Mean LSAT by UG College Forum

[goodolgil]

Read this http://www.theamericanscholar.org/the-d ... education/

Do you honestly think the reason that top schools have high LSATs is because of "academic rigor"? It's because the kids who go to those schools are smart.

[HelperMonkey]

Read this http://www.theamericanscholar.org/the-d ... education/

Do you honestly think the reason that top schools have high LSATs is because of "academic rigor"? It's because the kids who go to those schools are smart.

Um... that's the point. GPA at these places, especially in the sciences is therefore infinitely more valuable based upon what it takes in order to stay even moderately high.

[crackberry]

Yeah I guess I just thought "hilarious" was the wrong word. Anyway, I don't find it at all shocking that the top UG schools score the highest on the LSAT. Those kids generally speaking come from rich, well educated backgrounds. They are highly motivated and have highly motivated parents. Success breeds success.

[HelperMonkey]

Yeah I guess I just thought "hilarious" was the wrong word. Anyway, I don't find it at all shocking that the top UG schools score the highest on the LSAT. Those kids generally speaking come from rich, well educated backgrounds. They are highly motivated and have highly motivated parents. Success breeds success.

Not to mention the many studies showing that intelligence is genetic.

[goodolgil]

I don't get why you don't understand this. Just because a) smart kids go to top schools and b) kids from top schools have high LSATs does not mean that c) it is harder to get a good GPA at top schools

[HelperMonkey]

I don't get why you don't understand this. Just because a) smart kids go to top schools and b) kids from top schools have high LSATs does not mean that c) it is harder to get a good GPA at top schools

So let's take one of my classes from a school on that list I quoted:
10% As
30% Bs
45% Cs
15% Ds/Fs

This was required by the chemistry department. Now... let's say you filled that room with 22 ACT kids (average state kid) and one kid with a 35 ACT score and the intelligence to back it up. Well obviously we know who is the curve setter.

Now let's also place 35 ACT kids into that class, and shove in some URMs with 30s and 29s. All of them scored >750s on their SAT math, 36s on their ACT math etc....

Now how will you decide who will be in that 10% As? You will have to chop them up into unreasonable bits and create valuation based not upon intelligence but upon tricking the intelligent into making errors due to lack of shear time memorizing, the desire to not placate themselves to professors, etc.

This isn't necessary in the 22 ACT room, because basically any person who actually opens the book and remembers a few words a chapter is already ahead of the curve.

However, what schools do in the chemistry room with the high scorers who already know most of the subject, they overload you with work, force you to memorize almost every word the professor says (and I mean memorize word-for-word at times) and also, simply shift people who get a single question below into sharp tiers (say you scored a 95 and the next guy scored a 96... he will have an A- and you a B).

Just how it works.
They also looooove to introduce things that weren't even taught in the course of the term during final exams... (Math at my undergrad was famous for doing this).

[goodolgil]

I already excluded classes with curves from my point before, so your post is irrelevant. Most classes don't have curves.

Anyway, I wasn't actually taking a position on this issue. I was mostly pointing out that the evidence used for your (implied) conclusion is insufficient. Probably been studying too much LSAT. It probably is harder to get a high GPA at an elite school, but your original post in this thread provided no evidence of that.

[crackberry]

Yeah I guess I just thought "hilarious" was the wrong word. Anyway, I don't find it at all shocking that the top UG schools score the highest on the LSAT. Those kids generally speaking come from rich, well educated backgrounds. They are highly motivated and have highly motivated parents. Success breeds success.

Not to mention the many studies showing that intelligence is genetic.

Right, which is why coming from a well educated background gives one a leg up. If your parents have higher degrees, you are more likely to succeed in school. Obviously there are exceptions to this, but this, I believe, is the rule.

[superflush]

This is hilarious, though not surprising.

Yeah wait, why is this hilarious.

+1

[HelperMonkey]

I already excluded classes with curves from my point before, so your post is irrelevant. Most classes don't have curves.

Anyway, I wasn't actually taking a position on this issue. I was mostly pointing out that the evidence used for your (implied) conclusion is insufficient. Probably been studying too much LSAT. It probably is harder to get a high GPA at an elite school, but your original post in this thread provided no evidence of that.

My school forced me to take like 8 classes with curves like the above (a full year's worth)... if I took a humanities major.

[lawlover829]

UVA and WM averages of lsat are 160. the thread needs to be updated.

[RVP11]

I already excluded classes with curves from my point before, so your post is irrelevant. Most classes don't have curves.

Anyway, I wasn't actually taking a position on this issue. I was mostly pointing out that the evidence used for your (implied) conclusion is insufficient. Probably been studying too much LSAT. It probably is harder to get a high GPA at an elite school, but your original post in this thread provided no evidence of that.

