Reverse-Splitter Friendly Schools

[BLawSchoolZ]

Are there any reverse-splitter friendly T-14 schools, ED'ing to which may help-- i.e. 167 LSAT, but with a 4.0 GPA?

[decimalsanddollars]

Highly recommend NOT doing a binding early decision application to any school. You'd be leaving money on the table.

https://mylsn.info/36qiez/

The MyLSN output linked above shows that you have a fighting chance at Chicago, NYU, Berkeley, UVA, Duke, and NW, and a very good chance at Cornell on down (with the exception of WUSTL). If you're looking to maximize your chance of getting a worthwhile offer, I'd apply to at least these schools---and perhaps just blanket the t14 plus any t20 schools you'd actually consider attending.

[The Lsat Airbender]

Agree with the above. You're barely a reverse splitter. If you were a 163/4.0, and somehow had no way of improving that 163, then it might make sense to take an ED gamble in order to get the outcome of sticker at a T14. But with 167/4.0 you can do a lot better than sticker at a T14.

You especially don't need to ED because, as an RD applicant, you're close to a stone-cold lock for Cornell.

[Splitting_Headache]

Those stats would make you competitive RD at all the T14 minus HYS (and probably Columbia too which is very picky on LSAT), but you could certainly justify applying to those schools as well for big reaches. You're in the running for scholarship money as well RD at the rest of the T14, but money and options could be limited if you ED. With a 167, even the reverse-splitter-unfriendly schools will take you in the T14. Blanket the T14 RD and you should get in somewhere with some money.

[laanngo]

Isn't USC known for taking reverse splitters?

[BobLoblaw18]

delete

[bob311]

There is no such thing as a reverse splitter - just someone who needs to take the Lsat again.

[laanngo]

There is no such thing as a reverse splitter - just someone who needs to take the Lsat again.

That's a hopeful maxim, but some people are serially poor standardized test takers. I think anxiety tends to be much higher when you can't predict the content of the exam. Also, there are majors/courses with major grade inflation, such as ethnic studies and theology.

[cavalier1138]

There is no such thing as a reverse splitter - just someone who needs to take the Lsat again.

That's a hopeful maxim, but some people are serially poor standardized test takers. I think anxiety tends to be much higher when you can't predict the content of the exam. Also, there are majors/courses with major grade inflation, such as ethnic studies and theology.

Most people assume that [major-I-didn't-study-and-therefore-is-worthless] has severe grade inflation. It's almost never true.

And the LSAT is a learnable test. Put bluntly: You can't get a high undergrad GPA with test-taking anxiety. So although there will always be literal "reverse-splitters," the basic premise is true. Your LSAT is malleable; your undergrad GPA is not.

[The Lsat Airbender]

There is no such thing as a reverse splitter - just someone who needs to take the Lsat again.

That's a hopeful maxim, but some people are serially poor standardized test takers. I think anxiety tends to be much higher when you can't predict the content of the exam. Also, there are majors/courses with major grade inflation, such as ethnic studies and theology.

The content of the LSAT is extremely predictable, though. They've made like 100 versions of basically the same exam over the years.

[laanngo]

Most people assume that [major-I-didn't-study-and-therefore-is-worthless] has severe grade inflation. It's almost never true.

There are degrees for which there is close to no market value, in which case severe grade inflation wouldn't skew anyone's hiring. With hundreds of degree granting institutions over the country and some fraction of students being personable, some students probably squeaked by without much brains or work ethic

And the LSAT is a learnable test. Put bluntly: You can't get a high undergrad GPA with test-taking anxiety. So although there will always be literal "reverse-splitters," the basic premise is true. Your LSAT is malleable; your undergrad GPA is not.

The content of the LSAT is extremely predictable, though. They've made like 100 versions of basically the same exam over the years.

Anxiety affects standardized examination more than classroom tests because there's much less predictability. Yes, you can learn or get better at predicting how to do the LSAT, but if someone is slow enough (gpa overestimates their brain) it might take several years while working full time. Would you really recommend someone retake/reapply for 3 cycles to raise a 171 to 174?

[The Lsat Airbender]

Would you really recommend someone retake/reapply for 3 cycles to raise a 171 to 174?

In some cases, yeah, that could make sense. More to the point, I would definitely recommend someone retake to improve from 167 to 170 if their goals require going to a T14 and they can't afford a huge debt load. It's a question of weighing the marginal value.

[cavalier1138]

There are degrees for which there is close to no market value, in which case severe grade inflation wouldn't skew anyone's hiring. With hundreds of degree granting institutions over the country and some fraction of students being personable, some students probably squeaked by without much brains or work ethic

You're right. I've never seen a white econ major from a rich family "squeak by without much brains or work ethic."

Would you really recommend someone retake/reapply for 3 cycles to raise a 171 to 174?

Probably not, unless they absolutely needed HYS (and no one does, so again, probably not). But I would absolutely recommend retaking to raise a 167 to a 170. At that point range, the difference in outcomes and scholarships is substantial.

[laanngo]

In some cases, yeah, that could make sense. More to the point, I would definitely recommend someone retake to improve from 167 to 170 if their goals require going to a T14 and they can't afford a huge debt load. It's a question of weighing the marginal value.

1 cycle and it's a good consideration. 3?

You're right. I've never seen a white econ major from a rich family "squeak by without much brains or work ethic."

I know that was meant as a joke, but you've also proven my point.

Probably not, unless they absolutely needed HYS (and no one does, so again, probably not). But I would absolutely recommend retaking to raise a 167 to a 170. At that point range, the difference in outcomes and scholarships is substantial.

