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

[BigZuck]

welcometotls.jpeg

[hephaestus]

Ceteris. Fucking. Paribus.

Seriously.

[sasquatchsam]

I don't think they would ever intentionally tweak the LSAT to make it less difficult. It would be extremely unfair to a person who took the test under the "old" system if they applied in the same cycle as someone under the less difficult test. There is a reason they try so hard to keep the difficulty constant. If the difficulty changed from test to test, the LSAT would need to be administered once a year and only that test would be valid for that cycle. Or at least I don't see another alternative that would make it close to being fair to the applicants.

[JCougar]

Interesting. So you mean that if given a choice between two hypothetical worlds, one where a 168 was 99th percentile, and the other where a 172 was 99th percentile, they really wouldn't care? I just assumed that, ceteris paribus, they would take the latter. I understand that from an admissions perspective, relative scores are all that matters. But at a minimum, you would think that the higher score keeps alums and, more importantly, donors happier than the lower one.

It's not like 170 isn't already an arbitrary, meaningless number.

Schools want to raise their medians because they want to raise their rankings. And rankings only matter relative to other schools. So if you just flood the applicant pool with more 170s, your competitors are going to look better as well.

To top it off, I'm pretty sure the US News ranking algorithm automatically normalizes and assigns a z-score to each school's value in each category, so you wouldn't even get more absolute points from the median category by doing this. In other words, even your raw US News ranking score wouldn't change.

[wtrc]

I am fully expecting, on the first day of law school classes, for a kid in the front row to raise his hand and uses the phrase ceteris paribus.

[JCougar]

I am fully expecting, on the first day of law school classes, for a kid in the front row to raise his hand and uses the phrase ceteris paribus.

Definitely within the range of possibility.

[longlivetheking]

I am fully expecting, on the first day of law school classes, for a kid in the front row to raise his hand and uses the phrase ceteris paribus.

[20141023]

.

[danquayle]

I am fully expecting, on the first day of law school classes, for a kid in the front row to raise his hand and uses the phrase ceteris paribus.

Definitely within the range of possibility.

Cause like, arguendo, why use English when you can use Latin, amirite?

[04102014]

Expecto patronum?

[sinfiery]

Interesting. So you mean that if given a choice between two hypothetical worlds, one where a 168 was 99th percentile, and the other where a 172 was 99th percentile, they really wouldn't care? I just assumed that, ceteris paribus, they would take the latter. I understand that from an admissions perspective, relative scores are all that matters. But at a minimum, you would think that the higher score keeps alums and, more importantly, donors happier than the lower one.

shiny things are great, agreed.

[Monochromatic Oeuvre]

Interesting. So you mean that if given a choice between two hypothetical worlds, one where a 168 was 99th percentile, and the other where a 172 was 99th percentile, they really wouldn't care? I just assumed that, ceteris paribus, they would take the latter. I understand that from an admissions perspective, relative scores are all that matters. But at a minimum, you would think that the higher score keeps alums and, more importantly, donors happier than the lower one.

This is credited. I can confirm that people who are intelligent enough to have graduated from a T14 have long ignored the now-disproven idea that an arbitrary number needs to be put into context before it holds significant meaning, and instead understand that the bigger number is indeed always better. Case in point: I was ashamed to reveal my measly 176 LSAT to my friend who got a 1760 on his SAT. Imagine how disappointed I was to learn that he had scored ten times higher than me! Fortunately, I got my revenge yesterday: His 300 in bowling was no match for my 30,000 on PacMan.

But of course vuthy is right that you need higher scores to keep alums (and especially those donors, who just can't enough non-contextual big numbers!) happy. That's why Cooley, where bigger numbers have always led to fantastic results, is switching to a 10,000 point scale. Imagine how blown away employers will be to see a GPA of 7,600! That puny 3.7 from Michigan won't stand a chance.

[Yukos]

But of course vuthy is right that you need higher scores to keep alums (and especially those donors, who just can't enough non-contextual big numbers!) happy. That's why Cooley, where bigger numbers have always led to fantastic results, is switching to a 10,000 point scale. Imagine how blown away employers will be to see a GPA of 7,600! That puny 3.7 from Michigan won't stand a chance.

Credited post, but I think Cooley will more likely use the Phoenix School of Law model and switch to pure pass/fail so no one can transfer out.

[longlivetheking]

you guys are mean as fuck.

[Yukos]

Piling on well past the point that it stopped being funny is a treasured TLS tradition.

[jingosaur]

This is credited. I can confirm that people who are intelligent enough to have graduated from a T14 have long ignored the now-disproven idea that an arbitrary number needs to be put into context before it holds significant meaning, and instead understand that the bigger number is indeed always better. Case in point: I was ashamed to reveal my measly 176 LSAT to my friend who got a 1760 on his SAT. Imagine how disappointed I was to learn that he had scored ten times higher than me! Fortunately, I got my revenge yesterday: His 300 in bowling was no match for my 30,000 on PacMan.

But of course vuthy is right that you need higher scores to keep alums (and especially those donors, who just can't enough non-contextual big numbers!) happy. That's why Cooley, where bigger numbers have always led to fantastic results, is switching to a 10,000 point scale. Imagine how blown away employers will be to see a GPA of 7,600! That puny 3.7 from Michigan won't stand a chance.

