CLASS OF 2018 MEDIANS! (LSAT/GPA/Class Size) Forum

eriedoctrine · Post by **eriedoctrine** » Wed Aug 12, 2015 7:43 pm

basedvulpes wrote:
Tiago Splitter wrote:Before 2006 schools had to average LSAT scores, so the comparison to before then is a little tricky. But I agree things haven't changed all that much within the T-14. The really big changes have happened outside of it, where schools like American now have medians below their 25th from a few years ago.
holy shit: http://www.lstscorereports.com/schools/american/2014/

I win:
http://www.lstscorereports.com/schools/suffolk/2014/

See also:
http://www.lstscorereports.com/schools/illinois/2014/
http://www.lstscorereports.com/schools/cincinnati/2014/
http://www.lstscorereports.com/schools/hastings/2014/

Mack.Hambleton · Post by **Mack.Hambleton** » Wed Aug 12, 2015 8:21 pm

rnoodles22 wrote:
krads153 wrote:
Higher scorers are actively choosing not to go to law school and going into other fields - that explains the general drop in numbers. Basically only the worse people applying to law school.

I don't know why NU in particular had a huge drop though. Maybe it doesn't give out enough schollies?
Purely speculative, but I think C may be adversely affecting NU numbers when it comes to high scorers w/ big schollies. I'm sure most people that get a pretty big offer at NU, get a respectable (maybe sometimes equivalent) offer at C, which seems to have significantly more prestige as a T6 (I think they're tied at 4, but I may be wrong).

In short, you're probably partially right in saying that.

Chicago does not have significantly more prestige than Northwestern lol

Ron Howard · Post by **Ron Howard** » Wed Aug 12, 2015 8:39 pm

eriedoctrine wrote:
basedvulpes wrote:
Tiago Splitter wrote:Before 2006 schools had to average LSAT scores, so the comparison to before then is a little tricky. But I agree things haven't changed all that much within the T-14. The really big changes have happened outside of it, where schools like American now have medians below their 25th from a few years ago.
holy shit: http://www.lstscorereports.com/schools/american/2014/
I win:
http://www.lstscorereports.com/schools/suffolk/2014/

See also:
http://www.lstscorereports.com/schools/illinois/2014/
http://www.lstscorereports.com/schools/cincinnati/2014/
http://www.lstscorereports.com/schools/hastings/2014/

I am not sure I ever realized American University had a law school.

rnoodles · Post by **rnoodles** » Wed Aug 12, 2015 9:10 pm

Mack.Hambleton wrote:
rnoodles22 wrote:
krads153 wrote:
Higher scorers are actively choosing not to go to law school and going into other fields - that explains the general drop in numbers. Basically only the worse people applying to law school.

I don't know why NU in particular had a huge drop though. Maybe it doesn't give out enough schollies?
Purely speculative, but I think C may be adversely affecting NU numbers when it comes to high scorers w/ big schollies. I'm sure most people that get a pretty big offer at NU, get a respectable (maybe sometimes equivalent) offer at C, which seems to have significantly more prestige as a T6 (I think they're tied at 4, but I may be wrong).

In short, you're probably partially right in saying that.
Chicago does not have significantly more prestige than Northwestern lol

My b. A mistake going off rankings purely haha

lakers3 · Post by **lakers3** » Wed Aug 12, 2015 9:55 pm

On LSN if you click on an individual school's page they have "class of 2019" GPA/LSAT etc. The numbers are definitely different than the previous year's numbers (higher LSAT's) Am I missing something? Or are these 2018 numbers?
Example: NYU http://nyu.lawschoolnumbers.com

dontrogerthat · Post by **dontrogerthat** » Wed Aug 12, 2015 10:03 pm

I wonder how past Hastings student's feel about the fact 4 years ago they chose to go to Hastings with their decently good 3.6/164 stats and to see the nosedive it has taken just 4 years later.

chuckbass · Post by **chuckbass** » Wed Aug 12, 2015 10:06 pm

lakers3 wrote:On LSN if you click on an individual school's page they have "class of 2019" GPA/LSAT etc. The numbers are definitely different than the previous year's numbers (higher LSAT's) Am I missing something? Or are these 2018 numbers?
Example: NYU http://nyu.lawschoolnumbers.com

LSN numbers are never accurate. I think they're just based on the data for the year on LSN.

lakers3 · Post by **lakers3** » Wed Aug 12, 2015 10:09 pm

chuckbass wrote:
lakers3 wrote:On LSN if you click on an individual school's page they have "class of 2019" GPA/LSAT etc. The numbers are definitely different than the previous year's numbers (higher LSAT's) Am I missing something? Or are these 2018 numbers?
Example: NYU http://nyu.lawschoolnumbers.com
LSN numbers are never accurate. I think they're just based on the data for the year on LSN.

OK, that would make sense. After posting I realized the LSN data doesn't match up with Berkeley's data on their website.

