A bit paradoxical? Forum

[LexLeon]

I was wondering something like this just yesterday: How many of 99th percentile scorers have a 3.9 or above?

My intuition says that the top 1% of takers has many more 3.9's or above than any other 1%, but I really cannot say this with any certainty.

Does anyone know where I can find such a stat?

[shntn]

I was wondering something like this just yesterday: How many of 99th percentile scorers have a 3.9 or above?

My intuition says that the top 1% of takers has many more 3.9's or above than any other 1%, but I really cannot say this with any certainty.

Does anyone know where I can find such a stat?

--LinkRemoved--

This might help, though it doesn't offer the level of detail you're after. And I can only get it as a cached copy, so it looks horrible and the columns are all misaligned. But have at it anyway. Page two has the comparison of highest LSAT to GPA range. All we can tell from it, though, is that 363 of the 768 people who applied in the 2010-2011 cycle with a highest LSAT score of 175-180 had a GPA of 3.75+.

For 2010 as well: --LinkRemoved--

[bernaldiaz]

I was wondering something like this just yesterday: How many of 99th percentile scorers have a 3.9 or above?

My intuition says that the top 1% of takers has many more 3.9's or above than any other 1%, but I really cannot say this with any certainty.

Does anyone know where I can find such a stat?

I saw somewhere the percentile for GPA distribution. Like 15% of applicants had above a 3.9. I think that it's probably about 15% of 173+ that have a 3.9. Even if you double that, so say 30%, that leaves like 400 people in the country at most who are 3.9+ and 173+.

[shntn]

I was wondering something like this just yesterday: How many of 99th percentile scorers have a 3.9 or above?

My intuition says that the top 1% of takers has many more 3.9's or above than any other 1%, but I really cannot say this with any certainty.

Does anyone know where I can find such a stat?

I saw somewhere the percentile for GPA distribution. Like 15% of applicants had above a 3.9. I think that it's probably about 15% of 173+ that have a 3.9. Even if you double that, so say 30%, that leaves like 400 people in the country at most who are 3.9+ and 173+.

Per the links I posted above (directly from LSAC), ~14.5% of all applicants in the '10-'11 cycle had a 3.75 or above. Which means that less than ~14.5% of all applicants had a 3.9 or above. Which, of course, means that over 85% of all law school applicants, in any LSAT range, are lazy bums who just don't give no fuck. Kids these days!

[Icculus]

my gpa isn't great because when I was 18-21 i gave zero fucks. people grow up.

This. Plus I tend do well in general on standardized tests. In undergrad I also figured I could BS my way to a B and essentially hang out and party all the time, never once though of the long term implications of that.

[lawschool2014hopeful]

I was wondering something like this just yesterday: How many of 99th percentile scorers have a 3.9 or above?

My intuition says that the top 1% of takers has many more 3.9's or above than any other 1%, but I really cannot say this with any certainty.

Does anyone know where I can find such a stat?

I saw somewhere the percentile for GPA distribution. Like 15% of applicants had above a 3.9. I think that it's probably about 15% of 173+ that have a 3.9. Even if you double that, so say 30%, that leaves like 400 people in the country at most who are 3.9+ and 173+.

Per the links I posted above (directly from LSAC), ~14.5% of all applicants in the '10-'11 cycle had a 3.75 or above. Which means that less than ~14.5% of all applicants had a 3.9 or above. Which, of course, means that over 85% of all law school applicants, in any LSAT range, are lazy bums who just don't give no fuck. Kids these days!

Not really the point here, anyways, I put edit 3 to clarify what I was trying to accomplish here.

[shntn]

Edit 3:
Not intended to say people are stupid/incapable/immature because of low GPA, just wondering WHAT made you get the DRIVE to get a 170, from a mindset of just floating by. The reason I am asking is because I had a terrible GPA first year, then I realized I can do better, and the so called social scene you can miss for 3 years and come back to it, it will be still exactly the same. I am just basically curious what made YOU change, or what you think that made people change.

Ahhh, but you still insist on keeping that silly premise of equating a GPA lower than 3.9 as "just floating by".

Let's just say, hypothetically, that there was a kid who had too much fun freshman fall of college, pulling in a whopping 3.1 cumulative GPA for the semester. Let's say that this kid, from that point on, busted his ass nonstop for the next 3.5 years, having seen what resulted when he neglected his studies. This kid sounds kind of like what you just described yourself as being like in college, right?

