U. of Illinois Law suspends Dean of Admissions Forum

[Helmholtz]

True, but if they didn't know (or, perhaps more likely, didn't want to ask) whether those students took the LSAT?

Did we ever find out whether the LSAT is automatically reported to the school?

[Indifferent]

I wouldn't be surprised if UIUC has been fudging for years.

This seems to be the most plausible explanation.

[romothesavior]

It's possible they excluded both numbers from iLEAP people. That would be one single decision that resulted in different numbers in both categories.

no if that were the case the median GPA should have gone up, because those ileap kids have like GPA of 3.9+

+1. I think this whole iLEAP idea has been run into the ground. It makes no sense at this point.

[romothesavior]

I wouldn't be surprised if UIUC has been fudging for years.

This seems to be the most plausible explanation.

What up Occam's razor

[09042014]

What is really surprising is that they shrunk the class by so much and still got destroyed on their LSAT median. You'd think they'd be able to easily maintain it by throwing more money at the top candidates, which is what we did at WUSTL this year. It would have taken a miserable year of admissions to manage a 5 point drop.

I'm not the best at math, but I did understand DF's example of how this 5-point drop could happen. But not everyone at UIUC is either at a 163 or a 168. UIUC probably takes 10+ students in every class with a 164, 165, 166, or 167. If a few of your 167/168s matriculated elsewhere, that would only bump you down a point or two. But a 5 point drop? That's outrageous. I wouldn't be surprised if UIUC has been fudging for years.

But a 163 is lower than all their other peer schools. And it's not like they have a bad reputation (at least prior). Also, I doubt they could have fudged for so long thinking they'd get away with it.

[DerrickRose]

Oooh! Ooh! Idea!!

Since they go through an outside process almost a year earlier than anyone else, do iLeap kids have to have their GPA's butchered by LSAC's various methods, or does Illinois' admissions process gain discretion over those numbers in a way that they can't with other students?

Also, the first cycle this thing started in was 2008-2009, aka the clout list scandal. Paul Pless was clearly sick and tired of having to be burdened by those kids numbers in his admissions statistics...

And the clout list thing almost entirely consisted of Illinois undergrads....

HOW DEEP DOES IT GO???

[Helmholtz]

Or more like, "Wow, this iLeap thing is a real gray area, I've got an idea..."

Because really, you admit a student, they pay their deposit, and then later on you find out they took the LSAT and got a 156? What's an adcomm to do? That has no real analog to a normal admissions process.

I don't see it as too much of a gray area to be honest. You're supposed to report your incoming class's median numbers. You can invent reasons for trying to exclude some students, but I just don't see how that's not blatantly dishonest.

[romothesavior]

What is really surprising is that they shrunk the class by so much and still got destroyed on their LSAT median. You'd think they'd be able to easily maintain it by throwing more money at the top candidates, which is what we did at WUSTL this year. It would have taken a miserable year of admissions to manage a 5 point drop.

I'm not the best at math, but I did understand DF's example of how this 5-point drop could happen. But not everyone at UIUC is either at a 163 or a 168. UIUC probably takes 10+ students in every class with a 164, 165, 166, or 167. If a few of your 167/168s matriculated elsewhere, that would only bump you down a point or two. But a 5 point drop? That's outrageous. I wouldn't be surprised if UIUC has been fudging for years.

But a 163 is lower than all their other peer schools. And it's not like they have a bad reputation (at least prior).

What do you mean by that? I agree with you, but I'm trying to see where you're going with it.

[splittinghairs]

What is really surprising is that they shrunk the class by so much and still got destroyed on their LSAT median. You'd think they'd be able to easily maintain it by throwing more money at the top candidates, which is what we did at WUSTL this year. It would have taken a miserable year of admissions to manage a 5 point drop.

I'm not the best at math, but I did understand DF's example of how this 5-point drop could happen. But not everyone at UIUC is either at a 163 or a 168. UIUC probably takes 10+ students in every class with a 164, 165, 166, or 167. If a few of your 167/168s matriculated elsewhere, that would only bump you down a point or two. But a 5 point drop? That's outrageous. I wouldn't be surprised if UIUC has been fudging for years.

