Law School Discussion

UCLA.  Absolutely hideous.
www.law.ucla.edu 

I have several questions concerning the newest pre-law obsession, chiashu (http://www.chiashu.com/lsat.html).

First, where does it come from?  Who wrote the page and made the formula? 

Likely Suspects:

ZPops:  He's been singing the praises of chiashu on several websites, and his style of writing and LSAT (175) are very similar to that of

"calculator" (176), a guest who claims to have created the site (http://www.lawschooldiscussion.org/prelaw/index.php/topic,473.0.html).  According to Calculator, this is how the data was obtained and used:

My data came from the LSAC.

The difference is that LSAC only gives you a range, whereas I give you the exact calculation.  You can try it and verify that my calculations are correct.

I only wanted ot provide this because the difference between 40% and 60% is quite significant, but the LSAC lumps them in the same range.

You can also use my site, vary the LSAT and GPA, and see how much the school of your choice values LSAT vs. GPA.

The first skeptic to question Calculator's site was none other than "Andrew", an LSD Site Administrator:

Calculator -

Where does your data come from?  If from LSAC, how do you have "more concrete numbers" then them?

My data came from the LSAC.

The difference is that LSAC only gives you a range, whereas I give you the exact calculation.  You can try it and verify that my calculations are correct.

I only wanted ot provide this because the difference between 40% and 60% is quite significant, but the LSAC lumps them in the same range.

You can also use my site, vary the LSAT and GPA, and see how much the school of your choice values LSAT vs. GPA.

I'm just curious how it works - not questioning the accuracy of your methods.  I haven't looked at this stuff in a long time.

I'm still confused though. How do you take a range and convert it to an absolute?  Or do you somehow harvest more than the ranges from LSAC?

Let's just say it's not that hard to harvest the information that the lsac is trying to hide if you're tech savvy.

It also isn't difficult to see that the parameters they have are based on ALL the applicants of that year, and they have a formula approximating the probabilities.  It is a mathematical formula for distribution.

Why?

My guess is that it's probably a combination of altruism and greed.  I guarantee that since the calculator was put on that website, the creator has made some money from the Amazon ads.

Accurate?

The problem with chiashu is that the methodology isn't published on the site.  How do we know what year the data is from?  Is the formula "peer-reviewed"? 

Maroon brings up another problem that I've noticed when comparing chiashu to the new 2005 ABA LSAC Official Guide statistics:

I don't understand some of the calculations.  For example, according to the calculator, I would have a 74% chance of being accepted to Vanderbilt with a 3.6 and a 170.  However, according to the LSAC website, Vanderbilt accepted 27 out of 27 who applied with GPAs between 3.5-3.75 and LSATs between 170-174.  That is a 100% vs. 74%.  Something just doesn't seem right...

Thanks and Gig 'Em,
Jason

Until these questions are answered, one shouldn't rely on chiashu when deciding where to apply.

The way I understand it, each applicant gives law school admissions people two numerical presents: an LSAT score, and a GPA.  These presents can look good or bad, depending on the law school and what they want to accept and keep to show to USNews. 

My question is this: will the 4th year undergrad who sends his application in October, as part of the early admissions cycle, be at a disadvantage because his UGPA is not set in stone?  Will admissions deans be weary of accepting him, because he could bomb his next two semesters and drag his GPA, and thus the law school’s incoming class GPA, down?

I’ve been working under the assumption that this is not the case, and the GPA statistics reported to USNews come from the LSDAS GPA reported to the law school when the decision to admit was made, and not when the undergrad transcript was complete.  Am I right?

Was the prose vs. verse passage on the experimental section??? The answer to this question will determine a)how drunk I get tonight, and b)what kind of drunk i get tonight.  Thank you.

Section 4, Problem 18.

Coach:  Our team has often been criticized for our enthusiasm in response to both our successes and our opponents' failures.  But this behavior is hardly unprofessional, as our critics have claimed.  On the contrary, if one looks at the professionals in this sport, one will find that they are even more effusive.  Our critics should leave the team alone and let the players enjoy the game.

The coach's argument is most vulnerable to the charge that it

(A)  misleadingly equates enthusiasm with unethical play
(B)  misinterprets the critics' claim that the team is unprofessional
(C)  too quickly generalizes from the sport at one level to the sport at a different level
(D)  shifts the blame for the team's behavior to professional players
(E)  takes everyone on the team to have performed the actions of a few

OK, before I even looked at the answers I knew the vulnerability was that the coach misinterpreted the critics' claim that the team was too enthusiastic. 

I saw B and was confused because it too misinterprets the critics' claim.  It should read "misinterprets the critics' claim" or "misinterprets the critics' claim; interpreting that the team is unprofessional."

I (incorrectly) chose D, using POE.  Is my reasoning due to a grammatical idiosyncrasy or did anyone else find a problem with answer B?