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

[magnum_law]

Penn

Class Size: 244
LSAT: 170/169/163
GPA: 3.95/3.90/3.58

Edit: here's the link https://www.law.upenn.edu/admissions/jd ... rofile.php

why don't all schools just inflate their medians by lowering their 25ths? seems ridiculous that a 163/3.95 has a better shot at Penn than a 168/3.8.

Why is that ridiculous? Assuming you went to a reasonably competitive university, it's not easy to earn a 3.95.

a 168/3.8 is better overall imo.

That's not the issue. The issue is whether it's ridiculous for someone with a 3.95 to get accepted into Penn Law. I'm saying it's not, because a 3.95 is actually an impressive GPA.

Having a 3.95 means you were consistent for four years of your life. You didn't mess up, you weren't a lazy freshman who decided to turn their life around halfway through, it means you largely sacrificed much of your social life to making sure you never slipped in any of your classes. Doing that for four years requires a lot more effort than scoring a 168 on the LSAT.

Or it means that you only took courses that gave easy A's, went to a school with grade inflation, etc. etc.

There's plenty of back-and-forth to be had on this, but the notion that a skills-based test (specifically assessing the skills needed in law school) is somehow a worse barometer of your ability to handle the law school curriculum than a number which can fluctuate based on any one of a few dozen factors unrelated to your competence is ridiculous. Also, please consult the LSAT prep forum here if you're really under the impression that people sink more effort into undergrad than they do into the test.

+1.

If you genuinely believe that outscoring 95%+ of all takers on a high pressure exam is somehow easier than mastering UG courses, then you're a pretty backwards individual. A 3.9 GPA is only impressive insofar as how well you did on your LSAT.

3.95/160 wouldn't even outweigh a 3.5/170

[LawMaster88]

Welcome to the Law Side! Law school is going to be awesome.. just hope we have jobs out there.. Starting on my side hustle.. lol..

spam. banned

[calpolisci2016]

Penn

Class Size: 244
LSAT: 170/169/163
GPA: 3.95/3.90/3.58

Edit: here's the link https://www.law.upenn.edu/admissions/jd ... rofile.php

why don't all schools just inflate their medians by lowering their 25ths? seems ridiculous that a 163/3.95 has a better shot at Penn than a 168/3.8.

Why is that ridiculous? Assuming you went to a reasonably competitive university, it's not easy to earn a 3.95.

a 168/3.8 is better overall imo.

That's not the issue. The issue is whether it's ridiculous for someone with a 3.95 to get accepted into Penn Law. I'm saying it's not, because a 3.95 is actually an impressive GPA.

Having a 3.95 means you were consistent for four years of your life. You didn't mess up, you weren't a lazy freshman who decided to turn their life around halfway through, it means you largely sacrificed much of your social life to making sure you never slipped in any of your classes. Doing that for four years requires a lot more effort than scoring a 168 on the LSAT.

Or it means that you only took courses that gave easy A's, went to a school with grade inflation, etc. etc.

There's plenty of back-and-forth to be had on this, but the notion that a skills-based test (specifically assessing the skills needed in law school) is somehow a worse barometer of your ability to handle the law school curriculum than a number which can fluctuate based on any one of a few dozen factors unrelated to your competence is ridiculous. Also, please consult the LSAT prep forum here if you're really under the impression that people sink more effort into undergrad than they do into the test.

+1.

If you genuinely believe that outscoring 95%+ of all takers on a high pressure exam is somehow easier than mastering UG courses, then you're a pretty backwards individual. A 3.9 GPA is only impressive insofar as how well you did on your LSAT.

3.95/160 wouldn't even outweigh a 3.5/170

A 3.95 would net you a summa cum laude at most universities. You'd be at the top 1% of my graduating class at my university (one of the highest ranked universities in the world), regardless of major.

It's cute everyone here thinks earning a 3.95 GPA is easy just because you've taken a "soft major". People with soft majors have to take general education classes as well, and they have to be consistent for FOUR Years. How many law school applicants have regrets about being idiots in their freshman year? How many applicants regret partying too much or focusing on social life for the first two years? If you're not scoring a proper LSAT, you can put it off. You can take it 3 times and just have your best score taken. Earning a "C" once because of a reckless mistake stays with you forever. Getting a high UG GPA requires battling all kinds of external factors, especially at a young age. Most people don't even sit for the LSAT until at least their 3rd or 4th year when they're at least a little more mature.