My school forced me to take like 8 classes with curves like the above (a full year's worth)... if I took a humanities major.

Most humanities majors at top schools are not fighting that tough of a curve. Median/mean GPA at a lot of Ivies is something like 3.5 - for majors like English or sociology, it might even be higher. A higher mean LSAT at a school does not necessarily indicate academic rigor vis a vis a lower mean LSAT (it's probably tougher to get As at Georgia Tech than at Brown, for instance). This is why adcomms look at mean LSAT and mean GPA in concert.

[kbo026]

.

[phila86]

Does anyone know the averages for Temple, Northeastern, Drexel and Howard are?

[somewhatwayward]

it is disingenuous to claim that average LSAT score of a school doesn't say anything about the competitiveness of the classes at the school. 50% of the grades given at harvard are B+ or better, but you still have to be in that top 50% against much stiffer competition (or 30% for an A- or 10% for an A...or whatever it is).

[superflush]

Does anyone know the averages for Temple, Northeastern, Drexel and Howard are?

no, but if you went to any of those schools, you could let us know

[Hattori Hanzo]

I Have a question: I too am one of only 2 people who score above the 90percentile ( I think the average at my ug is a low 140. How does it look to admissions? Will they see that I overcame my stupid peers or that my gps is inflated?
Thanks

How does that show you overcame your peers? It might show you overcame the educational deficiencies of the institution though.

[castanea]

x

[BoomBoom1986]

Interesting

[samsonyte16]

Yes but,

Average GPA at GTech: 3.07
Average GPA at Brown: 3.6-ish

Average LSAT at GTech: 159
Average LSAT at Brown: 163

GTech's average GPA is actually a bit on the high side for state schools. Most average somewhere around 2.9. Also, GTech is a technical school, so there is a good chance that the most intellectually talented students take the LSAT in lower numbers than at Brown.

So, are four tenths of a GPA point less than or more than equivalent to four LSAT points? I don't think anybody can say for sure. That is why the system is the way it is: undergrad quality doesn't count for much and the LSAT is everything. If someone from a top school really is that much more talented than their peers at lower ranked schools, then they will outscore them and get into a top school, regardless of their undergrad GPA. The system isn't perfectly fair, but it is probably superior to the alternative -- heavily weighing school quality and effectively shutting out people who didn't go to top undergrads.

[bahama]

That says nothing about whether a GPA means more from a top school.

You're right. The innate ability to score on average in the top 92% on the LSAT represents nothing about the rigor and intelligence or competitiveness of the student body.

A lot of those top ranked schools listed above have a more generous curve where 3.5 or 3.6 is median, which arguably accounts for the stronger academic credentials of the student body. Is a 3.6 (middle of the class) from one of those schools indicative of better performance than a 3.6 (top 10% of the class) at a slightly lower ranked school with a tough curve?

Harvard has about a 3.5 median and MIT is about 3.2. This has a lot more to do with differences in grading than in the abilities of the students.

[movieguru873]

Rhodes College- average LSAT 156

[mcdad]

We haven't discussed distribution curves for the LSAT. At my daughter's college the mean was 160, but half of the people were in the top four groups on the LSAT report with a long taper downward. First four groups were something like: 15% - 12% - 11% - 11%. This is not a normal distribution. I would be willing to bet that this is probably very common.

[lawhawk]

Yes but,

Average GPA at GTech: 3.07
Average GPA at Brown: 3.6-ish

Average LSAT at GTech: 159
Average LSAT at Brown: 163

GTech's average GPA is actually a bit on the high side for state schools. Most average somewhere around 2.9. Also, GTech is a technical school, so there is a good chance that the most intellectually talented students take the LSAT in lower numbers than at Brown.

So, are four tenths of a GPA point less than or more than equivalent to four LSAT points? I don't think anybody can say for sure. That is why the system is the way it is: undergrad quality doesn't count for much and the LSAT is everything. If someone from a top school really is that much more talented than their peers at lower ranked schools, then they will outscore them and get into a top school, regardless of their undergrad GPA. The system isn't perfectly fair, but it is probably superior to the alternative -- heavily weighing school quality and effectively shutting out people who didn't go to top undergrads.

Exactly. Those schools with higher LSATs get higher GPAs and those with lower LSATs get lower GPAs. It's actually really simple.

Sorry Monkey, your argument holds no water. It was not tougher for you (except maybe in the chem dept) to earn an A than any of the rest of us.

[friedoreos]

wow really... i cant believe im above it. all my (3) friends who took it did way better than me. this makes me feel worse about my low gpa