Top Law Schools

In this instance, it seems like LSN doesn't really give the whole picture. The site makes it seem like you have no chance at Chicago, for example, if you have lower than a 168 (the 25th percentile). Well, with 200 students matriculating each year - 50 students have a 168 or lower. I don't think the majority of these students are URM (there are only 37 AA students in the whole school) so I think there is a good number of students who are admitted - despite having a decent LSAT score.

What do you think? LSN makes it seem like a 170 is even risky. yet 25% are at a 167 or lower; how would you explain the discrepancy?

uchi15hopeful wrote:In this instance, it seems like LSN doesn't really give the whole picture. The site makes it seem like you have no chance at Chicago, for example, if you have lower than a 168 (the 25th percentile). Well, with 200 students matriculating each year - 50 students have a 167 or lower. I don't think the majority of these students are URM (there are only 37 AA students in the whole school) so I think there is a good number of students who are admitted - despite having a decent LSAT score.

What do you think? LSN makes it seem like a 170 is even risky. yet 25% are at a 167 or lower; how would you explain the discrepancy?

URM encompasses more than AA's.

There are only 2 Native American students and 60 Latino American students. My impression was that only AA males get huge boosts, according to other TLS posters.

Regardless, what about 20 of the 50 are URM's, 10 are really special cases (Rhodes Scholars, etc.) and 20 are between 166-168? Would that help to explain the bottom quartile?

uchi15hopeful wrote:There are only 2 Native American students and 60 Latino American students. My impression was that only AA males get huge boosts, according to other TLS posters.

Regardless, what about 20 of the 50 are URM's, 10 are really special cases (Rhodes Scholars, etc.) and 20 are between 166-168? Would that help to explain the bottom quartile?

How did you come by your numbers? I'm curious.

To answer your question, the top schools don't necessarily have "floors" but it's really not useful to go around thinking you are going to be the special snowflake. I mean Chicago accepted someone with a 154.

Also, there aren't 37 AA's in the whole school. That's just for the class of 2010-2011 (see: --LinkRemoved--). I'm not sure if that's what you meant.

ETA: I meant class of 2013 (2010-2011 applicants).

Yeah, those are the stats for the entire student body, not just for one class:

Total J.D. Student Body 2009-10 593
Men 55% Women 45%
African American (37) 6%
Asian American (68) 12%
Latino/a (60) 10%
American Indian (2) 1%

uchi15hopeful wrote:There are only 2 Native American students and 60 Latino American students. My impression was that only AA males get huge boosts, according to other TLS posters.

Regardless, what about 20 of the 50 are URM's, 10 are really special cases (Rhodes Scholars, etc.) and 20 are between 166-168? Would that help to explain the bottom quartile?

The 25th percentile will be made up almost entirely of URMs, "special cases" of people with truly amazing softs, legacies / friends of the dean, and very high GPA reverse splitters, probably right below the LSAT cutoff.

As for the proportions, no one knows. You clearly pulled those numbers out of your ass.

uchi15hopeful wrote:In this instance, it seems like LSN doesn't really give the whole picture. The site makes it seem like you have no chance at Chicago, for example, if you have lower than a 168 (the 25th percentile). Well, with 200 students matriculating each year - 50 students have a 168 or lower. I don't think the majority of these students are URM (there are only 37 AA students in the whole school) so I think there is a good number of students who are admitted - despite having a decent LSAT score.

What do you think? LSN makes it seem like a 170 is even risky. yet 25% are at a 167 or lower; how would you explain the discrepancy?

Statistics fail. the 25th percentile is 168, which means 25% have a 168 or lower, not 167. It is entirely possible for there to be a whole lot of 168s, making up the entire bottom quartile.

And yeah, AAs are not the only URMs. Also, UChi has a lower LSAT than Columbia and NYU (I think). Also, UChi has a small enough class they are able to pick out applicants based more on softs, less on numbers. They are more similar to Y and S in that sense, and less like H Columbia and NYU.

My opinion is that Chicago is a lot harder to get into than NYU and marginally more difficult to get into than Columbia. FWIW

uchi15hopeful wrote:Yeah, those are the stats for the entire student body, not just for one class:

Total J.D. Student Body 2009-10 593
Men 55% Women 45%
African American (37) 6%
Asian American (68) 12%
Latino/a (60) 10%
American Indian (2) 1%

You're right, it's for the whole class. It just seemed interesting that there'd be 37 AA's among the entire student body.

I wrote 168 in one place and 167 in the other, I did confuse it for a moment. Yeah, I've never taken any statistics courses so I'm doing my best!

I know the numbers were pulled out of thin air, I was just trying to work out a possible explanation for the bottom 50.

