Post
by pricon » Thu Oct 05, 2017 5:11 pm
coolestkidever wrote:cavalier1138 wrote:jstanhope14 wrote:cavalier1138 wrote:jstanhope14 wrote:The point is that the weaker/dumber your peers, the better you can expect to perform. If you're going to be a median student at HYS then obviously you're going to clean up at a T1 school. It's insane that TLS never acknowledges this.
It's more insane when people don't understand how medians work.
Elaborate?
The group of students at the median for HYS (to the extent that those schools even have a median) is immense compared to regional law schools. At most regional schools, you can probably expect as many people to be below the median as above it, but at a lot of the top schools, many more people are above the median than below it. For example:
Group A
10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 (median: 50)
Group B
10 50 50 50 50 50 80 90 90 100 (median: 50)
So while someone being admitted to HYS would be practically guaranteed to be a median student there, that doesn't mean that they would automatically outperform everyone at a lower-ranked school. An applicant's performance in law school can't be predicted based on where else they were admitted.
Group A's median is 55.
But really, is there enough data out there to support that top schools create more median students than lower ranked schools? And which are these top schools (only HYS)? If no data and just logic, I don't see how one can reach this conclusion -- why would one assume that students at top schools have less variance in their LS exam answers than those at lower schools?
Suppose there are some regional schools that do not have the same medians as HYS.
