<p>AVERAGE LSAT SCORE BY UNDERGRAD INSTITUION
Valdosta State University 145
Southern Illinois University 146
Richard Stockton College of New Jersey 148
Towson University 148
Cal State Fullerton 148
Baruch - 149
UNC Wilmington - 149
Kennesaw State 149
City Univ. of NY 149
U New Mexico 149
Houston 149
Marist College 149
The Citadel 149
Uni. Nebraska - Omaha 149
University of Mississippi 150
U Hawaii 150
Wright State 150
University of Saskatchewan - 150
Franklin & Marshall 151
Ohio University 151
U Cincinnati 151
Marquette 151
Grand Valley State University - 152
St. John’s 152
UConn 152
Michigan State 152
Arizona State 152
U Oklahoma 152
Saint Louis 152
Purdue University 152
Southern Utah University 152
University of Tennessee 152
Penn State, 152
Texas Christian University (TCU) 153
Indiana Bloomington 153
Ursinus College 153
Virginia Tech 153
University Maryland - Baltimore County 153
Baylor 153
Touro 153
American 154
Ohio State 154
U Oregon 154
Da Gators 154
U Iowa 154
U Santa Cruz 154
University of Mary Washington 154
Uni. Nebraska - Lincoln 154
UGa 155
University of Minnesota 155
Texas A&M 155
The College of New Jersey 155
Rensselaer Polytech Ins 155
U Illinois 155
U Washington 155
UCSB 155
UNC Chapel Hill - 155
CU Boulder 155
UC Davis 155
Wisconsin Madison 156
Lawrence University - 156
BU 156
Calvin College 156
Rutgers College 156
UCSD 156
Texas 156
George Washington 157
Wake Forest 157
USC (Southern Cal) 157
NYU 158
UCLA 158
Uva 158
WUSTL 158
U Michigan 158
Brandeis 158
St. John’s College (NOT St. John’s University) 158
UDallas 158
Georgia Tech 158
Vanderbilt 159
Bryn Mawr College 159
BYU 159
Colby College 159
Emory 159
Berkeley 159
Johns Hopkins 159
William & Mary 160
Georgetown 161
Haverford College 161
Washington & Lee 161
Northwestern 161
Notre Dame 161
U Chicago 162
Rice 162
Claremont McKenna 162
Columbia 163
Dartmouth 163
Duke 163
UPenn 163
MIT 163
Princeton 164
Stanford 164
Pomona College 164
Yale 165
Harvard 166</p>
<p>Well, while I think it was a nice idea, using grad test scores can’t tell you that. The schools were more selective to begin with when it comes to the ability and intelligence of the students, and so there will be a “bias” 3+ years later. Now if the test could be administered before they start their freshman year and then again at the normal time, looking at the improvement in scores (presumably, lol) would be interesting. But absent that there are too many confounding factors.</p>
<p>I agree, but it still boils down to my claim/personal opinion that a good student will thrive no matter what school he goes to. The problem with claims about research is that an exceptional student can look for opportunities elsewhere. Thats why LACs are one of the best schools for feeding into PhDs. Smart students who cannot find opportunities in their undergrad would search for outside opportunities.</p>
<p>You are correct though, the scores strongly correlate to the academic profiles of the average student in the college. However, I am sure like all “stats”, this average LSAT scores could be flawed</p>
<p>I’m still struggling to find the same Cal the data that you are viewing. According to the link I provided, 72% of the fall matriculants had a 3.8+ UNweighted gpa.</p>
<p>And, yes, while I am a HUGE fan of Scott Cowen (and Donna Shalala), Tulane and other schools SHOULD be castigated for not making their CDS public. That they choose to not do so, gives the appearance of hiding something. (And I know for a fact that USoCal definitely hides it’s athletic recruits from published data.) While that is clearly their right, it is not good for ‘transparency.’ Not following the directions (Miami and Wake) is just inexcusable, IMO. (caps intentional)</p>
<p>p-girl: There is no UC cap on OOS students. The UCs have low OOS rates due to price-- no merit money in this blue state, and thus folks have to think long and hard before they shell out $50k for a public. Geography also plays a factor – UVa and UMich have plenty of students in nearby states. UCLA has the desert…</p>
<p>Fallen, this is not an issue about being coy. Your point was that Tulane could not release a document they might not complete. The common element of the data I linked to was that the information comes from the Common Data Set. The point was to make you see that Tulane does participate in those survey, but does not think that they should join the group of schools that publish the completed form in an easily accessible place. </p>
<p>I did not speculate why the school does not fill the form, because that does not appear the case. As far as the reasons not to post the CDS, as I said none of them are meant to benefit the students and their families. The bottom line is not that complicated; Tulane does not publish the CDS, and they know the reason for not doing it. Observers can --and do-- consider this unproductive and contrary to the movement of increasing the transparency between schools and their … customers.</p>
<p>It might not be an issue about being coy, but it sure seemed like it with your arrogant and condescending comment about my not understanding “the issue”, coupled with your challenging me to find some common element between 3 very involved websites. There is where I didn’t understand very well, because you were being very obscure, or thought you were being very clever, I guess. It isn’t very much of an issue and it isn’t hard to understand. As you point out all the data seems to be there, certainly all the data anyone would need to understand the various facets of a school.</p>