Actually this also doesnt make complete sense. Let's suppose that UIUC did fudge the numbers in years past, it would still not explain the 163 LSAT because we all know that applicants apply to schools based the the reported medians rather than an actual median. Just by the mere fact that they reported a 167 median the year prior, many ppl around 167-168 would apply to UIUC thinking theyd have a decent shot. On the other hand ppl with 163-166 lsat and 3.7 ish GPA are thinking they are auto reject based on being below median in both so relatively few would apply.

[2014]

Perhaps they were including the iLeapers in their data which was boosting their GPA numbers (because the 12 them were presumably 3.8+) and their lack of LSAT was simply not included in the calculation so the GPA median was based on say 200 GPAs and the LSAT based on 188 LSATs.

By removing the 12 high GPAs from the calculation, the median would fall.

So you're saying that the school possibly calculated in the iLeap students' GPAs, but not their LSATs? And when the third-party investigators unearthed the real numbers, they didn't calculate the iLeap students' GPAs into the calculation, but did so for their LSATs?

confused

If the iLeapers didn't have to take the LSAT I'm assuming they didn't take the LSAT.

Thus there were 12 people in the class that had ONLY a GPA and not an LSAT. The school reported the GPA because it existed and not the LSAT because it didn't.

Perhaps someone at some point (Such as the interim dean) realized this and excluded the 12 GPA only numbers thus lowering the GPA median as presumably all 12 of them were 3.8+

This is obviously only speculation but its a plausible explanation for the GPA decrease that would be compatible with DF's LSAT splitter explanation which I am a fan of.

[romothesavior]

Actually this also doesnt make complete sense. Let's suppose that UIUC did fudge the numbers in years past, it would still not explain the 163 LSAT because we all know that applicants apply to schools based the the reported medians rather than an actual median. Just by the mere fact that they reported a 167 median the year prior, many ppl around 167-168 would apply to UIUC thinking theyd have a decent shot. On the other hand ppl with 163-166 lsat and 3.7 ish GPA are thinking they are auto reject based on being below median in both so relatively few would apply.

Yeah, but how is that any different than what happened? UIUC has been reporting an LSAT median around 167-168 for years. This year it is 163. So obviously a lot of people with 163 and down applied to UIUC, regardless of what the real LSAT score was.

[DerrickRose]

Or more like, "Wow, this iLeap thing is a real gray area, I've got an idea..."

Because really, you admit a student, they pay their deposit, and then later on you find out they took the LSAT and got a 156? What's an adcomm to do? That has no real analog to a normal admissions process.

I don't see it as too much of a gray area to be honest. You're supposed to report your incoming class's median numbers. You can invent reasons for trying to exclude some students, but I just don't see how that's not blatantly dishonest.

FTR, I completely agree to the extent that the bolded is what is actually required. Who knows how they actually word these things though. But in any event, one rogue admissions office shouldn't engage in this kind of ingenuity without clearing it.

[Helmholtz]

Perhaps they were including the iLeapers in their data which was boosting their GPA numbers (because the 12 them were presumably 3.8+) and their lack of LSAT was simply not included in the calculation so the GPA median was based on say 200 GPAs and the LSAT based on 188 LSATs.

By removing the 12 high GPAs from the calculation, the median would fall.

So you're saying that the school possibly calculated in the iLeap students' GPAs, but not their LSATs? And when the third-party investigators unearthed the real numbers, they didn't calculate the iLeap students' GPAs into the calculation, but did so for their LSATs?

confused

If the iLeapers didn't have to take the LSAT I'm assuming they didn't take the LSAT.

Thus there were 12 people in the class that had ONLY a GPA and not an LSAT. The school reported the GPA because it existed and not the LSAT because it didn't.

Perhaps someone at some point (Such as the interim dean) realized this and excluded the 12 GPA only numbers thus lowering the GPA median as presumably all 12 of them were 3.8+

This is obviously only speculation but its a plausible explanation for the GPA decrease that would be compatible with DF's LSAT splitter explanation which I am a fan of.

So then how did the LSAT numbers get so dramatically lowered?

[CanadianWolf]

If iLeapers caused the discrepencies, then the dean would not have been suspended.

[romothesavior]

If iLeapers caused the discrepencies, then the dean would not have been suspended.

Not necessarily. If he was playing around with them to affect the real medians, he sure as hell would have.

[splittinghairs]

Perhaps they were including the iLeapers in their data which was boosting their GPA numbers (because the 12 them were presumably 3.8+) and their lack of LSAT was simply not included in the calculation so the GPA median was based on say 200 GPAs and the LSAT based on 188 LSATs.

