CLASS OF 2019! MEDIANS (LSAT/GPA/CLASS SIZE) Forum

[bmathers]

I believe it is the median GPA of the enrolled class when sorted from lowest to highest- so it is literally the 50th percentile/median by definition

Doesn't 50th-percentile = mean (average), and median = middle? The two are not quite the same

[Baby Gaga]

I believe it is the median GPA of the enrolled class when sorted from lowest to highest- so it is literally the 50th percentile/median by definition

Doesn't 50th-percentile = mean (average), and median = middle? The two are not quite the same

Nope. xth percentile means you're better than x% of the class, so the 50th percentile is the median

[playersball]

I believe it is the median GPA of the enrolled class when sorted from lowest to highest- so it is literally the 50th percentile/median by definition

Doesn't 50th-percentile = mean (average), and median = middle? The two are not quite the same

I'm not a statistics expert by any means lol but although there is no 1 correct definition of percentile what it really measures is what percent of scores/values/etc. fall below that certain percentile. The median tends to be looked at instead of averages because its not as sensitive to outliers and you don't have to round. For law school stats I have always understood the 50th percentile refers to median but someone correct me if I am wrong!

[zeglo]

.

[Helioze]

they should just publish the raw data so we dont have to do all this BS.

[kartelite]

Doesn't 50th-percentile = mean (average), and median = middle? The two are not quite the same

Yikes.

[CTT]

Doesn't 50th-percentile = mean (average), and median = middle? The two are not quite the same

Yikes.

+1

but actually, a lot of law students are clueless when it comes to basic statistics

[ms9]

they should just publish the raw data so we dont have to do all this BS.

Agreed, but I doubt it will happen in the admissions world unless FERPA/Buckley is overturned. Even raw data without identifying names is really hard to get with an NDA.

FERPA is weird. Technically, if I am a Dean of Students and you are a parent of a student and call and ask me how Johnny is doing and I say "well" I have violated FERPA.

[poptart123]

Sorry for the confusion. I know the literal definition of median, but many times a school's median changes slightly. So in the instance of Vanderbilt, would they consider their median (as in YOU are a median applicant, not what is our literal median) as a range of 3.74 +/- .02 or so, or does one literally need to be at the hundredth of the decimal place to be considered "a median applicant?"

I see you posted above me, any comment Spivey?

Edited for clarity.

[HYPSM]

I believe it is the median GPA of the enrolled class when sorted from lowest to highest- so it is literally the 50th percentile/median by definition

Doesn't 50th-percentile = mean (average), and median = middle? The two are not quite the same

This is a joke, right? Are you not familiar with middle school math/statistics?

[playersball]

I think I understand your original question better poptart. From my understanding, you have to at least be AT the median or above it in order to be considered a valuable 'median' applicant because that is the only way you will actually help the school maintain/increase its median. Being even the slightest below the median does not hold that same type of value, but I like to believe it still makes one a competitive applicant because of how close to the median you will fall.

[Thomas Hagan, ESQ.]

Sorry for the confusion. I know the literal definition of median, but many times a school's median changes slightly. So in the instance of Vanderbilt, would they consider their median (as in YOU are a median applicant, not what is our literal median) as a range of 3.74 +/- .02 or so, or does one literally need to be at the hundredth of the decimal place to be considered "a median applicant?"

I see you posted above me, any comment Spivey?

Edited for clarity.

+1

Was also wondering this, because my gpa is .01 lower than the median for a couple of schools and my lsat is a point lower than other schools' median. It makes sense that I'm considered a below-median LSAT applicant but am I also a below-median GPA applicant as well? Does your gpa have to be SPOT ON to the hundredth decimal point to be considered median or is there a +/- .02 or so as poptart mentioned?

[Thomas Hagan, ESQ.]

I think I understand your original question better poptart. From my understanding, you have to at least be AT the median or above it in order to be considered a valuable 'median' applicant because that is the only way you will actually help the school maintain/increase its median. Being even the slightest below the median does not hold the same value.

That makes sense, but wouldn't a GPA above the median be considered simply "a gpa above the median?" How much over do you have to be to no longer be considered at the median and be considered "an above-median applicant?"

Also (this may be a dumb question), don't GPA's fluctuate slightly from year to year by a couple of hundredths of a point?
For example, if you applied to Columbia for the class of 2018 with a 3.7 (so when you were applying, CLS's median was posted at 3.71 for class of 2017), you're technically below the median. But for your cycle (2018), the median dropped to a 3.7, wouldn't you be a median applicant then?

[vcap180]

Furthermore, since they use medians, isn't there a major diminishing returns problem anytime you exceed the 75th? For example, if I want to go to a school where the 75th LSAT is 165, a 166 will have the same impact on their percentiles as a 180 would, wouldn't it? Same goes for being below the 25th...

[playersball]

Edited my previous post for a little more clarity, and I dont consider myself an expert on this stuff esp compared to many others on TLS.