How many LS applicants have a 3.95? According to Spivey, at least 4,500 people scored in the 170s per cycle: http://blog.spiveyconsulting.com/know-y ... rcentiles/ They're not THAT rare.

I'd wager the number of 3.95+ is within those numbers as well. To boil my point down: someone who has a 3.95 and a 163 and is admitted to Penn Law should not be said to have gotten admitted on "ridiculous" grounds. What if I told you I know someone who went to UCLA, Poli Sci and has a 3.95/163 got into HYS last year? That's shows you how much a 3.95 is a very non-ridiculous and actually impressive GPA.

[cdotson2]

How many LS applicants have a 3.95? According to Spivey, at least 4,500 people scored in the 170s per cycle: http://blog.spiveyconsulting.com/know-y ... rcentiles/ They're not THAT rare.

I'd wager the number of 3.95+ is within those numbers as well. To boil my point down: someone who has a 3.95 and a 163 and is admitted to Penn Law should not be said to have gotten admitted on "ridiculous" grounds. What if I told you I know someone who went to UCLA, Poli Sci and has a 3.95/163 got into HYS last year? That's shows you how much a 3.95 is a very non-ridiculous and actually impressive GPA.

I don't disagree that it takes work to get a 3.95+, however there are hundreds of universities in America alone, and thousands more when you include the rest of the world. The number of 3.95+ gpa's is more than the number of 170+ scores but that doesn't really matter. At certain schools a 3.95 is far more impressive than a 170 like maybe Princeton, West Point, or MIT. however, people can apply to law school with 2 years of community college and 2 years at the lowest ranked state school in the nation and a 3.95 for those institutions is not necessarily impressive. GPA is just too variable to be a good indicator of anything without further information, while the LSAT is the same for everyone who takes it.

[cavalier1138]

A 3.95 would net you a summa cum laude at most universities. You'd be at the top 1% of my graduating class at my university (one of the highest ranked universities in the world), regardless of major.

A 3.95 LSAC GPA could mean that you spent two years in a community college before transferring up to a harder school. Or it could mean that your school inflates grades. Or your school might just offer A+ grades (not everyone's does). Or it could mean that you didn't take harder classes as a freshman. For example, my only two grades in undergrad that fell below a B were because I was taking extremely hard courses and was way out of my depth. I thought the topics sounded interesting, and I wasn't prepared for the coursework due to not having the right background. Friends of mine who deliberately didn't take high credit loads and took easier courses had higher GPAs.

It's cute everyone here thinks earning a 3.95 GPA is easy just because you've taken a "soft major". People with soft majors have to take general education classes as well, and they have to be consistent for FOUR Years.

No one claimed it was easy. But the LSAC GPA tells you very little about what factors affected that GPA. It's nothing to do with a "soft major", but the right course selection can do wonders for your grades.

You're also ignoring the difference between a "soft major" and a "soft school". If you think an A student at Princeton is the same as an A student at Cal State Northridge, you haven't taken a class at Cal State.

How many law school applicants have regrets about being idiots in their freshman year? How many applicants regret partying too much or focusing on social life for the first two years? If you're not scoring a proper LSAT, you can put it off. You can take it 3 times and just have your best score taken.

And yet people consistently can't break 160 on the test. And yet people constantly complain that they just "aren't good test-takers" (as though that somehow helps them in law school). The notion that everyone who didn't get a 4.0 in college partied all the time (or that everyone who did get a 4.0 never went out) is idiotic.

Earning a "C" once because of a reckless mistake stays with you forever. Getting a high UG GPA requires battling all kinds of external factors, especially at a young age. Most people don't even sit for the LSAT until at least their 3rd or 4th year when they're at least a little more mature.

So I see that you agree gauging an applicant's ability based on their performance in an unrelated class three to four years ago is probably not as good as gauging their current ability by a proctored exam. Great. We agree.