Now, let's assume that this hypothetical kid was attending a top-five, Ivy League school, and, hell, let's go one further and assume that his major departments weren't known for their generosity with the A's. This kid, who worked himself (literally) to the point of nearly being hospitalized while pursuing a demanding program at one of the most demanding schools in the nation, did not graduate with a 3.9+.

This is the part where your "floating by" assumption becomes this interesting mix of laughable and maddeningly offensive. I would argue that, with the possible exception of that first semester of college, this kid never lacked "the DRIVE" whose origins you seem so intent on pinpointing. It's not like some switch was flipped after graduation that made him start giving two shits about his education and career prospects. He gave way more than two shits all along, but he opted for a more rigorous, yet intellectually rewarding, undergraduate experience over one that might have offered up A's more freely but that would have left him unchallenged and understimulated (read: miserable). And don't for a second think that law schools aren't aware of this trade-off; I guarantee that a 4.0 in Perfect Attendance from Bumfuck College counts for a hell of a lot less than this kid's 3.whatever in Blah, Blah, and Blah (with minors in Yadda Yadda and Etc. Etc.) from Generic Top School.

And, yes, this is me I'm talking about here. I had less than a 3.9, always had this "DRIVE", and don't consider myself to have "floated by". I think that answers all your questions.

[manofjustice]

Actually there is a slight best fit inverse correlation between LSAT and UGPA. I remember seeing that in one of the LSAC studies.

[cc.celina]

Calm down people. He's not saying anyone with a low GPA didn't try. TLS is full of people who willingly admit that they didn't try as hard as they could have in UG, and yet work their asses off to get 180s. He's asking about those people, not the ones who took harder classes and got lower GPAs because of it.

[lawschool2014hopeful]

Edit 3:
Not intended to say people are stupid/incapable/immature because of low GPA, just wondering WHAT made you get the DRIVE to get a 170, from a mindset of just floating by. The reason I am asking is because I had a terrible GPA first year, then I realized I can do better, and the so called social scene you can miss for 3 years and come back to it, it will be still exactly the same. I am just basically curious what made YOU change, or what you think that made people change.

Ahhh, but you still insist on keeping that silly premise of equating a GPA lower than 3.9 as "just floating by".

Let's just say, hypothetically, that there was a kid who had too much fun freshman fall of college, pulling in a whopping 3.1 cumulative GPA for the semester. Let's say that this kid, from that point on, busted his ass nonstop for the next 3.5 years, having seen what resulted when he neglected his studies. This kid sounds kind of like what you just described yourself as being like in college, right?

Now, let's assume that this hypothetical kid was attending a top-five, Ivy League school, and, hell, let's go one further and assume that his major departments weren't known for their generosity with the A's. This kid, who worked himself (literally) to the point of nearly being hospitalized while pursuing a demanding program at one of the most demanding schools in the nation, did not graduate with a 3.9+.

This is the part where your "floating by" assumption becomes this interesting mix of laughable and maddeningly offensive. I would argue that, with the possible exception of that first semester of college, this kid never lacked "the DRIVE" whose origins you seem so intent on pinpointing. It's not like some switch was flipped after graduation that made him start giving two shits about his education and career prospects. He gave way more than two shits all along, but he opted for a more rigorous, yet intellectually rewarding, undergraduate experience over one that might have offered up A's more freely but that would have left him unchallenged and understimulated (read: miserable). And don't for a second think that law schools aren't aware of this trade-off; I guarantee that a 4.0 in Perfect Attendance from Bumfuck College counts for a hell of a lot less than this kid's 3.whatever in Blah, Blah, and Blah (with minors in Yadda Yadda and Etc. Etc.) from Generic Top School.

And, yes, this is me I'm talking about here. I had less than a 3.9, always had this "DRIVE", and don't consider myself to have "floated by". I think that answers all your questions.

Sorry if I offended you in anyway, and yes your description is pretty accurate.

And again, from MY EXPERIENCES (albeit a huge margin of error), getting an A in MOST departments/schools is not an overtly challenging feat. Exceptions exist, I understand, e.g., your case. But again, I am trying find out people whom are not in the so called exceptional cases.

And as for your last argument, whether your major/institution matter much, as much I like to say yes, it really doesnt. Sure all things given equal communication major 3.5 vs quantum mechanics 3.5, you will take a quantum mechanics. However a 3.7 basketweaving > 3.5 nuclear physics.

[lawschool2014hopeful]

Calm down people. He's not saying anyone with a low GPA didn't try. TLS is full of people who willingly admit that they didn't try as hard as they could have in UG, and yet work their asses off to get 180s. He's asking about those people, not the ones who took harder classes and got lower GPAs because of it.

