Top Law Schools

Somebody mentioned that people with lower numbers don't have LSN accounts, so law school admission number averages appear much higher than they actually are. Is that true?

Also, I have found our own TLS Stats http://www.top-law-schools.com/forums/stats.php more effective and accurate than Law School Numbers since TLS Stats is made up of all real users.

I would argue the following, based entirely on conjecture.

There are essentially two types of applicants right? The ones who obsess (i.e., many of us here) and the ones who take the process in stride. I wouldn't necessarily assume that either group is particularly representative of a specific portion of the GPA/LSAT curve.

Law School Numbers, while providing some insight into the invisible hand of admission, is therefore likely limited in accuracy. This is not to say extrapolation can't be useful. But drawing conclusions from the LSN data is probably a bad idea (or at least a mediocre one).

Don't worry about law school admission averages when you're looking at LSN, that is fruitless. You should just find several people on the site who have self reported to having your numbers from each year and see how they do at their schools. If you look at like 10-15 people with your stats and they're all getting into roughly the same schools and struggle with similar schools, then you know what to expect.

yeah, i wouldn't avg or pull stats as a whole from lsn. the representation varies so greatly depending on which school you pull up. just use it for your own purposes like looking at people with similiar numbers to see their status. it's no different than TLS really. just people sharing general info but nothing you can stake your life on.

B/c of this reason, I don't really use LSN for GPA/ LSAT comparisons, but more so for timing. I try to find someone in past cycles who went complete around the same time as me, and look to see when their decision was made in hopes for a little closure on this waiting; however, I'm way later evidently than most...people who applied same time/went compelte at the same time last cycle, found out in Jan. and I haven't heard a peep

It's decent for noticing some patterns, too: no one getting accepted with an LSAT below ###, or no one being accepted with a GPA below #.##. Sometimes those patterns become very apparent.

I think it is quite accurate for reflecting what numbers people with scholarships have. Also, it is accurate in pieces, like with individual users, but not accurate as a whole, like the average numbers at the top.

If you look at like 10-15 people with your stats and they're all getting into roughly the same schools and struggle with similar schools, then you know what to expect.

I try to find someone in past cycles who went complete around the same time as me, and look to see when their decision was made in hopes for a little closure on this waiting

Those are probably two of the most common ways to use LSN. It's a great tool and very informative, but certainly not the bible. That said, it's accurate enough that I'd feel comfortable at least making some basic predictions on a case-by-case basis.

I also use the graphs to get an idea of what their LSAT cutoff is. (Schools say they don't have one, but they fib.) If you look at G-town, you can see the Green dot line going all the way up on 170, and see a solid Red dot line for 166. If you're at 166, this is good to know, it might save you 92 bucks. If you're a nervous 170 then it's also good to know. That's a great feature as well. Look at several years worth of data too, (mostly the most recent cycle completed though obviously)

The Law School Numbers graphs are also great to show to people who don't understand the admissions process. When you show them the graph, I find a lot more people understand your prospects of attending certain school.

Law school numbers stats seem slightly upwardly-skewed to me. Check out these stats:

Michigan's 25-75 percentiles for 2006: 166-170
Michigan's LSN average accepted student numbers: 3.71/171.4, and attending: 3.58/169.4

For the LSAT at least, Law School Numbers stats seem to be slightly higher than the true average. I agree with the above posters: I've found it most helpful as a tool to find similar profiles to my own and see how they're doing.

But for the best accuracy, I have actually enjoyed our own TLS Stats: http://www.top-law-schools.com/forums/stats.php

I'm frustrated at some people on lawschoolnumbgers (LSN), and I want to vent...I don't mean to target anyone! I HATE it when URMs or Internationals (not sure if they get a break when applying) don't check that little "U" box but list their race on their profile...I get it if you don't want to disclose it (don't mention it anywhere)...but if you mention it on your profile, please mark the box. It's heartbreaking to me when I see someone with similar numbers (or slightly lower) without URM status, who have been accepted to one of my #1s, and I go to check out their profile to see the rest of their cycle, and BAM, I find out that they were URM and my hopes are shattered. I'm not hating on URMs, that's not what this is for, but if you list it on your profile, please check the box so that it comes up on a school's main search page. *sigh* Sorry, I'm moody...

^

this is equally annoying for URMs who want to see how all the other ones did too

Law School Numbers is likely less accurate than TLS Stats http://www.top-law-schools.com/forums/stats.php. For on Law School Numbers I have heard that there are several made up profiles whereas on TLS Stats almost all of those posting have a large number of posts on the forum and have been TLS members for a long time, so a lower risk of fraud. But overall, using Law School Numbers and TLS Stats will provide good predictive capabilities.

arich24 wrote:I'm frustrated at some people on LSN, and I want to vent...I don't mean to target anyone! I HATE it when URMs or Internationals (not sure if they get a break when applying) don't check that little "U" box but list their race on their profile...I get it if you don't want to disclose it (don't mention it anywhere)...but if you mention it on your profile, please mark the box. It's heartbreaking to me when I see someone with similar numbers (or slightly lower) without URM status, who have been accepted to one of my #1s, and I go to check out their profile to see the rest of their cycle, and BAM, I find out that they were URM and my hopes are shattered. I'm not hating on URMs, that's not what this is for, but if you list it on your profile, please check the box so that it comes up on a school's main search page. *sigh* Sorry, I'm moody...

people don't seem to update their status at all. Everything's been pending for the past couple of years. One more thing: does lawschoolnumbers actually give you your index number per school? Do they even know what the index formula is?

bakemono wrote:people don't seem to update their status at all. Everything's been pending for the past couple of years. One more thing: does lawschoolnumbers actually give you your index number per school? Do they even know what the index formula is?

