Something weird about TLS Forum

[Nulli Secundus]

X asks his / her chances, X has good GPA but lower than 172 LSAT.

Unanimous TLS opinion #1: YHS is out.
Unanimous TLS opinion #2: Unless it is Nobel prize caliber, softs do not matter.

Paradox: HLS accepts ~220 people with lower than 170/171 LSAT score (25% percentile). Nobel prize is awarded in 6 categories, and except for peace, a maximum of 3 people can receive the award in a category in a year. (6*3 = 18) Assuming there are no people receiving Nobels during undergraduate and everyone applying to law school do so within 12 years of completing undergraduate, there are exactly (18*12 = 216) Nobel prize winners.

Which one of the following resolves the apparent paradox above?

a - The 25th percentile of HLS consists of every Nobel prize winner of the last 12 years.
b - TLS is wrong. (Somebody is wrong on the internet)
c - HLS is a lie. (So is cake)
d - Screenshots or it didn't happen.
e - None of the above.

Thanks!

(BEFORE A STORM OF AD HOMINEM, I DID NOT TAKE THE LSAT YET, HENCE I AM NOT THE X IN QUESTION)

[miamiman]

You're distorting the advice TLS gives and for what -- lulz? Ridiculous thread.

[vanwinkle]

You're distorting the advice TLS gives and for what -- lulz? Ridiculous thread.

[Nulli Secundus]

Where exactly is the distortion? Indeed I made this thread for lulz, but the replies confused me a bit, you claim the two TLS opinions I referred to are not meant to be used together or what exactly?

[vanwinkle]

Where exactly is the distortion? Indeed I made this thread for lulz

I stopped caring enough to respond here.

[ShuckingNotJiving]

Where exactly is the distortion?

Unanimous TLS opinion #2: Unless it is Nobel prize caliber, softs do not matter.

I understand your grievances, but the above is a pretty obvious distortion.

[oakroom]

As far as percentiles go, there is no difference between the case where the entire bottom 25% of the class has a 171 and the case where the bottom 24% has a 170 or lower but the next person has a 171. The truth is somewhere in between and unknowable (other than to HLS admissions staff), but that accounts for at least part of the discrepancy.

Also, URM.

[kittenmittons]

You aren't as smart or clever as you think you are.

hi cc

[SullaFelix]

Where exactly is the distortion? Indeed I made this thread for lulz, but the replies confused me a bit, you claim the two TLS opinions I referred to are not meant to be used together or what exactly?

People are going to base their advice on probability. Especially if someone isn't a URM, the chances of being part of that lower 25th percentile is slim.

At best, it's a total crapshoot — if Harvard wanted, they could fill another few classes with students above that 25th percentile, and they have an enormous number of applicants to choose from with approximately 25th percentile numbers to fill those extremely limited spots. So telling someone they have a good chance would be awful advice.

[kazu]

Also, URM.

Plus, where did the 220 people come from? I think Harvard selects around 550 people each year, not 880, so the lower-than-25% would be closer to 140 or something.

Also, define "good" GPA. Harvard's median is 3.89. I have not seen that many people on here with 170~172 LSAT and 3.89+ GPA.

[Nulli Secundus]

880~ = Accepted
550~ = Enrolled

[094320]

..

[jcd178]

X asks his / her chances, X has good GPA but lower than 172 LSAT.

Unanimous TLS opinion #1: YHS is out.
Unanimous TLS opinion #2: Unless it is Nobel prize caliber, softs do not matter.

Paradox: HLS accepts ~220 people with lower than 170/171 LSAT score (25% percentile). Nobel prize is awarded in 6 categories, and except for peace, a maximum of 3 people can receive the award in a category in a year. (6*3 = 18) Assuming there are no people receiving Nobels during undergraduate and everyone applying to law school do so within 12 years of completing undergraduate, there are exactly (18*12 = 216) Nobel prize winners.

Which one of the following resolves the apparent paradox above?

a - The 25th percentile of HLS consists of every Nobel prize winner of the last 12 years.
b - TLS is wrong. (Somebody is wrong on the internet)
c - HLS is a lie. (So is cake)
d - Screenshots or it didn't happen.
e - None of the above.

Thanks!

(BEFORE A STORM OF AD HOMINEM, I DID NOT TAKE THE LSAT YET, HENCE I AM NOT THE X IN QUESTION)

Not sure this is an entirely accurate view of the TLS opinion either. I'm a 4.0/170/mediocre softs and I was told YHS should be my reaches, not that they were out.

[094320]

..

[BioEBear2010]

First off, yes, people on TLS don't know what they are talking about. One does not need Nobel Prize-level softs to get into HYS with those stats.

But nonetheless, your argument is critically flawed. You do some cute number crunching on Nobel prize data, but you explicitly state the following:
"

Unanimous TLS opinion #2: Unless it is Nobel prize caliber, softs do not matter.

.

"Nobel prize caliber" does not mean "only Nobel prize."

[98234872348]

I believe the typical advice given by TLS posters for folks with a 3.85+/172 is that HYS are unlikely but certainly worth the application fee.

I sincerely doubt any rational human would contest that advice.

[DoubleChecks]

yeah for the most part, TLS advice on YHS has been pretty decent/accurate

your examples and misrepresentations are so poorly done that...oh man, iunno what to say haha; everyone's already said it for me

[KibblesAndVick]

This is the LSN data for students with LSATs below 172 but GPAs above 3.9 (URMs excluded)

This is the LSN data for students with LSATs below 170 but GPAs above 3.9 (URMs excluded)

--ImageRemoved--
This is an image of some black students graduating college.

I think that should more or less cover it.

[094320]

..

[JollyGreenGiant]

Also, define "good" GPA. Harvard's median is 3.89. I have not seen that many people on here with 170~172 LSAT and 3.89+ GPA.

That would be me and I'm currently rotting on the Harvard WL. Oh well, that's life.. eh?

[calicocat]

You aren't as smart or clever as you think you are.

hi cc

hi km

[skoobily doobily]

OP: learn much you must, before time it is for LSAT

[kazu]

Also, define "good" GPA. Harvard's median is 3.89. I have not seen that many people on here with 170~172 LSAT and 3.89+ GPA.

That would be me and I'm currently rotting on the Harvard WL. Oh well, that's life.. eh?

Aww I'm sorry

[20160810]

SOMETIMES GENERAL TRENDS HAVE EXCEPTIONS I DARESAY

[AngryAvocado]

SOMETIMES GENERAL TRENDS HAVE EXCEPTIONS I DARESAY

Blasphemy!