Female AA 152, 3.44 Forum

[TheSpanishMain]

Yeah, admittedly I'm not a numbers guy, but I'm guessing part of the low predictive value of the LSAT in 1L grades is the fact that the vast majority of the class at any given school is clustered around 3-4 points. There's really not much meaningful difference between a 168 and a 165. Between a 168 and a 151, though? That seems like a big enough gulf to be significant.

Put another way, you could probably put a median guy from, say, Penn, at Columbia and he'd be fine. If you plunked a guy from Thomas Jefferson into Columbia, he'd almost certainly be bottoming out the curve.

[jrass]

Thank you guys for jumping in. We finally got something going in the URM thread.

1. jnwa, where are you getting your information that your highest LSAT score is the best predictor of your 1L grades? LSAC's own predictive validity study, which was most recently released for 2011-2012, gives us this report on correlations:



This says that the correlation between just LSAT (they did average multiple scores, but we don't know what effect that had without the data) and 1L grades (FYA) is just .36. Now that's higher than UGPA (.27) but it is lower than both LSAT and UGPA (.47).

2. jrass: Makes a lot of sense what you're saying. The 165 and 152 you bring up are great examples because they are more than a standard deviation apart. Professor Johnson kind of talked about this if I remember his lecture correctly, but I wonder just how wide that range of rough equivalence is. Like I get why a 165 is different than a 152, but how different is a 165 from a 178?

LSAT and UGPA is a better predictor than LSAT alone. I was saying the LSAT is a better predictor than any other single factor. I'm sure if you added other factors to LSAT and UGPA like loss of a close relative 1L year or visits to the school psychologist, that stat would be more valuable than the LSAT and UGPA combo.

As to the 165-178 question I'd imagine it would have a similar correlation to 152 and 165, but extracting data would be difficult because there are not too many people who score a 178 so you would likely have wide fluctuations in its predictive value. For example, one 178 finishing below median would have an enormous effect because there are not very many of these people.

The basic takeaway is that in 9 out of 10 cases the LSAT has no predictive value at all, and in 1 out of 10 cases it has a lot of predictive value so the general correlation seen in a chart like that is misleading because you have a small # of people accounting for the whole correlation. It's kind of like if you were to list how much you spend eating out per year, and the average amount spent per day was $10, but we learn that you brown bag lunch on 90% of days and spend a $100 at a fancy restaurant 10% of days.

[JazzyMac]

Also, the (false in my opinion) assumption is that all law schools with average LSATs of 165+ provide educations that are also "higher than average". I'm not certain it has anything to do with it...maybe the student's thought process on attaining a low LSAT and being rejected might have to do with their performance, but I don't see a correlation.

That said: There are anomaly-LSATers that find ease in the logic basis that encompass the LSAT. I would WAG that 50% of the top scorers fall into this category. They may have succeeded their entire school career...doesn't mean they will make a good lawyer, or is even a good person, which is really the point on a law school's "whole person concept", as it were.

I know a non-URM that was accepted to all the T-14, extremely high numbers, but also had a run-in with the law. Keep donating, you donors!

[jrass]

Also, the (false in my opinion) assumption is that all law schools with average LSATs of 165+ provide educations that are also "higher than average". I'm not certain it has anything to do with it...maybe the student's thought process on attaining a low LSAT and being rejected might have to do with their performance, but I don't see a correlation.

That said: There are anomaly-LSATers that find ease in the logic basis that encompass the LSAT. I would WAG that 50% of the top scorers fall into this category. They may have succeeded their entire school career...doesn't mean they will make a good lawyer, or is even a good person, which is really the point on a law school's "whole person concept", as it were.

I know a non-URM that was accepted to all the T-14, extremely high numbers, but also had a run-in with the law. Keep donating, you donors!

I don't know why having a run in with the law means that person is a bad person or a bad lawyer. Socioeconomic status plays a big role in criminal history. A lot of kids who have a charge for marijuana possession or drinking in public would not have that charge had they belonged to a fancy fraternity or had the money to go into a bar. Somebody who fell into credit card debt will look worse on paper than a trust fund baby. Also, older applicants will always be likelier to have a run in with the law than younger applicants.

It's bad enough most schools make you disclose crimes you were wrongly accused for, and when you say it was dismissed because they made a mistake, there's a presumption you settled to get it dismissed. This is a problem, because black men are 3x likelier to be falsely accused of a crime than white men. Students that do well their whole academic career are likelier to pass the bar exam, do well in law school and the holistic review process is a loaded term that only exists because of one constitutional law case. Hating on people with good numbers is pretty unwarranted, and it seems that it is motivated by a desire to instead go off things more related to socioeconomic status and upbringing than merit.

Why limit this approach to law school? In court, often the attorney who makes the best argument wins and this can reward presentation more than truth. Instead of having court cases, why don't we just show the suspect to a jury and then let the jury decide then and there. This would help ensure that people who look innocent - who based on sociological data tend to be pretty white people are kept free, and those who look more guilty - who based on socioeconomic data tend to be black people can be locked away without having to worry about burdens of evidence.

If we removed objective factors we could finally create the Anglo-Saxan master race that our country's founders dreamed of when they wrote the Declaration of Independence.

[JazzyMac]

Also, the (false in my opinion) assumption is that all law schools with average LSATs of 165+ provide educations that are also "higher than average". I'm not certain it has anything to do with it...maybe the student's thought process on attaining a low LSAT and being rejected might have to do with their performance, but I don't see a correlation.

That said: There are anomaly-LSATers that find ease in the logic basis that encompass the LSAT. I would WAG that 50% of the top scorers fall into this category. They may have succeeded their entire school career...doesn't mean they will make a good lawyer, or is even a good person, which is really the point on a law school's "whole person concept", as it were.