But I believe that once you hit or pass the 75th of a school's stats you would then be considered above the 75th and no longer just above the median

GPA's do fluctuate by tiny amounts each year but I do not know what the question really is there.

[playersball]

Furthermore, since they use medians, isn't there a major diminishing returns problem anytime you exceed the 75th? For example, if I want to go to a school where the 75th LSAT is 165, a 166 will have the same impact on their percentiles as a 180 would, wouldn't it? Same goes for being below the 25th...

I wonder the same thing.

I wish this topic was full of T14 medians instead of this discussion though lol

[vcap180]

Sorry for the confusion. I know the literal definition of median, but many times a school's median changes slightly. So in the instance of Vanderbilt, would they consider their median (as in YOU are a median applicant, not what is our literal median) as a range of 3.74 +/- .02 or so, or does one literally need to be at the hundredth of the decimal place to be considered "a median applicant?"
I
I see you posted above me, any comment Spivey?

Edited for clarity.

+1

Was also wondering this, because my gpa is .01 lower than the median for a couple of schools and my lsat is a point lower than other schools' median. It makes sense that I'm considered a below-median LSAT applicant but am I also a below-median GPA applicant as well? Does your gpa have to be SPOT ON to the hundredth decimal point to be considered median or is there a +/- .02 or so as poptart mentioned?

You'd literally have to be AT the median. Anything else is either below or above median, by definition. Schools will treat it in this literal way because they have to give USNWR people a true median, not a range.

[Thomas Hagan, ESQ.]

Sorry for the confusion. I know the literal definition of median, but many times a school's median changes slightly. So in the instance of Vanderbilt, would they consider their median (as in YOU are a median applicant, not what is our literal median) as a range of 3.74 +/- .02 or so, or does one literally need to be at the hundredth of the decimal place to be considered "a median applicant?"
I
I see you posted above me, any comment Spivey?

Edited for clarity.

+1

Was also wondering this, because my gpa is .01 lower than the median for a couple of schools and my lsat is a point lower than other schools' median. It makes sense that I'm considered a below-median LSAT applicant but am I also a below-median GPA applicant as well? Does your gpa have to be SPOT ON to the hundredth decimal point to be considered median or is there a +/- .02 or so as poptart mentioned?

You'd literally have to be AT the median. Anything else is either below or above median, by definition. Schools will treat it in this literal way because they have to give USNWR people a true median, not a range.

Ahhhh dammit! haha
thanks for explaining!

[calpolisci2016]

I think I understand your original question better poptart. From my understanding, you have to at least be AT the median or above it in order to be considered a valuable 'median' applicant because that is the only way you will actually help the school maintain/increase its median. Being even the slightest below the median does not hold the same value.

That makes sense, but wouldn't a GPA above the median be considered simply "a gpa above the median?" How much over do you have to be to no longer be considered at the median and be considered "an above-median applicant?"

Also (this may be a dumb question), don't GPA's fluctuate slightly from year to year by a couple of hundredths of a point?
For example, if you applied to Columbia for the class of 2018 with a 3.7 (so when you were applying, CLS's median was posted at 3.71 for class of 2017), you're technically below the median. But for your cycle (2018), the median dropped to a 3.7, wouldn't you be a median applicant then?

The past cycle's medians are also just estimates. It really depends on what the adcomm sets for this year's current cycle. For example, CLS could've had a GPA median of 3.7 last year. But if the adcomm decides they want a 3.73 median this year, then that's the median (but as applicants we wouldn't know that). So looking at past medians is still an estimate, and not indicative of whether you are actually a median applicant for the upcoming cycle.

[Thomas Hagan, ESQ.]

I think I understand your original question better poptart. From my understanding, you have to at least be AT the median or above it in order to be considered a valuable 'median' applicant because that is the only way you will actually help the school maintain/increase its median. Being even the slightest below the median does not hold the same value.

That makes sense, but wouldn't a GPA above the median be considered simply "a gpa above the median?" How much over do you have to be to no longer be considered at the median and be considered "an above-median applicant?"

Also (this may be a dumb question), don't GPA's fluctuate slightly from year to year by a couple of hundredths of a point?
For example, if you applied to Columbia for the class of 2018 with a 3.7 (so when you were applying, CLS's median was posted at 3.71 for class of 2017), you're technically below the median. But for your cycle (2018), the median dropped to a 3.7, wouldn't you be a median applicant then?

The past cycle's medians are also just estimates. It really depends on what the adcomm sets for this year's current cycle. For example, CLS could've had a GPA median of 3.7 last year. But if the adcomm decides they want a 3.73 median this year, then that's the median (but as applicants we wouldn't know that). So looking at past medians is still an estimate, and not indicative of whether you are actually a median applicant for the upcoming cycle.