Ron Howard · Post by **Ron Howard** » Wed Aug 12, 2015 10:20 pm

Basically, they need to close down about half of the law schools in the country, and then change the structure of those ranked roughly between 80 and 20. Instead of issuing JDs--because most of the students from these schools are not receiving jobs for which a three year professional education and commensurate expense is warranted--they can issue two year Juris Masters degrees. These degrees will be sufficient for the vast majority of legal work, including small law, local government, and compliance type jobs. Meanwhile, roughly the top 20 schools will continue to issue Juris Doctors with the goal of training "higher level" legal professionals to tackle "advanced legal concerns" (read: big law, big fed, and judiciary). If, at later point in one's career, a JM is interested in pursuing more advanced legal work, they can obtain an LLM in "Advanced Legal Studies". Likewise, students who perform exceptionally well in the first year of a JM program, can transfer to a JD program, since the first year curriculums will be kept the same. This approach will help to check people's expectations, reduce debt, diminish the glut of lawyers, and restore prestige--yes prestige--to the higher echelons of the legal industry.

krads153 · Post by **krads153** » Thu Aug 13, 2015 10:13 am

Should probably cut down class sizes in the T-14 too. If they did that by third to a half, they'd probably have around 100% legit employment across the board (people with really bad grades would probably still be screwed). Law schools used to charge a lot less, even just ten years ago, - so they can obviously run law schools without as much money.

The ABA should be more like the AMA, and actually restrict the number of spots in schools, rather than accrediting new law schools even when there's no need for it. The ABA clearly doesn't give a crap about the profession. If it was a lot harder to get into ANY law school, then yes prestige would return to the profession.

The entire university system in the US needs to be reformed though, from undergrad through grad level. As far as I'm concerned all universities are generally "for profit" scams, especially the private ones that charge like 50k tuition a year for, on average, no discernible employment benefit.

HLSorBust · Post by **HLSorBust** » Thu Aug 13, 2015 10:28 am

They might as well impose some sort of cutoff for entering law school too. A cut off of perhaps 3.80+ and 173+ should be the mandatory minimum for all law schools. It would go a long way in weeding out the less capable people pretending to be smart in order to enter a highly prestigious and intellectual field. After all, the law profession is a field for the most intelligent people in the world, and is therefore no place for stupid people.

earthabides · Post by **earthabides** » Thu Aug 13, 2015 10:42 am

HLSorBust wrote:They might as well impose some sort of cutoff for entering law school too. A cut off of perhaps 3.80+ and 173+ should be the mandatory minimum for all law schools. It would go a long way in weeding out the less capable people pretending to be smart in order to enter a highly prestigious and intellectual field. After all, the law profession is a field for the most intelligent people in the world, and is therefore no place for stupid people.

Definitely, I can always tell when I'm talking to someone who has scored below 170. It's painful and I shouldn't have to deal with it.

LawsRUs · Post by **LawsRUs** » Thu Aug 13, 2015 10:47 am

Except lsat doesn't measure intelligence or skills to do well in law school and the profession.

HLSorBust · Post by **HLSorBust** » Thu Aug 13, 2015 10:54 am

LawsRUs wrote:Except lsat doesn't measure intelligence or skills to do well in law school and the profession.

Wrong. Numerous studies have shown that LSAT and intelligence have an extremely high correlation. We can thus assume that a high LSAT score = very intelligent person.

Generally · Post by **Generally** » Thu Aug 13, 2015 11:07 am

Post removed.

Kinky John · Post by **Kinky John** » Thu Aug 13, 2015 11:23 am

Seamus and LawsRUs let us know when you find 'gullible' in the dictionary

LawsRUs · Post by **LawsRUs** » Thu Aug 13, 2015 11:39 am

lol when. Also found misleading.

krads153 · Post by **krads153** » Thu Aug 13, 2015 11:53 am

To be fair, there's probably some correlation between intelligence and the LSAT, although with people retaking it 3 times+ these days, it's probably a weakre correlation.

benwyatt · Post by **benwyatt** » Thu Aug 13, 2015 11:56 am

Post removed.

Generally · Post by **Generally** » Thu Aug 13, 2015 12:15 pm

Post removed.

MikeJD · Post by **MikeJD** » Thu Aug 13, 2015 2:05 pm

Berkeley also increased class size by 10%, maybe if they didn't do that they would still be at 167. They must have really needed the extra revenue.

doublehoohopeful · Post by **doublehoohopeful** » Thu Aug 13, 2015 2:09 pm

MikeJD wrote:Berkeley also increased class size by 10%, maybe if they didn't do that they would still be at 167. They must have really needed the extra revenue.

Is anyone aware of any reason other than wanting more money to expand a class by that much? I can't think of one.

basedvulpes · Post by **basedvulpes** » Thu Aug 13, 2015 2:12 pm

Post removed.

Tiago Splitter · Post by **Tiago Splitter** » Thu Aug 13, 2015 2:18 pm

doublehoohopeful wrote:
MikeJD wrote:Berkeley also increased class size by 10%, maybe if they didn't do that they would still be at 167. They must have really needed the extra revenue.
Is anyone aware of any reason other than wanting more money to expand a class by that much? I can't think of one.

Surprisingly high yield is the only innocent one

The enrollment numbers will be interesting to follow. The T-14 has shrunk by a fair amount in the last few years but maybe schools will say fuck it and go back to the old levels.

rnoodles · Post by **rnoodles** » Thu Aug 13, 2015 2:23 pm

krads153 wrote: The entire university system in the US needs to be reformed though, from undergrad through grad level. As far as I'm concerned all universities are generally "for profit" scams, especially the private ones that charge like 50k tuition a year for, on average, no discernible employment benefit.

This. +100. Germany has it right cost wise, the UK has it right choice wise (A-levels, AA-levels, etc.). Hell, I don't think you can even apply to some schools in the UK if you don't have the scores for it. They will literally turn you down and bar you from applying. Bit strict and harsh (and I don't necessarily want to advocate for anything like this), but it can help cull class numbers and boost employment (however marginally or significantly) I'm sure.