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
cahwc12
Posts: 941
Joined: Mon Jul 02, 2012 4:49 pm

Re: Year of the Reverse Splitter?

Postby cahwc12 » Sun Mar 03, 2013 10:20 am

john7234797 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)


But if they take a bunch of splitters they need some reverse-splitters too to balance out the GPA hit so that median doesn't fall too far. Both should see a slight boost, which is expected with applications down...



That's kind of like saying "I have a good chance at dating a supermodel because a supermodel needs a man, and I'm a man." The boost to splitters is/will be much, much larger due to relative scarcity.

User avatar
star fox
Posts: 13709
Joined: Fri Feb 01, 2013 4:13 pm

Re: Year of the Reverse Splitter?

Postby star fox » Sun Mar 03, 2013 4:45 pm

cahwc12 wrote:
john7234797 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)


But if they take a bunch of splitters they need some reverse-splitters too to balance out the GPA hit so that median doesn't fall too far. Both should see a slight boost, which is expected with applications down...



That's kind of like saying "I have a good chance at dating a supermodel because a supermodel needs a man, and I'm a man." The boost to splitters is/will be much, much larger due to relative scarcity.


I see it more like there's a decline in really good looking men so do your chances of dating a supermodel increase if you have a great personality. Obviously the effect is best for people with really good LSATs since they're in higher demand but I feel like everyone should get a slight boost with less apps. Maybe if you're below 25th percentile LSAT it will hurt because they don't want the 25th to fall even more than it probably will regardless. But if you're between 25-50 LSAT and have a GPA over 50 it might help because if they're taking more splitters, the GPA will have to take a slight hit.

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 » Sun Mar 03, 2013 8:24 pm

john7234797 wrote:
cahwc12 wrote:
john7234797 wrote:
guano wrote:no, it'll make splitters more valuable than ever and reverse splitters less valuable (less high LSAT scores to help balance low LSAT scores)


But if they take a bunch of splitters they need some reverse-splitters too to balance out the GPA hit so that median doesn't fall too far. Both should see a slight boost, which is expected with applications down...



That's kind of like saying "I have a good chance at dating a supermodel because a supermodel needs a man, and I'm a man." The boost to splitters is/will be much, much larger due to relative scarcity.


I see it more like there's a decline in really good looking men so do your chances of dating a supermodel increase if you have a great personality. Obviously the effect is best for people with really good LSATs since they're in higher demand but I feel like everyone should get a slight boost with less apps. Maybe if you're below 25th percentile LSAT it will hurt because they don't want the 25th to fall even more than it probably will regardless. But if you're between 25-50 LSAT and have a GPA over 50 it might help because if they're taking more splitters, the GPA will have to take a slight hit.


this doesn't make any sense. maybe if there's a decline in really good looking men, then the chances of dating a supermodel increase if you have median looks. there are plenty of good personalities to go around. just because there aren't a lot of really good looking men doesn't mean supermodels will be hunting down uglies

User avatar
Ramius
Posts: 2005
Joined: Mon Jul 02, 2012 12:39 am

Re: Year of the Reverse Splitter?

Postby Ramius » Sun Mar 03, 2013 8:29 pm

If Adriana Lima is reading this thread, she'll be VERY confused about who she is supposed to date.

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 » Sun Mar 03, 2013 8:41 pm

matthewsean85 wrote:If Adriana Lima is reading this thread, she'll be VERY confused about who she is supposed to date.


The ones with 170+ looks.

User avatar
Ramius
Posts: 2005
Joined: Mon Jul 02, 2012 12:39 am

Re: Year of the Reverse Splitter?

Postby Ramius » Sun Mar 03, 2013 8:48 pm

A → B ⊨ ¬B → ¬A wrote:
matthewsean85 wrote:If Adriana Lima is reading this thread, she'll be VERY confused about who she is supposed to date.


The ones with 170+ looks.


I guess I'll have to settle for one of those Hanes "Comfy" models now. F I need to retake.

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

Re: Year of the Reverse Splitter?

Postby jvincent11 » Sun Mar 03, 2013 9:09 pm

A → B ⊨ ¬B → ¬A wrote:
matthewsean85 wrote:If Adriana Lima is reading this thread, she'll be VERY confused about who she is supposed to date.


The ones with 170+ looks.


LSN begs to differ

User avatar
Ramius
Posts: 2005
Joined: Mon Jul 02, 2012 12:39 am

Re: Year of the Reverse Splitter?

Postby Ramius » Sun Mar 03, 2013 9:13 pm

jvincent11 wrote:
A → B ⊨ ¬B → ¬A wrote:
matthewsean85 wrote:If Adriana Lima is reading this thread, she'll be VERY confused about who she is supposed to date.


The ones with 170+ looks.


LSN begs to differ


No one is disagreeing that reverse splitters get into the T14 just like splitters do, but this is nothing new. You conjecture that this applicant pool will somehow benefit moreso from being a reverse splitter than in previous years, but there is no evidence to support it, even on LSN. Schools need LSATs and GPAs, but the fact is there are WAY more 3.8+ GPAs applying than 170+ LSATs, so by basic supply and demand, LSATs win the day. Listen to Adam Smith, he knew what he was talking about.

User avatar
bizzybone1313
Posts: 996
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:31 pm

Re: Year of the Reverse Splitter?

Postby bizzybone1313 » Sun Mar 03, 2013 9:22 pm

A → B ⊨ ¬B → ¬A wrote:
matthewsean85 wrote:If Adriana Lima is reading this thread, she'll be VERY confused about who she is supposed to date.


The ones with 170+ looks.


Do they have 170+ looks without a three layer cake of makeup? Now that is the question. I love seeing women without makeup. Their swagger and conceitedness wears off very quickly.

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

Re: Year of the Reverse Splitter?

Postby jvincent11 » Sun Mar 03, 2013 10:53 pm

matthewsean85 wrote:
jvincent11 wrote:
A → B ⊨ ¬B → ¬A wrote:
matthewsean85 wrote:If Adriana Lima is reading this thread, she'll be VERY confused about who she is supposed to date.


The ones with 170+ looks.


LSN begs to differ


No one is disagreeing that reverse splitters get into the T14 just like splitters do, but this is nothing new. You conjecture that this applicant pool will somehow benefit moreso from being a reverse splitter than in previous years, but there is no evidence to support it, even on LSN. Schools need LSATs and GPAs, but the fact is there are WAY more 3.8+ GPAs applying than 170+ LSATs, so by basic supply and demand, LSATs win the day. Listen to Adam Smith, he knew what he was talking about.


My point was simply having a 170+ LSAT for T10 is far from a requirement as LSN strongly supports.

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

Re: Year of the Reverse Splitter?

Postby guano » Sun Mar 03, 2013 11:33 pm

jvincent11 wrote:My point was simply having a 170+ LSAT for T10 is far from a requirement as LSN strongly supports.

It never was

User avatar
Dr. Dre
Posts: 2347
Joined: Mon Feb 18, 2013 7:10 pm

Re: Year of the Reverse Splitter?

Postby Dr. Dre » Mon Mar 04, 2013 12:36 am

retake

bruin91
Posts: 237
Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2013 1:09 pm

Re: Year of the Reverse Splitter?

Postby bruin91 » Mon Mar 04, 2013 4:53 pm

jvincent11 wrote:
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 3.94. 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 3.94 GPA just because you are a splitter.


+1




Return to “What are my chances?”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: lahcenliberty and 2 guests