Some schools, although they have a published index, do not rely on any statistical cutoff points.

I would wager that LSN/TLS are not representative of the general applicant pool. People obsessive enough to participate/register on these sites are likely type A personalities that probably have a meticulously polished resume, a professionally-edited PS, intelligent application strategies, etc.

I'm going to say that its inaccurate for people with lower numbers, and I mean this for everyone, not just the URMs.

If we look at Duke for last year http://duke.lawschoolnumbers.com/stats/0708/ , it appears that no one got in with under a 165.

But if we look at this official LSAC data http://officialguide.lsac.org/SearchRes ... AC5156.pdf over 100 people got in with under a 165. So everything on there should be taken with a grain of salt.

(Duke is 2nd highest rank school with this chart, w/ Yale being the highest)

i AGREE WITH WHAT EVERYONE SAID.

conn09 wrote:I'm going to say that its inaccurate for people with lower numbers, and I mean this for everyone, not just the URMs.

If we look at Duke for last year http://duke.lawschoolnumbers.com/stats/0708/ , it appears that no one got in with under a 165.

But if we look at this official LSAC data http://officialguide.lsac.org/SearchRes ... AC5156.pdf over 100 people got in with under a 165. So everything on there should be taken with a grain of salt.

(Duke is 2nd highest rank school with this chart, w/ Yale being the highest)

Good set of data, but I think you drew the wrong conclusion. I think that data provides a lot of evidence that LSN is actually quite accurate.

According to that data, 100 people were admitted with an LSAT under 165, but this was out of 1550 total admissions.

Thats a 14:1 ratio. 14 admits 165 and up, for every admit under 165.

If you look at the LSN chart, I would say that is exactly what it is showing.

Dwaterman86 wrote:

conn09 wrote:I'm going to say that its inaccurate for people with lower numbers, and I mean this for everyone, not just the URMs.

If we look at Duke for last year http://duke.lawschoolnumbers.com/stats/0708/ , it appears that no one got in with under a 165.

But if we look at this official LSAC data http://officialguide.lsac.org/SearchRes ... AC5156.pdf over 100 people got in with under a 165. So everything on there should be taken with a grain of salt.

(Duke is 2nd highest rank school with this chart, w/ Yale being the highest)

Good set of data, but I think you drew the wrong conclusion. I think that data provides a lot of evidence that LSN is actually quite accurate.

According to that data, 100 people were admitted with an LSAT under 165, but this was out of 1550 total admissions.

Thats a 14:1 ratio. 14 admits 165 and up, for every admit under 165.

If you look at the LSN chart, I would say that is exactly what it is showing.

Yeah, but the general consensus here and places like that has typically been that you need at least a high 160 to even have any kind of shot to get into a school like that. And that the only people who get into those schools with numbers under are URM.

conn09 wrote:

Dwaterman86 wrote:

conn09 wrote:I'm going to say that its inaccurate for people with lower numbers, and I mean this for everyone, not just the URMs.

If we look at Duke for last year http://duke.lawschoolnumbers.com/stats/0708/ , it appears that no one got in with under a 165.

But if we look at this official LSAC data http://officialguide.lsac.org/SearchRes ... AC5156.pdf over 100 people got in with under a 165. So everything on there should be taken with a grain of salt.

(Duke is 2nd highest rank school with this chart, w/ Yale being the highest)

Good set of data, but I think you drew the wrong conclusion. I think that data provides a lot of evidence that LSN is actually quite accurate.

According to that data, 100 people were admitted with an LSAT under 165, but this was out of 1550 total admissions.

Thats a 14:1 ratio. 14 admits 165 and up, for every admit under 165.

If you look at the LSN chart, I would say that is exactly what it is showing.

Yeah, but the general consensus here and places like that has typically been that you need at least a high 160 to even have any kind of shot to get into a school like that. And that the only people who get into those schools with numbers under are URM.

Yeah so, appears to be true I would say.

Dwaterman86 wrote:

conn09 wrote:

Dwaterman86 wrote:

conn09 wrote:I'm going to say that its inaccurate for people with lower numbers, and I mean this for everyone, not just the URMs.

If we look at Duke for last year http://duke.lawschoolnumbers.com/stats/0708/ , it appears that no one got in with under a 165.

But if we look at this official LSAC data http://officialguide.lsac.org/SearchRes ... AC5156.pdf over 100 people got in with under a 165. So everything on there should be taken with a grain of salt.

(Duke is 2nd highest rank school with this chart, w/ Yale being the highest)

Good set of data, but I think you drew the wrong conclusion. I think that data provides a lot of evidence that LSN is actually quite accurate.

According to that data, 100 people were admitted with an LSAT under 165, but this was out of 1550 total admissions.

Thats a 14:1 ratio. 14 admits 165 and up, for every admit under 165.

If you look at the LSN chart, I would say that is exactly what it is showing.

Yeah, but the general consensus here and places like that has typically been that you need at least a high 160 to even have any kind of shot to get into a school like that. And that the only people who get into those schools with numbers under are URM.

Yeah so, appears to be true I would say.

So you are aware that the LSN graph has a disproportionate number of people in the 75th percentile, which skew the selectivity of Duke higher than what it actually is?

I don't see that. 5 people under 165 admitted. That means about 70 over 165 should be in, looks like thats what it is.