Top Law Schools

Hi TLS, I was wondering why Columbia's and NYU's average GPAs for acceptance are so comparatively low (to similarly ranked LS) when they are ranked #4 and #6, and neither seems to be more comparatively selective with regards to LSAT either? Their respective average GPAs are 3.70 and 3.71, when the remainder of the top 8 have average GPAs of 3.86 or higher. I understand that GPA isn't everything that goes into these rankings, but 3.70 vs. 3.86 seems like a HUGE spread. Does anyone know why (why perhaps neither school is not more selective considering that they're probably entitled to be through their ranking, or why neither is lower ranked because of this?)? What's the catch?

My apologies if this question has been asked before, I tried searching/googling and came up with nothing that explained why. Thanks in advance!

CLS and NYU both tend to emphasize the LSAT over GPA: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc ... XZnc#gid=0. CLS, for example, has a 169-171-173 split whereas Penn has a 165-169-171 split.

Chicago actually used to be the same way before the Ruby era. Not sure why the deans choose to do it this way though.

Is this a case where the medians/splits don't tell the whole story? Or am I just underestimating the power of the LSAT?

I see that the 25th percentile is significantly higher than surrounding schools for Columbia/NYU, but the 50th and 75th percentiles seem more or less in line with what I would expect as you go down the rankings, granted Columbia's 50/75% are 1 pt higher than Chicago's. So is this really a case where (on average), 1 point on the LSAT can make up a 0.2 difference in GPA (compared to Chicago)? Not trying to be rhetorical, I'm just surprised (I didn't think the split would be this drastic) and want to make sure I get this clear!

also larger class sizes.

High LSAT and high GPA goes to HLS (or Y or S).

Just not enough high number pairs to go around.

...

LSAC GPA's should be normalized to a 180 curve to make for easier statistical observations.

if LSAC released percentiles for GPAs, that would be cool.

Hipster but Athletic wrote:LSAC GPA's should be normalized to a 180 curve to make for easier statistical observations.

Yeah, it's kind of apples and oranges. We have a sense of how many students apply with a 170 each year, but who knows how many applicants have a 3.6? A few extra points on the LSAT narrows the pool in a predictable way, same can't be said for GPA.

sodomojo wrote:Is this a case where the medians/splits don't tell the whole story? Or am I just underestimating the power of the LSAT?

I see that the 25th percentile is significantly higher than surrounding schools for Columbia/NYU, but the 50th and 75th percentiles seem more or less in line with what I would expect as you go down the rankings, granted Columbia's 50/75% are 1 pt higher than Chicago's. So is this really a case where (on average), 1 point on the LSAT can make up a 0.2 difference in GPA (compared to Chicago)? Not trying to be rhetorical, I'm just surprised (I didn't think the split would be this drastic) and want to make sure I get this clear!

One point on the LSAT vs. 0.2 in GPA seems a bit extreme, but there are so many factors involved; it's not a simple analysis. As someone pointed out, the class sizes at NYU and CLS are large, so they have to move further down the bell curve of applicants. But you could easily look at these numbers in a different way that would swing things completely in the opposite direction.
75% of Chicago's class has an LSAT score of at least 167, whereas 75% of Columbia has at least a 170. Measure that against GPAs -
75% of Chicago's class has a GPA of at least 3.65, wheras 75% of Columbia has a GPA of at least 3.58. (This is using the numbers on LSNumbers, and only for illustrative purposes.) So how does the 3 point LSAT vs. 0.07 GPA comparison look?
Lastly, remember that GPAs are more subjective, so it's easier for schools to get students with higher GPAs if that's what they want. For example, you could a favor student with a 3.85 in sports management from Southwestern North Carolina State over a student with a 3.78 in physics from MIT. Hopefully, I'm not offending any loyal Longleaf Pines of SWNCS in assuming that the kid from MIT has the more impressive academic record, but could be overlooked if a school wants to boost their GPA numbers.

Because they're sacrificing GPA for LSAT and they ARE comparatively more selective than a lot of other schools when it comes to that. There really are only 3 schools who can maintain a 173 median and GPA median over 3.85, and one of them chooses not to. If Columbia tried to raise their GPA medians, their LSAT median would inevitably drop like Chicago.

When you look at NYU vs Penn for example you'll see that Penn is only 1 LSAT point lower in their median, but their GPA is significantly higher. However, Penn's LSAT range is much bigger than NYUs (165-169-171 vs 168-170-172). Basically this tells you NYU is much more selective on LSAT even though their median is only 1 point higher, and to do this they need to care less about GPA. Hell, even on GPA, Penn dips lower than NYU.

For some weird reason CLS and NYU care about their 25ths and 75ths more than other schools. Those two are the rare ones where you have a chance to get in if you're just below both medians. NYU also continues to admit a massive class while other T-14s, like CLS, are cutting class size.