Legacy Forum

[yoshikart]

,,,

[dingbat]

does the T6 care about its indices or medians?

Yes - but not the way you mean.

The T6 are fairly entrenched as the upper echelon of the legal world, and there isn't exactly a lot of movement that happens there. They care about accepting the top students who will become the most successful law school graduates (whether as lawyers, judges, professors, business people). The best information they have about someone's potential is LSAT/GPA (99% of the time). Therefore they care about those scores, not to maintain indices or medians, but because they care about having the best students attend their institutions.

Now stop worrying and learn to love the bomb

[yoshikart]

,,,

[dingbat]

So being a few hundredths off the median shouldn't be a cause for worry?

Being chronically paranoid should be bigger cause for concern

[Rahviveh]

Lexleon please qualify your response.

Dearest Tbird,

I claim that schools' medians, both LSAT and GPA, are not the most important characteristic of consideration of law school applicants, in two respects.

Firstly, schools' medians don't even enter the minds of admissions officers, who review applications at elite schools, as things which need to be maintained, or increased. Indeed, both LSAT scores and GPAs are important characteristics of applicants; high ones are to be desired. But because those who review applications care not for high numbers as a means to maintain or increase medians--for high numbers are viewed as correlates of applicant features that are desired as ends in themselves, or means to other, better, goals, like a rich student body--I claim they cannot be the most important dimension of examination. They are no dimension of examination at all.

Secondly, I comment regarding a conflation. It is a conflation of two ends which happen to, usually, be coextensive. One end is that one's law school class be as great as it can be; the other, not surprisingly, is that one's law school class possess the people who, all things considered, are most likely to make that class as great as it can be. One is a means to the other; so they cannot be identical.

It just so happens that, all things considered, students with high grades and LSAT scores are usually likely to make a class as great as it can be. Do you think schools would be inclined to maintain or increase medians if people with higher scores and grades tended to make their classes worse? Of course not. And of course, people with astronomical numbers are rejected every admissions season from any given school. On the other hand, consider the handfuls of people with GPAs and LSAT scores in the lower 50%; many of them will be accepted to any given elite law school in any given year.

What does this suggest? Medians, in themselves, cannot be what is actually most important to those who review applications.

Thus, a student's numbers are neither necessary nor sufficient to an applicant's admittance; and the concept of median maintenance, hardly, if ever, enter the minds of those who review applications at elite law schools. Thus, medians cannot be the most important dimension of candidate's examination, simpliciter.

I may come back to edit this later, but feel free to take a stab at it if you do not agree.

This post made me fall asleep. Could have been condensed into three sentences. Why so unnecessarily wordy?

[dingbat]

This post made me fall asleep. Could have been condensed into three sentences. Why so unnecessarily wordy?

two words: "I'm wrong"

[suralin]

So being a few hundredths off the median shouldn't be a cause for worry?

Being chronically paranoid should be bigger cause for concern

+1

[suralin]

Lexleon please qualify your response.

Dearest Tbird,

I claim that schools' medians, both LSAT and GPA, are not the most important characteristic of consideration of law school applicants, in two respects.

Firstly, schools' medians don't even enter the minds of admissions officers, who review applications at elite schools, as things which need to be maintained, or increased. Indeed, both LSAT scores and GPAs are important characteristics of applicants; high ones are to be desired. But because those who review applications care not for high numbers as a means to maintain or increase medians--for high numbers are viewed as correlates of applicant features that are desired as ends in themselves, or means to other, better, goals, like a rich student body--I claim they cannot be the most important dimension of examination. They are no dimension of examination at all.

Secondly, I comment regarding a conflation. It is a conflation of two ends which happen to, usually, be coextensive. One end is that one's law school class be as great as it can be; the other, not surprisingly, is that one's law school class possess the people who, all things considered, are most likely to make that class as great as it can be. One is a means to the other; so they cannot be identical.

