C/O 2017 Median LSAT/GPA/Class Size Forum

[whitespider]

Was able to find another new 509 on "the Google"...

https://chapman.edu/law/_files/about/50 ... -final.pdf

Two down, two hundred to go.

[Kimikho]

Was able to find another new 509 on "the Google"...

https://chapman.edu/law/_files/about/50 ... -final.pdf

Two down, two hundred to go.

There do not appear to be any medians reported on that.

[whitespider]

There do not appear to be any medians reported on that.

Shit, good call. Should have looked more fully at it. Looks like its a rough draft like Pace.

[03152016]

i like the changes to the 509

[whitespider]

Yeah, I dig the new in-transfer disclosure requirements.

[JCougar]

http://www.lsac.org/lsacresources/data/ ... ministered

LSAT takers are still dropping.

Some of the best news I've heard all month.

[Hand]

Was able to find another new 509 on "the Google"...

https://chapman.edu/law/_files/about/50 ... -final.pdf

Two down, two hundred to go.

While it does not report medians, TTT-status is easily ascertainable from this document

Conditional Scholarships
Students Matriculating in __ # Entering with __# Eliminated
2013-2014 Academic Year _____ 135 ____________ 70
2012-2013 Academic Year _____ 98 _____________ 51
2011-2012 Academic Year _____ 107 ____________ 60

[Monochromatic Oeuvre]

Was able to find another new 509 on "the Google"...

https://chapman.edu/law/_files/about/50 ... -final.pdf

Two down, two hundred to go.

While it does not report medians, TTT-status is easily ascertainable from this document

Conditional Scholarships
Students Matriculating in __ # Entering with __# Eliminated
2013-2014 Academic Year _____ 135 ____________ 70
2012-2013 Academic Year _____ 98 _____________ 51
2011-2012 Academic Year _____ 107 ____________ 60

Never understood why TLS has such a big problem with merit scholarships being contingent on grades. Frankly, the version where you keep it even if you have a 3.0 is more weird.

Obviously, yeah, another giant risk of going to a TTT. But really, even if you do well enough to keep your scholly it's not like it's a school ever worth going to in the first place.

[03152016]

because it's a shameless marketing tactic that in some schools is mathematically guaranteed to kick students of schollys even if they're brilliant students

[jewkidontheblock]

Was able to find another new 509 on "the Google"...

https://chapman.edu/law/_files/about/50 ... -final.pdf

Two down, two hundred to go.

While it does not report medians, TTT-status is easily ascertainable from this document

Conditional Scholarships
Students Matriculating in __ # Entering with __# Eliminated
2013-2014 Academic Year _____ 135 ____________ 70
2012-2013 Academic Year _____ 98 _____________ 51
2011-2012 Academic Year _____ 107 ____________ 60

Never understood why TLS has such a big problem with merit scholarships being contingent on grades. Frankly, the version where you keep it even if you have a 3.0 is more weird.

Obviously, yeah, another giant risk of going to a TTT. But really, even if you do well enough to keep your scholly it's not like it's a school ever worth going to in the first place.

When combined with section stacking, schools will use these to lure students in and then put all the scholarship recipients in the same section. With a mandatory curve, they're ensuring that a large portion of their students will fail solely for monetary purposes

[Monochromatic Oeuvre]

http://www.chapman.edu/law/financial-ai ... icies.aspx

Took about two seconds. Not sure there's anything misleading about that.

I get upset when American includes baristas and french friers in "95% employed" or when Pepperdine gets a "$160,000 median starting salary" from a sample of 10% of its graduates. It would take some outside knowledge to know these things are bullshit. This, on the other hand, is pretty clear about what you're getting yourself into.

The real scam is on anyone who doesn't have a scholarship, paying $45k/year for a coin flip's chance at being a lawyer. But that is an entirely separate question from whether it is reasonable to require that a scholarship given because you're predicted to have a high chance of doing well is contingent on you actually doing well.

[Hand]

http://www.chapman.edu/law/financial-ai ... icies.aspx

Took about two seconds. Not sure there's anything misleading about that.

I get upset when American includes baristas and french friers in "95% employed" or when Pepperdine gets a "$160,000 median starting salary" from a sample of 10% of its graduates. It would take some outside knowledge to know these things are bullshit. This, on the other hand, is pretty clear about what you're getting yourself into.

The real scam is on anyone who doesn't have a scholarship, paying $45k/year for a coin flip's chance at being a lawyer. But that is an entirely separate question from whether it is reasonable to require that a scholarship given because you're predicted to have a high chance of doing well is contingent on you actually doing well.

Each year, more than half of the students who receive a contingent scholarship lose it. Is it more reasonable to conclude that therefore, more than half of the students on such a scholarship - who, despite their less than stellar decision to attend Chapman, presumably are not so stupid as to be unaware of the fact that their scholarship is contingent on their grades - fail to live up to a sensible standard, or is it more reasonable to conclude that their TTT stacks the deck against them?

[Monochromatic Oeuvre]

Each year, more than half of the students who receive a contingent scholarship lose it. Is it more reasonable to conclude that therefore, more than half of the students on such a scholarship - who, despite their less than stellar decision to attend Chapman, presumably are not so stupid as to be unaware of the fact that their scholarship is contingent on their grades - fail to live up to a sensible standard, or is it more reasonable to conclude that their TTT stacks the deck against them?

