The results for my numbers (175/3.9) show a much different picture than what LSN shows, which makes me anxious. We know LSN, useful as it is, suffers from a sampling problem, but the LSAC has all the data, so its tool should be much more indicative, yes? Why do we use LSN's usefully granular but imperfect information when this tool exists? Is there something about the LSAC tool I'm missing?
The site itself says "Results for the UGPA/LSAT search are computed using a logistic regression model employing fall 2012 full-time application and admission data as reported by all ABA -approved law schools. The results presented represent a 95 percent probability that an applicant to a particular school for fall 2012 would have had an actual chance of admission within the range indicated." Forgive my, ahem, limited knowledge of statistics but what does this "95 percent probability that an applicant ... would have an actual chance of admission" actually mean? The likelihood bands themselves are about 12% ranges, so is it that there's a 95% chance that your chances lie in that band? And why do we get bands anyway? The LSAC has all the data; assuming their likelihood numbers are just the percent of people with these numbers who were accepted, shouldn't they be able to tell us more precisely? Or are they just being coy?
TYIA for helping solve some of my waiting-for-decisions anxiety questions