That's true! Thanks for the input.
That's why I was wondering if we could consider ourselves median if we were +/- .02 of previous cycles' because that's where I how much I would assume it would fluctuate. But what you said makes sense

[goldenbear2020]

Santa Clara:
http://law.scu.edu/admissions/2016-class-profile

FT:
151 (-2) / 154 (-1) / 157
2.94 (-0.07) / 3.17 (-0.06) / 3.41 (-0.01)
246 (+18)

PT:
152 (-1) / 157 (0) / 162 (-1)
2.83 (-0.01) / 3.33 (-0.06) / 3.48 (-0.21)
26 (-6)

[goldenbear2020]

Cleveland State:
https://www.law.csuohio.edu/meetcmlaw/e ... assprofile

FT:
150 / 153 / 156
3.10 / 3.31 (-0.05) / 3.51 (-0.16)
76 (-5)

PT:
151 (+1) / 152 (-1) / 153 (-2)
2.99 (-0.24) / 3.21 (-0.23) / 3.57 (-0.11)
24 (-3)

Both:
151 (-1) / 153 / 155
3.03 (-0.10) / 3.30 (-0.10) / 3.52 (-0.16)
100 (-8)

[goldenbear2020]

Mercer:
https://law.mercer.edu/admissions/

149 (-1) / 152 / 153 (-1)
3.00 (-0.06) / 3.25 (-0.07) / 3.51 (-0.02)
145 (+20)

[dietcoke1]

I think I understand your original question better poptart. From my understanding, you have to at least be AT the median or above it in order to be considered a valuable 'median' applicant because that is the only way you will actually help the school maintain/increase its median. Being even the slightest below the median does not hold the same value.

That makes sense, but wouldn't a GPA above the median be considered simply "a gpa above the median?" How much over do you have to be to no longer be considered at the median and be considered "an above-median applicant?"

Also (this may be a dumb question), don't GPA's fluctuate slightly from year to year by a couple of hundredths of a point?
For example, if you applied to Columbia for the class of 2018 with a 3.7 (so when you were applying, CLS's median was posted at 3.71 for class of 2017), you're technically below the median. But for your cycle (2018), the median dropped to a 3.7, wouldn't you be a median applicant then?

The past cycle's medians are also just estimates. It really depends on what the adcomm sets for this year's current cycle. For example, CLS could've had a GPA median of 3.7 last year. But if the adcomm decides they want a 3.73 median this year, then that's the median (but as applicants we wouldn't know that). So looking at past medians is still an estimate, and not indicative of whether you are actually a median applicant for the upcoming cycle.

That's true! Thanks for the input.
That's why I was wondering if we could consider ourselves median if we were +/- .02 of previous cycles' because that's where I how much I would assume it would fluctuate. But what you said makes sense

Isn't this confusing in terms of URM admissions then? I would think a school would rather want a URM with a 3.8 GPA and a 150s LSAT rather than a 3.6 GPA and 164 LSAT as at least one of the former numbers would help the medians rather than the latter. But wouldn't the latter stand a far better chance at admissions at a T-14?

[Thomas Hagan, ESQ.]

I think I understand your original question better poptart. From my understanding, you have to at least be AT the median or above it in order to be considered a valuable 'median' applicant because that is the only way you will actually help the school maintain/increase its median. Being even the slightest below the median does not hold the same value.

That makes sense, but wouldn't a GPA above the median be considered simply "a gpa above the median?" How much over do you have to be to no longer be considered at the median and be considered "an above-median applicant?"

Also (this may be a dumb question), don't GPA's fluctuate slightly from year to year by a couple of hundredths of a point?
For example, if you applied to Columbia for the class of 2018 with a 3.7 (so when you were applying, CLS's median was posted at 3.71 for class of 2017), you're technically below the median. But for your cycle (2018), the median dropped to a 3.7, wouldn't you be a median applicant then?

The past cycle's medians are also just estimates. It really depends on what the adcomm sets for this year's current cycle. For example, CLS could've had a GPA median of 3.7 last year. But if the adcomm decides they want a 3.73 median this year, then that's the median (but as applicants we wouldn't know that). So looking at past medians is still an estimate, and not indicative of whether you are actually a median applicant for the upcoming cycle.

That's true! Thanks for the input.
That's why I was wondering if we could consider ourselves median if we were +/- .02 of previous cycles' because that's where I how much I would assume it would fluctuate. But what you said makes sense

Isn't this confusing in terms of URM admissions then? I would think a school would rather want a URM with a 3.8 GPA and a 150s LSAT rather than a 3.6 GPA and 164 LSAT as at least one of the former numbers would help the medians rather than the latter. But wouldn't the latter stand a far better chance at admissions at a T-14?

IMO, I feel like that's the case with ALL applications and not just URMs. I feel like schools have been placing a lot more emphasis on LSATs these days, because there have been a drop in top scores. But there will always be high GPA applicants. Thus, I unfortunately agree with you; I honestly think T-14s (maybe even all law schools) will gun for the 3.4/172 as opposed to someone slightly below both medians.