How many LS applicants have a 3.95? According to Spivey, at least 4,500 people scored in the 170s per cycle: http://blog.spiveyconsulting.com/know-y ... rcentiles/ They're not THAT rare.

I'm not sure if anyone has broken GPAs down into percentiles, but we know that a 170 generally sits around the 97th-98th. You also misread the chart, which says that 4,500 people over three years of LSAT takers scored in that band. So it's actually about 1500 people in that band per year, which is not even enough to fill classes at the T14.

I'd wager the number of 3.95+ is within those numbers as well. To boil my point down: someone who has a 3.95 and a 163 and is admitted to Penn Law should not be said to have gotten admitted on "ridiculous" grounds. What if I told you I know someone who went to UCLA, Poli Sci and has a 3.95/163 got into HYS last year? That's shows you how much a 3.95 is a very non-ridiculous and actually impressive GPA.

I'd say that you were talking about a URM candidate.

[poptart123]

I'd wager the number of 3.95+ is within those numbers as well. To boil my point down: someone who has a 3.95 and a 163 and is admitted to Penn Law should not be said to have gotten admitted on "ridiculous" grounds. What if I told you I know someone who went to UCLA, Poli Sci and has a 3.95/163 got into HYS last year? That's shows you how much a 3.95 is a very non-ridiculous and actually impressive GPA.

I'd say that you were talking about a URM candidate.

Anecdotal but I know a 158/3.95 non-URM candidate at Penn.

I think GPA says more than the difficulty of curriculum in many cases. It also shows that a person is consistently willing to work hard, grasp topics that don't directly relate to their field of study, and have a sense of drive as well as maturity. Sure, an LSAT score can show this too, but there are also students who are naturally gifted at the LSAT. The GPA shows academic strength, yes, but perhaps law schools look a little farther into it as well. As with the LSAT their are anomalies here with GPA too, though.

[cavalier1138]

I'd wager the number of 3.95+ is within those numbers as well. To boil my point down: someone who has a 3.95 and a 163 and is admitted to Penn Law should not be said to have gotten admitted on "ridiculous" grounds. What if I told you I know someone who went to UCLA, Poli Sci and has a 3.95/163 got into HYS last year? That's shows you how much a 3.95 is a very non-ridiculous and actually impressive GPA.

I'd say that you were talking about a URM candidate.

Anecdotal but I know a 158/3.95 non-URM candidate at Penn.

I think GPA says more than the difficulty of curriculum in many cases. It also shows that a person is consistently willing to work hard, grasp topics that don't directly relate to their field of study, and have a sense of drive as well as maturity. Sure, an LSAT score can show this too, but there are also students who are naturally gifted at the LSAT. The GPA shows academic strength, yes, but perhaps law schools look a little farther into it as well. As with the LSAT their are anomalies here with GPA too, though.

Yes, as mentioned, there are arguments to be had on both sides. I just think that, "A GPA reflects four years of earnest commitment to learning, blah, blah, blah," isn't a strong one.

Believe me, I have worked with and taught students who are going to have fantastic undergraduate GPAs. Not because they're smart, but because they're going to easy schools and taking easy classes.

[vcap180]

I went to a CC and a top ranked uni. Institution and major are absolutely huge when it comes to interrupting GPA. I had a 4.0 from my CC and it had NOTHING to do with work ethic or discipline. In fact, I improved on those qualities dramatically once I arrived at the uni, and yet my GPA dropped significantly.

As others have said, there are just too many ways to inflate a GPA: go to a CC, major in criminal justice, go to a school that offers A+, select easy classes and professors, CHEAT, etc.

The LSAT is, and will continue to be, the single greatest predictor of 1L outcomes.

[ponderingmeerkat]

Not getting involved in this but I'm fairly certain we've ID'd the splitters and inverse splitters in this thread. Carry on gents!

[Hikikomorist]

If only we had data on the predictive value of LSAT scores and UGPAs.

[zeglo]

.

[ms9]

If only we had data on the predictive value of LSAT scores and UGPAs.

LOL

[theconsigliere]

If only we had data on the predictive value of LSAT scores and UGPAs.

We have a ton of data on this; it's just not unbiased due to the self-reported nature. You could still make a model, though.

