NYU c/o 2020 Applicants (2016-2017) Forum

[addie1412]

Realistically, they're probably waiting for Dec people before deciding on my lower LSAT.

Meh, I have a 175 and have had a bit of a wait too

[RParadela]

How quickly does NYU reach out for interviews after going UR1?

[curry1]

How quickly does NYU reach out for interviews after going UR1?

NYU doesn't do interviews except for people applying for named scholarships (RTK etc.).

[brinicolec]

How quickly does NYU reach out for interviews after going UR1?

NYU doesn't do interviews except for people applying for named scholarships (RTK etc.).

+1

[pipipipi]

Does NYU has a low GPA cut-off? If so, how low do you think it is, assuming the candidate is at or above 75% for LSAT.

Additionally, does NYU has a clearer GPA cut-off than other schools? For example, Northwestern will take someone with 3.0 or lower GPA, and Berkeley cares a lot more about GPA than LSAT. How would you say NYU vs Cornell vs Penn vs Duke on this?

What's the lowest GPA you know from admitted students?

Per LSN, WL = Waitlist, URM = Under Represented Minority, assume non-urm unless specified.

2015-2016:
NYU: 3.25 (172)
Cornell: 3.1 (169, 165 URM)
Penn: 2.9. 3.0 (178 WL, 169 WL)
Duke: 3.15 (174 WL)

2014-2015
NYU: 3.2 (162 & 170 URM), 3.23 (175)
Cornell: 3.21 (173)
Penn: 3.11 (169)
Duke: 3.2 (173 WL)

2013-2014
NYU: 2.66 (177)
Cornell: 2.66 (177 same person as the NYU lowest, several URM in the 3.0 - 3.25 range)
Penn: 3.0 (176)
Duke: 3.27 (169)

Hard to say much from this, but based on the data it would seem Penn<Cornell=Duke<NYU in terms of low GPA cutotff. Also if you have less than a 3.0 you are really going to struggle

Of note, all of the lowest GPA candidates from NYU i mentioned were accepted off waitlist.

Thank you for your post!

I searched LSN too and actually compared admitted student distribution on LawSchoolNumbers. I had the same feelings that Penn is more forgiving on the GPA side, and am glad to hear you share similar opinion.

I was most surprised about Cornell. It had definitely had a lower GPA mean/median than Penn, and cares more about LSAT than GPA as comparing to Penn. Yet from LSN graphs, Cornell had an obvious clear-cut on GPA that only that I only saw one admit in the pats two years with a GPA lower than 3.2 (which is about what I got....)

Thank you again for the information.

[jonofalltrades]

I searched LSN too and actually compared admitted student distribution on LawSchoolNumbers. I had the same feelings that Penn is more forgiving on the GPA side, and am glad to hear you share similar opinion.

I was most surprised about Cornell. It had definitely had a lower GPA mean/median than Penn, and cares more about LSAT than GPA as comparing to Penn. Yet from LSN graphs, Cornell had an obvious clear-cut on GPA that only that I only saw one admit in the pats two years with a GPA lower than 3.2 (which is about what I got....)

Thank you again for the information.

Times like this, it might be true what they say about grade trends and difficulty of major. For example, I'm hoping that law schools consider closely that my 3.5 was tainted by my first two years being a Mathematics major, earning Cs to B-minuses in several classes, balanced by solid A's in my senior year after switching to Philosophy.

I'd say if your 3.2 was consistent across semesters, it's not as attractive to adcomms as if you were getting 2.5 your first year, 3.0 the second, 3.5, 3.9, etc.

Maybe?

[RParadela]

I searched LSN too and actually compared admitted student distribution on LawSchoolNumbers. I had the same feelings that Penn is more forgiving on the GPA side, and am glad to hear you share similar opinion.

I was most surprised about Cornell. It had definitely had a lower GPA mean/median than Penn, and cares more about LSAT than GPA as comparing to Penn. Yet from LSN graphs, Cornell had an obvious clear-cut on GPA that only that I only saw one admit in the pats two years with a GPA lower than 3.2 (which is about what I got....)