<p>I cannot for the life of me see where “transparency” is missing. Tulane is quite open about all the data. Yes, they could put it in a CDS form. What new would we learn that cannot be found anyway that is of any real importance? And as I say, since all these things are used to provide a basis for ratings and rankings but are inaccurately reported in many cases, what’s the point? I actually called PR over the issue of people reporting weighted GPA’s and they were clueless!! And yes, I talked right to the guys responsible for the data and posting it. Sure is a great system.</p>
<p>Commercial interests pay some universities to come up with a common system, and some universities should be castigated because they don’t just fall in line? That’s an amazing point of view to me. I feel quite confident that if Tulane, Notre Dame and the others saw that it provided a benefit that outweighed whatever other considerations they are taking into account, they would do it. For all I know they will start doing it next year. Given the amazing progress Tulane has made since the CDS started, neither they nor the customer seem to have a problem with their lack of “cooperation”.</p>
<p>This is a lot of bluster over a relatively unimportant document. Believe what you want, enjoy your conspiracy theories. Because if you don’t think Tulane is hiding anything, then seeing the CDS will add nothing. If you think they are, again please tell me what that is and provide some evidence. Otherwise it is incredibly trivial in the end.</p>
<p>Bluebayou - I did a custom table, data type persistence etc., freshmen entered from high school, fall 2008, all students, Berkeley only, UC GPA, simple table one variable, then check off high school GPA unweighted. It shows 4,248 enrollees, of which 1,168 have no data. So the universe of data is 3080 data points, and 1,824 of those are 3.8+, or 59.2%. If there is a flaw in my methodology, happy to have it pointed out.</p>
<p>Fallen, enough already! My posts were neither arrogant nor condescending. I wrote that you did not understand this issue very well and offered a simple way to gain some knowledge about what the CDS is or is supposed to be. </p>
<p>Now, not only do you confirm not having a clue about the CDS or how college data is collected and published, but you do it with an attitude.</p>
<p>It’s data!! It’s a form!! There is some mystery to how college data is collected and published? Enlighten us then. It isn’t quantum mechanics, I feel pretty sure. Wow, that is entirely arrogant for you to say. I think the fact that I knew that so many schools report weighted GPA’s and knew the PR was clueless to the fact that it was happening shows I am quite aware of what is going on with this data reporting. In fact, since these schools do report inaccurate data in many cases, what does that do to the vaunted USNWR rankings compared to schools that do it accurately? Maybe nothing, I don’t analyze the ranking methodology in detail because I already know they are worthless. I do know that since PR doesn’t correct the GPA data (since they were totally unaware) but use it as a major factor in their “selectivity index”, the index is worthless. So much for the publishers and their data. So you see, I know quite a bit about all this.</p>
<p>You are complaining this much because they don’t publish the same data in a particular form?? This is not really hard to understand. Please, make your position clearer then. I had already seen the CDS website, and there was nothing there that supported anything you are saying or negated any point I made. I think you have the attitude, and yes, you telling me what I do and don’t understand is arrogant and condescending.</p>
<p>fallen: from UC statfinder – all matriculants have data. I think your methodology error was sorting on ‘UC gpa’, which by definition, is weighted. The sort below was unweighted.</p>
<p>Fall applicants, fall admits, fall enrollees, admit rate, yield rate for fall applicants, first-time freshmen by high school GPA-unweighted: 2009, Berkeley</p>
<p>Bluebayou - I wasn’t citing UC gpa, it just tagged along. How can someone’s UC gpa be weighted? I don’t know their grading system but that seems bizarre. I think you are misreading the table. You really think that 27% of the students had an unweighted 4.0? That seems most unlikely. Those numbers you give are very similar to the table I am seeing, off by only a few in each category, but “mine” is either saying that 4.0 PLUS unknown/missing is 1,168, or that 1,168 are unknown/missing, which is what they make it look more like. Just follow exactly what I did and you will see. Another thing that makes me think I am right is that I ran the exact same table except I put in weighted GPA instead of unweighted. The number of unknowns is very clearly shown as 146. Given that we all know that many high schools do not report unweighted GPA to the colleges, and the colleges often don’t bother to calculate it themselves, it is highly likely that about 1,100 schools of matriculating students simply didn’t report unweighted GPA’s so Cal just reported them as unknown.</p>
<p>I don’t see the table you are talking about at all, just one for weighted GPA.</p>
<p>Good grief, they fill out a form, maybe the CDS form, but maybe not. So let’s say it is. So what? You people are throwing a fit/saying they have something to hide because they don’t choose to post it? Wow. Big freakin’ deal. The data, as you say yourself, is all out there and easily found and digested. All, at least, in the sense that many schools leave areas of the form blank or report N/A, such as Harvard for GPA ranges.</p>
