W&M v. Vanderbilt v. Fordham v. USC Forum

[sparkytrainer]

Just jumping in here and no offense to OP. It just goes to show how numbers don't mean everything when it comes to admissions at the t14 schools. Especially with Spivey already stating that splitters are having a rough year this year and looks like an even rougher year next year with how the number trends going. Sucks for splitters. I am one as well. But shows TLS is not always right in saying its numbers> everything. In a growing number of cases, it is not the truth anymore.

no. that's silly. present some data that shows something other than numbers (or AA) consistently gets people admitted. We have a wealth of data that shows the opposite. numbers are a necessary but not sufficient condition; if your application has serious defects or is late you're going to underperform.

Well in this case it seems to be neither in OPs application. Here are some numbers and trends for you:


http://spiveyconsulting.com/blog/predic ... ons-cycle/

"Last cycle, we saw an overall decrease in applications, but an increase among the highest LSAT scorers (165+). This cycle, in contrast, high scoring applicant numbers plummeted. Next cycle, can we expect to see an increase at these bandwidths again? We’re betting yes. The elasticity of these numbers is much higher than the overall pool precisely because there are so much fewer at the top (LSAC scores follow a rough bell curve) and thus a decline one year often is a harbinger of an increase the next (and visa versa, of course)."

This shows that having a top score is great for the application, but it is not a sufficient condition anymore with an increase in top scores.
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/ ... =603088793

That is the actual data for the above statement.

So, unlike what you constantly preach, it is not a TOTALLY NECESSARY condition by having the numbers = acceptances.

Agreed Spivey is projecting, but the numbers ARE showing an increase in higher scores from 165+ from 2013-2014 from 2012-2013. That means higher scores, more competition for spots. Even if the overall application pool is lower, if the top scores are rising, then more competition for top schools. In these cases, it seems as a general trend (no specific data to back this up except projections I admit) that splitters are having a rougher time just because of the increase in higher scores. Also you can take this years projected numbers as exactly what you were saying-unsubstantiated.

But I am sure you are all competent to read the increase in scores from last year. Or maybe not.

[timesnewboston]

is this a competitive cycle or what? Seems like those numbers were a lock for Northwestern + cash a year or two ago.

[zombie mcavoy]

no. that's silly. present some data that shows something other than numbers (or AA) consistently gets people admitted. We have a wealth of data that shows the opposite. numbers are a necessary but not sufficient condition; if your application has serious defects or is late you're going to underperform.

This shows that having a top score is great for the application, but it is not a sufficient condition anymore with an increase in top scores.
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/ ... =603088793

That is the actual data for the above statement.

So, unlike what you constantly preach, it is not a sufficient condition by having the numbers = acceptances.

[sparkytrainer]

no. that's silly. present some data that shows something other than numbers (or AA) consistently gets people admitted. We have a wealth of data that shows the opposite. numbers are a necessary but not sufficient condition; if your application has serious defects or is late you're going to underperform.

This shows that having a top score is great for the application, but it is not a sufficient condition anymore with an increase in top scores.
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/ ... =603088793

That is the actual data for the above statement.

So, unlike what you constantly preach, it is not a sufficient condition by having the numbers = acceptances.

I apologize for mis-quoting you, but my point about the numerical data still stands.

Let us take Northwestern as an example. This data is from their 2014 ABA 509. They accepted 996 students. Their median lsat was a 168. 75% a 170.

During the 2013-2014 cycle, there were exactly 2,788 lsat scores from 170+. If they sent out an acceptance to all of them that applied, let us say half (which is certainly on the small side), they would still be 1,394 apps at their 170 75% or above. That leaves 398, in this conservative estimation, that were not accepted yet had the same or higher lsat of their 75th percentile. Sure some of those could have had low gpas or other extenuating circumstances to increase their likelihood at a rejection, but let us factor that into the initial half that did not apply. In this conservative case (where half of the 2,788 170+ students did not apply at all to NW), a student with a 170+ had a 39.995% chance of not getting accepted, just because of their peers.

What we also know is that Northwestern had a 168 median. So they were accepting students not in the original 2,788 student group. So just being in that group IS NOT A NECESSARY OR SUFFICIENT CONDITION FOR ACCEPTANCE. It helps, but it is not required on either side of the conditional statement.

If, as TLS people suggest, that having a 173 or 172 (whatever OP had) is a necessary condition for acceptance, then please explain these numbers in such a way as to not make yourself look like a fool.


