Top Law Schools

deleted

It's because the data aligns with how US News reports on schools... If the Law Schools really wanted to admit the most qualified students then one would would see a larger range...

Take someone who at 16 took two semesters of community college classes, was to immature to handle the freedom of college and stopped going to class around the halfway mark of each semester... 10 Fs on their lsac GPA...

Now say the same person went on to graduate from a highly ranked UG with a 4.0gpa

Add in those Fs and its around 3.1...

It's obvious that 4.0 is the real indication of their academic ability, and that coupled with a high lsat score would make them an attractive candidate for hys...

However this is not the case and hys would not admit that 3.1...

While this is not concrete proof, what other reason would schools have to completely ignore people in a situation like the one above?

However this is not the case and hys would not admit that 3.1...

and highly-ranked undergrad would not admit someone with all of those F's.

Read Anna Ivey's book. She explains it pretty well.

Big Dog wrote:However this is not the case and hys would not admit that 3.1...

and highly-ranked undergrad would not admit someone with all of those F's.

An extreme, outlandish case, yes, but it makes the right point.

Say you start off in college with a 2.0 freshman year taking easy classes, because you treated it like a joke and put zero effort in. Let's say you take harder classes, and get a 3.5 sophomore year, a 3.8 junior year, and then a 4 in senior year. (assume same credit hours each year)

Your cumulative is 3.325. So you don't get into Harvard, even though clearly that freshman year was an anomaly.

Big Dog wrote:However this is not the case and hys would not admit that 3.1...

and highly-ranked undergrad would not admit someone with all of those F's.

I said that Harvard would not admit that student... You just reiterated what I said.

And a highly-ranked undergrad did admit that student, btw

..

sublime wrote:

capt_slow wrote:

Big Dog wrote:However this is not the case and hys would not admit that 3.1...

and highly-ranked undergrad would not admit someone with all of those F's.

I said that Harvard would not admit that student... You just reiterated what I said.

And a highly-ranked undergrad did admit that student, btw

Undergrad is a ton more holistic.


To piggy back on the point about them caring too much about numbers - what is more impressive? An STEM 3.6 or a social sciences 3.75. TO USNWR only the number matters, not the major, classes, or school.

And you have certain schools who go as far as paying for certain medians for a bump in the rankings.

Not that anyone's complaining...ummm...yeah.

*coughs*

..

deleted

There's a talk on youtube by a UVA prof / former dean of admissions where he says all law schools obsess over USNEWS, and that deans get fired over large drops in the rankings. His statements are consistent with patterns we see on LSN and on the boards. Numbers aren't everything, but they are a lot.

capt_slow wrote:It's because the data aligns with how US News reports on schools... If the Law Schools really wanted to simply admit the most qualified students with the highest numbers then one would would see a larger.

Careful..."most qualified"? What evidence do you have that the law schools are NOT admitting what they believe to be the MOST QUALIFIED applicants?

Applicants with higher numbers are not necessarily "more qualified" than those with lower numbers. Grade inflation, disparities between majors and school in academic difficulty, hardships suffered during UG, grade trends, working during UG, institutional racial and gender bias, alternate demonstrations of aptitude for law, and other factors must be considered when evaluating applicants.

If numbers were everything Larry Bird would never have been drafted into the NBA, nor would many of the NFL's best quarterbacks have been drafted.

You and many others need to wrap your heads around the concept that people with lower grades and/or test scores can still make better law students and lawyers than many with higher numbers.

PDaddy wrote:

capt_slow wrote:It's because the data aligns with how US News reports on schools... If the Law Schools really wanted to simply admit the most qualified students with the highest numbers then one would would see a larger.

Careful..."most qualified"? What evidence do you have that the law schools are NOT admitting what they believe to be the MOST QUALIFIED applicants?

Applicants with higher numbers are not necessarily "more qualified" than those with lower numbers. Grade inflation, disparities between majors and school in academic difficulty, hardships suffered during UG, grade trends, working during UG, institutional racial and gender bias, alternate demonstrations of aptitude for law, and other factors must be considered when evaluating applicants.

If numbers were everything Larry Bird would never have been drafted into the NBA, nor would many of the NFL's best quarterbacks have been drafted. False Analogy fallacy.

You and many others need to wrap your heads around the concept that people with lower grades and/or test scores can still make better law students and lawyers than many with higher numbers.

I completely agree with PDaddy. True it is high numbers almost always indicate a strong candidate who will do well in law school. That said, we, incorrectly limit someones law school potential to a GPA and LSAT, and immediately discount their future success.

Travis12 wrote:

PDaddy wrote:

capt_slow wrote:It's because the data aligns with how US News reports on schools... If the Law Schools really wanted to simply admit the most qualified students with the highest numbers then one would would see a larger.

Careful..."most qualified"? What evidence do you have that the law schools are NOT admitting what they believe to be the MOST QUALIFIED applicants?

Applicants with higher numbers are not necessarily "more qualified" than those with lower numbers. Grade inflation, disparities between majors and school in academic difficulty, hardships suffered during UG, grade trends, working during UG, institutional racial and gender bias, alternate demonstrations of aptitude for law, and other factors must be considered when evaluating applicants.

