Year of the Reverse Splitter?

Not sure where your numbers will get you? Dying to know where you stand? Come have your palms read by your fellow posters!
User avatar
jvincent11
Posts: 207
Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2013 1:38 pm

Year of the Reverse Splitter?

Postby jvincent11 » Fri Mar 01, 2013 12:06 am

Class of 2015

LSAT 25th 50th 75th
Penn: 164 170 171
UVA: 164 170 171
NU: 164 170 171

With law school apps down even more from last year with the biggest reduction in the applications scoring in the 170-174 range, are reverse splitters finally going to be rewarded for those 4 years of sacrifice and dedication?? I guess my question real question is does a 165 and a 3.9 actually give an application >50% chance at these schools?

User avatar
A → B ⊨ ¬B → ¬A
Posts: 628
Joined: Tue Oct 23, 2012 5:32 pm

Re: Year of the Reverse Splitter?

Postby A → B ⊨ ¬B → ¬A » Fri Mar 01, 2013 12:08 am


User avatar
jvincent11
Posts: 207
Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2013 1:38 pm

Re: Year of the Reverse Splitter?

Postby jvincent11 » Fri Mar 01, 2013 12:14 am

Right, because law school numbers gives you percentages and shows everybody who has applied and been accepted not just the ones who choose to report....

User avatar
A → B ⊨ ¬B → ¬A
Posts: 628
Joined: Tue Oct 23, 2012 5:32 pm

Re: Year of the Reverse Splitter?

Postby A → B ⊨ ¬B → ¬A » Fri Mar 01, 2013 12:18 am

jvincent11 wrote:Right, because law school numbers gives you percentages and shows everybody who has applied and been accepted not just the ones who choose to report....


would you like an anecdote instead?

User avatar
guano
Posts: 2268
Joined: Mon Feb 18, 2013 9:49 am

Re: Year of the Reverse Splitter?

Postby guano » Fri Mar 01, 2013 12:19 am

jvincent11 wrote:Class of 2015

LSAT 25th 50th 75th
Penn: 164 170 171
UVA: 164 170 171
NU: 164 170 171

With law school apps down even more from last year with the biggest reduction in the applications scoring in the 170-174 range, are reverse splitters finally going to be rewarded for those 4 years of sacrifice and dedication?? I guess my question real question is does a 165 and a 3.9 actually give an application >50% chance at these schools?

no, it'll make splitters more valuable than ever and reverse splitters less valuable (less high LSAT scores to help balance low LSAT scores)

User avatar
A → B ⊨ ¬B → ¬A
Posts: 628
Joined: Tue Oct 23, 2012 5:32 pm

Re: Year of the Reverse Splitter?

Postby A → B ⊨ ¬B → ¬A » Fri Mar 01, 2013 12:21 am

guano wrote:
jvincent11 wrote:Class of 2015

LSAT 25th 50th 75th
Penn: 164 170 171
UVA: 164 170 171
NU: 164 170 171

With law school apps down even more from last year with the biggest reduction in the applications scoring in the 170-174 range, are reverse splitters finally going to be rewarded for those 4 years of sacrifice and dedication?? I guess my question real question is does a 165 and a 3.9 actually give an application >50% chance at these schools?

no, it'll make splitters more valuable than ever and reverse splitters less valuable (less high LSAT scores to help balance low LSAT scores)


These will be rewarded.

User avatar
jvincent11
Posts: 207
Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2013 1:38 pm

Re: Year of the Reverse Splitter?

Postby jvincent11 » Fri Mar 01, 2013 12:23 am

guano wrote:
jvincent11 wrote:Class of 2015

LSAT 25th 50th 75th
Penn: 164 170 171
UVA: 164 170 171
NU: 164 170 171

With law school apps down even more from last year with the biggest reduction in the applications scoring in the 170-174 range, are reverse splitters finally going to be rewarded for those 4 years of sacrifice and dedication?? I guess my question real question is does a 165 and a 3.9 actually give an application >50% chance at these schools?

no, it'll make splitters more valuable than ever and reverse splitters less valuable (less high LSAT scores to help balance low LSAT scores)


Ok, but schools dont want their GPA medians to suffer much. It is clear that splitters are more valuable, but I would imagine reverse splitters are also benefiting as well because the 170+ LSATs AND 3.8+ GPAs are going to T6 so schools need to take reverse splitters to account for the splitters they take so GPA medians can remain in tact. I mean look at the class of 2015 stats 164 lower 25h for Penn I was astonished when I saw that

User avatar
guano
Posts: 2268
Joined: Mon Feb 18, 2013 9:49 am

Re: Year of the Reverse Splitter?