Of course they might not keep it. It's an exceptionally risky deal, but it's not a scam.

And yeah, many are going to fail to live up to that particular standard. Merit scholarships are usually for people who perform above and beyond the norm. By definition, most people don't do that. But the basic syllogism that a scholarship commensurate with strong performance is no longer retained when performance is no longer strong is not crazy.

[03152016]

there is a 100% guarantee that a minimum of 42 students lose their scholarship, even if they are absolutely brilliant

157 matrics in 2013
2.9 cut-off to retain
2.8 maximum median for full-time 1Ls
let's estimate 2.9 at 45%
45% of 157 is 70 students
112 with conditional merit scholly in 2013
112 minus 70 is 42

do you still stand by your argument?

[Tiago Splitter]

I've always been skeptical about claims that any school section stacks, and this data, combined with the fact that scholarships required a 2.9 or 3.0 to maintain and the median for first year courses is 2.8, does nothing to change that.

My problem with conditional scholarships is simply that they are a scummy way to take advantage of cognitive biases.

[03152016]

I've always been skeptical about claims that any school section stacks, and this data, combined with the fact that scholarships required a 2.9 or 3.0 to maintain and the median for first year courses is 2.8, does nothing to change that.

My problem with conditional scholarships is simply that they are a scummy way to take advantage of cognitive biases.

how do you feel about the fact that a large chunk of students, no matter how well they perform, are guaranteed to lose their scholarships, and the school will not disclose this fact?

[Tiago Splitter]

I've always been skeptical about claims that any school section stacks, and this data, combined with the fact that scholarships required a 2.9 or 3.0 to maintain and the median for first year courses is 2.8, does nothing to change that.

My problem with conditional scholarships is simply that they are a scummy way to take advantage of cognitive biases.

how do you feel about the fact that a large chunk of students, no matter how well they perform, are guaranteed to lose their scholarships, and the school will not disclose this fact?

It's not very high on my List of Things to Fix in American Law Schools. The transparency on the 509's is nice, although it's hard to believe that the people who would read these things would be the type who'd consider attending one of these scams in the first place.

[Monochromatic Oeuvre]

I've always been skeptical about claims that any school section stacks, and this data, combined with the fact that scholarships required a 2.9 or 3.0 to maintain and the median for first year courses is 2.8, does nothing to change that.

My problem with conditional scholarships is simply that they are a scummy way to take advantage of cognitive biases.

how do you feel about the fact that a large chunk of students, no matter how well they perform, are guaranteed to lose their scholarships, and the school will not disclose this fact?

The harsh reality of the curve is that it shows who is not a special snowflake. If your performance is not special, the school doesn't have to keep giving you special scholarships.

My problem with conditional scholarships is simply that they are a scummy way to take advantage of cognitive biases.

I guess sorry to the Chapman students who thought they were sure to keep their scholarships, but it was made quite clear that you might not. I have very little sympathy for people who make decisions predicated on the notion that they were much more brilliant than they really are.

[03152016]

that wasn't my argument
my argument wasn't that there isn't a role for performance in determining scholarship retention

my point is that the scholarships are guaranteed to lapse, regardless of the legal acumen of the recipients
even if the students were brilliant, the scholarships are designed in a way that mathematically cannot be retained
see my above posts, where i prove this

[03152016]

it's one of the principal ways some schools attract students tiago
if we're going to take the time to lock the front door, we ought to lock the side and back doors too

[bound]

SMU

Number Enrolled 212

Median GPA 3.63

Median LSAT 162

[Rigo]

SMU

Number Enrolled 212

Median GPA 3.63

Median LSAT 162

Source? Those stats are exactly the same as last year and therefore not believable.

[Monochromatic Oeuvre]

that wasn't my argument
my argument wasn't that there isn't a role for performance in determining scholarship retention

my point is that the scholarships are guaranteed to lapse, regardless of the legal acumen of the recipients
even if the students were brilliant, the scholarships are designed in a way that mathematically cannot be retained
see my above posts, where i prove this

Some will lapse, sure. That's because students who finish median haven't demonstrated much "legal acumen."

It's not Chapman's fault if students make a deal with them based on an inflated sense of their legal skills. The risks are right there, plain as day. I'm sorry for anyone who could have possibly thought it was a good deal.

[bound]

SMU

Number Enrolled 212

Median GPA 3.63

Median LSAT 162

Source? Those stats are exactly the same as last year and therefore not believable.

From their website. It says "2013-2014" at the top so I assumed that mean the previous add cycle, considering we are in the 2014-2015 app cycle right now....

[xylocarp]

SMU

Number Enrolled 212

Median GPA 3.63

Median LSAT 162

Source? Those stats are exactly the same as last year and therefore not believable.

From their website. It says "2013-2014" at the top so I assumed that mean the previous add cycle, considering we are in the 2014-2015 app cycle right now....

this is just a guess but they might mean 2013-2014 entering class? as in the 1Ls now are the 2014-2015 entering class