By removing the 12 high GPAs from the calculation, the median would fall.

So you're saying that the school possibly calculated in the iLeap students' GPAs, but not their LSATs? And when the third-party investigators unearthed the real numbers, they didn't calculate the iLeap students' GPAs into the calculation, but did so for their LSATs?

confused

If the iLeapers didn't have to take the LSAT I'm assuming they didn't take the LSAT.

Thus there were 12 people in the class that had ONLY a GPA and not an LSAT. The school reported the GPA because it existed and not the LSAT because it didn't.
Perhaps someone at some point (Such as the interim dean) realized this and excluded the 12 GPA only numbers thus lowering the GPA median as presumably all 12 of them were 3.8+

This is obviously only speculation but its a plausible explanation for the GPA decrease that would be compatible with DF's LSAT splitter explanation which I am a fan of.

No way, why would they have to exclude the ileap's GPA numbers just because they dont have a LSAT?
put it this way, should schools who take students without GPAs(ie international) have to exclude their lsat from the median lsat?

[Indifferent]

I wouldn't be surprised if UIUC has been fudging for years.

This seems to be the most plausible explanation.

What up Occam's razor

TLS is no fun without rampant idle speculation, though.

[CanadianWolf]

@romothesavior: Not in the real world, in my opinion.

[2014]

Perhaps they were including the iLeapers in their data which was boosting their GPA numbers (because the 12 them were presumably 3.8+) and their lack of LSAT was simply not included in the calculation so the GPA median was based on say 200 GPAs and the LSAT based on 188 LSATs.

By removing the 12 high GPAs from the calculation, the median would fall.

So you're saying that the school possibly calculated in the iLeap students' GPAs, but not their LSATs? And when the third-party investigators unearthed the real numbers, they didn't calculate the iLeap students' GPAs into the calculation, but did so for their LSATs?

confused

If the iLeapers didn't have to take the LSAT I'm assuming they didn't take the LSAT.

Thus there were 12 people in the class that had ONLY a GPA and not an LSAT. The school reported the GPA because it existed and not the LSAT because it didn't.

Perhaps someone at some point (Such as the interim dean) realized this and excluded the 12 GPA only numbers thus lowering the GPA median as presumably all 12 of them were 3.8+

This is obviously only speculation but its a plausible explanation for the GPA decrease that would be compatible with DF's LSAT splitter explanation which I am a fan of.

So then how did the LSAT numbers get so dramatically lowered?

Read DF's post a few pages back regarding poor management of splitters vs reverse splitters. I don't know if its likely but it would be possible and would explain a drop in LSAT.

[tennisking88]

[/quote]

Actually this also doesnt make complete sense. Let's suppose that UIUC did fudge the numbers in years past, it would still not explain the 163 LSAT because we all know that applicants apply to schools based the the reported medians rather than an actual median. Just by the mere fact that they reported a 167 median the year prior, many ppl around 167-168 would apply to UIUC thinking theyd have a decent shot. On the other hand ppl with 163-166 lsat and 3.7 ish GPA are thinking they are auto reject based on being below median in both so relatively few would apply.[/quote]

The app is free...I bet tons apply with lower scores.

[DerrickRose]

If iLeapers caused the discrepencies, then the dean would not have been suspended.

You don't know that. If Pless, even in good faith, dropped those numbers off the ledger without telling anyone? I can tell you that Bruce Smith is not the game playing type.

[DreamsInDigital]

If iLeapers caused the discrepencies, then the dean would not have been suspended.

I would guess that the second they found out there was anything even a little iffy with the numbers, they placed the dean on leave just because PR wise (and in general) it's the right thing to do.

Then if they found out it was an honest mistake, he'd be let back. If they found out he was messing with the numbers, he'd be let go.

At this point neither of those have happened (it is still just a leave), so I don't think we can say for sure how culpable this dean is based just on that fact.

[Helmholtz]

Read DF's post a few pages back regarding poor management of splitters vs reverse splitters. I don't know if its likely but it would be possible and would explain a drop in LSAT.

Yeah, I read it to explain how a few students could screw up the median. But I thought you were saying that removing students, who have a high GPA but no LSAT, from the calculation lowered the LSAT medians.

[danquayle]

People in this thread are acting like they just found Santa Claus isn't real.

[CanadianWolf]

Agreed.