Thank you again for the information.

Times like this, it might be true what they say about grade trends and difficulty of major. For example, I'm hoping that law schools consider closely that my 3.5 was tainted by my first two years being a Mathematics major, earning Cs to B-minuses in several classes, balanced by solid A's in my senior year after switching to Philosophy.

I'd say if your 3.2 was consistent across semesters, it's not as attractive to adcomms as if you were getting 2.5 your first year, 3.0 the second, 3.5, 3.9, etc.

Maybe?

Not to get you down, but I don't think it'll make much of a difference. Law school is a numbers game first and foremost for admissions. People see the bottom line, not the intricate details

[Keilz]

I searched LSN too and actually compared admitted student distribution on LawSchoolNumbers. I had the same feelings that Penn is more forgiving on the GPA side, and am glad to hear you share similar opinion.

I was most surprised about Cornell. It had definitely had a lower GPA mean/median than Penn, and cares more about LSAT than GPA as comparing to Penn. Yet from LSN graphs, Cornell had an obvious clear-cut on GPA that only that I only saw one admit in the pats two years with a GPA lower than 3.2 (which is about what I got....)

Thank you again for the information.

Times like this, it might be true what they say about grade trends and difficulty of major. For example, I'm hoping that law schools consider closely that my 3.5 was tainted by my first two years being a Mathematics major, earning Cs to B-minuses in several classes, balanced by solid A's in my senior year after switching to Philosophy.

I'd say if your 3.2 was consistent across semesters, it's not as attractive to adcomms as if you were getting 2.5 your first year, 3.0 the second, 3.5, 3.9, etc.

Maybe?

Not to get you down, but I don't think it'll make much of a difference. Law school is a numbers game first and foremost for admissions. People see the bottom line, not the intricate details

I disagree, if two applicants have the same GPA, the one with the upward trend produces more confidence that they will continue to perform highly in law school. I think TLS focuses so much in numbers that a lot of posters seem to think they "deserve" admission if their numbers are high. While they might be necessary, I dont think that's ALL they see.

[guynourmin]

I searched LSN too and actually compared admitted student distribution on LawSchoolNumbers. I had the same feelings that Penn is more forgiving on the GPA side, and am glad to hear you share similar opinion.

I was most surprised about Cornell. It had definitely had a lower GPA mean/median than Penn, and cares more about LSAT than GPA as comparing to Penn. Yet from LSN graphs, Cornell had an obvious clear-cut on GPA that only that I only saw one admit in the pats two years with a GPA lower than 3.2 (which is about what I got....)

Thank you again for the information.

Times like this, it might be true what they say about grade trends and difficulty of major. For example, I'm hoping that law schools consider closely that my 3.5 was tainted by my first two years being a Mathematics major, earning Cs to B-minuses in several classes, balanced by solid A's in my senior year after switching to Philosophy.

I'd say if your 3.2 was consistent across semesters, it's not as attractive to adcomms as if you were getting 2.5 your first year, 3.0 the second, 3.5, 3.9, etc.

Maybe?

Not to get you down, but I don't think it'll make much of a difference. Law school is a numbers game first and foremost for admissions. People see the bottom line, not the intricate details

I disagree, if two applicants have the same GPA, the one with the upward trend produces more confidence that they will continue to perform highly in law school. I think TLS focuses so much in numbers that a lot of posters seem to think they "deserve" admission if their numbers are high. While they might be necessary, I dont think that's ALL they see.

I see this thought experiment all the time: if they are picking between two applicants...how often do we think that actually happens? They could just extend another offer. 1,870 or 1,871, is there a difference to them? NYU makes a lot of offers. They received over 500 more applications from '15 to '16 and extended 34 less offers, so that would make me think they just accept who they want to accept. Just a thought.

