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

[vuthy]

UMN couldnt have stuck a 167 median the way they were throwing out splitter $ offers to 166 and 165

Those UMN numbers he listed are from last year. Website says they haven't updated for 2013-14 yet.

[LexLeon]

Harvard's are *exactly* the same?

[MyNameIsFlynn!]

Harvard's are *exactly* the same?

Dude it's Hahvahd. what did you expect?

[KD35]

Pepperdine: 160, 3.59, 201

[ScottRiqui]

Harvard's are *exactly* the same?

Dude it's Hahvahd. what did you expect?

Exactly. I think that HYS could achieve any medians they want (and even go higher than their current medians), simply by varying how selective they are with soft factors. The lower-ranked schools can't do this with impunity, lest they start losing applicants to the higher schools.

[yot11]

Harvard's are *exactly* the same?

Dude it's Hahvahd. what did you expect?

Yeah but I think the point is that even the GPA quartiles are the same. Unchanged LSAT is not surprising but GPA fluctuates enough that quartiles that are EXACTLY the same as last year are a little suspicious.

[ScottRiqui]

Harvard's are *exactly* the same?

Dude it's Hahvahd. what did you expect?

Yeah but I think the point is that even the GPA quartiles are the same. Unchanged LSAT is not surprising but GPA fluctuates enough that quartiles that are EXACTLY the same as last year are a little suspicious.

Well, they may be trying to make a statement about just how unaffected their institution is by the drop in applicants (while being fully aware that we'll never know whether they had to be less selective regarding soft factors in order to maintain their numbers).

Considering how close together the 25th and 75th GPA quartiles are (less than a .2 spread), they probably have so many applications in/near that range that they could easily achieve any quartiles they wanted, down to a hundredth of a point.

[yot11]

Harvard's are *exactly* the same?

Dude it's Hahvahd. what did you expect?

Yeah but I think the point is that even the GPA quartiles are the same. Unchanged LSAT is not surprising but GPA fluctuates enough that quartiles that are EXACTLY the same as last year are a little suspicious.

Well, they may be trying to make a statement about just how unaffected their institution is by the drop in applicants (while being fully aware that we'll never know whether they had to be less selective regarding soft factors in order to maintain their numbers).

Considering how close together the 25th and 75th GPA quartiles are (less than a .2 spread), they probably have so many applications in/near that range that they could easily achieve any quartiles they wanted, down to a hundredth of a point.

I agree. Completely within the realm of possibility. Just pointing out that a completely unchanged set of GPA quartiles is uncommon.

[MyNameIsFlynn!]

Harvard's are *exactly* the same?

Dude it's Hahvahd. what did you expect?

Yeah but I think the point is that even the GPA quartiles are the same. Unchanged LSAT is not surprising but GPA fluctuates enough that quartiles that are EXACTLY the same as last year are a little suspicious.

Dude take off the foil hat. What does suspicious even mean in this context? You think they're lying or they mistakenly used old numbers? if you mean suspicious in that they play the numbers game, well, no shit. With 7000 apps for 500 spots, they have plenty of room to play with as riqui said

[FKASunny]

Harvard's are *exactly* the same?

Dude it's Hahvahd. what did you expect?

Yeah but I think the point is that even the GPA quartiles are the same. Unchanged LSAT is not surprising but GPA fluctuates enough that quartiles that are EXACTLY the same as last year are a little suspicious.

Dude take off the foil hat. What does suspicious even mean in this context? You think they're lying or they mistakenly used old numbers? if you mean suspicious in that they play the numbers game, well, no shit. With 7000 apps for 500 spots, they have plenty of room to play with as riqui said

IT'S UIUC ALL OVER AGAIN WHY CAN'T YOU SEE THAT!?

[bearedman8]

.

[cannibal ox]

Someone updated the spreadsheet with Texas' median at 166, but their website hasn't posted the new median(s). Is this some insider information, or an incorrect piece of data?

UT's website, for reference: http://www.utexas.edu/law/admissions/jd/quickfacts.php

[ScottRiqui]

Someone updated the spreadsheet with Texas' median at 166, but their website hasn't posted the new median(s). Is this some insider information, or an incorrect piece of data?

UT's website, for reference: http://www.utexas.edu/law/admissions/jd/quickfacts.php

Has Texas always had a binding ED option? I could have sworn that they called it "Early Action", it was non-binding, and didn't provide you any benefit other than an expedited decision.

[RetakeFrenzy]

Someone updated the spreadsheet with Texas' median at 166, but their website hasn't posted the new median(s). Is this some insider information, or an incorrect piece of data?

