C/O 2016 median lsat/gpa/class size Forum

[cotiger]

CLS:

At/above both medians: 86%
At/above one median and below another: 45%
Below both medians: 9%

NYU:

At/above both medians: 95%
At/above one median and below another: 62%
Below both medians: 17%

Both may be slightly inflated because both schools dropped medians (and as such comparing last cycle to the last published median will be a little more favorable for the applicants than if the median hadn't dropped).

It seems like NYU and Columbia are two of the most likely to accept a GPA below 25% if the LSAT is above median, and NYU and Michigan are (of the data available) two of the most likely to accept an LSAT below 25% if GPA is above median.

Looks to me like NYU might be guilty of this kind of median gaming you're talking about.

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc ... ZN2c#gid=0

CLS and NYU operate on essentially a sliding scale. This is not the same thing as median gaming.

For example, CLS's admissions standards used to be fairly clearly defined with requisite GPAs based on your LSAT:

170: 3.9
171: 3.8
172: 3.7
173: 3.6
174: 3.5

The GPA could go a little lower if the LSAT was a little higher, but the scale was mostly predictable. With a balanced applicant pool, the acceptances were fairly uniform along that scale, so the medians came out about halfway between the 25th and the 75th. The key thing was that for the most part, someone who was accepted below one median was also well above the other. They weren't accepting 3.8/168 or 3.4/173, for example. NYU does something similar.

Except that the data for CLS doesn't indicate that having an LSAT at or above 75th is any greater advantage for a <25th GPA than merely an at or above median LSAT--they're both about 60%. Of all T14 that have reported, CLS has the biggest jump in acceptance rate when you go from being just below median LSAT to at or just above median LSAT for all GPA levels (except for Harvard's just below median GPA). Also, CLS's acceptance rates for above median GPAs but below median LSATs is the lowest (apart from Yale). CLS doesn't seem to me to have much a sliding scale; it looks more like they are just the school that focuses the most on maintaining that LSAT median. Not that there's anything wrong with that..

Look at Harvard for more of a true sliding scale: they eagerly take below median LSAT if you have >75th GPA, and are even relatively likely to accept you in that case if you're merely above median GPA. They also are more likely than most to take a slightly below median GPA so long as you're at or above median LSAT.

[jbagelboy]

CLS and NYU operate on essentially a sliding scale. This is not the same thing as median gaming.

For example, CLS's admissions standards used to be fairly clearly defined with requisite GPAs based on your LSAT:

170: 3.9
171: 3.8
172: 3.7
173: 3.6
174: 3.5

The GPA could go a little lower if the LSAT was a little higher, but the scale was mostly predictable. With a balanced applicant pool, the acceptances were fairly uniform along that scale, so the medians came out about halfway between the 25th and the 75th. The key thing was that for the most part, someone who was accepted below one median was also well above the other. They weren't accepting 3.8/168 or 3.4/173, for example. NYU does something similar.

Except that the data for CLS doesn't indicate that having an LSAT at or above 75th is any greater advantage for a <25th GPA than merely an at or above median LSAT--they're both about 60%. Of all T14 that have reported, CLS has the biggest jump in acceptance rate when you go from being just below median LSAT to at or just above median LSAT for all GPA levels (except for Harvard's just below median GPA). Also, CLS's acceptance rates for above median GPAs but below median LSATs is the lowest (apart from Yale). CLS doesn't seem to me to have much a sliding scale; it looks more like they are just the school that focuses the most on maintaining that LSAT median. Not that there's anything wrong with that..

Look at Harvard for more of a true sliding scale: they eagerly take below median LSAT if you have >75th GPA, and are even relatively likely to accept you in that case if you're merely above median GPA. They also are more likely than most to take a slightly below median GPA so long as you're at or above median LSAT.

I have to take issue with the bolded simply because its exactly what Columbia intentionally or inadvertently didn't do this cycle, unlike Penn, UVA, and Northwestern who were all fighting to the death for 170.

I counted 37 waitlisted -> rejected / rejected 172+ LSAT's last cycle on LSN (many of whom were not even splitters), not counting all those "pending" who did not update (and I could see a few ppl on reserve who never updated). I'm willing to wager that the majority of those 37+ who didn't wind up at HYS would have strongly considered CLS w/ a little cash, which the university could have afforded. Projecting LSN onto the entire applicant pool, were in the hundreds of students who could have helped maintain that median that were not admitted.

