3.92 vs 3.93 Forum

[TunnelVision]

I just got my final grades back for this semester and my LSAC gpa will be a 3.92, but I know if I asked this one professor I could probably get an A converted to an A+, but that just brings me up to a 3.93. Is it worth it, or is there really not a difference? Thanks

[jrthor10]

The difference is .01.

It matters probably as much as you might think .01 matters.

[KMaine]

Why are smart people so stupid? Don't bother your professor. I would knock your ass down a letter grade just for being annoying.

[CanadianWolf]

It'll help at any law school sporting a 3.92 median GPA.

[Band A Long]

but I know if I asked this one professor I could probably get an A converted to an A+

Does this mean you know you could get it changed because there is a simple clerical error or missed calculation from an assignment, or because you would grovel in front of him or her and generally offend them? The latter would be pretty sad.

[TunnelVision]

Haha thanks guys... I didn't know...

[laxbrah420]

It'll help at any law school sporting a 3.92 median GPA.

why?

[stillwater]

It'll help at any law school sporting a 3.92 median GPA.

why?

It'd pull their median up potentially...even if by .01. Not mindbending stuff.

[CanadianWolf]

Because law school's try to maintain & raise their median LSAT & GPA numbers. A 3.93 is above a school's median of 3.92 so that is significant. A 3.92 would probably be above all other law schools' GPA median.

[Br3v]

Even though it doesn't really matter, if you earned a + and think you can get it why not?

[laxbrah420]

Because law school's try to maintain & raise their median LSAT & GPA numbers. A 3.93 is above a school's median of 3.92 so that is significant. A 3.92 would probably be above all other law schools' GPA median.

It's not significant. It's not a contest to see who gets the highest gpa. It's a contest to see who wins the rankings game. .01 change in median *10% of rankings is completely negligible. It matters only if there's a floor, which obviously doesn't come into play here

[Br3v]

Because law school's try to maintain & raise their median LSAT & GPA numbers. A 3.93 is above a school's median of 3.92 so that is significant. A 3.92 would probably be above all other law schools' GPA median.

It's not significant. It's not a contest to see who gets the highest gpa. It's a contest to see who wins the rankings game. .01 change in median *10% of rankings is completely negligible. It matters only if there's a floor, which obviously doesn't come into play here

Wouldn't that raise the gpa by 0.1?
I'd say that's fairly significant.
Not going to make or break any school, but once again why wouldn't you want the higher gpa all else being equal?

[dooood]

Because law school's try to maintain & raise their median LSAT & GPA numbers. A 3.93 is above a school's median of 3.92 so that is significant. A 3.92 would probably be above all other law schools' GPA median.

It's not significant. It's not a contest to see who gets the highest gpa. It's a contest to see who wins the rankings game. .01 change in median *10% of rankings is completely negligible. It matters only if there's a floor, which obviously doesn't come into play here

You're totally missing the point. It's only negligible if you assume this guy is the very last candidate they consider. Aggregated across an entire admissions class and all else equal, of course they're going to take the 3.93 over the 3.92, because the contest to see who gets the highest GPA bears directly on the contest to see who wins the rankings game.

[laxbrah420]

Because law school's try to maintain & raise their median LSAT & GPA numbers. A 3.93 is above a school's median of 3.92 so that is significant. A 3.92 would probably be above all other law schools' GPA median.

It's not significant. It's not a contest to see who gets the highest gpa. It's a contest to see who wins the rankings game. .01 change in median *10% of rankings is completely negligible. It matters only if there's a floor, which obviously doesn't come into play here

You're totally missing the point. It's only negligible if you assume this guy is the very last candidate they consider. Aggregated across an entire admissions class and all else equal, of course they're going to take the 3.93 over the 3.92, because the contest to see who gets the highest GPA bears directly on the contest to see who wins the rankings game.

No, that doesn't make any sense. A 3.93 vs a 3.92, in the worst case can cause a .01 median shift, which seems very unlikely. Should a .01 median shift occur, 10% *.01 = .001 (not .1 br3v) which is negligible for the rankings.

[Band A Long]

No, that doesn't make any sense. A 3.93 vs a 3.92, in the worst case can cause a .01 median shift, which seems very unlikely. Should a .01 median shift occur, 10% *.01 = .001 (not .1 br3v) which is negligible for the rankings.

You're thinking about this too hard. It's not a question of which is better. A 3.93 is > than a 3.92. Admittedly miniscule, but still objectively a better GPA. The question is, "is it worth complaining about?" The answer is — yes if it's an easy fix than do it but if it's going to be a turn off for someone important (or, even worse, a LoR writer), then no.

[laxbrah420]

No, that doesn't make any sense. A 3.93 vs a 3.92, in the worst case can cause a .01 median shift, which seems very unlikely. Should a .01 median shift occur, 10% *.01 = .001 (not .1 br3v) which is negligible for the rankings.

You're thinking about this too hard. It's not a question of which is better. A 3.93 is > than a 3.92. Admittedly miniscule, but still objectively a better GPA. The question is, "is it worth complaining about?" The answer is — yes if it's an easy fix than do it but if it's going to be a turn off for someone important (or, even worse, a LoR writer), then no.

lolwut
My point is that it's actually not better.
1.000001 =1.001 if you round to the nearest integer.