<3

[shntn]

Calm down people. He's not saying anyone with a low GPA didn't try. TLS is full of people who willingly admit that they didn't try as hard as they could have in UG, and yet work their asses off to get 180s. He's asking about those people, not the ones who took harder classes and got lower GPAs because of it.

Now, see, that's a nice, clarified version of the original question. It is possible.

[blsingindisguise]

Having dealt with a lot of incredulity at my crap GPA + effortless 170 LSAT (only 1pt above my first practice test), I've come to think that a lot of people who are natural students just literally cannot understand how someone smart could do badly in school. Because if you're the kind of smart person who just has good habits, takes for granted that you should do well in school and puts in minimal effort, you'll do well. I think that people like the OP may not realize that there are smart people out there who are self-destructive, depressive, disorganized, etc. in ways that actually can lead to low GPAs. No matter how easy a paper is, you can't get a good grade on it if you never turn it in. You can't do well on an exam you sleep through. Etc.

But yeah, I turned all that around later in life and did well in LS with reasonable but not excruciating effort.

[shntn]

Sorry if I offended you in anyway, and yes your description is pretty accurate.

And again, from MY EXPERIENCES (albeit a huge margin of error), getting an A in MOST departments/schools is not an overtly challenging feat. Exceptions exist, I understand, e.g., your case. But again, I am trying find out people whom are not in the so called exceptional cases.

And as for your last argument, whether your major/institution matter much, as much I like to say yes, it really doesnt. Sure all things given equal communication major 3.5 vs quantum mechanics 3.5, you will take a quantum mechanics. However a 3.7 basketweaving > 3.5 nuclear physics.

Okay, good, I just wasn't sure if you realized that the "just floating by" situation was far from universal. I'm sure there are tons of places where a decent amount of effort will yield A's more often than not, but it's (pardon the LSAT reference) a necessary condition, not a sufficient one by any stretch.

As for the last bit, that's just speculation on both our parts. I still think the rigor of the undergraduate institution and program must factor into admission committees' decisions on some level, but we'll never fully know what goes on in their heads.

And I was literally just thinking about basket weaving as a major earlier.

[lawschool2014hopeful]

Having dealt with a lot of incredulity at my crap GPA + effortless 170 LSAT (only 1pt above my first practice test), I've come to think that a lot of people who are natural students just literally cannot understand how someone smart could do badly in school. Because if you're the kind of smart person who just has good habits, takes for granted that you should do well in school and puts in minimal effort, you'll do well. I think that people like the OP may not realize that there are smart people out there who are self-destructive, depressive, disorganized, etc. in ways that actually can lead to low GPAs. No matter how easy a paper is, you can't get a good grade on it if you never turn it in. You can't do well on an exam you sleep through. Etc.

But yeah, I turned all that around later in life and did well in LS with reasonable but not excruciating effort.

So what made you turn over those bad habits? What did it for you? Did something extreme happen? or was it a slow recognition/fix?

[lawschool2014hopeful]

Sorry if I offended you in anyway, and yes your description is pretty accurate.

And again, from MY EXPERIENCES (albeit a huge margin of error), getting an A in MOST departments/schools is not an overtly challenging feat. Exceptions exist, I understand, e.g., your case. But again, I am trying find out people whom are not in the so called exceptional cases.

And as for your last argument, whether your major/institution matter much, as much I like to say yes, it really doesnt. Sure all things given equal communication major 3.5 vs quantum mechanics 3.5, you will take a quantum mechanics. However a 3.7 basketweaving > 3.5 nuclear physics.

Okay, good, I just wasn't sure if you realized that the "just floating by" situation was far from universal. I'm sure there are tons of places where a decent amount of effort will yield A's more often than not, but it's (pardon the LSAT reference) a necessary condition, not a sufficient one by any stretch.

As for the last bit, that's just speculation on both our parts. I still think the rigor of the undergraduate institution and program must factor into admission committees' decisions on some level, but we'll never fully know what goes on in their heads.

And I was literally just thinking about basket weaving as a major earlier.

Honestly, I am beginning to think the only thing matters are the things that the rankings take in account. Since softs/major/institution dont get accounted for, well, not a huge factor. But I am sure some schools take them more seriously than others (e.g., schools that dont worry about rankings as much, Yale/Stanford, maybe Harvard?