[yuppitsme]

i just got some package thing from nyu. not the admission letter that the sent a while ago - this is a new thing. it's like a view book and a letter from the dean and a stack of nyu post it notes.

I would have had a heart attack. That is the meanest thing they could do. I firmly believe there should be a no propaganda after someone has applied policy.

[R. Jeeves]

i just got some package thing from nyu. not the admission letter that the sent a while ago - this is a new thing. it's like a view book and a letter from the dean and a stack of nyu post it notes.

I would have had a heart attack. That is the meanest thing they could do. I firmly believe there should be a no propaganda after someone has applied policy.

Sorry I wasn't clear. This package was sent to already admitted students.

Is there an NYU admits thread already? Maybe I posted this in the wrong place.

[Keilz]

I searched LSN too and actually compared admitted student distribution on LawSchoolNumbers. I had the same feelings that Penn is more forgiving on the GPA side, and am glad to hear you share similar opinion.

I was most surprised about Cornell. It had definitely had a lower GPA mean/median than Penn, and cares more about LSAT than GPA as comparing to Penn. Yet from LSN graphs, Cornell had an obvious clear-cut on GPA that only that I only saw one admit in the pats two years with a GPA lower than 3.2 (which is about what I got....)

Thank you again for the information.

Times like this, it might be true what they say about grade trends and difficulty of major. For example, I'm hoping that law schools consider closely that my 3.5 was tainted by my first two years being a Mathematics major, earning Cs to B-minuses in several classes, balanced by solid A's in my senior year after switching to Philosophy.

I'd say if your 3.2 was consistent across semesters, it's not as attractive to adcomms as if you were getting 2.5 your first year, 3.0 the second, 3.5, 3.9, etc.

Maybe?

Not to get you down, but I don't think it'll make much of a difference. Law school is a numbers game first and foremost for admissions. People see the bottom line, not the intricate details

I disagree, if two applicants have the same GPA, the one with the upward trend produces more confidence that they will continue to perform highly in law school. I think TLS focuses so much in numbers that a lot of posters seem to think they "deserve" admission if their numbers are high. While they might be necessary, I dont think that's ALL they see.

I see this thought experiment all the time: if they are picking between two applicants...how often do we think that actually happens? They could just extend another offer. 1,870 or 1,871, is there a difference to them? NYU makes a lot of offers. They received over 500 more applications from '15 to '16 and extended 34 less offers, so that would make me think they just accept who they want to accept. Just a thought.

Sure it's definitely an unlikely assumption, but I think it's just used to display thought processes. I think in this scenario we were talking about someone with a low GPA, so they would be borderline and an admissions officer may really need to be on the fence about them. From what I've seen scouring these admissions boards is a lot of applicants who haven't been WL yet receive emails of potential interest from admissions counselors, or their decision is postponed through three rounds of "held" and "faculty review" stages, so it became really apparent to me where sometimes they really don't know when to extend an offer. Of course, my only experience comes from being an applicant for two cycles and reading these boards so it's just my speculation

[VA2lawschool]

i just got some package thing from nyu. not the admission letter that the sent a while ago - this is a new thing. it's like a view book and a letter from the dean and a stack of nyu post it notes.

I would have had a heart attack. That is the meanest thing they could do. I firmly believe there should be a no propaganda after someone has applied policy.

Sorry I wasn't clear. This package was sent to already admitted students.

Is there an NYU admits thread already? Maybe I posted this in the wrong place.

I got this as well! Really well done marketing materials. I found myself very impressed with all of it.

[RParadela]

I searched LSN too and actually compared admitted student distribution on LawSchoolNumbers. I had the same feelings that Penn is more forgiving on the GPA side, and am glad to hear you share similar opinion.

I was most surprised about Cornell. It had definitely had a lower GPA mean/median than Penn, and cares more about LSAT than GPA as comparing to Penn. Yet from LSN graphs, Cornell had an obvious clear-cut on GPA that only that I only saw one admit in the pats two years with a GPA lower than 3.2 (which is about what I got....)