It just so happens that, all things considered, students with high grades and LSAT scores are usually likely to make a class as great as it can be. Do you think schools would be inclined to maintain or increase medians if people with higher scores and grades tended to make their classes worse? Of course not. And of course, people with astronomical numbers are rejected every admissions season from any given school. On the other hand, consider the handfuls of people with GPAs and LSAT scores in the lower 50%; many of them will be accepted to any given elite law school in any given year.

What does this suggest? Medians, in themselves, cannot be what is actually most important to those who review applications.

Thus, a student's numbers are neither necessary nor sufficient to an applicant's admittance; and the concept of median maintenance, hardly, if ever, enter the minds of those who review applications at elite law schools. Thus, medians cannot be the most important dimension of candidate's examination, simpliciter.

I may come back to edit this later, but feel free to take a stab at it if you do not agree.

Your writing is actually painful to read. Also, just because LSAT/GPA numbers are means to an end does not mean that they are not the most important factor in law school admissions--this of course does not mean that they are the only factors. An important factor does not have to be an end in itself, JFC.

[yoshikart]

...

[suralin]

So being a few hundredths off the median shouldn't be a cause for worry?

Being chronically paranoid should be bigger cause for concern

How big of a deal is the smaller concern in absolute terms?

Holy shit.

[dingbat]

So being a few hundredths off the median shouldn't be a cause for worry?

Being chronically paranoid should be bigger cause for concern

How big of a deal is the smaller concern in absolute terms?

you should be really concerned. I mean, seriously, it's gonna be a big problem

[ms9]

OP to answer your question the general consensus is that unless your family is pretty prominent it doesn't help much.

Not to pile on this idiot but Mike Spivey, former Vanderbilt Dean flat out said don't buy his book on LS admissions if you are above both mediums at your desired school.

Also he (or Dean Perez, it all runs together) suggested that law schools straight up have an excel sheet with what there mediums are for all admitted and attending students while the process it going on?

Random question: NYUs (etc.) correlation to LSAT/GPA is incredibly strong as LSN shows. Would converting all GPA LSAT scores to indexes show a stronger correlation. On a number line for example? Wouldn't imagine it would be too difficult the indexes are publicly available I believe.

Snap, I said that. (It is true and I say it in the book, too. I must suck at marketing, though)

[John_rizzy_rawls]

Lexleon please qualify your response.

Dearest Tbird,

I claim that schools' medians, both LSAT and GPA, are not the most important characteristic of consideration of law school applicants, in two respects.

Firstly, schools' medians don't even enter the minds of admissions officers, who review applications at elite schools, as things which need to be maintained, or increased. Indeed, both LSAT scores and GPAs are important characteristics of applicants; high ones are to be desired. But because those who review applications care not for high numbers as a means to maintain or increase medians--for high numbers are viewed as correlates of applicant features that are desired as ends in themselves, or means to other, better, goals, like a rich student body--I claim they cannot be the most important dimension of examination. They are no dimension of examination at all.

Secondly, I comment regarding a conflation. It is a conflation of two ends which happen to, usually, be coextensive. One end is that one's law school class be as great as it can be; the other, not surprisingly, is that one's law school class possess the people who, all things considered, are most likely to make that class as great as it can be. One is a means to the other; so they cannot be identical.

It just so happens that, all things considered, students with high grades and LSAT scores are usually likely to make a class as great as it can be. Do you think schools would be inclined to maintain or increase medians if people with higher scores and grades tended to make their classes worse? Of course not. And of course, people with astronomical numbers are rejected every admissions season from any given school. On the other hand, consider the handfuls of people with GPAs and LSAT scores in the lower 50%; many of them will be accepted to any given elite law school in any given year.

What does this suggest? Medians, in themselves, cannot be what is actually most important to those who review applications.

Thus, a student's numbers are neither necessary nor sufficient to an applicant's admittance; and the concept of median maintenance, hardly, if ever, enter the minds of those who review applications at elite law schools. Thus, medians cannot be the most important dimension of candidate's examination, simpliciter.

I may come back to edit this later, but feel free to take a stab at it if you do not agree.

20 bucks says your strongest soft is being Founder and President of Tautology Club on campus.