Postby guano » Fri Mar 01, 2013 12:28 am

jvincent11 wrote:
guano wrote:
jvincent11 wrote:Class of 2015

LSAT 25th 50th 75th
Penn: 164 170 171
UVA: 164 170 171
NU: 164 170 171

With law school apps down even more from last year with the biggest reduction in the applications scoring in the 170-174 range, are reverse splitters finally going to be rewarded for those 4 years of sacrifice and dedication?? I guess my question real question is does a 165 and a 3.9 actually give an application >50% chance at these schools?

no, it'll make splitters more valuable than ever and reverse splitters less valuable (less high LSAT scores to help balance low LSAT scores)


Ok, but schools dont want their GPA medians to suffer much. It is clear that splitters are more valuable, but I would imagine reverse splitters are also benefiting as well because the 170+ LSATs AND 3.8+ GPAs are going to T6 so schools need to take reverse splitters to account for the splitters they take so GPA medians can remain in tact. I mean look at the class of 2015 stats 164 lower 25h for Penn I was astonished when I saw that

A) what on earth makes you think that? The goal will be to keep LSAT scores high, not to drop the LSAT medians in favor of GPA
B) why on earth is it so surprising? 1-2 points is not exactly an earth-shattering drop

User avatar
A → B ⊨ ¬B → ¬A
Posts: 628
Joined: Tue Oct 23, 2012 5:32 pm

Re: Year of the Reverse Splitter?

Postby A → B ⊨ ¬B → ¬A » Fri Mar 01, 2013 12:33 am

Also, LSAT medians are worth more in the rankings regardless of the drop in high scorers.

User avatar
Aawaldrop
Posts: 251
Joined: Thu Nov 01, 2012 11:28 am

Re: Year of the Reverse Splitter?

Postby Aawaldrop » Fri Mar 01, 2013 12:33 am

jvincent11 wrote:Class of 2015

LSAT 25th 50th 75th
Penn: 164 170 171
UVA: 164 170 171
NU: 164 170 171

With law school apps down even more from last year with the biggest reduction in the applications scoring in the 170-174 range, are reverse splitters finally going to be rewarded for those 4 years of sacrifice and dedication?? I guess my question real question is does a 165 and a 3.9 actually give an application >50% chance at these schools?


To answer the question asked; no it does not.

User avatar
jvincent11
Posts: 207
Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2013 1:38 pm

Re: Year of the Reverse Splitter?

Postby jvincent11 » Fri Mar 01, 2013 12:40 am

guano wrote:
jvincent11 wrote:
guano wrote:
jvincent11 wrote:Class of 2015

LSAT 25th 50th 75th
Penn: 164 170 171
UVA: 164 170 171
NU: 164 170 171

With law school apps down even more from last year with the biggest reduction in the applications scoring in the 170-174 range, are reverse splitters finally going to be rewarded for those 4 years of sacrifice and dedication?? I guess my question real question is does a 165 and a 3.9 actually give an application >50% chance at these schools?

no, it'll make splitters more valuable than ever and reverse splitters less valuable (less high LSAT scores to help balance low LSAT scores)


Ok, but schools dont want their GPA medians to suffer much. It is clear that splitters are more valuable, but I would imagine reverse splitters are also benefiting as well because the 170+ LSATs AND 3.8+ GPAs are going to T6 so schools need to take reverse splitters to account for the splitters they take so GPA medians can remain in tact. I mean look at the class of 2015 stats 164 lower 25h for Penn I was astonished when I saw that

A) what on earth makes you think that? The goal will be to keep LSAT scores high, not to drop the LSAT medians in favor of GPA
B) why on earth is it so surprising? 1-2 points is not exactly an earth-shattering drop


A) I imagine the goal is to keep both high, which goes back to what I said about when a school takes a splitter, they will feel compelled to take a reverse splitter near lower 25th lsat and 75th gpa to compensate so then medians effectively stay the same. If you take too many splitters your GPA medians will take a major blow as a result. I think its in the law schools best interest to try and keep both as high as possible. The numbers above support my theory. The median is 170 but then the lower 25th is 164 because at some point schools have to stop taking splitters and take the applicants with high GPAs to keep up their GPA medians. Penn has a 3.87 median GPA, higher than Stanford, and i imagine that contributes to its high ranking. I agree a law school wouldn't drop LSAT medians in favor of GPA, but I think they try to stay balanced.

B) We're talking about Penn here, and Gtown and Cornell are both higher. I was just very surprised Cornell has a lower 25th LSAT score 2 points higher than Penn.