So, if the data as provided from the last few years shows the 170+ scores are INCREASING, any correlation to having a higher score to acceptance decreases even further (if there is a correlation at all).

Takeaway? The numbers prove a high lsat score is neither sufficient or necessary for acceptance. If it was, all those at or above Northwestern's 75% would have been accepted. Yet clearly it is not the case.


I look forward to zombie mcavoy responding without just attacking my character or misquote and actually arguing the numbers.

[Tiago Splitter]

is this a competitive cycle or what? Seems like those numbers were a lock for Northwestern + cash a year or two ago.

Shit happens. No work experience still hurts you at Northwestern. 3.5/172 has never been a lock for a great cycle which I think is the faulty premise that led to the last page of responses. Not even kidding when I say NYU might be your best bet with those numbers, and that would work great for OP.

[zombie mcavoy]

I look forward to zombie mcavoy responding without just attacking my character or misquote and actually arguing the numbers.

don't have time to read that

must have been a great argument to require dat caps lock tho

i don't recall attacking your character, but, yeah, you do appear to be kind of a moron

[sparkytrainer]

I look forward to zombie mcavoy responding without just attacking my character or misquote and actually arguing the numbers.

don't have time to read that

must have been a great argument to require dat caps lock tho

i don't recall attacking your character, but, yeah, you do appear to be kind of a moron

Yep I am a moron for showing, through numbers like you requested, that you are in fact wrong. Nice character attack. Real classy.

I figured you would want to discuss with the actual data but instead, I see that you are truly the moron. Not engaging the very thing you requested shows you are the optimal case of the Kantian weak-willed individual. But I don't expect you to understand that.

[Other25BeforeYou]

no. that's silly. present some data that shows something other than numbers (or AA) consistently gets people admitted. We have a wealth of data that shows the opposite. numbers are a necessary but not sufficient condition; if your application has serious defects or is late you're going to underperform.

This shows that having a top score is great for the application, but it is not a sufficient condition anymore with an increase in top scores.
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/ ... =603088793

That is the actual data for the above statement.

So, unlike what you constantly preach, it is not a sufficient condition by having the numbers = acceptances.

I apologize for mis-quoting you, but my point about the numerical data still stands.

Let us take Northwestern as an example. This data is from their 2014 ABA 509. They accepted 996 students. Their median lsat was a 168. 75% a 170.

During the 2013-2014 cycle, there were exactly 2,788 lsat scores from 170+. If they sent out an acceptance to all of them that applied, let us say half (which is certainly on the small side), they would still be 1,394 apps at their 170 75% or above. That leaves 398, in this conservative estimation, that were not accepted yet had the same or higher lsat of their 75th percentile. Sure some of those could have had low gpas or other extenuating circumstances to increase their likelihood at a rejection, but let us factor that into the initial half that did not apply. In this conservative case (where half of the 2,788 170+ students did not apply at all to NW), a student with a 170+ had a 39.995% chance of not getting accepted, just because of their peers.

What we also know is that Northwestern had a 168 median. So they were accepting students not in the original 2,788 student group. So just being in that group IS NOT A NECESSARY OR SUFFICIENT CONDITION FOR ACCEPTANCE. It helps, but it is not required on either side of the conditional statement.

If, as TLS people suggest, that having a 173 or 172 (whatever OP had) is a necessary condition for acceptance, then please explain these numbers in such a way as to not make yourself look like a fool.


So, if the data as provided from the last few years shows the 170+ scores are INCREASING, any correlation to having a higher score to acceptance decreases even further (if there is a correlation at all).

Takeaway? The numbers prove a high lsat score is neither sufficient or necessary for acceptance. If it was, all those at or above Northwestern's 75% would have been accepted. Yet clearly it is not the case.


I look forward to zombie mcavoy responding without just attacking my character or misquote and actually arguing the numbers.

He said numbers are necessary but not sufficient. He didn't say which numbers or number combinations were necessary, and he definitely didn't say that a 172 was necessary.

Your first point seems to be that some 172+ LSAT people don't get admitted, which is of course true. We all know about yield protect and that certain schools, such as Northwestern, have a strong preference for work experience.

Your second point seems to be that lots of people with LSAT scores below 172 get admitted. No one is disputing that either. We know that at least 25% of the 2014 incoming class at Northwestern had a 162 or lower on the LSAT.

But excellent job disproving an assertion that absolutely no one made.