Top Law Schools

Is it just me or are a lot more schools (Hastings.. UVA.. Penn) splitter friendly this year?

I imagine this could be explained by the new LSAT reporting requirement proposed by the ABA. Since only the highest LSAT score is reported students are more inclined to retake the test. This may cause the true score distribution to be skewed left making the reported normal distribution inaccurate. Since schools realize this and are very conscious of USNEWs rankings they will play it safe by padding their 25-75% marks with the highest of these higher LSAT applicants.

Agree? Disagree? Discuss...

bump

I would be pleased if this were in fact true.

Well, the clear effect of the multiple-LSAT policy is to increase the average LSAT score among applicants. This is a win-win as schools get to raise their LSAT medians (even though relative to their competition nothing changes, and applicants can retake without fear.)

I don't really see what this has to do with splitter-friendliness.

Just to stir the pot: I am a 3.30/171 and I have no doubt that someone with a 3.80/165 is a superior applicant. Splitter-friendliness is insane IMO.

it's hard to say. i'm an lsat splitter and have had good luck this cycle, but maybe part of it depends on how different the two scores are, why you took it more than once, etc. bottom line, though, if you think you can do substantially better on the lsat, re-take it so that you don't feel like you presented anything less than your best during the admissions process. if you've already re-taken it, you're in good company and i don't think it precludes you from being admitted anywhere.

DerrickRose wrote:
Just to stir the pot: I am a 3.30/171 and I have no doubt that someone with a 3.80/165 is a superior applicant. Splitter-friendliness is insane IMO.

I also have no doubt that that a 3.8/165 is a good applicant... however due to the devaluing of LSAT scores and the unchanged USNEWs ranking formulas a school which chooses the 165 applicant will be risking a drop in its rankings if its peer schools choose to game the system and accept the higher LSAT scores. I'm sure someone can express this more clearly in terms of game-theory .

Just to clear things up... my argument of course assumes USNEWs won't change its ranking formulas to accommodate for the supposed shift in LSAT scores.

DerrickRose wrote:Well, the clear effect of the multiple-LSAT policy is to increase the average LSAT score among applicants. This is a win-win as schools get to raise their LSAT medians (even though relative to their competition nothing changes, and applicants can retake without fear.)

I don't really see what this has to do with splitter-friendliness.

Just to stir the pot: I am a 3.30/171 and I have no doubt that someone with a 3.80/165 is a superior applicant. Splitter-friendliness is insane IMO.

I think your GPA is only really a useful number in the context of your major and class. At my UG, you could work your ass off, graduate at the median, get a 60k+bonus job, and still have under a 3.0. Meanwhile, in some places you can not go to class and still pull above a 3.0. At least the LSAT is graded the same for everybody.

I do agree that it's sad that there is so much difference between statistically-insignificant numbers like 166 and 167. The solution, I think, is to deemphasize the idea of having a composite metric, and look at the whole application. If I were trying to put together a great law-school class, a 3.5/167 poly-sci with no work-experience would be on shaky ground. Decent GPA, decent LSAT, meh everything else. A 3.0/173 engineering with WE and good recs would be golden. Clearly, they're smart, and are certainly capable of working pretty hard. So too would a 4.0/164 econ. And a 3.3/165 business major who founded a high-tech startup.

rayiner wrote:
I do agree that it's sad that there is so much difference between statistically-insignificant numbers like 166 and 167. The solution, I think, is to deemphasize the idea of having a composite metric, and look at the whole application. If I were trying to put together a great law-school class, a 3.5/167 poly-sci with no work-experience would be on shaky ground. Decent GPA, decent LSAT, meh everything else. A 3.0/173 engineering with WE and good recs would be golden. Clearly, they're smart, and are certainly capable of working pretty hard. So too would a 4.0/164 econ. And a 3.3/165 business major who founded a high-tech startup.

If the USNEWs rankings weren't so important most schools would probably agree with you.

NoamChomsky wrote:

rayiner wrote:
I do agree that it's sad that there is so much difference between statistically-insignificant numbers like 166 and 167. The solution, I think, is to deemphasize the idea of having a composite metric, and look at the whole application. If I were trying to put together a great law-school class, a 3.5/167 poly-sci with no work-experience would be on shaky ground. Decent GPA, decent LSAT, meh everything else. A 3.0/173 engineering with WE and good recs would be golden. Clearly, they're smart, and are certainly capable of working pretty hard. So too would a 4.0/164 econ. And a 3.3/165 business major who founded a high-tech startup.

If the USNEWs rankings weren't so important most schools would probably agree with you.

How is it going with you and Irvine?

Jwatson wrote:

NoamChomsky wrote:

rayiner wrote:
I do agree that it's sad that there is so much difference between statistically-insignificant numbers like 166 and 167. The solution, I think, is to deemphasize the idea of having a composite metric, and look at the whole application. If I were trying to put together a great law-school class, a 3.5/167 poly-sci with no work-experience would be on shaky ground. Decent GPA, decent LSAT, meh everything else. A 3.0/173 engineering with WE and good recs would be golden. Clearly, they're smart, and are certainly capable of working pretty hard. So too would a 4.0/164 econ. And a 3.3/165 business major who founded a high-tech startup.

If the USNEWs rankings weren't so important most schools would probably agree with you.

How is it going with you and Irvine?

Sigh... no reply. Still hopeful though.