A little more focus on the LSAT median, in fact, could very well have roped in enough high scoring candidates to maintain it

[Monochromatic Oeuvre]

Except that the data for CLS doesn't indicate that having an LSAT at or above 75th is any greater advantage for a <25th GPA than merely an at or above median LSAT--they're both about 60%. Of all T14 that have reported, CLS has the biggest jump in acceptance rate when you go from being just below median LSAT to at or just above median LSAT for all GPA levels (except for Harvard's just below median GPA). Also, CLS's acceptance rates for above median GPAs but below median LSATs is the lowest (apart from Yale). CLS doesn't seem to me to have much a sliding scale; it looks more like they are just the school that focuses the most on maintaining that LSAT median. Not that there's anything wrong with that..

Look at Harvard for more of a true sliding scale: they eagerly take below median LSAT if you have >75th GPA, and are even relatively likely to accept you in that case if you're merely above median GPA. They also are more likely than most to take a slightly below median GPA so long as you're at or above median LSAT.

That point seemed really strange to me, so I looked to see where you got it, and I see you were looking mostly at a few 172/3.5ish acceptances they took this cycle. Small sample size, but okay, point taken. Perhaps they are deviating a little bit; I don't know. Historically, though, CLS was loathe to admit someone at/below one 25th who was not also at/above the other 75th. Compare last cycle:



with

[cotiger]

Except that the data for CLS doesn't indicate that having an LSAT at or above 75th is any greater advantage for a <25th GPA than merely an at or above median LSAT--they're both about 60%. Of all T14 that have reported, CLS has the biggest jump in acceptance rate when you go from being just below median LSAT to at or just above median LSAT for all GPA levels (except for Harvard's just below median GPA). Also, CLS's acceptance rates for above median GPAs but below median LSATs is the lowest (apart from Yale). CLS doesn't seem to me to have much a sliding scale; it looks more like they are just the school that focuses the most on maintaining that LSAT median. Not that there's anything wrong with that..

Look at Harvard for more of a true sliding scale: they eagerly take below median LSAT if you have >75th GPA, and are even relatively likely to accept you in that case if you're merely above median GPA. They also are more likely than most to take a slightly below median GPA so long as you're at or above median LSAT.

I have to take issue with the bolded simply because its exactly what Columbia intentionally or inadvertently didn't do this cycle, unlike Penn, UVA, and Northwestern who were all fighting to the death for 170.

I counted 37 waitlisted -> rejected / rejected 172+ LSAT's last cycle on LSN (many of whom were not even splitters), not counting all those "pending" who did not update (and I could see a few ppl on reserve who never updated). I'm willing to wager that the majority of those 37+ who didn't wind up at HYS would have strongly considered CLS w/ a little cash, which the university could have afforded. Projecting LSN onto the entire applicant pool, were in the hundreds of students who could have helped maintain that median that were not admitted.

A little more focus on the LSAT median, in fact, could very well have roped in enough high scoring candidates to maintain it

Fair enough. That was too strong of a statement, and maintained is not the right word considering that they dropped to a 171. I was just trying to point out that if you look at CLS's LSN graphs there's a ton of green at their median regardless of GPA, very little 1 step below, and virtually none 2 below. Compare that to Harvard, where at median there's lots of green above a certain GPA, at 1 below there's a lot of green above a higher GPA, and it continues that pattern all the way to a 168 or 169. That's what a sliding scale looks like. Columbia, on the other hand, looks more like once you achieve a certain LSAT you're in, or at least you have a certain percentage chance based on your LSAT (which incidentally spikes at their median) regardless of GPA.

As to the fact that they didn't maintain the previous year's when it seems like they possibly could have, if you look at the previous year's cycle that strong jump of likelihood of acceptance is again at their median, which was a 172. I think it's possible that they decided early on that their median would drop. Given that their class has been reduced by over 100 people over the last 5 years, I don't think it's such a sure thing that they had the money to tempt those people to maintain the 172, even if they wanted to.