UT's website, for reference: http://www.utexas.edu/law/admissions/jd/quickfacts.php

Has Texas always had a binding ED option? I could have sworn that they called it "Early Action", it was non-binding, and didn't provide you any benefit other than an expedited decision.

Texas had a non-binding Early Action although they called it "Early Decision."

So just like Cornell, Texas now seems to have a binding program.

[shifty_eyed]

Someone updated the spreadsheet with Texas' median at 166, but their website hasn't posted the new median(s). Is this some insider information, or an incorrect piece of data?

UT's website, for reference: http://www.utexas.edu/law/admissions/jd/quickfacts.php

Nobody has told us what the median is for our class yet, afaik.

[yot11]

Harvard's are *exactly* the same?

Dude it's Hahvahd. what did you expect?

Yeah but I think the point is that even the GPA quartiles are the same. Unchanged LSAT is not surprising but GPA fluctuates enough that quartiles that are EXACTLY the same as last year are a little suspicious.

Dude take off the foil hat. What does suspicious even mean in this context? You think they're lying or they mistakenly used old numbers? if you mean suspicious in that they play the numbers game, well, no shit. With 7000 apps for 500 spots, they have plenty of room to play with as riqui said

I meant "suspicious" as in "something could be wrong (like a typo)". But if you are jumping to conspiracy theories, maybe you should take off your own tin foil hat. With 7000 apps for 500 spots, it's harder than you would think to nail down all three quartiles down to one 1/100 of a point. Or there was simply a typo somewhere, hence "suspicious".

[ScottRiqui]

With 7000 apps for 500 spots, it's harder than you would think to nail down all three quartiles down to one 1/100 of a point.

Really? If we assume that the majority of the apps have GPAs between 3.5 and 4.1, that's several thousand applications spread out over only 600 discrete possible grades in the range (if we're rounding to the nearest hundredth). For any given GPA in that range, there are likely to be a half dozen examples in the pool of applicants. That should make it pretty easy to pick and choose applicants throughout the range to admit or deny without being forced to shift the quartiles.

Of course it's impossible to know exactly how hard it would be without knowing more about the applicant pool. It's possible that thousands of those applications are "hail Marys" that actually fall well below the range I used in the example.

[yot11]

With 7000 apps for 500 spots, it's harder than you would think to nail down all three quartiles down to one 1/100 of a point.

Really? If we assume that the majority of the apps have GPAs between 3.5 and 4.1, that's several thousand applications spread out over only 600 discrete possible grades in the range (if we're rounding to the nearest hundredth). For any given GPA in that range, there are likely to be a half dozen examples in the pool of applicants. That should make it pretty easy to pick and choose applicants throughout the range to admit or deny without being forced to shift the quartiles.

Of course it's impossible to know exactly how hard it would be without knowing more about the applicant pool. It's possible that thousands of those applications are "hail Marys" that actually fall well below the range I used in the example.

Really? I'm not saying that it's hard, I'm saying that it's not trivial. If you'll notice, not a single school on the spreadsheet that is reporting all three quartiles has the exact same numbers. Schools don't care about that last 1/100th of a point.

Harvard had the exact same numbers. Mildly interesting. Moving on.

[wtrc]

Dumb question, but if my GPA is 0.03 or 0.05 below a median, would I be at a sizable disadvantage if my LSAT is not at least a point above the median, compared to if my GPA was 0.01 above? Does that 0.04 have huge implications when top schools want to maintain exact medians like that?

[sinfiery]

Dumb question, but if my GPA is 0.03 or 0.05 below a median, would I be at a sizable disadvantage if my LSAT is not at least a point above the median, compared to if my GPA was 0.01 above? Does that 0.04 have huge implications when top schools want to maintain exact medians like that?

yes

[AboveTheLawl]

.

[Nova]

Not bad, UW. Holding steady

[Dr. Dre]

USF's LSAT median: 153

NOT FLAME
http://www.usfca.edu/law/jd/admissions/profile/


Also, why do they put the LSAT median of the people who got accepted?

[Tiago Splitter]

USF's LSAT median: 153

NOT FLAME
http://www.usfca.edu/law/jd/admissions/profile/


Also, why do they put the LSAT median of the people who got accepted?

Cause it's higher.

[jbagelboy]

USF's LSAT median: 153

NOT FLAME
http://www.usfca.edu/law/jd/admissions/profile/


Also, why do they put the LSAT median of the people who got accepted?

Cause it's higher.

Also provides a more realistic expectation for those looking to apply to see where they stand