Why does Boalt admissions treat LSAT this way? Forum

[whuts4lunch]

A UG with a mean GPA of 2.9 isn't necessarily harder than one with a mean of 3.3. The school with the mean of 3.3 might have tremendously better students that more than offsets the mean GPA difference.

[09042014]

A UG with a mean GPA of 2.9 isn't necessarily harder than one with a mean of 3.3. The school with the mean of 3.3 might have tremendously better students that more than offsets the mean GPA difference.

And the school with the 2.9 might have better students.

[whuts4lunch]

A UG with a mean GPA of 2.9 isn't necessarily harder than one with a mean of 3.3. The school with the mean of 3.3 might have tremendously better students that more than offsets the mean GPA difference.

And the school with the 2.9 might have better students.

of course

[whuts4lunch]

I was just showing an example that illustrated how comparing a GPA to the mean GPA of the school also doesn't tell the whole story. The 3.2 student at the 3.3 median school isn't necessarily worse than the 3.0 student at a 2.9 median school. And, as you pointed out, it works in reverse as well.

[clintonius]

So what you're saying is that it's impossible to compare GPAs fairly.

Howzabout comparing LSATs fairly? And how might that connect to the thread?

[pleasethinkfirst]

No. Boalt's own faculty is producing studies showing that the LSAT is a miserable predictor of a successful legal career.

--LinkRemoved--

[Dr. Strangelove]

No. Boalt's own faculty is producing studies showing that the LSAT is a miserable predictor of a successful legal career.

--LinkRemoved--

Keep in mind that it doesn't offer proof that undergraduate GPA is any better of a predictor.
Read the study. Boalt's faculty certainly doesn't have dummies on it.

"The LSAT does not, however, predict success as a lawyer. Rather it predicts law school performance and is only partly effective at that. LSAT scores account for roughly 25 percent of the variance in the grades of first-year students. The applicant's undergraduate grade point average (GPA) also suggests the likelihood of success in the classroom rather than the courtroom."

The LSAT still plays some role in predicting law school performance- which is a reason why law schools started using it in the first place.

[Tautology]

Who knows a good predictor of having a successful legal career?

[tru]

.

[johnstuartmill]

1. Law school dean: "An applicant's GPA is a better indicator of merit than the LSAT. LSAT scores can be influenced by income, and any metric influenced by income is a worse indicator of merit than one that is not."

The dean's argument is flawed because the argument

a) attempts to infer a value judgment from purely factual premises
b) ignores the possibility that a person can be successful without scoring well on the LSAT
c) presumes, without justification, that GPA is not also influenced by income
d) concludes illegitimately that merit can be based off of a single metric
e) uses the word "indicator" in two different senses

[bigben]

Title changed to not show "Boalt is retarded?" on the TLS front page. Apologies for any inconvenience.

i lol'd

[Borhas]

Boalt> LSATTT
according to Boalt

[gwuorbust]

I was just showing an example that illustrated how comparing a GPA to the mean GPA of the school also doesn't tell the whole story. The 3.2 student at the 3.3 median school isn't necessarily worse than the 3.0 student at a 2.9 median school. And, as you pointed out, it works in reverse as well.

wait, when you try to apply what purports to be objective numbers to something subjective like people you get a subjective result???

[bigben]

His point, I believe, is that the availability of expensive prep programs undercut this standardization to the detriment of people with less money or without access to people with experience on the test. While this board and other free resources are available, many people won't come across them. Hence the LSAT is (just like GPA) not perfectly standardized.

This is a terrible point.

Although I do not (in the slightest) believe that this is his main point, it is a reasonable point.

No, it is not a reasonable point. The LSAT may be the best standardized test in existence. As an illustration, year after year the curve is set before the test is taken, yet the percentiles remain quite stable.

That the LSAT requires some preparation hardly undercuts its objectivity or standardization. The LSAT primarily measures certain powers of comprehension, but it also measures ability to perform under pressure, and to some small extent, the wherewithal to spend some time on substantive preparation. To point out this need for preparation does not call the objectivity of the test into question, it merely introduces another factor that is being tested. And that factor is rather small, as the vast majority see diminishing returns beyond a low threshold.

To the extent that preparation matters, I find it absurd to say that money confers an advantage. As I said above, prep courses convey little substantive information and all of it is easily available elsewhere. I've said that preparation is 20% substantive learning and 80% practice. In addition, prep courses are commonly inefficient compared to self-study.

To assert that UGPA is comparable to the LSAT as an objective standardized measure is not reasonable at all. It's laughable. To point at the existence of prep courses as a basis for this conclusion is just icing on the cake.

[feeblemiles]

To assert that UGPA is comparable to the LSAT as an objective standardized measure is not reasonable at all. It's laughable. To point at the existence of prep courses as a basis for this conclusion is just icing on the cake.

A) don't think I said that.
B) we are talking about different things. The LSAT is an impressive display of test writing. My Berkeley roots compel me to acuse anything efficient as a tool of the oppresor. My apologies.