I agree that retaking for 167⇨170 is a good idea, but not sure about 3 cycles. Even then, wouldn't a 170/4.0 to HYS be a slight reverse splitter?

There is no such thing as a reverse splitter - just someone who needs to take the Lsat again.

is, as I said, a pleasant outlook to have, but not a conclusive litmus test. You're wrong @cavalier that retaking for a higher score should always overtake just taking the best offer you can already get.

[cavalier1138]

You're wrong @cavalier that retaking for a higher score should always overtake just taking the best offer you can already get.

And you base that on... what? Your extensive experience of not having gone to law school?

[laanngo]

You're wrong @cavalier that retaking for a higher score should always overtake just taking the best offer you can already get.

And you base that on... what? Your extensive experience of not having gone to law school?

Some people experience a score plateau significantly below what their gpa might suggest.

[nixy]

Why are you asking about a 171 retaking? They're not in the same position as a 167.

It's probably true that some people do plateau. But others probably decide a temporary plateau is an absolute cap rather than taking every possible step to climb above it. You're the only one who can decide whether the outcomes open to you with the score you have are the outcomes that you want, and how much more time you want to take to overcome the plateau. Not sure why you're fixated on three cycles b/c there's no reason to assume that's how long it would take you to improve.

In any case, if you have plateau'd, you still have a lot of great options, so I agree that EDing doesn't make sense and you don't need to be worrying about reverse-splitter friendly schools.

[laanngo]

Why are you asking about a 171 retaking? They're not in the same position as a 167.

It's probably true that some people do plateau. But others probably decide a temporary plateau is an absolute cap rather than taking every possible step to climb above it. You're the only one who can decide whether the outcomes open to you with the score you have are the outcomes that you want, and how much more time you want to take to overcome the plateau. Not sure why you're fixated on three cycles b/c there's no reason to assume that's how long it would take you to improve.

In any case, if you have plateau'd, you still have a lot of great options, so I agree that EDing doesn't make sense and you don't need to be worrying about reverse-splitter friendly schools.

Plataeued doesn't describe my situation lol those are just examples I gave

[nixy]

so then I'm confused what you're actually asking and why you're bringing up these examples?

[cavalier1138]

so then I'm confused what you're actually asking and why you're bringing up these examples?

I am equally confused. If you aren't describing yourself, then what's the point of creating a series of hypothetical students that plateau at whatever level they need to in order for your arguments to be true?

Also, I again have to question your basis for making this assertion.

Some people experience a score plateau significantly below what their gpa might suggest.

Once you hit around 167, you're already in the 95th percentile, so scores in that range aren't "significantly below" what even a student with a 3.9-4.0 GPA could be expected to hit (assuming that their undergrad GPA would be an adequate predictor of that).

[laanngo]

Once you hit around 167, you're already in the 95th percentile, so scores in that range aren't "significantly below" what even a student with a 3.9-4.0 GPA could be expected to hit (assuming that their undergrad GPA would be an adequate predictor of that).

If Yale mysteriously takes the best students, wouldn't a 167 (95 percentile) be significantly below 180 (99 percentile)? I don't think 180>167 is the best reason to choose one candidate over another, but who do you think they would prefer?

[nixy]

Once you hit around 167, you're already in the 95th percentile, so scores in that range aren't "significantly below" what even a student with a 3.9-4.0 GPA could be expected to hit (assuming that their undergrad GPA would be an adequate predictor of that).

If Yale mysteriously takes the best students, wouldn't a 167 (95 percentile) be significantly below 180 (99 percentile)? I don't think 180>167 is the best reason to choose one candidate over another, but who do you think they would prefer?

You seem to keep asking for clear-cut rules when there aren't any. All else being equal, of course every school will take the 180 over the 167. But all else is rarely equal. If you have someone with a 4.0 and a 180, and someone with a 4.0 and 167, sure, the 180 will win out. But if you have a 4.0/167 and a 3.5/180, maybe the 4.0 will win out. A 3.5/180 K-JD who hasn't done anything besides go to school, has gone to a no-name school, writes a meh PS, and has meh LORs may not look as good as a 4.0/167 who has impressive post-grad work experience, went to a fancy undergrad, writes a great PS, and has LORs swearing they're the best thing since sliced bread. Or it may be that a given school has managed to get a tons of students with high LSAT scores to commit, but not a lot of high GPAs, and wants the 4.0/167 for that reason (or vice versa - their LSAT numbers are shakier than their GPAs so the 180 is more valuable to them). Or maybe you're right and all schools will take the 180 before the 167, but that doesn't mean someone with a 167 isn't going to have good options.

Yale also stands alone in that it's more holistic than other schools, and significant achievement in other areas can make up for raw numbers. Elizabeth Wurtzel wrote Prozac Nation when she was 27 and made a name for herself as a writer. She later got into Yale with a 160 LSAT because of her writing achievements (she probably had a decent undergrad GPA, too).

Now, chances are you're not Elizabeth Wurtzel and you won't get into Yale with a 160, and this is all overwhelmingly a numbers game. But I'm still confused about why you're asking about these things and why you're fixated on Yale. FWIW, 95th percentile still isn't "significantly below" the 99th percentile. A 167 is obviously lower than a 180, but cav's point (I think) was that because it's the 95th percentile, there's no yawning chasm between that score and what a top GPA could be expected to score. If your GPA is 4.0 and your LSAT is, say, 159, which is the 77th percentile, sure, there's a difference, but I'd say the vast number of 4.0s can improve from that score.

But this is all kind of confusing b/c you're talking about various hypothetical students but then none of them actually represent your situation? You don't have to share your own stats but without them it's awfully hard to know what you're asking about.