George Mason LSAT floor Forum

[dreamflower]

Does George Mason have an LSAT floor? Looking on LSN, in the past 2 years it looks like most people with a 164 were accepted, but almost no one with a 163 or lower was accepted without a very high GPA. Anyone know?

[tennisking88]

Their median for 2011 was a 164. That means half the class had an LSAT below 164.

[Samara]

Does George Mason have an LSAT floor? Looking on LSN, in the past 2 years it looks like most people with a 164 were accepted, but almost no one with a 163 or lower was accepted without a very high GPA. Anyone know?

Sounds like you answered your own question.

[tennisking88]

I'm fairly certain that LSN is NOT representative of most schools' applicant pools.

[Samara]

I'm fairly certain that LSN is NOT representative of most schools' applicant pools.

How so?

[20130312]

I'm fairly certain that LSN is NOT representative of most schools' applicant pools.

How so?

Because thousands apply and only one or two hundred post on LSN?

[Samara]

I'm fairly certain that LSN is NOT representative of most schools' applicant pools.

How so?

Because thousands apply and only one or two hundred post on LSN?

But what reason do you have to believe that the acceptances aren't representative of your chances? That's what you're using it for.

[tennisking88]

I'm fairly certain that LSN is NOT representative of most schools' applicant pools.

How so?

Those posting their scores publicly tend to be quite confident with their scores. Second, if you look at an LSN graph of Cornell from 2010-2011 (http://cornell.lawschoolnumbers.com/stats/1011/), but also a ton of schools outside the top 10 I'd say, you'll see that the vast, vast majority of those admitted* on LSN had LSAT's higher than Cornell's actual median (167).

[20130312]

Perhaps students who are accepted are more likely to post than those who are rejected.

We could definitely make this a LR question. What's the assumption, future law students?

[tennisking88]

I'm fairly certain that LSN is NOT representative of most schools' applicant pools.

How so?

Because thousands apply and only one or two hundred post on LSN?

But what reason do you have to believe that the acceptances aren't representative of your chances? That's what you're using it for.

That's a different question. OP asked if there was a 164 floor based on LSN, not what his chances were.

[Davidbentley]

Their median for 2011 was a 164. That means half the class had an LSAT below 164.

No. That means at least half of the class had an lsat that was not higher than 164.

[tennisking88]

Their median for 2011 was a 164. That means half the class had an LSAT below 164.

No. That means at least half of the class had an lsat that was not higher than 164.

Right, sorry, 164 median means half the class had an lsat of 164 OR below.

[Samara]

Perhaps students who are accepted are more likely to post than those who are rejected.

We could definitely make this a LR question. What's the assumption, future law students?

I'm sure there are a lot of apps to schools (especially in the T14) from people with super low numbers and whatnot. But who cares if that is not represented in the graph? You only want to know who was accepted. If your numbers don't have a green spot over the past few cycles, I think you can assume with some confidence that your chances are pretty darn low. Lower-ranked schools tend to have less data, so it can be difficult to make too strong of an assumption, but it's still pretty useful.

[Samara]

I'm fairly certain that LSN is NOT representative of most schools' applicant pools.

How so?

Those posting their scores publicly tend to be quite confident with their scores. Second, if you look at an LSN graph of Cornell from 2010-2011 (http://cornell.lawschoolnumbers.com/stats/1011/), but also a ton of schools outside the top 10 I'd say, you'll see that the vast, vast majority of those admitted* on LSN had LSAT's higher than Cornell's actual median (167).

Obviously. Quite a few applicants apply to Cornell as a safety school, are admitted and then attend a higher ranked school. Medians are based on matriculants, not accepted applicants.

[tennisking88]

Perhaps students who are accepted are more likely to post than those who are rejected.

We could definitely make this a LR question. What's the assumption, future law students?

I'm sure there are a lot of apps to schools (especially in the T14) from people with super low numbers and whatnot. But who cares if that is not represented in the graph? You only want to know who was accepted. If your numbers don't have a green spot over the past few cycles, I think you can assume with some confidence that your chances are pretty darn low. Lower-ranked schools tend to have less data, so it can be difficult to make too strong of an assumption, but it's still pretty useful.

Same question: who cares if you have a graph showing the people above both medians got into a school? Why is that graph (which happens to be the vast majority of LSN graphs) any more necessary than the graphs that show ppl rejected with numbers below both medians?

[tennisking88]

Your original question was why LSN was not representative of most applicant pools. And it is presicely because we don't see the people that actually end up matriculating, just the people that show they are admitted. So the graphs tell you relatively little except for the fact that if you're above both medians, you have a great shot, and that if you're a splitter you have an OK shot. Do we really need graphs for this?

Edit: for example, if you look at the people that actually COMMITTED to going to Cornell (http://cornell.lawschoolnumbers.com/applicants/1011/), it's only 11 out of like 600 applicants that year. Also, even if you average the stats of those 11, it should bring you close to their 3.6/167 median than the actual LSN graph.