User avatar
Aawaldrop
Posts: 251
Joined: Thu Nov 01, 2012 11:28 am

Re: Year of the Reverse Splitter?

Postby Aawaldrop » Fri Mar 01, 2013 12:43 am

If GPA's were distributed similarly to LSAT scores then you would have a good point, but they are quite different and the current decrease in the higher Lsat range exacerbates that difference.

User avatar
A → B ⊨ ¬B → ¬A
Posts: 628
Joined: Tue Oct 23, 2012 5:32 pm

Re: Year of the Reverse Splitter?

Postby A → B ⊨ ¬B → ¬A » Fri Mar 01, 2013 12:45 am


User avatar
Aawaldrop
Posts: 251
Joined: Thu Nov 01, 2012 11:28 am

Re: Year of the Reverse Splitter?

Postby Aawaldrop » Fri Mar 01, 2013 12:48 am

A → B ⊨ ¬B → ¬A wrote:It's in their interest to get a high LSAT median over GPA.

http://www.usnews.com/education/best-graduate-schools/top-law-schools/articles/2012/03/12/methodology-law-school-rankings


Very relevant link and OP just wait for your LSAT score and if it isn't high enough, you know the TLS mantra.

User avatar
guano
Posts: 2268
Joined: Mon Feb 18, 2013 9:49 am

Re: Year of the Reverse Splitter?

Postby guano » Fri Mar 01, 2013 12:48 am

jvincent11 wrote:A) I imagine the goal is to keep both high, which goes back to what I said about when a school takes a splitter, they will feel compelled to take a reverse splitter near lower 25th lsat and 75th gpa to compensate so then medians effectively stay the same. If you take too many splitters your GPA medians will take a major blow as a result. I think its in the law schools best interest to try and keep both as high as possible. The numbers above support my theory. The median is 170 but then the lower 25th is 164 because at some point schools have to stop taking splitters and take the applicants with high GPAs to keep up their GPA medians. Penn has a 3.87 median GPA, higher than Stanford, and i imagine that contributes its high ranking. I agree a law school wouldn't drop LSAT medians in favor of GPA, but I think they try to stay balanced.

B) We're talking about Penn here, and Gtown and Cornell are both higher. I was just very surprised Cornell has a lower 25th LSAT score 2 points higher than Penn.

A) you're simplifying the math. While top LSAT scores will be rarer, high GPA scores won't be, and because of the way medians work, they'll be able to take more splitters without taking too much of a hit to their GPA medians, which is important because
A → B ⊨ ¬B → ¬A wrote:Also, LSAT medians are worth more in the rankings regardless of the drop in high scorers.

B) Well, this did occur just after Cornell had a banner year for employment (iro NLJ250 placement), which could be a reason why Cornell attracted more top students. Georgetown has had a high range for a while as well, because it's DC, which is a lot more attractive for law students than Philadelphia. Or you could just look at how Stanford has the lowest LSAT range in the T6 or that both Texas and Vanderbilt have higher ranges than Berkeley. It is what it is; don't overanalyze it.

User avatar
jvincent11
Posts: 207
Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2013 1:38 pm

Re: Year of the Reverse Splitter?

Postby jvincent11 » Fri Mar 01, 2013 12:48 am

In general, I thought if an application was between 25th and 50th LSAT and above 75th GPA they would, generally speaking, have a >50% chance at acceptance. No?

User avatar
guano
Posts: 2268
Joined: Mon Feb 18, 2013 9:49 am

Re: Year of the Reverse Splitter?

Postby guano » Fri Mar 01, 2013 12:51 am

jvincent11 wrote:In general, I thought if an application was between 25th and 50th LSAT and above 75th GPA they would, generally speaking, have a >50% chance at acceptance. No?

probably; an easy way to look at it is, if both scores are above 75%, the student will probably be accepted, if both are below 25%, probably rejected, and that most accepted students are in the 25-75 range. Splitters and reverse splitters are unpredictable, but with the current decline, the former have become a lot more valuable and the latter a lot less so.

User avatar
Aawaldrop
Posts: 251
Joined: Thu Nov 01, 2012 11:28 am

Re: Year of the Reverse Splitter?

Postby Aawaldrop » Fri Mar 01, 2013 12:56 am

jvincent11 wrote:In general, I thought if an application was between 25th and 50th LSAT and above 75th GPA they would, generally speaking, have a >50% chance at acceptance. No?


I really don't think you can say that with any certainty. The best resources we have are previous application cycles. Predicting how law schools react to the decrease in applications is more or less a guessing game and they might just continue to cut down class sizes.