My sense is almost all of them are A) URM B) Some special soft that I don't have C) Right at the 168 that might make them no different from the 40th percentile.

duckmoney wrote:The 25th percentile will be made up almost entirely of URMs, "special cases" of people with truly amazing softs, legacies / friends of the dean, and very high GPA reverse splitters, probably right below the LSAT cutoff.

As for the proportions, no one knows. You clearly pulled those numbers out of your ass.

A friend of mine got in to one of CCN with an LSAT score 1 point below the 25th percentile and a GPA significantly below the median (but above the 25th percentile).

He has a PhD, but in all other respects he is an average, non-URM candidate.

.

duckmoney wrote:The 25th percentile will be made up almost entirely of URMs, "special cases" of people with truly amazing softs, legacies / friends of the dean, and very high GPA reverse splitters, probably right below the LSAT cutoff.

All of these people are underrepresented on LSN. That explains the discrepancy.

To me, it just seems like you have to treat the 25th percentile as the LSAT floor. It just seems like it would be difficult for someone, who doesn't have incredible softs (which that PhD might count as one), to get in without a competitive score; I think you need that score to be in the conversation.

As for me, with my 3.88, I think I start having a shot at about a 168. Definitely not a good one, but I am at least on a waitlist - if everything else looks good. And I'd say a 172, the median, makes me a lock. It's always difficult to speak with certainty, that's just how I see it.

Blessedassurance wrote:

uchi15hopeful wrote:Yeah, those are the stats for the entire student body, not just for one class:

Total J.D. Student Body 2009-10 593
Men 55% Women 45%
African American (37) 6%
Asian American (68) 12%
Latino/a (60) 10%
American Indian (2) 1%

You're right, it's for the whole class. It just seemed interesting that there'd be 37 AA's among the entire student body.

You are on the right track. I have been telling people for a while now that there is a significant number of white and non-AA students with lower scores who still manage admission into elite schools.

The numbers suggest that if a white or non-AA student with lower numbers seeks admission, he/she needs to write great essays, have strong LOR's, have a challenging UG curriculum and/or be a splitter, have clear direction, have good softs, and APPLY EARLY. The message is that it CAN be done, and is frequently done every year. Those other students come from a different demographic, and it's clearly a group that most TLSers believe don't get significant boosts.

I seriously doubt the adcoms at any elite school would reject a truly exceptional candidate whose LSAT score was "solid" but not spactacular. That would be hurtful to the school and the other students in the class, so LSAT be damned in that situation. Besides, anyone who scores above a 150 has the ability to do solid law school work at any school, and the schools have 80% identical curricula.

PDaddy wrote:

Blessedassurance wrote:

uchi15hopeful wrote:Yeah, those are the stats for the entire student body, not just for one class:

Total J.D. Student Body 2009-10 593
Men 55% Women 45%
African American (37) 6%
Asian American (68) 12%
Latino/a (60) 10%
American Indian (2) 1%

You're right, it's for the whole class. It just seemed interesting that there'd be 37 AA's among the entire student body.

You are on the right track. I have been telling people for a while now that there is a significant number of white and non-AA students with lower scores who still manage admission into elite schools.

The numbers suggest that if a white or non-AA student with lower numbers seeks admission, he/she needs to write great essays, have strong LOR's, have a challenging UG curriculum and/or be a splitter, have clear direction, have good softs, and APPLY EARLY. The message is that it CAN be done, and is frequently done every year. Those other students come from a different demographic, and it's clearly a group that most TLSers believe don't get significant boosts.

I seriously doubt the adcoms at any elite school would reject a truly exceptional candidate whose LSAT score was "solid" but not spactacular. That would be hurtful to the school and the other students in the class, so LSAT be damned in that situation. Besides, anyone who scores above a 150 has the ability to do solid law school work at any school, and the schools have 80% identical curricula.

They also need to be willing to ride a WL. Many "lesser" (strictly by numbers) candidates get in off the WLs early to mid-summer when the elite schools are filling their classes.

uchi15hopeful wrote:To me, it just seems like you have to treat the 25th percentile as the LSAT floor. It just seems like it would be difficult for someone, who doesn't have incredible softs (which that PhD might count as one), to get in without a competitive score; I think you need that score to be in the conversation.

As for me, with my 3.88, I think I start having a shot at about a 168. Definitely not a good one, but I am at least on a waitlist - if everything else looks good. And I'd say a 172, the median, makes me a lock. It's always difficult to speak with certainty, that's just how I see it.

I will say that this is how it worked out for me last year. I had a 169 and a very high GPA (better than 3.88). I got into Chicago (25th = 168) and NYU (25th = 169) and WL'd at Columbia (25th = 170).

In general, don't get your hopes up about a school if you're below the 25th percentile. It's certainly possible to get in - a quarter of the class is at or below the 25th percentile - but chances are, they have something going for them that you don't.

That is certainly true, good post.