3.85 gpa for MBA, 3.65 gpa B.S in Business, 163 LSAT Forum

[CanadianWolf]

Obviously the words of a statistics major.

[oshberg28]

Canadian Wolf - How bout you actually make YOUR argument. 3.65 163 non-URM with an unextraordinary MBA is not going to get you top 30, and definitely not top 20... I'm sure everyone is wondering what your angle is.

Several applicants on here have been accepted into Top 30 schools with those numbers.

[Total Litigator]

We don't need to argue about LSN, the published 25th and 75th percentiles, as well as the median LSAT/GPA tell you all you need to know...

[BrownBears09]

lol, offer me something that disproves that statement. I may only have anecdotal evidence, but there is STRONG anecdotal evidence that backs up my point. You just have wishes and dreams, nothing substantial. There is absolutely nothing to suggest that LSN isn't indicative of the average applicants cycle.

Pro tip: Failure to prove an argument is false, does not make said argument true.

Edit: GRAMMAR!

[CanadianWolf]

And several TLS applicants in past cycles have shared that LSN & lawschoolpredictor were highly inaccurate for them based on their actual results.

[Total Litigator]

Canadian Wolf - How bout you actually make YOUR argument. 3.65 163 non-URM with an unextraordinary MBA is not going to get you top 30, and definitely not top 20... I'm sure everyone is wondering what your angle is.

Several applicants on here have been accepted into Top 30 schools with those numbers.

Yeah, and if her softs weren't "I'm white, I have an MBA from a nondescript school, and I am currently unemployed" I might be more forgiving.

[CanadianWolf]

Fortunately your degree of "forgiveness" doesn't really affect the reality of the situation.

[Total Litigator]

Fortunately your degree of "forgiveness" doesn't really affect the reality of the situation.

I am pretty sure I just laid out the reality of the situtation pretty well....

[thisguy456]

LSN is not comprehensive as it represents only a very small percentage of applicants.

I hate when people make this argument, sure, it's not comprehensive, but it's pretty damn accurate. Sure, OP has a chance at those schools, but that chance is SLIM.

You may "hate" it, but you can't deny the small size of the sample pool. For example, Fordham had 8,843 applications last year. On LSN, Fordham had 536 data points. you're telling me this is "pretty damn accurate?"

I'd say it's pretty damn self selecting, and an average metric at best.

I'm not saying LSN is statistically significant, but you do realize you don't need too many data points to accurately predict an outcome, don't you?

[thisguy456]

My angle ? The OP should apply. According to the above advice, OP should just type his numbers into LSN or lawschoolpredictor.com & abide by that tiny sampling. Why even fill out applications ? If it was that simple, then admissions officers would be replaced by computers & decisions would be instantaneous.

OP didn't ask whether he/she should apply. OP asked whether he/she has a chance.

[FuManChusco]

I genuinely think canadianwolf is a troll

[d34d9823]

I genuinely think canadianwolf is a troll

[oshberg28]

My angle ? The OP should apply. According to the above advice, OP should just type his numbers into LSN or lawschoolpredictor.com & abide by that tiny sampling. Why even fill out applications ? If it was that simple, then admissions officers would be replaced by computers & decisions would be instantaneous.

OP didn't ask whether he/she should apply. OP asked whether he/she has a chance.

Thus suggesting that the OP has a chance....come on guys, this isn't that difficult.

[Patriot1208]

lol, offer me something that disproves that statement. I may only have anecdotal evidence, but there is STRONG anecdotal evidence that backs up my point. You just have wishes and dreams, nothing substantial. There is absolutely nothing to suggest that LSN isn't indicative of the average applicants cycle.

Pro tip: Failure to prove an argument is false, does not make said argument true.

Edit: GRAMMAR!

lol, you aren't that stupid are you? If someone offers evidence for an argument, then you say that evidence is wrong/faulty/etc, then yes, you do have to offer evidence for why their evidence is wrong. You seriously cannot be this dumb.

Also, @oshberg, no one said OP didn't have A chance, everyone said that chance was extremely small.

[albanach]

You may "hate" it, but you can't deny the small size of the sample pool. For example, Fordham had 8,843 applications last year. On LSN, Fordham had 536 data points. you're telling me this is "pretty damn accurate?"