Thank you again for the information.

Times like this, it might be true what they say about grade trends and difficulty of major. For example, I'm hoping that law schools consider closely that my 3.5 was tainted by my first two years being a Mathematics major, earning Cs to B-minuses in several classes, balanced by solid A's in my senior year after switching to Philosophy.

I'd say if your 3.2 was consistent across semesters, it's not as attractive to adcomms as if you were getting 2.5 your first year, 3.0 the second, 3.5, 3.9, etc.

Maybe?

Not to get you down, but I don't think it'll make much of a difference. Law school is a numbers game first and foremost for admissions. People see the bottom line, not the intricate details

I disagree, if two applicants have the same GPA, the one with the upward trend produces more confidence that they will continue to perform highly in law school. I think TLS focuses so much in numbers that a lot of posters seem to think they "deserve" admission if their numbers are high. While they might be necessary, I dont think that's ALL they see.

I see this thought experiment all the time: if they are picking between two applicants...how often do we think that actually happens? They could just extend another offer. 1,870 or 1,871, is there a difference to them? NYU makes a lot of offers. They received over 500 more applications from '15 to '16 and extended 34 less offers, so that would make me think they just accept who they want to accept. Just a thought.

Yeah, sort of what I was getting at. Basically, taking a hard major and having an upwards trajectory won't hurt anyone, but it isn't going to help much

[pipipipi]

I searched LSN too and actually compared admitted student distribution on LawSchoolNumbers. I had the same feelings that Penn is more forgiving on the GPA side, and am glad to hear you share similar opinion.

I was most surprised about Cornell. It had definitely had a lower GPA mean/median than Penn, and cares more about LSAT than GPA as comparing to Penn. Yet from LSN graphs, Cornell had an obvious clear-cut on GPA that only that I only saw one admit in the pats two years with a GPA lower than 3.2 (which is about what I got....)

Thank you again for the information.

Times like this, it might be true what they say about grade trends and difficulty of major. For example, I'm hoping that law schools consider closely that my 3.5 was tainted by my first two years being a Mathematics major, earning Cs to B-minuses in several classes, balanced by solid A's in my senior year after switching to Philosophy.

I'd say if your 3.2 was consistent across semesters, it's not as attractive to adcomms as if you were getting 2.5 your first year, 3.0 the second, 3.5, 3.9, etc.

Maybe?

Not to get you down, but I don't think it'll make much of a difference. Law school is a numbers game first and foremost for admissions. People see the bottom line, not the intricate details

I disagree, if two applicants have the same GPA, the one with the upward trend produces more confidence that they will continue to perform highly in law school. I think TLS focuses so much in numbers that a lot of posters seem to think they "deserve" admission if their numbers are high. While they might be necessary, I dont think that's ALL they see.

I see this thought experiment all the time: if they are picking between two applicants...how often do we think that actually happens? They could just extend another offer. 1,870 or 1,871, is there a difference to them? NYU makes a lot of offers. They received over 500 more applications from '15 to '16 and extended 34 less offers, so that would make me think they just accept who they want to accept. Just a thought.

It is fair to under that if they are picking between two applicants does not happen often, but I would say that similar considerations beyond numbers are given more weight to a splitter and a reverse splitter than other applicants.

I agree that law school admissions is largely a number game, but also think that the importance of "numbers" decrease in the analysis of special situations. There are 25% of enrolled students who are <25%. I just hope that I am one of the admitted 25%, not the 90%+ rejected with <25% numbers.

[brinicolec]

I searched LSN too and actually compared admitted student distribution on LawSchoolNumbers. I had the same feelings that Penn is more forgiving on the GPA side, and am glad to hear you share similar opinion.

I was most surprised about Cornell. It had definitely had a lower GPA mean/median than Penn, and cares more about LSAT than GPA as comparing to Penn. Yet from LSN graphs, Cornell had an obvious clear-cut on GPA that only that I only saw one admit in the pats two years with a GPA lower than 3.2 (which is about what I got....)

