Law School Discussion Forums
https://www.top-law-schools.com/forums/
https://www.top-law-schools.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=173426
Sounds like you answered your own question.dreamflower wrote: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?
How so?tennisking88 wrote:I'm fairly certain that LSN is NOT representative of most schools' applicant pools.
Because thousands apply and only one or two hundred post on LSN?Samara wrote:How so?tennisking88 wrote:I'm fairly certain that LSN is NOT representative of most schools' applicant pools.
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.InGoodFaith wrote:Because thousands apply and only one or two hundred post on LSN?Samara wrote:How so?tennisking88 wrote:I'm fairly certain that LSN is NOT representative of most schools' applicant pools.
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).Samara wrote:How so?tennisking88 wrote:I'm fairly certain that LSN is NOT representative of most schools' applicant pools.
That's a different question. OP asked if there was a 164 floor based on LSN, not what his chances were.Samara wrote: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.InGoodFaith wrote:Because thousands apply and only one or two hundred post on LSN?Samara wrote:How so?tennisking88 wrote:I'm fairly certain that LSN is NOT representative of most schools' applicant pools.
No. That means at least half of the class had an lsat that was not higher than 164.tennisking88 wrote:Their median for 2011 was a 164. That means half the class had an LSAT below 164.
Right, sorry, 164 median means half the class had an lsat of 164 OR below.Davidbentley wrote:No. That means at least half of the class had an lsat that was not higher than 164.tennisking88 wrote:Their median for 2011 was a 164. That means half the class had an LSAT below 164.
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.InGoodFaith wrote: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?
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 wrote: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).Samara wrote:How so?tennisking88 wrote:I'm fairly certain that LSN is NOT representative of most schools' applicant pools.
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?Samara wrote: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.InGoodFaith wrote: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?
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.tennisking88 wrote: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?Samara wrote: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.InGoodFaith wrote: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?
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?tennisking88 wrote: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?
Right. So how is it unrepresentative?tennisking88 wrote: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.
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 wrote:Right. So how is it unrepresentative?tennisking88 wrote: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.
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.tennisking88 wrote: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 wrote:Right. So how is it unrepresentative?tennisking88 wrote: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.
Good job. Now try that exercise with the other 186 ABA-approved US law schools.Samara wrote: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.tennisking88 wrote: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 wrote:Right. So how is it unrepresentative?tennisking88 wrote: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.
Is that LSN median for people who matriculated or for people who were accepted?Samara wrote: 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.
That's the LSN median for matriculants. The acceptance medians would be much higher, obviously.JDizzle2015 wrote:Is that LSN median for people who matriculated or for people who were accepted?Samara wrote: 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.