[Samara]

Perhaps students who are accepted are more likely to post than those who are rejected.

We could definitely make this a LR question. What's the assumption, future law students?

I'm sure there are a lot of apps to schools (especially in the T14) from people with super low numbers and whatnot. But who cares if that is not represented in the graph? You only want to know who was accepted. If your numbers don't have a green spot over the past few cycles, I think you can assume with some confidence that your chances are pretty darn low. Lower-ranked schools tend to have less data, so it can be difficult to make too strong of an assumption, but it's still pretty useful.

Same question: who cares if you have a graph showing the people above both medians got into a school? Why is that graph (which happens to be the vast majority of LSN graphs) any more necessary than the graphs that show ppl rejected with numbers below both medians?

wut? LSN gives you a (ostensibly) representative sample of admitted applicants. If your numbers aren't represented as admitted, assume they were rejected. You want a comprehensive sample of admitted students, but why would you care about a comprehensive sample of rejected students? I don't understand why you think LSN is a poor tool.

[Samara]

Your original question was why LSN was not representative of most applicant pools. And it is presicely because we don't see the people that actually end up matriculating, just the people that show they are admitted. So the graphs tell you relatively little except for the fact that if you're above both medians, you have a great shot, and that if you're a splitter you have an OK shot. Do we really need graphs for this?

Yes, because some schools are more splitter-friendly than others, which the graphs show. Different schools have different LSAT and GPA floors, which the graphs show. Matriculating is your choice, so they information you are looking for is whether or not you will be admitted. Why would you use LSN to get a profile of matriculants applications? What would be the point of that information?

[Samara]

Edit: for example, if you look at the people that actually COMMITTED to going to Cornell (http://cornell.lawschoolnumbers.com/applicants/1011/), it's only 11 out of like 600 applicants that year. Also, even if you average the stats of those 11, it should bring you close to their 3.6/167 median than the actual LSN graph.

Right. So how is it unrepresentative?

[tennisking88]

Edit: for example, if you look at the people that actually COMMITTED to going to Cornell (http://cornell.lawschoolnumbers.com/applicants/1011/), it's only 11 out of like 600 applicants that year. Also, even if you average the stats of those 11, it should bring you close to their 3.6/167 median than the actual LSN graph.

Right. So how is it unrepresentative?

Because Cornell has to accept people with lower numbers than the vast majority of those accepted on LSN, yet those numbers aren't shown on the graph. I think they're not shown on the graph because a) the sample is too small, and b) the people willing to show their numbers tend to be really confident in them, thus they are inflated.

[Samara]

Edit: for example, if you look at the people that actually COMMITTED to going to Cornell (http://cornell.lawschoolnumbers.com/applicants/1011/), it's only 11 out of like 600 applicants that year. Also, even if you average the stats of those 11, it should bring you close to their 3.6/167 median than the actual LSN graph.

Right. So how is it unrepresentative?

Because Cornell has to accept people with lower numbers than the vast majority of those accepted on LSN, yet those numbers aren't shown on the graph. I think they're not shown on the graph because a) the sample is too small, and b) the people willing to show their numbers tend to be really confident in them, thus they are inflated.

The LSN medians (assuming equalitylaw14 has good numbers) for Cornell last cycle are 3.69/168. The actual medians for Cornell last cycle are 3.68/168. That sounds pretty darn accurate to me.

[BiglawOrBust]

Edit: for example, if you look at the people that actually COMMITTED to going to Cornell (http://cornell.lawschoolnumbers.com/applicants/1011/), it's only 11 out of like 600 applicants that year. Also, even if you average the stats of those 11, it should bring you close to their 3.6/167 median than the actual LSN graph.

Right. So how is it unrepresentative?

Because Cornell has to accept people with lower numbers than the vast majority of those accepted on LSN, yet those numbers aren't shown on the graph. I think they're not shown on the graph because a) the sample is too small, and b) the people willing to show their numbers tend to be really confident in them, thus they are inflated.

The LSN medians (assuming equalitylaw14 has good numbers) for Cornell last cycle are 3.69/168. The actual medians for Cornell last cycle are 3.68/168. That sounds pretty darn accurate to me.

Good job. Now try that exercise with the other 186 ABA-approved US law schools.

[ggibelli]

http://www.top-law-schools.com/forums/v ... t#p4706589

that has a useful chart with GPA floors

[JDizzle2015]

The LSN medians (assuming equalitylaw14 has good numbers) for Cornell last cycle are 3.69/168. The actual medians for Cornell last cycle are 3.68/168. That sounds pretty darn accurate to me.

Is that LSN median for people who matriculated or for people who were accepted?

[Samara]

The LSN medians (assuming equalitylaw14 has good numbers) for Cornell last cycle are 3.69/168. The actual medians for Cornell last cycle are 3.68/168. That sounds pretty darn accurate to me.

Is that LSN median for people who matriculated or for people who were accepted?

That's the LSN median for matriculants. The acceptance medians would be much higher, obviously.