Thank you again for the information.

Times like this, it might be true what they say about grade trends and difficulty of major. For example, I'm hoping that law schools consider closely that my 3.5 was tainted by my first two years being a Mathematics major, earning Cs to B-minuses in several classes, balanced by solid A's in my senior year after switching to Philosophy.

I'd say if your 3.2 was consistent across semesters, it's not as attractive to adcomms as if you were getting 2.5 your first year, 3.0 the second, 3.5, 3.9, etc.

Maybe?

Not to get you down, but I don't think it'll make much of a difference. Law school is a numbers game first and foremost for admissions. People see the bottom line, not the intricate details

I disagree, if two applicants have the same GPA, the one with the upward trend produces more confidence that they will continue to perform highly in law school. I think TLS focuses so much in numbers that a lot of posters seem to think they "deserve" admission if their numbers are high. While they might be necessary, I dont think that's ALL they see.

I see this thought experiment all the time: if they are picking between two applicants...how often do we think that actually happens? They could just extend another offer. 1,870 or 1,871, is there a difference to them? NYU makes a lot of offers. They received over 500 more applications from '15 to '16 and extended 34 less offers, so that would make me think they just accept who they want to accept. Just a thought.

It is fair to under that if they are picking between two applicants does not happen often, but I would say that similar considerations beyond numbers are given more weight to a splitter and a reverse splitter than other applicants.

I agree that law school admissions is largely a number game, but also think that the importance of "numbers" decrease in the analysis of special situations. There are 25% of enrolled students who are <25%. I just hope that I am one of the admitted 25%, not the 90%+ rejected with <25% numbers.

wayment.... Where'd you get that 25% of the enrolled students are below 25ths stat from?!?!?

[galeatus]

I searched LSN too and actually compared admitted student distribution on LawSchoolNumbers. I had the same feelings that Penn is more forgiving on the GPA side, and am glad to hear you share similar opinion.

I was most surprised about Cornell. It had definitely had a lower GPA mean/median than Penn, and cares more about LSAT than GPA as comparing to Penn. Yet from LSN graphs, Cornell had an obvious clear-cut on GPA that only that I only saw one admit in the pats two years with a GPA lower than 3.2 (which is about what I got....)

Thank you again for the information.

Times like this, it might be true what they say about grade trends and difficulty of major. For example, I'm hoping that law schools consider closely that my 3.5 was tainted by my first two years being a Mathematics major, earning Cs to B-minuses in several classes, balanced by solid A's in my senior year after switching to Philosophy.

I'd say if your 3.2 was consistent across semesters, it's not as attractive to adcomms as if you were getting 2.5 your first year, 3.0 the second, 3.5, 3.9, etc.

Maybe?

Not to get you down, but I don't think it'll make much of a difference. Law school is a numbers game first and foremost for admissions. People see the bottom line, not the intricate details

I disagree, if two applicants have the same GPA, the one with the upward trend produces more confidence that they will continue to perform highly in law school. I think TLS focuses so much in numbers that a lot of posters seem to think they "deserve" admission if their numbers are high. While they might be necessary, I dont think that's ALL they see.

I see this thought experiment all the time: if they are picking between two applicants...how often do we think that actually happens? They could just extend another offer. 1,870 or 1,871, is there a difference to them? NYU makes a lot of offers. They received over 500 more applications from '15 to '16 and extended 34 less offers, so that would make me think they just accept who they want to accept. Just a thought.

It is fair to under that if they are picking between two applicants does not happen often, but I would say that similar considerations beyond numbers are given more weight to a splitter and a reverse splitter than other applicants.

I agree that law school admissions is largely a number game, but also think that the importance of "numbers" decrease in the analysis of special situations. There are 25% of enrolled students who are <25%. I just hope that I am one of the admitted 25%, not the 90%+ rejected with <25% numbers.

wayment.... Where'd you get that 25% of the enrolled students are below 25ths stat from?!?!?