[shntn]

Having dealt with a lot of incredulity at my crap GPA + effortless 170 LSAT (only 1pt above my first practice test), I've come to think that a lot of people who are natural students just literally cannot understand how someone smart could do badly in school. Because if you're the kind of smart person who just has good habits, takes for granted that you should do well in school and puts in minimal effort, you'll do well. I think that people like the OP may not realize that there are smart people out there who are self-destructive, depressive, disorganized, etc. in ways that actually can lead to low GPAs. No matter how easy a paper is, you can't get a good grade on it if you never turn it in. You can't do well on an exam you sleep through. Etc.

But yeah, I turned all that around later in life and did well in LS with reasonable but not excruciating effort.

THIS. I have a friend who is honestly one of the most brilliant people I've ever known, but she struggled with personal issues throughout undergrad that had a definite detrimental effect on her grades. She was in such a bad place emotionally that she just didn't get to her assignments in a timely manner. She eventually got her shit sorted, worked with professors on making up past work, and wound up graduating with honors and as the winner of the highest prize in her department. The point being that she did bust her ass right along with the rest of us, but there are some things that were just beyond her control. I don't think it reflects poorly on her intelligence or her work ethic at all, despite a GPA that doesn't mirror what I know her to be capable of. She did absolutely crush her GRE and GMAT, and she's heading back for an MBA in the next year or so.

Admittedly, this is one of those exceptional cases so not really what the OP was asking about. But I think those exceptional cases may not be quite so exceptional as it might appear to someone to whom academic success seems to come naturally. Everyone has a story behind their numbers, and the story isn't always that they just didn't care to put in the effort. That's why we have personal statements, though, to help the admissions committees judge us in the appropriate light.

[shntn]

Sorry if I offended you in anyway, and yes your description is pretty accurate.

And again, from MY EXPERIENCES (albeit a huge margin of error), getting an A in MOST departments/schools is not an overtly challenging feat. Exceptions exist, I understand, e.g., your case. But again, I am trying find out people whom are not in the so called exceptional cases.

And as for your last argument, whether your major/institution matter much, as much I like to say yes, it really doesnt. Sure all things given equal communication major 3.5 vs quantum mechanics 3.5, you will take a quantum mechanics. However a 3.7 basketweaving > 3.5 nuclear physics.

Okay, good, I just wasn't sure if you realized that the "just floating by" situation was far from universal. I'm sure there are tons of places where a decent amount of effort will yield A's more often than not, but it's (pardon the LSAT reference) a necessary condition, not a sufficient one by any stretch.

As for the last bit, that's just speculation on both our parts. I still think the rigor of the undergraduate institution and program must factor into admission committees' decisions on some level, but we'll never fully know what goes on in their heads.

And I was literally just thinking about basket weaving as a major earlier.

Honestly, I am beginning to think the only thing matters are the things that the rankings take in account. Since softs/major/institution dont get accounted for, well, not a huge factor. But I am sure some schools take them more seriously than others (e.g., schools that dont worry about rankings as much, Yale/Stanford, maybe Harvard?

Sadly, I think you make a valid point. The rankings game is most unforgiving, especially for the Cornells and UTs of the world whose place in the golden ranks of the "T14" isn't as sure a bet as it is for HYS.

Although there are other numbers they consider in addition to LSAT and UGPA. There's bar passage, just to name one, and the numbers most strongly correlated with first-try bar passage are LSAT and law school GPA. UGPA shows only a much weaker correlation. I'd think law schools are aware of this and examine applications with that in mind. The pre-law school numbers are only part of the rankings story, so it's also in schools' interest to admit students who will be the most likely to perform well after matriculation (which, again, most strongly correlates with LSAT as opposed to any other single factor). Basically there are so many factors in play that none of us can say for certain which will be the deciding one with they're voting yea or nay on our apps. All we can do is more logic games.

[humbugger]

I think it should be pointed out to all the people harping about Ivy League grades being so tough to get should look at this report:

http://i.bnet.com/blogs/grade-inflation.pdf

See the graph on pg. 2. You'll notice that public schools on average give out about a 3.0 and private schools on average give out above a 3.3. I'm not saying this means that any individual's gpa was easier to get than someone else's, but actual numbers should play some role in this debate.

PS I went to a public school, obviously.

[shntn]

I think it should be pointed out to all the people harping about Ivy League grades being so tough to get should look at this report:

http://i.bnet.com/blogs/grade-inflation.pdf

See the graph on pg. 2. You'll notice that public schools on average give out about a 3.0 and private schools on average give out above a 3.3. I'm not saying this means that any individual's gpa was easier to get than someone else's, but actual numbers should play some role in this debate.

