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

[wolfgang]

So 3 points (I believe we were talking about the 164-167 change for UMN) is perfectly within those test takers scorebands, which means they have relatively similar potentials.

I understand the scorebands but when I got a 164 it said that I was in the score band of a 163-167 but when i got a 162 it said i was in the score band of 159-163. So LSAC itself views a 2 (not even a 3) point drop as significant.

That might fall into LSAC's calculations for high scorers. I know that I, personally, tend to forget that 164 is actually 90th percentile, so it's not like we're talking about the meaty part of the bell curve here.

Yeah. This just underscores that point that nobody is suggesting that UMN is full of stupid hobos, so there's no need for anyone to get defensive. But it also raises an interesting point.

Their median (so, as stated, an already averaged value, and representative of their entire non-transfer population) dropped from student's in the 95th percentile to the 90th percentile (really, i THINK 94.5-89.9). That's pretty significant.

The median student dropped almost 5%. Not a drop from "smart" to "drooling all over", but still a measurable (and large) drop in one of the few ways we have to quantifiably measure a pretty important aspect of the quality of the students.

tl/dr: yikes.

[BruinRegents]

As a california native Ill come right out and say the -2's at pepperdine and hastings after previous declines are shocking - they totally change the applicant field and expectation (which in turn will unleash a pedagogic nightmare on the institutions themselves via student quality starting with c/o 2015 and finalizing in 2017), but equally importantly, they will crush these schools in the rankings and destroy their local standing, total decay inside and out.

I remember when after my first shit LSAT score I considered applying in 2011, Pepperdine and Hastings were target schools for my numbers, with UCLA as somewhat of a reach. I mean, they were actually competitive. Now? holy shit. Idk. The fact so much can change in 2-3 years in incredible to me. Rarely do academic institutions, esp graduate programs experience such drastic declines and regional phase shifts

as a potential splitter, i am an auto reject at berkeley/stanford. that and as a norcal kid i hate socal and being debt-averse leave me with the options of NOTHING in terms of the state of california.

ucla/usc/davis/hastings/pepperdine all leave you with 200k+ debt and what job prospects? the best LST ranking forthat group of schools is fucking UCLA with only 72 PERCENT. what percentage of jobs within this 72% are big law jobs that are enough to pay back these kids 200K+ in loans? I guarantee you its less than half.. and the funny thing is it's only going to get WORSE. its a big joke how bad employment is for the rest these schools. these students mortgage their whole lives on these predatory loans while the law school professors/administrators laugh their way to the bank. it's like great white sharks preying on the little sea lions. a high number of these kids at these schools that will have 200k+ in loans will NEVER be able to buy a house or whatever else because of being debt-ridden their whole adult lives.

http://www.lstscorereports.com/?r=ca

UCLA: 72%
USC: 69%
UC Davis: 60%
Pepperdine: 45%
UC Hastings: 46%

i have no intention of staying on the titanic that is the legal market in california.

LOLZ good grief you sound like a drama queen.

[TheMostDangerousLG]

This just underscores that point that nobody is suggesting that UMN is full of stupid hobos

I am. I'm suggesting that.

[MoMettaMonk]

So 3 points (I believe we were talking about the 164-167 change for UMN) is perfectly within those test takers scorebands, which means they have relatively similar potentials.

But UMN's reported scores are 1) already averages, taking into account variation across the pool, and 2) already include retake scores. There's a difference between saying an individual's 164 and 167 aren't that different, and saying that a population's 164 vs. 167 aren't that different.

+1

I'm going to work under the assumption that what TheMostDangerousLG meant to say was medians instead of averages. Ultimately what we're talking about here is whether or not UMN is going to have a significantly intellectually inferior class this upcoming year than they have had in the preceding years, at least as far as intellectual inferiority or superiority is correlated to the LSAT. UMN has an 11 point 25/75 spread this year, which is similar to the spreads they've had in past years (2012 and 2011 were 10 points, 2010 was 9). We can reasonably assume that along that spread people will have similar point differences as each other (e.g. where someone in 2012 had a 167 someone from 2013 will have a 164, where 2012 would have a 163, 2013 would have a 160, etc.). Therefore it's not unreasonable to compare the 3 point drop for this class in the way that we would compare it for individuals.

