Holy Shnikies GMU LSAT median

[joeorgan]

In the admission packet--admitted 2004 class had a median LSAT of 165... what a change from 2003 when 75th was 164. Tells me that they're on the move in the rankings. Certainly makes it a more attractive option in terms of overall law school ambition and future prospects! Oh, and it makes me feel like one lucky SOB.

[regist]

Thats admitted. They could be admitting a lot of people with a 175, but none actually go. The actual enrolled median is probbaly 3-4 pts lower, meaning the median for actual GMU students is a 162 for example./

[kristay]

Thats admitted. They could be admitting a lot of people with a 175, but none actually go. The actual enrolled median is probbaly 3-4 pts lower, meaning the median for actual GMU students is a 162 for example./

Yeah, but that doesn't change the fact that the median LSAT has risen from 2003.  In 2003, when the 75th %tile was 164, for enrolled students, the 75th %tile was most likely a few points lower than that.

[Sportseditor23]

?

[EmoryDude]

Thats admitted. They could be admitting a lot of people with a 175, but none actually go. The actual enrolled median is probbaly 3-4 pts lower, meaning the median for actual GMU students is a 162 for example./

Yeah, but that doesn't change the fact that the median LSAT has risen from 2003.  In 2003, when the 75th %tile was 164, for enrolled students, the 75th %tile was most likely a few points lower than that.

Am I alone in thinking this post makes no sense?

[Sportseditor23]

no you are not the only one, hence the "?"

[kristay]

Thats admitted. They could be admitting a lot of people with a 175, but none actually go. The actual enrolled median is probbaly 3-4 pts lower, meaning the median for actual GMU students is a 162 for example./

Yeah, but that doesn't change the fact that the median LSAT has risen from 2003.  In 2003, when the 75th %tile was 164, for enrolled students, the 75th %tile was most likely a few points lower than that.

Am I alone in thinking this post makes no sense?

I'm sorry, but what part of that isn't making sense?  Am I missing something here?

The OP was pointing out that GMU's LSAT score has risen (based on info from 2004 admits compared to 2003)

Then regist basically said that the OP's data was only for admitted students and that the median for matriculating GMU students is probably a few points lower than admitted students.

My point was that it doesn't really matter who is going to GMU or that the median for matriculating students is lower than admitted...The data for schools ususally IS the data for admitted students, not for actual enrolled students.  I believe that the OP was basically saying that was GMU's LSAT median is going up, and I was just trying to say that regist's comment doesn't change what the OP said.

[Sportseditor23]

It's enrolled (I thought) not admitted. Admitted is skewed since people with high numbers may use GMU as a safety school but then never go there. Why would GMU be credited with that toward their numbers.

[Gummo]

It's enrolled (I thought) not admitted. Admitted is skewed since people with high numbers may use GMU as a safety school but then never go there. Why would GMU be credited with that toward their numbers.

Yeah, I don't think admitted even matters in terms of rankings aside from the admit rate. 

[regist]

Theres no way in hell the median LSAt score at GM is a 165. That would make it as competitive as a top 20 school and theres no way its median is now higher than the 75th. I call bs.