[somewhatwayward]

whenever i see super splitters on here, i do wonder what the hell happened. of course there are legitimate reasons, but when i read people's GPA addendums, the reasons given are usually things that many, many other students faced and managed to pull off good grades anyway.

[creatinganalt]

How is Boalt retarded? The OP is retarded and can't effing read. Neither can all of the whinging low GPA types on this thread.

The book is Montauk I'm assuming cos I've read the same quote.

Putting aside Boalt's LSAT/GPA medians - did anyone actually read the quote? The Dean isn't saying that he'd take high GPA splitters and not high LSAT splitters. He's saying that for a particular subset of high GPA splitters - those who had a history of underperforming on standardised tests and still being successful in class - the effects of that LSAT *could* be mitigated. Not every GPA splitter, a particular subset. Because, fairly reasonably, the previous standardised tests had in this instance proven to be poorly predictive of this particular student's success. Not every high GPA splitter - just this particular person. Presumably Boalt can look case by case for each student to determine whether they have the intellectual ability to join the class.

What is wrong with that? How is this even unfair to high LSAT splitters?

The PROBLEM with applying that same principle to a high LSAT splitter is that the high LSAT could or could not be the result of a budding brilliant legal mind diamond in the rough or someone who has taken a prep course or studied for 1 year to bring themselves up to a high 170s. As the Dean said, 'they could have just taken a prep course'. I think we can all agree that a cold 170 is more impressive (and more indicative of the aptitude that the LSAT is meant to test for) than a 170 post 8 months of study. I say this as someone who studied! But the point is that the Dean can't know which the LSAT is.

I also find it amusing that a bunch of 0Ls are so sure that they know better than law school Deans what makes the best law students and lawyers. How dare Boalt have a admissions systems that *we* can't know. Crazy thought: maybe the people who spend their time on admissions and at teaching at law schools for class after class actually have some idea of what they are doing? Maybe they actually spend time with students and develop an idea of what kinds of people fit in at Boalt and do well there. Maybe they actually want their school to be successful and so pick the people who may do that. I forgot - TLS knows better and the Dean is retarded.

[Aberzombie1892]

Because being good at school in one study, doesn't necessarily make for a good law student. GPA has less predictive value than the lsat.

Also not all GPA's are born equal. It's hard to compare a physics major to a poli sci major who were at different schools with different grade scales.

I think GPA should definitely be considered but, you can't dismiss the LSAT because you can raise your score with effort, when ones GPA is almost entirely based on effort.

This is exactly why I just said I see the benefits of a standardized test for comparing applicants. And Boalt clearly does too, just less than their peers. Your last sentence reflects another point from my last post (if GPA and LSAT both measure effort rather than aptitute (according to Boalt), why weigh 3 months of effort more heavily than 4 years of effort?). Again, I'm not advocating this position, but I do find it completely reasonable.

Well because LSAT is mostly a measurement of aptitude, and only a small part effort. Also the LSAT is a test of what you can do now. Plenty of 4.0's aren't smart enough to pass the bar, and plenty of 3.0's reformed their ways.

I'd take GPA more seriously if the LSAC didn't have ridiculous rules about. They count classes from ten years ago to "standardize", but don't account for schools that massively grade inflate? Instead of being objective, its capricious.

I wouldn't have accepted me into law school, but there should be a path for someone like me to sanitize their GPA. I should be allowed to take a masters in history and have it be weighted into admissions.

What are you thoughts on the idea of US News doing away with GPA and replacing it with the percentage of the class the graduated from undergrad with latin honors? (cum laude, summa cum laude, and magna cum laude)

[09042014]

whenever i see super splitters on here, i do wonder what the hell happened. of course there are legitimate reasons, but when i read people's GPA addendums, the reasons given are usually things that many, many other students faced and managed to pull off good grades anyway.

9/10 it was extreme laziness. It was in my case. Though I was retarded, I majored in a very difficult field, worked more than the vast majority of college students, but still not nearly as hard as the people in my major. I should have just gone into poli sci. I still wouldn't have 4.0'd, but I'd have probably gotten 3.3ish.

[09042014]

What are you thoughts on the idea of US News doing away with GPA and replacing it with the percentage of the class the graduated from undergrad with latin honors? (cum laude, summa cum laude, and magna cum laude)

I think class rank would be better, but many schools don't give that out.

[miamiman]

whenever i see super splitters on here, i do wonder what the hell happened. of course there are legitimate reasons, but when i read people's GPA addendums, the reasons given are usually things that many, many other students faced and managed to pull off good grades anyway.

9/10 it was extreme laziness. It was in my case. Though I was retarded, I majored in a very difficult field, worked more than the vast majority of college students, but still not nearly as hard as the people in my major. I should have just gone into poli sci. I still wouldn't have 4.0'd, but I'd have probably gotten 3.3ish.

if you had done that, you would probably still have ended up at NU

[09042014]

How is Boalt retarded? The OP is retarded and can't effing read. Neither can all of the whinging low GPA types on this thread.