I'd say it's pretty damn self selecting, and an average metric at best.

If there's no bias to the 536 points, the margin of error is just 4.1%

That's pretty good by most folk's standards.

[d34d9823]

You may "hate" it, but you can't deny the small size of the sample pool. For example, Fordham had 8,843 applications last year. On LSN, Fordham had 536 data points. you're telling me this is "pretty damn accurate?"

I'd say it's pretty damn self selecting, and an average metric at best.

If there's no bias to the 536 points, the margin of error is just 4.1%

That's pretty good by most folk's standards.

Most people on here (but not all) understand statistics. The argument is usually made more along the lines that people who take the trouble to make a LSN profile are more likely to be basement dwelling losers than your popular, happy-go-lucky, no-LSN profile chaps.

[albanach]

Most people on here (but not all) understand statistics. The argument is usually made more along the lines that people who take the trouble to make a LSN profile are more likely to be basement dwelling losers than your popular, happy-go-lucky, no-LSN profile chaps.

I'm not sure that matters a lot. It's pretty widely accepted that without strong softs, entry is a numbers game. GPA and LSAT. For LSN to be accurate for a candidate without strong softs, all that's required are sufficient data points. >500 is quite sufficient for a reasonably accurate prediction.

The given example was Fordham. LSN has scores of applicants in the range of the OP, and they are almost all rejections. If LSN had no data in the range, its accuracy could be questioned but, at least for Fordham, that's not the case. Unless you're suggesting there's a bias that causes more folk rejected to record this than those who get an acceptance thus skewing the numbers? If anything I'd expect it to be the other way - people are far more likely to record success than failure and consequently, LSN may give an over-positive outlook for an applicant.

So, unless the OP has some significant softs that we don't yet know about, I'd go with the statistical evidence we do have and suggest retaking the LSAT.

[whymeohgodno]

And several TLS applicants in past cycles have shared that LSN & lawschoolpredictor were highly inaccurate for them based on their actual results.

Yeah and I'm willing to bet these people were either splitters/reverse splitters or URMs.

[CanadianWolf]

The ones that I recall were not splitters or URMs which is what made them noteworthy. You can research this on this site.

[Total Litigator]

Canadian Wolf. what are you talking about. seriously. just admit your argument is sh**ty and makes close to no sense. Have you ever even applied to law schools before?
I like to think I have above average softs. I am a nonsplitter nonURM who was admitted at the most of the schools within my number range, waitlisted at schools that were slightly beyond my numbers, and rejected at all schools where I was substantially below median. That is a pretty standard experience. You have a screwy view of law school admissions where administrators decide to admit subpar applicants on a whim.

[CanadianWolf]

Exactly how I view your arguments. Interesting that many young adults like absolutes & simplicity in a process which is neither, yet, after law school, often tend to overcomplicate matters (feel compelled to write everything they know about a legal topic in their filings) during their first several years of practicing law.

[Patriot1208]

Exactly how I view your arguments. Interesting that many young adults like absolutes & simplicity in a process which is neither, yet, after law school, often tend to overcomplicate matters (feel compelled to write everything they know about a legal topic in their filings) during their first several years of practicing law.

Except, you haven't actually been able to make an argument. You have offered no evidence in support of your viewpoint. No one said that there aren't outliers, no one said that it is infallable, but LSN is right for the vast majority of applicants. Until there is any evidence against it, the strong anecdotal evidence suggesting it is right for most applicants will win out.

[d34d9823]

Exactly how I view your arguments. Interesting that many young adults like absolutes & simplicity in a process which is neither, yet, after law school, often tend to overcomplicate matters (feel compelled to write everything they know about a legal topic in their filings) during their first several years of practicing law.

Dude, spouting platitudes and unsourced anecdotes is really not that convincing.

[CanadianWolf]

Yes, the OP has a chance. LSN & lawschoolpredictor are small, random samplings. Admissions officers do more than simply look at LSAT scores & GPAs.

[whymeohgodno]

Yes, the OP has a chance. LSN & lawschoolpredictor are small, random samplings. Admissions officers do more than simply look at LSAT scores & GPAs.

Are you stupid? LSN isn't random sampling which is it's main fault. Never talk again.