PS I went to a public school, obviously.

I mean, grade inflation is obviously a huge issue across the board, even before college. I'd be interested in seeing a more granular breakdown within the two massive buckets of public and private. The overall difference between the two is clear, but I don't think that's necessarily the best way to divvy up colleges for comparison. I'm sure a 4.0 is easier to obtain at some public schools than at others (I'm thinking of one of the public universities in my home state versus, say, U.Michigan) just as it would be easier to obtain at some private schools over others. I think it would be more telling to compare average GPAs at all public and private schools within a certain tier. Average GPAs at the Ivies, etc., compared to the Michigans, Berkeleys, etc., would be a much more relevant comparison, for the purposes of grad school admissions, anyway.

(As you can probably tell from my posts, I have a natural aversion to generalizations and value specificity almost to the point of OCD. Transactional law here I come!)

[blsingindisguise]

So what made you turn over those bad habits? What did it for you? Did something extreme happen? or was it a slow recognition/fix?

Worked before going back to school, got married, matured. Had legit fear about my career prospects and felt like it was my last chance to excel at something. Too much at stake for me to blow it, I guess. Therapy probably helped too.

[aekea]

my question is, what drove them(you) to care? What caused the shift in thinking? Because lets be honest, getting a great GPA in school is not difficult. I am sure if you guys put in the same effort your LSAT as for your school work, on a consistent basis, almost everyone here would be 3.9+

Getting a great GPA in school is difficult for me. I don't have any sort of excuse. I had a relatively easy major. I have no emotional or physical problems. I don't have any substance abuse issues. I had comfortable places to live and relatively non-crazy roommates. But, I'm sort of disorganized and had some motivation issues. I don't have a really low GPA (graduated with a 3.59), but I know it probably isn't reflective of my abilities. The skills required to do well in 4 or so classes simultaneously while balancing work and life are not the same skills needed to do really well on one standardized test. I didn't have a revelation that led me to study harder for the LSAT. I was able to study during the summer when I didn't have a lot of other distractions or obligations. I probably put less effort into studying for the test than I did every quarter of UG, but with fewer organizational challenges my efforts were more productive. People can be intelligent in different ways. And not all "smart" people are capable of achieving great GPAs. Being a good student requires much more than being intelligent enough to do the work. It sounds like you're lucky, and all that other stuff comes easy to you. But, that's certainly not the case for many others.

[lawschool2014hopeful]

So what made you turn over those bad habits? What did it for you? Did something extreme happen? or was it a slow recognition/fix?

Worked before going back to school, got married, matured. Had legit fear about my career prospects and felt like it was my last chance to excel at something. Too much at stake for me to blow it, I guess. Therapy probably helped too.

my question is, what drove them(you) to care? What caused the shift in thinking? Because lets be honest, getting a great GPA in school is not difficult. I am sure if you guys put in the same effort your LSAT as for your school work, on a consistent basis, almost everyone here would be 3.9+

Getting a great GPA in school is difficult for me. I don't have any sort of excuse. I had a relatively easy major. I have no emotional or physical problems. I don't have any substance abuse issues. I had comfortable places to live and relatively non-crazy roommates. But, I'm sort of disorganized and had some motivation issues. I don't have a really low GPA (graduated with a 3.59), but I know it probably isn't reflective of my abilities. The skills required to do well in 4 or so classes simultaneously while balancing work and life are not the same skills needed to do really well on one standardized test. I didn't have a revelation that led me to study harder for the LSAT. I was able to study during the summer when I didn't have a lot of other distractions or obligations. I probably put less effort into studying for the test than I did every quarter of UG, but with fewer organizational challenges my efforts were more productive. People can be intelligent in different ways. And not all "smart" people are capable of achieving great GPAs. Being a good student requires much more than being intelligent enough to do the work. It sounds like you're lucky, and all that other stuff comes easy to you. But, that's certainly not the case for many others.

Thanks for the great replies

[humbugger]

(As you can probably tell from my posts, I have a natural aversion to generalizations and value specificity almost to the point of OCD. Transactional law here I come!)

It's cool. I guess I was really just looking for a good ole intertube dustup, just because I finally have some free time/energy to waste.

But to return to the OP, just my opinion: people with a low GPA who have a clue what's going on with law school in general (ie it's a massive scam), know they need a high LSAT to make attending worthwhile.

[VasaVasori]

.