The lower you go in undergrad quality, the fewer high LSATs there are, and the drop in average LSAT can be substantial. Unless you want to argue that a disproportionately higher number of high LSATs at lower tier schools also have bad GPAs, then it stands to reason that there simply aren't as many splitters at TTTs as at better schools.
That is exactly what I am arguing. With half the class at n
top schools and likely a very large below median bunch hovering around median at or near 3.5, the sheer volume of non splitters at the school skew the proportions in favor of non elite schools.
The mere fact that some exist does not prove your anything relative to this argument. I presume that a median student at a top 10 school puts forth at least a reasonable amount of effort in most cases, while a splitter from a TTT likely either did close to 0 work while also going to a diminutive number of classes or had some sort of illness.
Every single statistic on this phenomenon comes to the conclusion that on average, a student at a top school will have a significantly higher GPA than a TTT. The only counter presented are anecdotes and theories based on said anecdotes. So the sheer fact that those students exist is most definitely relevant as it directly counters anecdota vs anecdote. If you'd like to just look at statistics, I'd be down.
The point is that a typical, average student at a top 10 school would excel at a bad school in spite of the lower GPA average. You are pulling a pretty absurd straw man here by saying that I'm arguing that a median student would always end up with a 4.333. I said nothing of the sort. In fact I specifically said "They would more likely be in the 3.8-4.1 range," which is far less stringent in both respects.
Also, my understanding is that professors are generally told to shoot for certain percentages of As, Bs, etc. or to hit a certain GPA average. In order to do that, the test needs to not be too difficult or too easy for the student body to perform at that level. It stands to reason that the lower the quality of the student body, the easier the test needs to be to hit a given distribution.
This is exactly what I'm talking about. You literally did it in back to back statements. A) the student quality is higher a elite universities and B) professors are told to curve grades so X get a/b/cs to adjust for student quality thereby no longer makivn it relevant
You aren't allowed to argue BOTH SIDES at once dude, they counteract each other
You can argue the student body is better and so because it isn't graded on a curve, of course more people get As at an elite university OR the work is adjusted to be easier at lower universities so it makes sense to adjust have grade inflation because we learn harder shit