Reverse-Splitter Friendly Schools
Posted: Tue Jun 23, 2020 3:03 pm
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?
Law School Discussion Forums
https://www.top-law-schools.com/forums/
https://www.top-law-schools.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=306271
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.laanngo wrote: ↑Thu Jul 23, 2020 8:43 pmThat'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 wrote: ↑Thu Jul 23, 2020 8:43 pmThat'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.
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 ethiccavalier1138 wrote: ↑Fri Jul 24, 2020 6:27 amMost people assume that [major-I-didn't-study-and-therefore-is-worthless] has severe grade inflation. It's almost never true.
cavalier1138 wrote: ↑Fri Jul 24, 2020 6:27 amAnd 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.
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 wrote: ↑Fri Jul 24, 2020 10:36 amThe content of the LSAT is extremely predictable, though. They've made like 100 versions of basically the same exam over the years.
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.
You're right. I've never seen a white econ major from a rich family "squeak by without much brains or work ethic."laanngo wrote: ↑Fri Jul 24, 2020 2:17 pmThere 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
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.
1 cycle and it's a good consideration. 3?The Lsat Airbender wrote: ↑Fri Jul 24, 2020 2:55 pmIn 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.
I know that was meant as a joke, but you've also proven my point.cavalier1138 wrote: ↑Fri Jul 24, 2020 3:05 pmYou're right. I've never seen a white econ major from a rich family "squeak by without much brains or work ethic."
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?cavalier1138 wrote: ↑Fri Jul 24, 2020 3:05 pmProbably 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.
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.
Some people experience a score plateau significantly below what their gpa might suggest.cavalier1138 wrote: ↑Fri Jul 24, 2020 8:14 pmAnd you base that on... what? Your extensive experience of not having gone to law school?
Plataeued doesn't describe my situation lol those are just examples I gavenixy wrote: ↑Fri Jul 24, 2020 10:14 pmWhy 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.
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?
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?cavalier1138 wrote: ↑Sat Jul 25, 2020 7:03 amOnce 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).
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.laanngo wrote: ↑Sat Jul 25, 2020 4:02 pmIf 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?cavalier1138 wrote: ↑Sat Jul 25, 2020 7:03 amOnce 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).