Law School Discussion

"US News Strikes Again!" from Deloggio

A.J

Re: "US News Strikes Again!" from Deloggio
« Reply #20 on: April 24, 2005, 08:42:16 PM »
Those slimy bastards!

Whats up Sunny? 

Your not-a-gal-pal,

AJ

 ;D

inthesun

Re: "US News Strikes Again!" from Deloggio
« Reply #21 on: April 24, 2005, 08:46:03 PM »
Those slimy bastards!

Whats up Sunny? 

Your not-a-gal-pal,

AJ

 ;D

Hi AJ!  I miss the *real* old school!  ;)  What's up?

ilsox7

Re: "US News Strikes Again!" from Deloggio
« Reply #22 on: April 24, 2005, 08:47:12 PM »
Sounds like they are taking the average between the high and low values.  That's hard to believe, if true, since schools will obviously let some (very few) in at the low end.  Just one person can screw up the "average", or "median", or whatever it is that USNWR is actually using.

That's exactly what they did for this year's rankings.  There was a WSJ article about it a few weeks back.  It still amazes me how so many people who are apparently smart enough to get into law school fail to see the horrible flaws with USNEWS and continue to make decisions based on their "rankings."

A.J

Re: "US News Strikes Again!" from Deloggio
« Reply #23 on: April 24, 2005, 08:48:28 PM »
Those slimy bastards!

Whats up Sunny? 

Your not-a-gal-pal,

AJ

 ;D

Hi AJ!  I miss the *real* old school!  ;)  What's up?

Things are good.  Picked a school, getting ready to move etc.

You?

inthesun

Re: "US News Strikes Again!" from Deloggio
« Reply #24 on: April 24, 2005, 08:50:18 PM »
Those slimy bastards!

Whats up Sunny? 

Your not-a-gal-pal,

AJ

 ;D

Hi AJ!  I miss the *real* old school!  ;)  What's up?

Things are good.  Picked a school, getting ready to move etc.

You?

What school did you decide on?

My decision is still up in the air.  Gotta visit u of i next week.  If U of Washington would just take me off their goddamned waitlist!!! 

InVinoVeritas

  • *****
  • 5477
  • Fine! I shall also fix zee hobo suit!
    • AOL Instant Messenger - NVinoVeritasChi
    • View Profile
Re: "US News Strikes Again!" from Deloggio
« Reply #25 on: April 24, 2005, 08:50:51 PM »

And, states that with a 3.4 and 158-159 on the LSAT, you can get into Temple.
Also ,with a 2.8 and 151, you can get into Michigan State.  Is she nuts?


look here http://officialguide.lsac.org/OFFGUIDE/pdf/lsac1168.pdf for michigan state

look here http://officialguide.lsac.org/OFFGUIDE/pdf/lsac2906.pdf for temple.

deloggio may very well be correct.

be careful about using lawschoolnumbers.com data as the sample is generally unrepresentative of the applicant pool as a whole for most schools.

Re: "US News Strikes Again!" from Deloggio
« Reply #26 on: April 24, 2005, 08:53:31 PM »
RE:  "Ok, Paperback, you must have an "in" with Deloggio because you're intentionally avoiding my posts and their arguments."

I have no "in" with Deloggio, and I'm not avoiding your posts.

She is obviously, like we all are, using very recent data to determine what our chances are of getting into particular schools.  That data changes from one year to the next.

RE:  "And Paperback, your argument that adcoms don't have their figures for the 2004 entering class until USNWR issues their 2005 finding, is utter B-S.  Adcoms know in August, when the class arrives, what the numbers are for that year's entering class."

I never said that.  With this data from USNWR, which is only three weeks old, she is projecting what will happen with the waitlisted folks and next year's (and beyond) applicants.  If USNWR continues to use this funky methodology, then schools will be far less likely to admit students who have excellent soft factors and numbers that are lower than they'd normally like to admit.  If you are admitted already for Fall 2005 to a school of your choice, then it will not affect you.  If you are waitlisted for Fall 2005, it will probably affect you.  If you are going to apply in 2006, it will definitely affect you (assuming that you apply to a few reach schools, which almost everyone does).

RE:  "In short, Deloggios numbers are dated. She's got no "inside" track. And anyone she suckers into paying for this service deserves to be ripped off.  Why? You've got no common sense: a little common sense and Deloggio's disclaimer reveals that not even she can *guarantee* your acceptance to those school. In short, she's an infomercial for the students scared of law school and the admissions process. Quite sad."

Of course she can't guarantee anything - that's life.  Of course her numbers are going to be "dated."  Heck, the adcomms don't even know what their Fall 2005 numbers are going to look like.  She does have a lot of good information on her website, which she lets people read without charging them.  Much of the information is quite good, and would take me forever to look up and compile.

