potobro wrote:I'm confident saying that most responses to X's post about her chance of admission would look something like this: "Retake. You aren't getting in with a 169. NYU
can'twon't eat a score below the median without compelling reasons, which you don't have."
Fixed your OP so that you can understand it.
potobro wrote:But how good really is the prediction that with a 169, X will be denied admission? Very poor.
Only one applicant to NYU with a 169 LSAT and sub-3.9 GPA was accepted; they were URM. The rest were waitlisted/rejected.2010-11:
Only two applicants to NYU with a 169 LSAT and sub-3.9 GPA got accepted. One had a PhD. The other didn't report their race and got in to UChicago and WL'd at Harvard, so I'm guessing they were URM. The rest were waitlisted/rejected.2009-10:
Only two applicants to NYU with a 169 LSAT and sub-3.9 GPA got accepted. One applied binding Early Decision (and had a 3.88). The other got WL'd at HLS and CLS, so something in his app must have been ridiculously impressive (maybe his 3-4 years WE). The rest were waitlisted/rejected.
The prediction that someone with a 169 LSAT, absent extraordinary circumstances, won't get into NYU is actually pretty good based on the available evidence.
potobro wrote:So, to conclude, please stop saying because someone has an LSAT below the median that there is virtually no chance of admission...that's just incorrect.
Not every applicant with below-median LSAT has virtually no chance of admission. But your OP example was someone with a mere median GPA and no standouts otherwise. In that situation, it's not only correct but helpful to tell someone they have virtually no chance of admission, since they have virtually no chance of admission.