As far as retakes are concerned, they were present in every class that we've been comparing so without any further data to point out that there was a major difference this year I consider them a wash.

===========

N.B.

What I said about the score differentials being roughly equal across the class doesn't necessarily hold for UMN because of the way that they've gamed the medians previously. Before this year their median and 75th were usually within 1 point of each other, and their 25th was also in the 150s. So what we're really talking about in the difference between their class this year and last year is the 25% in between the median and the 75th.

[Monochromatic Oeuvre]

I still maintain that people with "145s" end up at the bottom of the curve at all halfway respectable law schools.

But that's to the extent that someone with a 145 would even be accepted at a "halfway respectable" school. As it doesn't happen, it isn't factored into the data. Again, the theoretical "lowest numbers" student still has a 25% chance of finishing in the top half, assuming a correlation of 0.5.

I can be quite confident someone with a 145 is not getting Biglaw, because they're not getting accepted to feeder schools. Anywhere else they need top 10%, which they would be extraordinarily unlikely to do at a T1 or T2.

But someone in, say, the mid-150s could absolutely do well enough to get Biglaw from a T14 and it wouldn't be insanely improbable.

[TheMostDangerousLG]

So 3 points (I believe we were talking about the 164-167 change for UMN) is perfectly within those test takers scorebands, which means they have relatively similar potentials.

But UMN's reported scores are 1) already averages, taking into account variation across the pool, and 2) already include retake scores. There's a difference between saying an individual's 164 and 167 aren't that different, and saying that a population's 164 vs. 167 aren't that different.

+1

I'm going to work under the assumption that what TheMostDangerousLG meant to say was medians instead of averages. .

A median is an average. You're conflating "average" with "mean". Check yourself, boo.

[MoMettaMonk]

A median is an average. You're conflating "average" with "mean". Check yourself, boo.

TIL: the difference between the denotation and colloquial definition of average. Thanks TheMostDangerousLG. Damn you public school math teachers.

Also, please don't call me boo, it's more than a little bit weird.

[The-Specs]

.

[MoMettaMonk]

Ultimately what we're talking about here is whether or not UMN is going to have a significantly intellectually inferior class this upcoming year than they have had in the preceding years, at least as far as intellectual inferiority or superiority is correlated to the LSAT.

If this is what we are construed to be talking about then I withdraw my comments. I wasn't saying they were going to be significantly intellectually inferior just that there is a statitically significant difference (not saying what that difference is, it could just be work ethic or a variety of other things) between its previous class and its most recent class.

Oh well in that case I can definitely at least partially agree with you. There will be some difference between this year's and previous classes. I don't know if that will show up in work ethic, intelligence, or as a self-fulfilling prophecy because everyone knows that there was this median drop, but I would bet money that there is a difference.

Looking back I think the words "significantly intellectually inferior" might've been too strong. I probably should've said something like "statistically significant intellectual difference."

[TheMostDangerousLG]

Also, please don't call me boo, it's more than a little bit weird.

I'm sorry, I don't get to make that call. The keyboard has control of me now.

[midwest17]

TIL: the difference between the denotation and colloquial definition of average. Thanks TheMostDangerousLG. Damn you public school math teachers.

Meh. Using "average" to mean "median" may technically be correct, but modern usage is such that, if you want to be interpreted properly, you should use "median," except where context disambiguates (for instance, talking about the "LSAT score of the average student" would mean the median score). Talking about a school's "average LSAT score" would usually be interpreted as the mean score.

[FKASunny]

Dear god, this is a spergfest

[20141023]

.