User avatar
jvincent11
Posts: 207
Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2013 1:38 pm

Re: Year of the Reverse Splitter?

Postby jvincent11 » Fri Mar 01, 2013 1:05 am

Aawaldrop wrote:
jvincent11 wrote:In general, I thought if an application was between 25th and 50th LSAT and above 75th GPA they would, generally speaking, have a >50% chance at acceptance. No?


I really don't think you can say that with any certainty. The best resources we have are previous application cycles. Predicting how law schools react to the decrease in applications is more or less a guessing game and they might just continue to cut down class sizes.


My guess is law schools aren't equipped to handle drastic reductions in class size due to budgets and stuff. Slight decreases yes. Though I could be wrong.

User avatar
guano
Posts: 2268
Joined: Mon Feb 18, 2013 9:49 am

Re: Year of the Reverse Splitter?

Postby guano » Fri Mar 01, 2013 1:08 am

jvincent11 wrote:
Aawaldrop wrote:
jvincent11 wrote:In general, I thought if an application was between 25th and 50th LSAT and above 75th GPA they would, generally speaking, have a >50% chance at acceptance. No?


I really don't think you can say that with any certainty. The best resources we have are previous application cycles. Predicting how law schools react to the decrease in applications is more or less a guessing game and they might just continue to cut down class sizes.


My guess is law schools aren't equipped to handle drastic reductions in class size due to budgets and stuff. Slight decreases yes. Though I could be wrong.

They cut their 1L class and increase their transfer class.

User avatar
WokeUpInACar
Posts: 5513
Joined: Tue Nov 01, 2011 11:11 pm

Re: Year of the Reverse Splitter?

Postby WokeUpInACar » Fri Mar 01, 2013 1:10 am

LOL at 4 years of sacrifice and dedication. How about you spend 6 months of sacrifice and dedication and just get a 170+, and have excellent options?

User avatar
jvincent11
Posts: 207
Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2013 1:38 pm

Re: Year of the Reverse Splitter?

Postby jvincent11 » Fri Mar 01, 2013 4:38 am

WokeUpInACar wrote:LOL at 4 years of sacrifice and dedication. How about you spend 6 months of sacrifice and dedication and just get a 170+, and have excellent options?


(1) Not everybody is capable of 170+, or else the LSAT would be a pretty bad test. Similarly, not everyone is capable of graduating with a 3.9+. There is a reason law schools request academic transcripts. GPA can say a lot about a person - it can also say nothing. Same goes for the LSAT.

(2) I have a range of 167-173 and a high of 176. Can't really help if on test day I fall on the lower end of my range, or miss 170 by 1 question.

Don't act like the LSAT is a tell all test and discount a 3.9+ GPA just because you are a splitter.
Last edited by jvincent11 on Fri Mar 08, 2013 3:11 am, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
John_rizzy_rawls
Posts: 3477
Joined: Sun Nov 18, 2012 2:44 pm

Re: Year of the Reverse Splitter?

Postby John_rizzy_rawls » Fri Mar 01, 2013 4:47 am

No.

Although you can argue with the internet until your desired outcome becomes more probable if you want.

Doesn't make it any less true that a dip in high LSAT scorers makes high LSAT scorers the more valuable commodity at the most selective schools in the country.

HTH.

User avatar
jvincent11
Posts: 207
Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2013 1:38 pm

Re: Year of the Reverse Splitter?

Postby jvincent11 » Fri Mar 01, 2013 10:43 am

John_rizzy_rawls wrote:No.

Although you can argue with the internet until your desired outcome becomes more probable if you want.

Doesn't make it any less true that a dip in high LSAT scorers makes high LSAT scorers the more valuable commodity at the most selective schools in the country.

HTH.


Well i started this thread to discuss my theory not to argue that my theory is correct. I have been in agreement this whole time that splitters are more valuable than reverse splitters everybody knows that. I just get annoyed when people say retake until you get a 170 because, again, not everybody is capable of getting a 170 and even the people who are don't always produce their best on the actual test. I don't know what I got on my test hoping for the best but all I know is I will be damn proud of a 167 if that's my score. This is top-law-schools.com so it makes sense that most of the people on this site will be those who scored high on the LSAT and are interested in T14 but there are many applicants who are admitted to T14 without 170+ LSAT.
Last edited by jvincent11 on Fri Mar 01, 2013 11:04 am, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
20130312
Posts: 3842
Joined: Wed Nov 09, 2011 8:53 pm

Re: Year of the Reverse Splitter?

Postby 20130312 » Fri Mar 01, 2013 10:47 am

Retake.




Return to “What are my chances?”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: clueless801 and 9 guests