<p>I repeat, what new do we learn if they post a pdf of the form? What a lot of nonsense. At most they are guilty of a marketing decision you don’t like. You admit they report the data, you even linked it all. You cannot imagine, apparently, how silly it sounds: The data is out there but it isn’t on the form you want it to be on. You would make an excellent government employee.</p>
<p>I have a question: Are the companies that started all this, USNWR, PR, and Peterson’s posting their data in the same form as the CDS? It doesn’t look like it to me.</p>
<p>Fall applicants, fall admits, fall enrollees, admit rate, yield rate for fall applicants, first-time freshmen by type of high school, high school GPA-unweighted: 2009, Berkeley</p>
<p>Steps: </p>
<p>StatFinderYour table
Applicants Freshmen
Term and year Fall 2009
Residency All applicants
Universitywide or campus Berkeley
Type of information Rates and counts
Type of table Simple table
Applicant characteristics Type of high school High school GPA-unweighted</p>
<p>A government employee! Will you stop with the cheap barbs?</p>
<p>And, no, I cannot imagine how silly it sounds to point that some schools prefer to obfuscate data when it is so simple to copy and paste a PDF on their website. As far as the value of the CDS as opposed to other sources, people who happen to have good reasons to follow this kind of data know how valuable it is to have access to multi-year and comparable data sources. </p>
<p>While I do not blame for being oblivious about this, you might consider respecting the positions of people who obviously know a lot more about this subject than you do.</p>
<p>Indeed they do! The way the UC app works, is that the student enters all UC-approved courses grades online, or at least Frosh-Junior year. The UC computer in the sky (or Oakland) then calculates three gpa’s: unweighted, weighted-uncapped, weighted-capped. But that gpa is based solely on courses approved by UC for admissions eligibility. Thus, health, PE, driver’s ed are excluded, as are Frosh grades. So yeah, I have no problem with 1,183 matriculants with a 4.0, based on two years of courses. Heck, our one HS probably had at least 20+, if not more. Factor in that Cal strives for geographic diversity, so the 4.0 Val from Podunk HS will be accepted (and likely matriculate).</p>
OK, I had no idea they were supposed to be trying to market to these statistician types, I thought it was to high school students, who I very much doubt would sift through years of data. Silly me. I am not saying it isn’t handy for people like us that like to see data like this sometimes, in fact it is. But it absolutely is not Tulane’s, or Notre Dame’s or any of the others job to satisfy us. And how, pray tell, are they obfuscating the data? It all seems quite clear to me, and obviously you don’t think I am too bright.</p>
<p>Using bluebayou’s link, I don’t see StatFinder “Your Table”.</p>
<p>Bluebayou - wow, OK. Two years of grades. That certainly makes it comparable to data nationwide. So the 4.0 is fairly bogus. I get it now. And wait, you are saying the student enters the data? Really?</p>
<p>Yes, the data is self-entered. And yes, mistakes/typos do happen. And yes, I’ve posted numerous times on cc over the years that the UC top 10% is “estimated.”</p>
<p>mistakes/typos is being generous. We have all seen there are a number of students that would enter false data for no other reason than to do it. What is the check/balance for that? Otherwise, to even discuss this “data” in a serious manner is simply ridiculous. No self-respecting mathematician or analyst would base any serious report on unsubstantiated data. Two years of data (which is supposed to be 4) that is self reported? If this is what they use for the CDS, it sure is another vote for its integrity.</p>
<p>I have never discussed about how bright you were. I have only pointed out that you did not seem to know much about the CDS and how college statistics are collected and shared. </p>
<p>I do not know how I could make it any clearer. A school that does NOT post its CDS is obfuscating data. A school that deleted parts of its CDS is also obfuscating data. A school that prefers posting admission data on a selective basis on its website IS obfuscating data. It is not their place to decide which data are important to students. </p>
<p>Since you’re so adamant to protect Tulane, could you please point me to the page of **their **website where I could find something quite simple: the exact number of students admitted under Early and Regular decision. Reason? I’d like to tell a prospective applicant, if she might have a better chance to be accepted if applying early. I’d like to show the statistics for the past short 3 years to substantiate my numbers with verifiable statistics. </p>
<p>Pleading innocence or lack of previous interest, I only know about this Tulane webpage:</p>
<p>Please note that the information posted below is NOT sufficient (and see why)</p>
<p>Applications
Applied 39,928
Admitted 26% === what is that number? Is it 10,563? If it is, why not say so?
Enrolled 1500 </p>
<p>Now, if 10,563 were admitted, how many were admitted in the early round? How many enrolled from both rounds? And, how did change from the Class of 2011 and 2012? </p>
<p>Since all the data is available, it should be a cinch to find it. After all, this should be a LOT simpler than finding the number of admitted students at WUSTL. Now, that is a mission for Ethan Hawke.</p>