[MoMettaMonk]

Regulus I like your idea, but in a perfect world (aka never going to happen ever), I would like USNWR to go even further. What I mean by that is, take the 1 year FTLTJD required positions like you said, but also try to institute a 5 and 10 year employment outcomes survey to try and get some semblance of what long term outcomes are like for a particular school's graduates. Of course to be remotely accurate the ABA would have to institute a similar survey requirement to maintain accreditation, but I said in a perfect world that's never going to happen so let's assume that they did that.

[sublime]

..

[20141023]

.

[wolfgang]

Isn't part of the problem on the student, too?

Forgive me if I'm wrong, but I'm not 100% sure I get all the hype around rankings, at all. Barring direct comparisons of prestige (I know... we're all victims), what purpose do rankings serve? It seems like the BEST solution would be to ignore the rankings entirely, and focus on sites like LST, which give everyone all of the relevant information needed to make an informed choice.

Of course, this is assuming I'm not missing some important function of rank. I might be.

Just for fun, I wonder what a complete abolishment of the ranks would do to employment. Given how much our (definitely including my own) decisions about where to apply are based on rank (in that there's a t-14 or bust mentality, and even within the t-14, a tendency to go to the school that's higher ranked, all else being equal), part of me hopes that employment numbers would stay the same-ish.

More likely, I feel like strong regionals would benefit. I feel like it would replace SOME of the graduates from top schools (not necessarily h/y/s, but maybe like the mid-t14 or the lower t-14) with graduates of regionals. For example, say if now (and I'm making these numbers up) a big SF firm will dig below median at Michigan, maybe they'll only dig to median and then draw a little more from davis.

Completely hypothetical. I kind of think nobody else cares, but I like to think about these things. I am of the opinion that you you can really increase your understanding of a phenomenon by discussing outcomes given hypotheticals.... makes you question underlying assumptions. And I'd really like to understand the hiring phenomenon.

[altoid99]

Utah is up.

[altoid99]

The whole process is just so sad and dumb. Minn is not the only school guilty of having ridiculous spreads. I think US News could recalculate class credentials to 25th + 75th divided by 2. That will help to make the classes more completive, and lessen the "ripped off" factor that many feel after finishing at the bottom of the curve.

This problem is only getting worse. When I applied to CU the class stats where 161/164/166. Last year the 25th LSAT was a wannabe-respectable 159. I'm afraid this year, what with our "largest class ever," the 25th LSAT is going to be 156 or less. Those students, along with all the TTT transfers I've met in the last few weeks, are going to be at a disadvantage. The 155 LSAT kids are destined for shit grades. The transfers only have 2 years to network instead of 3, a problem at schools like CU where you network into a job much more so than at top schools.

Side note: what is the highest spread between the quartiles? Minn is sitting at 11.

Actually looking at the google doc it looks like Minn is the worse. Northeastern and Drake are also bad. (Drake has 25% of its students with a 158 or better, 25% of its students with a 149 or worse). Will have to wait and see on a bunch of schools for class of 2016.

Yeah Minn games medians the worst. Many schools had a respectable spread of 4 or 5 between the quartiles.

Maryland wins with a 13 point difference last year. 151 25th?! I thought that was a typo but it isnt.

[Dr. Dre]

I wonder when stttanford will update


8====D - - -

[TheMostDangerousLG]

I wonder when stttanford will update


8====D - - -

Or UniversiTTTy of Chicago..

[Huskies13!]

Denver is up:

290 enroll (same)
158 LSAT (-1)
3.43 GPA (-.03)
http://www.law.du.edu/index.php/admissi ... tatistics/?

[optimist1]

do u think i would have a better chance of going to a better school if i retake?

i have 3.0 gpa (lsac) 172 lsat.

i think if i study a little more i can do better on the test.

[jingosaur]

do u think i would have a better chance of going to a better school if i retake?

i have 3.0 gpa (lsac) 172 lsat.

i think if i study a little more i can do better on the test.

Not the thread for this. If you think you can do better, then retake. It's as simple as that.

[optimist1]

ugh my bad. sorry guys