[Ruxin1]

worry about getting a 170+ and not this menial shit bro

[dooood]

Because law school's try to maintain & raise their median LSAT & GPA numbers. A 3.93 is above a school's median of 3.92 so that is significant. A 3.92 would probably be above all other law schools' GPA median.

It's not significant. It's not a contest to see who gets the highest gpa. It's a contest to see who wins the rankings game. .01 change in median *10% of rankings is completely negligible. It matters only if there's a floor, which obviously doesn't come into play here

You're totally missing the point. It's only negligible if you assume this guy is the very last candidate they consider. Aggregated across an entire admissions class and all else equal, of course they're going to take the 3.93 over the 3.92, because the contest to see who gets the highest GPA bears directly on the contest to see who wins the rankings game.

No, that doesn't make any sense. A 3.93 vs a 3.92, in the worst case can cause a .01 median shift, which seems very unlikely. Should a .01 median shift occur, 10% *.01 = .001 (not .1 br3v) which is negligible for the rankings.

That's based on the assumption that the aggregation of accepting 3.92s over 3.93s and 3.54s over 3.53s across an entire admissions class only results in a .01 drop in total. The admissions process occurs over the period of 7 months and is not based on a single candidate. The point is there's nowhere to draw the line. If the admissions committee says, "oh what the hell it's only one point" over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over, that aggregates into a huge difference.

Also, even if your math was sound, your argument assumes that admissions committees are rational beings. Even if they acknowledged that a .01 difference would have no bearing on the overall ranking, they would want to be able to boast a 3.93 median over a 3.92, just because it makes their school look more elite.

[laxbrah420]

Just a quick question... do you know what a median is?

ETA: QFPofnotunderstandingmath
(or economics/decision making really)

That's based on the assumption that the aggregation of accepting 3.92s over 3.93s and 3.54s over 3.53s across an entire admissions class only results in a .01 drop in total. The admissions process occurs over the period of 7 months and is not based on a single candidate. The point is there's nowhere to draw the line. If the admissions committee says, "oh what the hell it's only one point" over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over, that aggregates into a huge difference.

Also, even if your math was sound, your argument assumes that admissions committees are rational beings. Even if they acknowledged that a .01 difference would have no bearing on the overall ranking, they would want to be able to boast a 3.93 median over a 3.92, just because it makes their school look more elite.

[Band A Long]

No, that doesn't make any sense. A 3.93 vs a 3.92, in the worst case can cause a .01 median shift, which seems very unlikely. Should a .01 median shift occur, 10% *.01 = .001 (not .1 br3v) which is negligible for the rankings.

You're thinking about this too hard. It's not a question of which is better. A 3.93 is > than a 3.92. Admittedly miniscule, but still objectively a better GPA. The question is, "is it worth complaining about?" The answer is — yes if it's an easy fix than do it but if it's going to be a turn off for someone important (or, even worse, a LoR writer), then no.

lolwut
My point is that it's actually not better.
1.000001 =1.001 if you round to the nearest integer.

Explain how a 3.93 isn't a higher GPA than a 3.92. Please.

[Br3v]

Just a quick question... do you know what a median is?

[dooood]

Just a quick question... do you know what a median is?

ETA: QFPofnotunderstandingmath
(or economics/decision making really)

That's based on the assumption that the aggregation of accepting 3.92s over 3.93s and 3.54s over 3.53s across an entire admissions class only results in a .01 drop in total. The admissions process occurs over the period of 7 months and is not based on a single candidate. The point is there's nowhere to draw the line. If the admissions committee says, "oh what the hell it's only one point" over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over, that aggregates into a huge difference.

Also, even if your math was sound, your argument assumes that admissions committees are rational beings. Even if they acknowledged that a .01 difference would have no bearing on the overall ranking, they would want to be able to boast a 3.93 median over a 3.92, just because it makes their school look more elite.

Not understanding economics/decision-making? I know that admissions officers care about crafting a class containing students with the highest stats possible. Accepting students with (even marginally) lower stats, if done enough times, lowers the median (see I do know what that means). Ceteris paribus, why the f would an adcom ever accept the 3.92 over the 3.93? Quit poisoning this thread with your crap.

OP, if it's because of a computational error, then point it out politely. If not, I'd probably let it go, as your GPA is already pretty kickass.

[stillwater]

Ceteris paribus, why the f would an adcom ever accept the 3.92 over the 3.93? Quit poisoning this thread with your crap.

Take it easy, Cicero.

[dooood]

Ceteris paribus, why the f would an adcom ever accept the 3.92 over the 3.93? Quit poisoning this thread with your crap.

Take it easy, Cicero.

It didn't seem to go through when I wrote it in English. Also, try being a little quicker on your feet with your quips next time so you don't have to stealth edit your poasts.

[laxbrah420]

Ceteris paribus, why the f would an adcom ever accept the 3.92 over the 3.93? Quit poisoning this thread with your crap.

Take it easy, Cicero.

It didn't seem to go through when I wrote it in English. Also, try being a little quicker on your feet with your quips next time so you don't have to stealth edit your poasts.

It was to show me that he knows economics.
Yet, still doesn't understand rational agents or medians