I know a non-URM that was accepted to all the T-14, extremely high numbers, but also had a run-in with the law. Keep donating, you donors!

I don't know why having a run in with the law means that person is a bad person or a bad lawyer. Socioeconomic status plays a big role in criminal history. A lot of kids who have a charge for marijuana possession or drinking in public would not have that charge had they belonged to a fancy fraternity or had the money to go into a bar. Somebody who fell into credit card debt will look worse on paper than a trust fund baby. Also, older applicants will always be likelier to have a run in with the law than younger applicants.

It's bad enough most schools make you disclose crimes you were wrongly accused for, and when you say it was dismissed because they made a mistake, there's a presumption you settled to get it dismissed. This is a problem, because black men are 3x likelier to be falsely accused of a crime than white men. Students that do well their whole academic career are likelier to pass the bar exam, do well in law school and the holistic review process is a loaded term that only exists because of one constitutional law case. Hating on people with good numbers is pretty unwarranted, and it seems that it is motivated by a desire to instead go off things more related to socioeconomic status and upbringing than merit.

Why limit this approach to law school? In court, often the attorney who makes the best argument wins and this can reward presentation more than truth. Instead of having court cases, why don't we just show the suspect to a jury and then let the jury decide then and there. This would help ensure that people who look innocent - who based on sociological data tend to be pretty white people are kept free, and those who look more guilty - who based on socioeconomic data tend to be black people can be locked away without having to worry about burdens of evidence.

If we removed objective factors we could finally create the Anglo-Saxan master race that our country's founders dreamed of when they wrote the Declaration of Independence.

That's exactly what I mean. Having a run-in doesn't mean bad, but while a non-URM can get it overlooked, a minority will have to over explain a bad decision and in most cases have it follow him throughout his career.

This all goes to say that depending on a score to predicate law school performance won't somehow change the overall facts that it's a number$ game.

[fliptrip]

Also, the (false in my opinion) assumption is that all law schools with average LSATs of 165+ provide educations that are also "higher than average". I'm not certain it has anything to do with it...maybe the student's thought process on attaining a low LSAT and being rejected might have to do with their performance, but I don't see a correlation.

That said: There are anomaly-LSATers that find ease in the logic basis that encompass the LSAT. I would WAG that 50% of the top scorers fall into this category. They may have succeeded their entire school career...doesn't mean they will make a good lawyer, or is even a good person, which is really the point on a law school's "whole person concept", as it were.

I know a non-URM that was accepted to all the T-14, extremely high numbers, but also had a run-in with the law. Keep donating, you donors!

I actually feel really strongly that this isn't true. Because of the way legal academia shakes out, you're pretty much getting the same education no matter where you go within the T30 at least. All your profs went to the same schools (they all went to Yale/Harvard...kidding, but not really) and at least with your doctrinal classes, you're getting the same law being taught.

I think that for a high GPA, high LSAT scorer, that person is probably going to be a beast in law school, only because they have clear intellectual talents and the sort of character and habits that lend themselves well to academic achievement. If you tell me you are a 3.95/175, I'm pretty sure you are no joke. I think you could be on to something, however, about the classic splitter--the kid who screwed around for 3+ years in undergrad and then when they had to figure out something to do with their lives, studied for three months for the LSAT and "banged out" a 174 and got into UVA, even with their 2.9/3.0 GPA. I think that joker could have some trouble in law school because they have not developed the kind of diligence and discipline success in law school will require.

[jrass]

Also, the (false in my opinion) assumption is that all law schools with average LSATs of 165+ provide educations that are also "higher than average". I'm not certain it has anything to do with it...maybe the student's thought process on attaining a low LSAT and being rejected might have to do with their performance, but I don't see a correlation.

That said: There are anomaly-LSATers that find ease in the logic basis that encompass the LSAT. I would WAG that 50% of the top scorers fall into this category. They may have succeeded their entire school career...doesn't mean they will make a good lawyer, or is even a good person, which is really the point on a law school's "whole person concept", as it were.

I know a non-URM that was accepted to all the T-14, extremely high numbers, but also had a run-in with the law. Keep donating, you donors!

I actually feel really strongly that this isn't true. Because of the way legal academia shakes out, you're pretty much getting the same education no matter where you go within the T30 at least. All your profs went to the same schools (they all went to Yale/Harvard...kidding, but not really) and at least with your doctrinal classes, you're getting the same law being taught.

I think that for a high GPA, high LSAT scorer, that person is probably going to be a beast in law school, only because they have clear intellectual talents and the sort of character and habits that lend themselves well to academic achievement. If you tell me you are a 3.95/175, I'm pretty sure you are no joke. I think you could be on to something, however, about the classic splitter--the kid who screwed around for 3+ years in undergrad and then when they had to figure out something to do with their lives, studied for three months for the LSAT and "banged out" a 174 and got into UVA, even with their 2.9/3.0 GPA. I think that joker could have some trouble in law school because they have not developed the kind of diligence and discipline success in law school will require.

Transfer people could provide more perspective on this, but between tiers there are substantive differences. You may have 3 pages of reading per night per class at one school, and 30 at another so you're really talking about 10x the work. Additionally, some schools teach to the bar exam from day one while others focus on the think like a lawyer education.

[grizzlybear111]

OP here. I had no idea that this thread continued for such a long time. I decided on OSU. Got more than 50% scholly and the school is the best fit for me. Already paid my seat deposit! #Moritz2019

[Flokkness]

OP here. I had no idea that this thread continued for such a long time. I decided on OSU. Got more than 50% scholly and the school is the best fit for me. Already paid my seat deposit! #Moritz2019

Congrats and good luck.