[cotiger]

Except that the data for CLS doesn't indicate that having an LSAT at or above 75th is any greater advantage for a <25th GPA than merely an at or above median LSAT--they're both about 60%. Of all T14 that have reported, CLS has the biggest jump in acceptance rate when you go from being just below median LSAT to at or just above median LSAT for all GPA levels (except for Harvard's just below median GPA). Also, CLS's acceptance rates for above median GPAs but below median LSATs is the lowest (apart from Yale). CLS doesn't seem to me to have much a sliding scale; it looks more like they are just the school that focuses the most on maintaining that LSAT median. Not that there's anything wrong with that..

Look at Harvard for more of a true sliding scale: they eagerly take below median LSAT if you have >75th GPA, and are even relatively likely to accept you in that case if you're merely above median GPA. They also are more likely than most to take a slightly below median GPA so long as you're at or above median LSAT.

That point seemed really strange to me, so I looked to see where you got it, and I see you were looking mostly at a few 172/3.5ish acceptances they took this cycle. Small sample size, but okay, point taken. Perhaps they are deviating a little bit; I don't know. Historically, though, CLS was loathe to admit someone at/below one 25th who was not also at/above the other 75th. Compare last cycle:

(can't post pictures)

Small sample size, absolutely. It's tough to really know what's going on when you're looking at so few data points. And when you add in how quickly the admissions game is changing.. we're all just pissing in the wind, really

[Big Dog]

The main point of the UVA graph is to show that, ignoring YP (which is what the waitlists represent), if you are above a certain LSAT or GPA you are virtually guaranteed admission

Yeah, but you cannot summarily dismiss the WL as 'just YP' to be able to make a "main point".

Plenty of those who are on the WL submitted a 'Why UVa' essay. Some visited. Some might have even groveled. They would have much preferred C'Ville to T11-14. Yet, they are still on the WL.

[cotiger]

The main point of the UVA graph is to show that, ignoring YP (which is what the waitlists represent), if you are above a certain LSAT or GPA you are virtually guaranteed admission

Yeah, but you cannot summarily dismiss the WL as 'just YP' to be able to make a "main point".

Plenty of those who are on the WL submitted a 'Why UVa' essay. Some visited. Some might have even groveled. They would have much preferred C'Ville to T11-14. Yet, they are still on the WL.

If you look at applicants with an LSAT in the 170s (>75th), the acceptance rate (counting WL as a "no") is 62% for those with GPAs 3.53-3.86 (25th-50th). If you change the GPA range to 50th-75th or 75th-100th, the acceptance rate goes down to 47% and 56%, respectively.

Likewise, if you look at applicants with above median GPAs, the acceptance rate goes from 60%>86%>51% as you go from the ranges of 164-168>169>170-180 for LSAT scores.

In no world is a school going to be more receptive in general to below median scores compared to those that are above both their 75ths. If you look at the money that UVA gives out, in all cases the higher numbers get greater scholarship money. Simply put, UVA really wants those high scores, but doesn't think that the people with those scores want them. If you have the numbers and you show that you really want them, they will be happy to have you.

[midwest17]

I think there's a good chance that Chicago may knock Columbia down to #5 next year, instead of being tied for #4. Of course, the year after that Chicago will no longer be benefiting from the Ruby boost so who knows then.

Woops.

http://news.uchicago.edu/article/2013/0 ... llion-gift

[hephaestus]

I think there's a good chance that Chicago may knock Columbia down to #5 next year, instead of being tied for #4. Of course, the year after that Chicago will no longer be benefiting from the Ruby boost so who knows then.

Woops.

http://news.uchicago.edu/article/2013/0 ... llion-gift

Chicago is set.

[cotiger]

I think there's a good chance that Chicago may knock Columbia down to #5 next year, instead of being tied for #4. Of course, the year after that Chicago will no longer be benefiting from the Ruby boost so who knows then.

Woops.

http://news.uchicago.edu/article/2013/0 ... llion-gift

Woot woot!

[midwest17]

I think there's a good chance that Chicago may knock Columbia down to #5 next year, instead of being tied for #4. Of course, the year after that Chicago will no longer be benefiting from the Ruby boost so who knows then.

Woops.

http://news.uchicago.edu/article/2013/0 ... llion-gift

Chicago is set.

I hear that if you keep adding $10 million together, it eventually adds up to HYS.

[Toby Ziegler]

I think there's a good chance that Chicago may knock Columbia down to #5 next year, instead of being tied for #4. Of course, the year after that Chicago will no longer be benefiting from the Ruby boost so who knows then.

Woops.

http://news.uchicago.edu/article/2013/0 ... llion-gift

Rubenstein's a BO$$.