First, there is overwhelming evidence that you are wrong. 2 factors comprising ~25% of your most publicized ranking is nowhere near marginal. Ignore Read the last two pages for more actual evidence that you are incorrect.

Second, seriously work on your ability to engage in argument. A proper argument generally has a claim and then a warrant for said claim.

Third, just be frank about why you in accurately believe this: your experience. I don't know what your LSAT was but at absolute worst you were an extreme splitter with your 4.0. You snagged Berkeley, GULC, and NYU. Now you believe you did so because of some awesome story. Unlikely. Far more likely? Your admission was largely due to the two following facts: one of your two main metrics were way above 75%iles (4.0) and you're a URM (maybe? http://www.top-law-schools.com/forums/v ... 4&t=197653).

Lastly, I'm guessing what you're actually trying to say is that the numbers in and of themselves are not as important as what they mean as academic indicators. Though this is a more cogent pov, the way you're expressing this is hogwash dude. Absent being long removed from your UGPA or having an inordinate amount of relevant work experience or extraordinary softs (all of which are extremely rare amongst LS applicants), how else are adomcs supposed to quantify your academic potential? They're not is the answer.

Tl;dr - not only are you propagating a false and potentially dangerous opinion, but you are also doing it very very badly.

[Ti Malice]

I think it's a fairly safe bet that Lex is not coming back to this thread.

[LexLeon]

I think it's a fairly safe bet that Lex is not coming back to this thread.

Hah, why wouldn't I?

[edamame]

I think it's a fairly safe bet that Lex is not coming back to this thread.

Hah, why wouldn't I?

Wow. Great. Just great.

[stillwater]

I think it's a fairly safe bet that Lex is not coming back to this thread.

Hah, why wouldn't I?

nice necro

[Shmoopy]

I think it's a fairly safe bet that Lex is not coming back to this thread.

Hah, why wouldn't I?

Lex,

Drop some knowledge on everyone.

[carmenohio]

Um, I wouldn't call the official statements of admissions deans at top schools "crap," or anything of the sort. Do you allege that someone of them has lied?

Pretty much. I don't think they're straight-up lies, exactly, but all the data clearly contradicts the spirit of what they say. If you want to make your argument--which so far has no evidence behind it except the testimony of the people who have the most to lose by acknowledging the truth--you're going to have to explain these two links: 1) http://myLSN.info/j57ub2 2) http://myLSN.info/v9wfqv

They say that if you have between a 3.6 and a 3.7 GPA, 1) if you have a 169, you have a 1% chance of getting into UVA, but 2) if you have a 170, you have a 51% chance.

Care to guess what UVA's median LSAT is? Or do you think their admissions officers think getting one extra question on the LSAT correct makes you that much better a student?

Your logic is backwards, bro. It's not that the 1 point difference between a 169 and a 170 makes a difference in terms of the attractiveness of a candidate; instead, those who score a 170 are better people, holistically speaking, than those who scored a 169, therefore making them better candidates. Lex and I use unbelievably stringent logic that goes over the heads of everyone else, including adcoms, except some adcoms, and always over the heads of everyone else, except when it doesn't. Sucks to be you chumps.

[dingbat]

Lex and I use unbelievably stringent logic that goes over the heads of everyone else, including adcoms

If logic can't be explained, it can't be correct.

That being said, if something goes over an adcom's head, then it's irrelevant to the adcom.

[stillwater]

Lex is King of the Trolls.

[wannabelawstudent]

Um, I wouldn't call the official statements of admissions deans at top schools "crap," or anything of the sort. Do you allege that someone of them has lied?

"90% of our graduates are able to find employment within 6 months of graduation with a 70k median salary"

[edamame]

Um, I wouldn't call the official statements of admissions deans at top schools "crap," or anything of the sort. Do you allege that someone of them has lied?

"90% of our graduates are able to find employment within 6 months of graduation with a 70k median salary"

Clearly someone (not wannabe, but someone else, ahem) doesn't read the NY Times.

[hopingtogetin]

.