What she's saying about the latest USNWR ranking makes a lot of sense.  I think you have an axe to grind against Deloggio.

Re: "US News Strikes Again!" from Deloggio
« Reply #27 on: April 24, 2005, 09:09:50 PM »
"US News Strikes Again!   
Nothing affects law school admissions policies as much as the US News rankings, and this year they've created a crisis.  They say they use the median LSAT score, but this year they didn't.  I checked the printed methodology, and it clearly says "median."  Instead, they split the difference between the 25th and 75th percentile scores.   

What difference does it make?  Let's look at Duke.  Their 75th %ile is 169; their median is 168; their 25th %ile is 162; the "split" is 165.5.  Using this number instead of the actual 168 lowered Duke in the USNews rankings.   

Using an arbitrary number instead of the published standard is unconscionable.  More importantly, it forces law schools to react to the actual number used.  Schools like Duke with broad discretionary ranges, and thus low 25th percentiles, will look at applicants with high LSAT scores to fill their remaining seats.  People with stellar academic records and a low LSAT may well be ignored in the next months.   

So those of you with high LSAT scores may well see some wait list action.  People with high GPAs are not likely to see any more offers from schools with broad discretionary ranges.

And in the future?  We don't know yet if USNWR plans to continue using this meaningless number, or why it chose to use it.  I can assure you, however, that if it continues to use it, diversity admits among mainstream applicants are doomed.  Law schools can't afford to throw away their rankings in order to admit that fascinating applicant with the unfortunately low LSAT score."
   

http://www.deloggio.com/newweb/news.htm

Just how is that bad? Schools that are not URM factories are helped by this new methodology, where in the past, they--and not schools like Duke--were penalized.  Why give "bonus points" for schools that admit students that simply haven't put up the numbers?



Re: "US News Strikes Again!" from Deloggio
« Reply #28 on: April 24, 2005, 09:20:40 PM »
Deloggio claims to have "inside information" from adcoms, trips around the country to law school admissions forum, which

for a fee

she will share with you, arguably, to aid you with your chances of gaining acceptance to law school.

Please note: this critique is completely different from her observations of the 2005 USNWR LSAT scores.  It is simply an observation of her methodology in reporting "chances of admissions," listed on this website:  http://www.deloggio.com/admproc/getin05.htm

Although Deloggio's "chances of admission" grid is compiled from 2003 LSAC reports,

adcoms are NOT using 2003 LSAC data when they render their 2005 admissions decisions.
Adcoms use last year's data, thus 2004 data, along with their projections of applications trends for the 2005 cycle. And adcoms render "holds," "deferrals," "waitlists," etc. based on THIS information.

Yes, because lawschoolnumbers is not reflective of the gamut of each school's applicant pool, it is not representative of the school's trends as a whole. However, the larger the number of users who log-in, the better your chances are of gauging your 2005 acceptance.  For example, the LSN users for CUNY would not be as reflective of the 2005 admission trends as let's say Suffolk.

Nevertheless, if you ARE going to gauge your chances of admission on ANY data, the reasonable man says that it's best to use

2004 data

rather than 2003 data, which Deloggio claim to have "updated" from "2004 law school forums."

The reasonable man, on critique of Deloggio's data, sees this. IF Deloggio actually went to law school forums in 2004 with this 2003 LSAC data and "tweaked" the 2003 LSAC data to reflect the 2004 entering class, her numbers would be entirely different

Clearly there is NO way that, for example, a Non-URM:

With a 3.4 and 158 would be admitted to Temple's full-time program,
Or, with a 2.8 and 151 awould be admitted FT to Mich. State.

Let's be honest people.  I have no ax to grind with Deloggio.  She's just blowing smoke at you and you're too scared to critique her data objectively.

inthesun

Re: "US News Strikes Again!" from Deloggio
« Reply #29 on: April 24, 2005, 09:28:48 PM »

Just how is that bad? Schools that are not URM factories are helped by this new methodology, where in the past, they--and not schools like Duke--were penalized.  Why give "bonus points" for schools that admit students that simply haven't put up the numbers?


I feel that a 167 with a 4.0 is putting up numbers, but if the prediction is correct, this person may become less competitive than a 170 3.0.  THAT'S what is wrong with the flawed methodology.  Schools might be afraid to accept students with mediocre LSATs who are otherwise (GPA, extracurriculars, WE) great candidates.  


Novasnoodle:  I don't see how deloggio's analysis of data provided by USNWR has anything to do with data that she has compiled on her on and has nothing to do with the above entry. 

And FYI:  I know personally that many LS admissions dean's respect her, and give her the time of day.  I saw Faye Deal (Stanford) approach her at a forum, and spend several minutes chatting with her.  Something anyone who was busy recruiting students would not take the time to do with someone they could care less about.  HTH