The book is Montauk I'm assuming cos I've read the same quote.

Putting aside Boalt's LSAT/GPA medians - did anyone actually read the quote? The Dean isn't saying that he'd take high GPA splitters and not high LSAT splitters. He's saying that for a particular subset of high GPA splitters - those who had a history of underperforming on standardised tests and still being successful in class - the effects of that LSAT *could* be mitigated. Not every GPA splitter, a particular subset. Because, fairly reasonably, the previous standardised tests had in this instance proven to be poorly predictive of this particular student's success. Not every high GPA splitter - just this particular person. Presumably Boalt can look case by case for each student to determine whether they have the intellectual ability to join the class.

What is wrong with that? How is this even unfair to high LSAT splitters?

The PROBLEM with applying that same principle to a high LSAT splitter is that the high LSAT could or could not be the result of a budding brilliant legal mind diamond in the rough or someone who has taken a prep course or studied for 1 year to bring themselves up to a high 170s. As the Dean said, 'they could have just taken a prep course'. I think we can all agree that a cold 170 is more impressive (and more indicative of the aptitude that the LSAT is meant to test for) than a 170 post 8 months of study. I say this as someone who studied! But the point is that the Dean can't know which the LSAT is.

I also find it amusing that a bunch of 0Ls are so sure that they know better than law school Deans what makes the best law students and lawyers. How dare Boalt have a admissions systems that *we* can't know. Crazy thought: maybe the people who spend their time on admissions and at teaching at law schools for class after class actually have some idea of what they are doing? Maybe they actually spend time with students and develop an idea of what kinds of people fit in at Boalt and do well there. Maybe they actually want their school to be successful and so pick the people who may do that. I forgot - TLS knows better and the Dean is retarded.

Saying the high LSAT person might have studied hard for the LSAT, would be like saying the High GPA person might just have studied hard to compensate for their stupidity.

[09042014]

whenever i see super splitters on here, i do wonder what the hell happened. of course there are legitimate reasons, but when i read people's GPA addendums, the reasons given are usually things that many, many other students faced and managed to pull off good grades anyway.

9/10 it was extreme laziness. It was in my case. Though I was retarded, I majored in a very difficult field, worked more than the vast majority of college students, but still not nearly as hard as the people in my major. I should have just gone into poli sci. I still wouldn't have 4.0'd, but I'd have probably gotten 3.3ish.

if you had done that, you would probably still have ended up at NU

Good point. I'd have to get at least a 3.5 to have any shot at UChi.

And with my BSEE, but prospects at NU with BSEE are about the same as UChi without.

[somewhatwayward]

whenever i see super splitters on here, i do wonder what the hell happened. of course there are legitimate reasons, but when i read people's GPA addendums, the reasons given are usually things that many, many other students faced and managed to pull off good grades anyway.

9/10 it was extreme laziness. It was in my case. Though I was retarded, I majored in a very difficult field, worked more than the vast majority of college students, but still not nearly as hard as the people in my major. I should have just gone into poli sci. I still wouldn't have 4.0'd, but I'd have probably gotten 3.3ish.

if you worked harder than most college students, then i don't think you were lazy (or maybe we're all super-lazy).

aside from extremely difficult majors that will bring your GPA way down, the only other reason i can think of that someone with a 170+ would have a really low GPA is that they basically never went to class. i was terrible about doing the reading for class, and i tended to not study much for exams, but i made it to probably 80% of classes. between what i remembered from the classes and what i gleaned about the epistemology of the discipline, i was able to do well on exams. (also, i wrote good papers although it was always at the last minute).

yes, that is totally not possible with a hard science or engineering major.

[09042014]

whenever i see super splitters on here, i do wonder what the hell happened. of course there are legitimate reasons, but when i read people's GPA addendums, the reasons given are usually things that many, many other students faced and managed to pull off good grades anyway.

9/10 it was extreme laziness. It was in my case. Though I was retarded, I majored in a very difficult field, worked more than the vast majority of college students, but still not nearly as hard as the people in my major. I should have just gone into poli sci. I still wouldn't have 4.0'd, but I'd have probably gotten 3.3ish.

if you worked harder than most college students, then i don't think you were lazy (or maybe we're all super-lazy).

aside from extremely difficult majors that will bring your GPA way down, the only other reason i can think of that someone with a 170+ would have a really low GPA is that they basically never went to class. i was terrible about doing the reading for class, and i tended to not study much for exams, but i made it to probably 80% of classes. between what i remembered from the classes and what i gleaned about the epistemology of the discipline, i was able to do well on exams. (also, i wrote good papers although it was always at the last minute).

yes, that is totally not possible with a hard science or engineering major.

But I was lazy. I was doing the bare minimum. I also skipped as many classes as I could.