anecdotal evidence, but there is STRONG anecdotal evidence that backs up my point. You just have wishes and dreams, nothing substantial. There is absolutely nothing to suggest that LSN isn't indicative of the average applicants cycle.
Edit: GRAMMAR!
If there's no bias to the 536 points, the margin of error is just 4.1%BrownBears09 wrote: You may "hate" it, but you can't deny the small size of the sample pool. For example, Fordham had 8,843 applications last year. On LSN, Fordham had 536 data points. you're telling me this is "pretty damn accurate?"
I'd say it's pretty damn self selecting, and an average metric at best.
Most people on here (but not all) understand statistics. The argument is usually made more along the lines that people who take the trouble to make a LSN profile are more likely to be basement dwelling losers than your popular, happy-go-lucky, no-LSN profile chaps.albanach wrote:If there's no bias to the 536 points, the margin of error is just 4.1%BrownBears09 wrote: You may "hate" it, but you can't deny the small size of the sample pool. For example, Fordham had 8,843 applications last year. On LSN, Fordham had 536 data points. you're telling me this is "pretty damn accurate?"
I'd say it's pretty damn self selecting, and an average metric at best.
That's pretty good by most folk's standards.
I'm not sure that matters a lot. It's pretty widely accepted that without strong softs, entry is a numbers game. GPA and LSAT. For LSN to be accurate for a candidate without strong softs, all that's required are sufficient data points. >500 is quite sufficient for a reasonably accurate prediction.d34dluk3 wrote:albanach wrote: Most people on here (but not all) understand statistics. The argument is usually made more along the lines that people who take the trouble to make a LSN profile are more likely to be basement dwelling losers than your popular, happy-go-lucky, no-LSN profile chaps.
Yeah and I'm willing to bet these people were either splitters/reverse splitters or URMs.CanadianWolf wrote:And several TLS applicants in past cycles have shared that LSN & lawschoolpredictor were highly inaccurate for them based on their actual results.
Except, you haven't actually been able to make an argument. You have offered no evidence in support of your viewpoint. No one said that there aren't outliers, no one said that it is infallable, but LSN is right for the vast majority of applicants. Until there is any evidence against it, the strong anecdotal evidence suggesting it is right for most applicants will win out.CanadianWolf wrote:Exactly how I view your arguments. Interesting that many young adults like absolutes & simplicity in a process which is neither, yet, after law school, often tend to overcomplicate matters (feel compelled to write everything they know about a legal topic in their filings) during their first several years of practicing law.
Dude, spouting platitudes and unsourced anecdotes is really not that convincing.CanadianWolf wrote:Exactly how I view your arguments. Interesting that many young adults like absolutes & simplicity in a process which is neither, yet, after law school, often tend to overcomplicate matters (feel compelled to write everything they know about a legal topic in their filings) during their first several years of practicing law.
Are you stupid? LSN isn't random sampling which is it's main fault. Never talk again.CanadianWolf wrote:Yes, the OP has a chance. LSN & lawschoolpredictor are small, random samplings. Admissions officers do more than simply look at LSAT scores & GPAs.