[Big Dog]

If you look at applicants with an LSAT in the 170s (>75th), the acceptance rate (counting WL as a "no") is 62%

And 62% is a virtual "guarantee" of admission in your stats class?

[cotiger]

If you look at applicants with an LSAT in the 170s (>75th), the acceptance rate (counting WL as a "no") is 62%

And 62% is a virtual "guarantee" of admission in your stats class?

I didn't say that it's a guarantee, but also keep in mind that's for a 75th+ LSAT with GPA in the 25th-50th range. That level of acceptance for those students is at the same rate as other T14 that give 85%+ acceptance for being above both medians. Where UVA is different from other schools is that instead of giving that ~85% acceptance for the highest scorers, at UVA it is actually significantly more difficult to get an acceptance with higher scores. Unless you're trying to argue that UVA actively doesn't want higher scorers, that makes no sense except for a YP scenario. Even at schools such as Berkeley and Yale that don't care nearly as much about the numbers, the acceptance rate for students above both medians is significantly higher than for those that are not.

If someone with >50% GPA and 50th-75th LSAT gets in 86% of the time, the true likelihood of someone with >50% GPA and >75% LSAT is at least 86%. The fact that the observed value is only 51% just tells us that they're waitlisting people that they actually would want.

[The-Specs]

.

[notalobbyist]

Does it ever seem to anyone else as if more people on TLS want to be law school admissions consultants, LSAT test writers, or career advisers than want to be lawyers?

[MKC]

Does it ever seem to anyone else as if more people on TLS want to be law school admissions consultants, LSAT test writers, or career advisers than want to be lawyers?

TLS career advice: DON'T BE A LAWYER.

Easiest consulting job ever.

[Paul Campos]

Meanwhile: http://www.lawyersgunsmoneyblog.com/201 ... nightmares

[rebexness]

Does it ever seem to anyone else as if more people on TLS want to be law school admissions consultants, LSAT test writers, or career advisers than want to be lawyers?

Being a UG LS Admissions counselor would be ridiculously easy if you were completely unscrupulous.

[cotiger]

Meanwhile: http://www.lawyersgunsmoneyblog.com/201 ... nightmares

Having a tenure system for law school professors makes no sense to me. Researchers, I understand somewhat--you're giving them the safety to pursue areas that might be either controversial or ultimately fruitless. But law professors? What benefit does anyone (besides the professors) get from that? It's not like they're trying cases or anything like that, at least to my knowledge..

[Jaqen]

I think there's a good chance that Chicago may knock Columbia down to #5 next year, instead of being tied for #4. Of course, the year after that Chicago will no longer be benefiting from the Ruby boost so who knows then.

Woops.

http://news.uchicago.edu/article/2013/0 ... llion-gift

Yo, Columbia trolls, comments?

Does it ever seem to anyone else as if more people on TLS want to be law school admissions consultants, LSAT test writers, or career advisers than want to be lawyers?

I kinda feel this way tbh. Maybe after I pay my loans off I'll lateral to Spivey Consulting Group.

[The-Specs]

.

[sinfiery]

Woops.

http://news.uchicago.edu/article/2013/0 ... llion-gift

HYSC
CNP

Meanwhile: http://www.lawyersgunsmoneyblog.com/201 ... nightmares

This is a great thing, is it not? This likely directly translates into a significant bump in their LST score. Being a lawyer still pays, on average, ~120k at your mid career point and if you can actually obtain said jobs, it becomes a decent investment.

I would prefer all schools across the board take this approach to admissions in times of falling applicants.

[hohenheim]

So I'm not sure the source is reliable (it just says all the data was provided by the law schools), but the new September edition of "Chicago Lawyer" claims to have LSAT and GPA ranges for Chicago that are different from last year.

LSAT: 167-170-173
GPA: 3.71-3.87-3.94
Student body: 634

Edit: pg. 29 for those who have a copy.

[jbagelboy]

So I'm not sure the source is reliable (it just says all the data was provided by the law schools), but the new September edition of "Chicago Lawyer" claims to have LSAT and GPA ranges for Chicago that are different from last year.

LSAT: 167-170-173
GPA: 3.71-3.87-3.94
Student body: 634

Edit: pg. 29 for those who have a copy.

GPA range seems the same as whats on LSN. Could it be very old data?