If numbers were everything Larry Bird would never have been drafted into the NBA, nor would many of the NFL's best quarterbacks have been drafted. False Analogy fallacy.

You and many others need to wrap your heads around the concept that people with lower grades and/or test scores can still make better law students and lawyers than many with higher numbers.

I completely agree with PDaddy. True it is high numbers almost always indicate a strong candidate who will do well in law school. That said, we, incorrectly limit someones law school potential to a GPA and LSAT, and immediately discount their future success.

What do you mean by do well? I don't know anyone who flunked out. Plenty of people end up at median or below even with high grades and scores. Only people who haven't taken law school exams seek any correlation between LSAT and individual performance. The mandatory curve is a killer. The people who do well in law school are the ones that end up on the top end of the mandatory curve- nothing to do with LSAT scores.

NYstate wrote:

Travis12 wrote:

PDaddy wrote:

capt_slow wrote:It's because the data aligns with how US News reports on schools... If the Law Schools really wanted to simply admit the most qualified students with the highest numbers then one would would see a larger.

Careful..."most qualified"? What evidence do you have that the law schools are NOT admitting what they believe to be the MOST QUALIFIED applicants?

Applicants with higher numbers are not necessarily "more qualified" than those with lower numbers. Grade inflation, disparities between majors and school in academic difficulty, hardships suffered during UG, grade trends, working during UG, institutional racial and gender bias, alternate demonstrations of aptitude for law, and other factors must be considered when evaluating applicants.

If numbers were everything Larry Bird would never have been drafted into the NBA, nor would many of the NFL's best quarterbacks have been drafted. False Analogy fallacy.

You and many others need to wrap your heads around the concept that people with lower grades and/or test scores can still make better law students and lawyers than many with higher numbers.

I completely agree with PDaddy. True it is high numbers almost always indicate a strong candidate who will do well in law school. That said, we, incorrectly limit someones law school potential to a GPA and LSAT, and immediately discount their future success.

What do you mean by do well? I don't know anyone who flunked out. Plenty of people end up at median or below even with high grades and scores. Only people who haven't taken law school exams seek any correlation between LSAT and individual performance. The mandatory curve is a killer. The people who do well in law school are the ones that end up on the top end of the mandatory curve- nothing to do with LSAT scores.

Sorry for the ambiguity. By "do well" I meant be successful in law school, i.e at or above Median, successful networking, successfully planning and adapting plans for post graduation etc. Also maybe I misunderstood your last statement, but I was not inferring that an LSAT score was a sure bearing for doing well in law school.

It is a tool that more accurately can asses likelihood of financial prosperity than anything else available.

I don't necessarily agree with some people's idea that you are a miserable failure for having a 3.2 and a 165 and should not go to law school. However, I do agree that most people shouldn't feel comfortable for giving out contrary advice.

I feel comfortable where I am because of my background, support from family, network connections etc. Without a million and one questions and some faith that the person answering is honest and able to accurately assess themselves, using the ranking information is all there really is.

Even Harvard and Stanford care significantly about the rankings. Yale is so firmly entrenched it doesn't matter.

I'm sure H dropping to 3 was not a happy day in the Admissions office. Coincidentally we have seen them become even less holistic as a simple search of this years' LSN reveals.

deleted

gottago wrote:so yea they care but why does TLS treat the GPA median the same as the LSAT median. I've seen a few threads where being .01 below a school's median has TLSers expressing doubts of someone's chances, and they cite the fact that the OP is .01 below as the reason why. Not always .01, but just a few hundredths.

Maybe this kind of thing matters to schools struggling to stay afloat but do you guys really think a place like NYU makes admissions decisions based on whether an applicant has a 3.71 or a 3.69, and if he has a 3.69 he's gone?

Yes. Assuming that his/her LSAT was also below median, that is.

deleted

gottago wrote:

Cicero76 wrote:

gottago wrote:so yea they care but why does TLS treat the GPA median the same as the LSAT median. I've seen a few threads where being .01 below a school's median has TLSers expressing doubts of someone's chances, and they cite the fact that the OP is .01 below as the reason why. Not always .01, but just a few hundredths.

Maybe this kind of thing matters to schools struggling to stay afloat but do you guys really think a place like NYU makes admissions decisions based on whether an applicant has a 3.71 or a 3.69, and if he has a 3.69 he's gone?

Yes. Assuming that his/her LSAT was also below median, that is.

what substantiates this besides other TLS posts?

moreover, would NYU admit the 3.71 but not the 3.69 because the former is simply a stronger candidate academically and there are only so many spots to go around, or is it because they make all decisions with an eye toward their USNWR ranking?

It just sounds so absurd to read posts saying stuff like "your grad degree won't offset your 3.69 because they report their median gpa but not how many grad degree holders they have."

I don't have a stake in the matter in the examples I've made up, FWIW.

Someone please link LSN for proof

deleted

VS





.02 must matter so much as far as academic potential is concerned, eh? I mean, we don't have an actual quote from the admissions council but when you see such a staggering difference with a .02 change in GPA and sample size neutralizing any other differences, what else would explain such a ridiculous phenomenon?