Top Law Schools

The numbers don't appear to be published in LSAC's Admissions Index page. Do some schools not report their index to LSAC?

Not all schools use an index.

BU does not use an index anymore.

Fascinating. So how do they determine admissions? Is it a hard and fast rule, like nothing below x threshold?

Law 202x wrote:Fascinating. So how do they determine admissions? Is it a hard and fast rule, like nothing below x threshold?

I was waitlisted with a 156 and 2.69 GPA.... so I'd say no, but I was lucky.

KPUSN07 wrote: I was waitlisted with a 156 and 2.69 GPA.... so I'd say no, but I was lucky.

That's very interesting and I'm sure there's a deep explanation for that. I used the LSAC calculator, entered my GPA of 2.93 and put LSAT as 180 and my odds didn't crack 15%. So one would think a 2.69/156 would result in a categorical rejection.

Law 202x wrote:

KPUSN07 wrote:

Law 202x wrote:Fascinating. So how do they determine admissions? Is it a hard and fast rule, like nothing below x threshold?

I was waitlisted with a 156 and 2.69 GPA.... so I'd say no, but I was lucky.

That's very interesting and I'm sure there's a deep explanation for that. I used the LSAC calculator, entered my GPA of 2.93 and put LSAT as 180 and my odds didn't crack 15%. So one would think a 2.69/156 would result in a categorical rejection.

There's your mistake. LSAC applies an archaic formula to suggest a percentage of admission, which is laughable since they are the gatherers of admissions materials.

There's no deep explanation for statistical modeling. Law schools drive their admissions for certain medians in LSAT/GPA currently. LSAC's formula doesn't calculate that way because they're applying a generic formula across every school, which isn't easily done because schools are handling statistical control individually.

I didn't know that. I would have thought they had a more sophisticated method of establishing probabilities. I personally suspect BC and BU very closely mirror each other and so I could probably use thr BC formula and get highly accurate results. That's only a conjecture based off of studying the numbers for so long.

Law 202x wrote:I didn't know that. I would have thought they had a more sophisticated method of establishing probabilities. I personally suspect BC and BU very closely mirror each other and so I could probably use thr BC formula and get highly accurate results. That's only a conjecture based off of studying the numbers for so long.

They aren't responsible for giving you chances of admission with any amount of accuracy. And LSAC's calculation is trash generally, even within direct peers like BU and BC. If BU needs a higher LSAT to meet their median goals, they might take a median LSAT with a sub-par GPA thinking they'll definitely get that student, while BC might need a higher GPA in order to maintain their GPA median. This can get somewhat precise because admissions are dealing with ~1000-1500 admissions to manage ~230-250 students that will match their goal LSAT/GPA profile. Statistical smoothing will happen where there is bunching around BU and BC's LSAT/GPA median, but that doesn't accurately predict whether someone near one of those bunches while far from the other bunch should/can/will get in.

And that does nothing to account for URM admissions and other outliers.

UVA2B wrote:

Law 202x wrote:

KPUSN07 wrote:

Law 202x wrote:Fascinating. So how do they determine admissions? Is it a hard and fast rule, like nothing below x threshold?

I was waitlisted with a 156 and 2.69 GPA.... so I'd say no, but I was lucky.

That's very interesting and I'm sure there's a deep explanation for that. I used the LSAC calculator, entered my GPA of 2.93 and put LSAT as 180 and my odds didn't crack 15%. So one would think a 2.69/156 would result in a categorical rejection.

There's your mistake. LSAC applies an archaic formula to suggest a percentage of admission, which is laughable since they are the gatherers of admissions materials.

There's no deep explanation for statistical modeling. Law schools drive their admissions for certain medians in LSAT/GPA currently. LSAC's formula doesn't calculate that way because they're applying a generic formula across every school, which isn't easily done because schools are handling statistical control individually.

Although to the OP - I'd say I'm a bit of an anomaly and not the norm.... I'm active duty military with 10.5 years of WE and attended a difficult UG.... For comparison I was rejected from BC - so I was shocked when this WL came in.

Also, a waitlist isn't an acceptance. Getting waitlisted with those stats doesn't say anything about whether someone with different stats will get accepted - my impression is that a lot of schools will use the waitlist as a soft rejection for candidates who have great applications except their numbers.

A. Nony Mouse wrote:Also, a waitlist isn't an acceptance. Getting waitlisted with those stats doesn't say anything about whether someone with different stats will get accepted - my impression is that a lot of schools will use the waitlist as a soft rejection for candidates who have great applications except their numbers.

You're probably right in that respect - to an extent - obviously it's not cut and dry as folks do get accepted (I don't what the acceptance rate is off the WL at BU), but for the most part a WL with numbers similar to mine is likely a soft denial.

KPUSN07 wrote:

A. Nony Mouse wrote:Also, a waitlist isn't an acceptance. Getting waitlisted with those stats doesn't say anything about whether someone with different stats will get accepted - my impression is that a lot of schools will use the waitlist as a soft rejection for candidates who have great applications except their numbers.

You're probably right in that respect - to an extent - obviously it's not cut and dry as folks do get accepted (I don't what the acceptance rate is off the WL at BU), but for the most part a WL with numbers similar to mine is likely a soft denial.

Don't get me wrong, I appreciate that the school is saying they see something good in your application (I treasure my waitlist rather than outright rejection to one of my reach schools!). But in terms of assessing admissions chances I'd say at least it's too early to tell what your numbers add to the conversation.

A. Nony Mouse wrote:

KPUSN07 wrote:

A. Nony Mouse wrote:Also, a waitlist isn't an acceptance. Getting waitlisted with those stats doesn't say anything about whether someone with different stats will get accepted - my impression is that a lot of schools will use the waitlist as a soft rejection for candidates who have great applications except their numbers.

You're probably right in that respect - to an extent - obviously it's not cut and dry as folks do get accepted (I don't what the acceptance rate is off the WL at BU), but for the most part a WL with numbers similar to mine is likely a soft denial.

Don't get me wrong, I appreciate that the school is saying they see something good in your application (I treasure my waitlist rather than outright rejection to one of my reach schools!). But in terms of assessing admissions chances I'd say at least it's too early to tell what your numbers add to the conversation.

Absolutely!

Was trying to provide a tangential data point to the OP - is you look at LSN, I'm not sure if anyone has been admitted with these number this early in the cycle....