176. Retake for Harvard? Forum

[RabbitTroop]

I have heard through the grapevine from a harvard law alumnus how they do the index score.

10 X Last 2 digits of LSAT + 2X GPA (Three digits, no decimal point) X Number between 0-1 based on strength of undergrad. You have to make a total of 1500 to jump right in. I don't think it is hard floor, but I am not sure

Example

10X 75 (175 LSAT) + 2X 350 (3.50 GPA) X 1 (Harvard) = 1450; below the 1500 threshold.

Heard from a reputable source, but no way to confirm truth to it.

This can't be right. Multiplying by zero means the total is zero. So does this mean they don't accept anyone from a non-ivy school because they can never make the threshold? Multiplying by one makes no difference to the number.

I think this is something someone made up - the last step makes no sense. Also, as noted above the formula makes no accounting for URM status.

Order of operations... you only multiply the GPA by the 0-1 factor. LSAT is stand alone.

Doesn't make a difference. Harvard's medians are 173/3.86, which adds up to 1502 under the formula only if the undergraduate institution is rated at a 1. There's no chance this is the method used for their index score, unless the threshold for consideration is much lower than 1500. Auto-admits are the only ones who clear that.

[06162014123]

.

[RabbitTroop]

Auto-admits are the only ones who clear that.

You have to make a total of 1500 to jump right in.

[Elston Gunn]

As an (almost) numbers twin I've had similar thoughts but I think 176 and 180 should perform almost identically. If Harvard's 75th stays at 176 wouldn't a 176 be identical to a 180 in the eyes of the adcomms? As I understand it, Harvard basically needs 1/4 of their class to be 176+ but it really doesn't matter if they are all 176s and no 180s. Medians and 75th would be the same. Now if the index calculation mentioned previously is accurate then it could slightly help you (maybe WL>admit) but retaking a 176 is absurd unless you are PTing 180 consistently. Just my .02 and I could be wrong. Also remember LSATs are down so hopefully they will be scooping up most 176+s to maintain the 75th.

My numbers make me biased, but I think this kind of thing (which is repeated a lot) is taking the UNWR numbers gaming interpretation to an excessive conclusion. For all intents and purposes Harvard has essentially no chance of falling below Stanford or moving above Yale. They undoubtedly like their shiny medians, but I would imagine that they also genuinely want to bring in what they think is the best class they possibly can. You can see this in that they seem to give a small hit to multiple LSATers and a small bump to Ivy UGs. Neither of these things affect their rankings, but--admittedly, only at the margins--they still care. The difference between a 176 and a 180 is very likely marginal, but for someone who's right at the GPA floor, your fate is going to be decided on the margins.

[avemundi]

I have heard through the grapevine from a harvard law alumnus how they do the index score.

10 X Last 2 digits of LSAT + 2X GPA (Three digits, no decimal point) X Number between 0-1 based on strength of undergrad. You have to make a total of 1500 to jump right in. I don't think it is hard floor, but I am not sure

Example

10X 75 (175 LSAT) + 2X 350 (3.50 GPA) X 1 (Harvard) = 1450; below the 1500 threshold.

Heard from a reputable source, but no way to confirm truth to it.

does this mean someone with an international GPA is the most disadvantaged within his or her LSAT score group? Like, even someone with, say a 176 and a 2.3 GPA would have an advantage over a 176/Superior? What number would they assign international GPAs?

[seanPtheB]

I have heard through the grapevine from a harvard law alumnus how they do the index score.

10 X Last 2 digits of LSAT + 2X GPA (Three digits, no decimal point) X Number between 0-1 based on strength of undergrad. You have to make a total of 1500 to jump right in. I don't think it is hard floor, but I am not sure

Example

10X 75 (175 LSAT) + 2X 350 (3.50 GPA) X 1 (Harvard) = 1450; below the 1500 threshold.

Heard from a reputable source, but no way to confirm truth to it.

This can't be right. Multiplying by zero means the total is zero. So does this mean they don't accept anyone from a non-ivy school because they can never make the threshold? Multiplying by one makes no difference to the number.

I think this is something someone made up - the last step makes no sense. Also, as noted above the formula makes no accounting for URM status.

Order of operations... you only multiply the GPA by the 0-1 factor. LSAT is stand alone.

facepalm. my bad.

[JamMasterJ]

I have heard through the grapevine from a harvard law alumnus how they do the index score.

10 X Last 2 digits of LSAT + 2X GPA (Three digits, no decimal point) X Number between 0-1 based on strength of undergrad. You have to make a total of 1500 to jump right in. I don't think it is hard floor, but I am not sure

Example

10X 75 (175 LSAT) + 2X 350 (3.50 GPA) X 1 (Harvard) = 1450; below the 1500 threshold.

Heard from a reputable source, but no way to confirm truth to it.

does this mean someone with an international GPA is the most disadvantaged within his or her LSAT score group? Like, even someone with, say a 176 and a 2.3 GPA would have an advantage over a 176/Superior? What number would they assign international GPAs?

no. Superior is the top one right? You're looked at similar to how a 3.8-4.0 is looked at I think, but your GPA doesn't get counted for the median. 176/superior (if superior is the highest intl rating) is close to a lock at HLS

[bluedvl]

Any idea what Duke would be in that 0-1 ranking for schools?

[bluedvl]

http://harvard.lawschoolnumbers.com/stats/0809/

That looks like a 176 vs a 178 makes a pretty big difference in the 3.7-3.8 range

[thsmthcrmnl]

For what it's worth, I'm a non-URM who got rejected from Harvard with a 3.70/176.

Confident I'd do better, I retook the 176 (laugh at me, TLS) late in the cycle for scholarship money. I thought 176 was low for me. I was basically getting 180s when I practiced. But I got a 175. And that was without any real pressure, because I knew I was good at CCN on down. Taking the test formally is just not the same as practicing at home. Don't get your hopes too high about doing better. Maybe if you're consistently getting no questions wrong at all, but consistent 180s at home for me was not enough to do better on the real thing.

That said, if you don't care about the money, and if you're better than a 176, there's really no downside, barring some wacky fluke. I'd say go for it, because it might help and it almost certainly won't hurt. But it probably won't help.