LOL

[Specter1389]

The way this discussion is going is great because I am actually thinking of writing a paper for one of my Masters courses on grade inflation/the LSAT and how they compare across schools. I graduated from the U.S. Air Force Academy but also attended a state university for a year before attending the Academy so my Academic Summary Report on LSAC has some information from both schools. The LSAT mean for my state school is a 151 but their mean undergrad GPA is a 3.29 for test takers. For LSAT test takers from the Air Force Academy meanwhile, the mean GPA is a 3.0 and their mean LSAT is a 156.

Since USAFA was my degree granting school, I can see the percentage distribution for LSAT and GPAs as well which allows me to get a rough estimate of their medians for LSAT takers. The median GPA for test takers from USAFA is between a 2.8 and 2.99 and the median LSAT is between the 70th and 74th percentile nationally. A West Point graduate was kind enough to give me a redacted version of his academic summary report so I could see their numbers as well and their mean GPA was a 3.06 with a mean LSAT of 155. Their median GPA is between 3.0-3.19. Their median LSAT is between the 70th and 74th percentiles nationally as well.

For my class at the Air Force Academy, I know the median GPA was below a 3.0 as that was my GPA and I was in the top 40% academically of my class. This likely would have been the bottom 25% at the state university I attended.

It's been well documented the inflation of grades that go on at the majority of schools, and I think it would be interesting to compare the numbers among as many schools as possible. The Ivy League schools in particular have been criticized in recent years for the rampant grade inflation that goes on at their academic institutions.

If anyone is willing to provide a redacted Academic Summary Report with the numbers from your degree granting institution, I would greatly appreciate it as the data would be immensely valuable for my examination. Just PM me and I will send you my e-mail address.

[Hikikomorist]

Ivy League and other elite schools deserve to "inflate" grades, though, because they simply have better students.

[LikelyThrowaway]

Ivy League and other elite schools deserve to "inflate" grades, though, because they simply have better students.

Okay, but then we're taking points off their LSAT scores because they simply had a better education.

This thread has gotten pretty lame if you're actually looking for median information.

[Hikikomorist]

Ivy League and other elite schools deserve to "inflate" grades, though, because they simply have better students.

Okay, but then we're taking points off their LSAT scores because they simply had a better education.

This thread has gotten pretty lame if you're actually looking for median information.

Only if you think differences in educational quality are causing differences in LSAT scores; not so much if college education, including at elite schools, is just a signaling device.

[m052310]

words

Navy coming at you.

[zeglo]

.

[QuentonCassidy]

Opinion: Someone's grades don't correlate with LSAT except for maybe what the hope to achieve. People do how they do on the test. People from elite schools do well because they are simply better at standardized tests (i.e., how they get into elite schools via SAT). Grade inflation may be somewhat true, but those same students would get good grades I state schools, etc. too.

Underrated and often overlooked point imo.

[AriGold33]

I really think GPA depends on the school you go to and have to be put into context, can't just pick a number say 3.95 and universally say it's the same high standard across all schools. Isn't' this why LSAC sends an academic report comparing you to the other ppl from your school? regardless of grade inflation or deflation, you can compare a pool of ppl within the same school (does nothing about whether you choose a "soft" major or not of course, but that's a different discussion)

but personally, I believe that if you went to a school for undergrad that's not ridiculously easy/super gpa inflated and got a high gpa it's a bit more impressive than a 170+, simply because putting those 4 years consistently does take a lot of effort

[canafsa]

.

[USayinBoalt]

Agree with the above, where the medians at?

[bmathers]

Agree with the above, where the medians at?

Agreed, it's a disappointment every time I am notified of a new post in here that does not contain new medians. However, I always check, for fear that I miss one amongst this OT chatter. Let's get back to medians

[vcap180]

This is a deeply uninteresting topic and an unwelcome derailment for most people. You have the GPA that you have, and higher is always better. Arguing about its relative weight is utterly meaningless and won't change the actions of a single person applying this cycle.

Can't this at least get its own thread so we can continue discussing medians?

Feel free to post some new medians then. This conversation isn't happening at the expense of new median posts, it's happening because there apparently aren't any new medians to post about.