I think it's based on a misinterpretation of how percentiles work in apps. Yes there are 25% of enrolled students in the bottom quartile for LSAT, but they very well may be above median in GPA and vice versa.

[pipipipi]

I searched LSN too and actually compared admitted student distribution on LawSchoolNumbers. I had the same feelings that Penn is more forgiving on the GPA side, and am glad to hear you share similar opinion.

I was most surprised about Cornell. It had definitely had a lower GPA mean/median than Penn, and cares more about LSAT than GPA as comparing to Penn. Yet from LSN graphs, Cornell had an obvious clear-cut on GPA that only that I only saw one admit in the pats two years with a GPA lower than 3.2 (which is about what I got....)

Thank you again for the information.

Times like this, it might be true what they say about grade trends and difficulty of major. For example, I'm hoping that law schools consider closely that my 3.5 was tainted by my first two years being a Mathematics major, earning Cs to B-minuses in several classes, balanced by solid A's in my senior year after switching to Philosophy.

I'd say if your 3.2 was consistent across semesters, it's not as attractive to adcomms as if you were getting 2.5 your first year, 3.0 the second, 3.5, 3.9, etc.

Maybe?

Not to get you down, but I don't think it'll make much of a difference. Law school is a numbers game first and foremost for admissions. People see the bottom line, not the intricate details

I disagree, if two applicants have the same GPA, the one with the upward trend produces more confidence that they will continue to perform highly in law school. I think TLS focuses so much in numbers that a lot of posters seem to think they "deserve" admission if their numbers are high. While they might be necessary, I dont think that's ALL they see.

I see this thought experiment all the time: if they are picking between two applicants...how often do we think that actually happens? They could just extend another offer. 1,870 or 1,871, is there a difference to them? NYU makes a lot of offers. They received over 500 more applications from '15 to '16 and extended 34 less offers, so that would make me think they just accept who they want to accept. Just a thought.

It is fair to under that if they are picking between two applicants does not happen often, but I would say that similar considerations beyond numbers are given more weight to a splitter and a reverse splitter than other applicants.

I agree that law school admissions is largely a number game, but also think that the importance of "numbers" decrease in the analysis of special situations. There are 25% of enrolled students who are <25%. I just hope that I am one of the admitted 25%, not the 90%+ rejected with <25% numbers.

wayment.... Where'd you get that 25% of the enrolled students are below 25ths stat from?!?!?

I shall rephrase, I meant there are 25% enrolled students with <25% GPAs, and there are also 25% of enrolled students with below <25% LSAT.
The 25% with poor GPA are not necessarily the 25% with poor LSAT, though they may coincide.
Also, enrolled students are not the same with admitted students. (I think it is more likely that people with lower stats are more likely to enroll if admitted than people with better stats in general, and thus it is very likely that more than 25% of people are admitted with <25% GPA/LSAT.

Am I understanding it correctly?

[pipipipi]

wrong post.

[pipipipi]

Wrong post--sorry I don't know how to delete post...

[pipipipi]

I think it's based on a misinterpretation of how percentiles work in apps. Yes there are 25% of enrolled students in the bottom quartile for LSAT, but they very well may be above median in GPA and vice versa.

Exactly. I was making it clear. Is my interpretation above correct? I would love to know if I had understand percentiles incorrectly.

[AndromedaGalaxy]

I think it's based on a misinterpretation of how percentiles work in apps. Yes there are 25% of enrolled students in the bottom quartile for LSAT, but they very well may be above median in GPA and vice versa.

Exactly. I was making it clear. Is my interpretation above correct? I would love to know if I had understand percentiles incorrectly.

Yes. You got it right. And we can say more actually. At minimum, 25% of enrolled students are below at least one of the 25s. That's in a theoretical unlikely scenario where there's perfect overlap in the enrolled students who are below 25th for LSAT and below 25th for GPA. At the other extreme, there's a maximum of 50% of enrolled students below at least one of the 25s (in a scenario where there's no overlap at all between those groups.)