Blatant 176 humblebrag.

[longlivetheking]

This is credited. I can confirm that people who are intelligent enough to have graduated from a T14 have long ignored the now-disproven idea that an arbitrary number needs to be put into context before it holds significant meaning, and instead understand that the bigger number is indeed always better. Case in point: I was ashamed to reveal my measly 176 LSAT to my friend who got a 1760 on his SAT. Imagine how disappointed I was to learn that he had scored ten times higher than me! Fortunately, I got my revenge yesterday: His 300 in bowling was no match for my 30,000 on PacMan.

But of course vuthy is right that you need higher scores to keep alums (and especially those donors, who just can't enough non-contextual big numbers!) happy. That's why Cooley, where bigger numbers have always led to fantastic results, is switching to a 10,000 point scale. Imagine how blown away employers will be to see a GPA of 7,600! That puny 3.7 from Michigan won't stand a chance.

Blatant 176 humblebrag.

how can he be bragging when 1760 > 176? ITS TEN TIMES LOWER DUDE.

(that turned out funnier in my head tbh)

[Clearly]

I don't think they would ever intentionally tweak the LSAT to make it less difficult. It would be extremely unfair to a person who took the test under the "old" system if they applied in the same cycle as someone under the less difficult test. There is a reason they try so hard to keep the difficulty constant. If the difficulty changed from test to test, the LSAT would need to be administered once a year and only that test would be valid for that cycle. Or at least I don't see another alternative that would make it close to being fair to the applicants.

The thing is, that's not how it works. The difficulty is set via the data gathered from experimental sections. If you look at the drop in high scores relative to low scores recently, you'll see essentially dumber experimental data coming in eventually, which suggests that the test will get easier, or at the least, the percentiles and curve will shift down.

[longlivetheking]

I don't think they would ever intentionally tweak the LSAT to make it less difficult. It would be extremely unfair to a person who took the test under the "old" system if they applied in the same cycle as someone under the less difficult test. There is a reason they try so hard to keep the difficulty constant. If the difficulty changed from test to test, the LSAT would need to be administered once a year and only that test would be valid for that cycle. Or at least I don't see another alternative that would make it close to being fair to the applicants.

The thing is, that's not how it works. The difficulty is set via the data gathered from experimental sections. If you look at the drop in high scores relative to low scores recently, you'll see essentially dumber experimental data coming in eventually, which suggests that the test will get easier, or at the least, the percentiles and curve will shift down.

when would we see the test become easier?

[altoid99]

Aaaand the second -3 drop in median LSAT brought to you by the University of Tennessee. Interestingly, the other -3 (Nebraska) is also ranked 61st. The fact that UT increased its class size by 38, which no doubt contributed to the dramatic decline in their median, I think shows that they cared much more about $$$ than maintaining medians this cycle. They're certainly not the only ones.

[Nova]

Good work so far Altoid

[cannibal ox]

Good work so far Altoid

This.

[sasquatchsam]

I don't think they would ever intentionally tweak the LSAT to make it less difficult. It would be extremely unfair to a person who took the test under the "old" system if they applied in the same cycle as someone under the less difficult test. There is a reason they try so hard to keep the difficulty constant. If the difficulty changed from test to test, the LSAT would need to be administered once a year and only that test would be valid for that cycle. Or at least I don't see another alternative that would make it close to being fair to the applicants.

The thing is, that's not how it works. The difficulty is set via the data gathered from experimental sections. If you look at the drop in high scores relative to low scores recently, you'll see essentially dumber experimental data coming in eventually, which suggests that the test will get easier, or at the least, the percentiles and curve will shift down.

Has there been a drop in the percentiles? My understanding was that the drop was simply in the percentage of individuals applying with 170+ scores. The percentiles have remained fairly constant (within .1%) but the total number of test takers has decreased and of those scoring 170+ a greater percentage have self-selected not to apply.

[Motivator9]

Aaaand the second -3 drop in median LSAT brought to you by the University of Tennessee. Interestingly, the other -3 (Nebraska) is also ranked 61st. The fact that UT increased its class size by 38, which no doubt contributed to the dramatic decline in their median, I think shows that they cared much more about $$$ than maintaining medians this cycle. They're certainly not the only ones.

They don't have much to lose because they're still the best option by far in the state outside of Vandy. And, their in state tuition is a good bargain for the school's placement.

[Yukos]

Aaaand the second -3 drop in median LSAT brought to you by the University of Tennessee. Interestingly, the other -3 (Nebraska) is also ranked 61st. The fact that UT increased its class size by 38, which no doubt contributed to the dramatic decline in their median, I think shows that they cared much more about $$$ than maintaining medians this cycle. They're certainly not the only ones.

They don't have much to lose because they're still the best option by far in the state outside of Vandy. And, their in state tuition is a good bargain for the school's placement.

Yeah I actually don't have a problem with state flagships lowering standards and keeping class sizes steady. It means less students going to TTTs and more students paying public school prices. TBH, schools like UT probably had artificially high medians just because of the applicant bubble, and their numbers are returning to normal now.

It's the TTTTs who are going from 150 medians to 145 that are the real problem.