Realistically, the number of enrolled students below at least one of the 25s probably runs closer to that upper bound than the lower one, since we think it's likely that people admitted below one of the 25s probably have a better number on the other side. So, less than 50%, but maybe not much less, of enrolled students were below the 25th for either LSAT or GPA (but generally not both).

[AndromedaGalaxy]

I think it's based on a misinterpretation of how percentiles work in apps. Yes there are 25% of enrolled students in the bottom quartile for LSAT, but they very well may be above median in GPA and vice versa.

Exactly. I was making it clear. Is my interpretation above correct? I would love to know if I had understand percentiles incorrectly.

Yes. You got it right. And we can say more actually. At minimum, 25% of enrolled students are below at least one of the 25s. That's in a theoretical unlikely scenario where there's perfect overlap in the enrolled students who are below 25th for LSAT and below 25th for GPA. At the other extreme, there's a maximum of 50% of enrolled students below at least one of the 25s (in a scenario where there's no overlap at all between those groups.)

Realistically, the number of enrolled students below at least one of the 25s probably runs closer to that upper bound than the lower one, since we think it's likely that people admitted below one of the 25s probably have a better number on the other side. So, less than 50%, but maybe not much less, of enrolled students were below the 25th for either LSAT or GPA (but generally not both).

Also, replace "enrolled" with "admitted" throughout that.

[ayylmao]

I think it's based on a misinterpretation of how percentiles work in apps. Yes there are 25% of enrolled students in the bottom quartile for LSAT, but they very well may be above median in GPA and vice versa.

Exactly. I was making it clear. Is my interpretation above correct? I would love to know if I had understand percentiles incorrectly.

Yes. You got it right. And we can say more actually. At minimum, 25% of enrolled students are below at least one of the 25s. That's in a theoretical unlikely scenario where there's perfect overlap in the enrolled students who are below 25th for LSAT and below 25th for GPA. At the other extreme, there's a maximum of 50% of enrolled students below at least one of the 25s (in a scenario where there's no overlap at all between those groups.)

Realistically, the number of enrolled students below at least one of the 25s probably runs closer to that upper bound than the lower one, since we think it's likely that people admitted below one of the 25s probably have a better number on the other side. So, less than 50%, but maybe not much less, of enrolled students were below the 25th for either LSAT or GPA (but generally not both).

Also, replace "enrolled" with "admitted" throughout that.

No, they don't publish stats on who they admit. Their stats refer to the profile of the class that actually matriculates.

[AndromedaGalaxy]

I think it's based on a misinterpretation of how percentiles work in apps. Yes there are 25% of enrolled students in the bottom quartile for LSAT, but they very well may be above median in GPA and vice versa.

Exactly. I was making it clear. Is my interpretation above correct? I would love to know if I had understand percentiles incorrectly.

Yes. You got it right. And we can say more actually. At minimum, 25% of enrolled students are below at least one of the 25s. That's in a theoretical unlikely scenario where there's perfect overlap in the enrolled students who are below 25th for LSAT and below 25th for GPA. At the other extreme, there's a maximum of 50% of enrolled students below at least one of the 25s (in a scenario where there's no overlap at all between those groups.)

Realistically, the number of enrolled students below at least one of the 25s probably runs closer to that upper bound than the lower one, since we think it's likely that people admitted below one of the 25s probably have a better number on the other side. So, less than 50%, but maybe not much less, of enrolled students were below the 25th for either LSAT or GPA (but generally not both).

Also, replace "enrolled" with "admitted" throughout that.

No, they don't publish stats on who they admit. Their stats refer to the profile of the class that actually matriculates.

Right, of course. Well then I stand by my first post. Law school campuses are just lousy with enrolled students who were at or below one of their school's 25th percentiles.