<p>Top law schools, including Berkeley(Boalt), accordingly adjusts for GPA’s by undergraduate institution: </p>
<p><a href=“http://web.archive.org/web/20000829094953/http://www.pcmagic.net/abe/gradeadj.htm[/url]”>http://web.archive.org/web/20000829094953/http://www.pcmagic.net/abe/gradeadj.htm</a></p>
<p>That’s from the 90’s. You’re two decades off. They used to, but no longer do.</p>
<p>[Average</a> LSAT scores for undergraduate institutions?](<a href=“Average LSAT scores for undergraduate institutions? Forum - Top Law Schools”>Average LSAT scores for undergraduate institutions? Forum - Top Law Schools)</p>
<p>Probably your older source. Note at the end of the thread Wash U’s have gone up since the initial thread.</p>
<p>None of this shows anything which contradicts the evidence that Brown/Columbia/Dartmouth/Penn students have higher average LSAT scores than NU students.</p>
<p>I don’t think it does contradict that- though what you meant is that the average score of those who take the LSAT at Brown etc is higher, not that ALL Brown students have high LSAT scores. Bit of a difference. But the fact of the matter is the grades ARE inflated, and schools do not correct for that.</p>
<p>jumpfroggyjump,</p>
<p>What “evidence”? You are not telling me you still cling onto that list, are you? Relax, it’s not the Bible… Let me explain this one last time. It’s extremely unlikely that WashU students with ~1450 SAT average would get only an average of 158 on LSAT. That list says Berkeley’s average was 159 when the actual average was 162 in 2008. Big difference. Can’t help you further if you still don’t understand it.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Let’s assume that WashU’s 1450 SAT represents that for enrolled (vs. admitted) students. Even if this were the case, why do you think there should be a (near) perfect correlation between WashU’s SAT and LSAT scores? The 1450 SAT is for the “average” WashU student. Who’s to say that the WashU students who take the LSAT are “average?” Given that WashU attracts mainly aspiring pre-med students, couldn’t it be possible that the law students at WashU are “below average?” That the higher SAT scorers at WashU tend to be pre-med? Or interested in PhD’s in the (especially biological) sciences, since WashU is more known for and stronger in the sciences than the humanities? Or future MBA’s because WashU offers an undergraduate business program? Therefore, perhaps prelaw is an afterthought at WashU. So it is entirely possible that “WashU students with ~1450 SAT average would get only an average of 158 on LSAT.” </p>
<p>But why do you keep distracting everyone with talk about WashU’s LSAT score? Is it because you have yet to provide a single shred of evidence that NU has improved its 161 LSAT score? Or more importantly, that NU has improved its LSAT score relative to that of Brown/Columbia/Dartmouth/Penn? Until you give me some reason to think that NU’s LSAT score has equalled or surpassed that of Brown/Columbia/Dartmouth/Penn, I will continue to “cling” to the available information that I do have.</p>
<p>
It’s based on reasonable extrapolation and common sense. LSAT/SAT are extremely similar in that they test analytical intellgence. There’s no reason to believe somehow Penn/Brown just picks kids that are particularly good at taking LSAT. It’d take an act of God if you want WashU students to average 5 points lower on LSAT than Penn students when the former already have higher SAT average. :rolleyes:</p>
<p>Please look at the SAT range at WashU; the score is in the upper 1300s even at the 25th percentile. It’s silly to think there is a huge difference between the premeds and the nonpremeds at WashU; when you apply to WashU, you need very competitive scores, regardless of whether you are interested in premed or not. The admission doesn’t care either if you will be a premed. The self-selection you alleged, even if it exists, happens only after the admission process is finished and can’t create the kind of difference you hypothesized. Even at Georgetown, the difference in averege SAT is only 20 points between the SFS students and Arts&Sci students. I also like how you conveniently ignore Berkeley; could it because your goal here is just to ■■■■■?<br>
The point is to show that list is either wrong or very outdated. Any data from any school is valid. It’s not like Northwestern data is more relevant than others in this regard. You just totally missed the point over and over.</p>
<p>So I am going to assume you still do not have “a single shred of evidence that NU has improved its 161 LSAT score.” Get back to me if and when you do, okay?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Only if we assume the same pool of test takers.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>There’s reason to believe that LSAT takers at Penn/Brown “pick” themselves. In other words, they are self-selective.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Let’s say, for the sake of argument, that WashU’s average LSAT has improved. Can you provide any evidence that NU’s LSAT has improved? Or that it has improved over that of Penn et al.?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I never said or implied anything different. The self-selection I “allege” comes mostly after matriculation.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I “conveniently ignored” Berkeley because I accept the source you provided for its LSAT improvement, which you have yet to do for NU.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>You haven’t shown that the list is either “wrong” or “very outdated” for NU and Brown/Columbia/Dartmouth/Penn.</p>
<p>You are really confused. The score on that list is off by 3 points for Berkeley; 3 points on LSAT is pretty significant. All the scores on that list are from the same timeframe; I only need to use one data from any school. You claim Brown students have higher average LSAT despite the fact that the average SAT scores are so similar. The burden of proof is on you to get CURRENT & CORRECT data. You missed the points over and over and can’t differentiate where the burden of proof lies. I am not sure if you just played dumb or not. Either way, it’s a waste of time to engage with you. Good luck ■■■■■■■■.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>No. The burden of proof is on you to show that the LSAT data I provided re: Brown/Columbia/Dartmouth/Penn vs. NU is NOT current or correct.</p>
<p>lol froggy, you cited a CC post for lsat data? really?</p>
<p>Wash U does not have an LSAT score. Neither does NU.
If you go to either one, I don’t recall anyone suggesting there is much of a school impact on what your LSAT will be (maybe unlike MCAT where there might be), so let’s assume your score will be the same either way.</p>
<p>So then: where would you rather attend school? which environment do you feel might give you, personally, the best experience, the best opportunities, the most fun, the best programs you are particularly interested in,over the next four years?</p>
<p>This is how you should choose a college, not by obsessing over whether the average of all LSAT takers from that school is 161 or 163.</p>
<p>You are not an average. some people at your school will probably be smarter than you, and they will get in to better law schools than you will. Some people will be dumber than you, and they will do worse. A law school does not aggregate all applicants from a school and evaluate them as if they were one person, they evaluate them individually, based on their own particular, individual merits.</p>
<p>I always think of NU at the same level as Cornell or Chicago. Not Brown, Columbia, Dartmouth, Penn level. At least at my school this was the perception and based on where students got in (admittedly just an anecdote) this is how admissions played out.</p>
<p>^NU’s acceptance rate is higher; so it gives you the impression that Penn/Brown’s students are of higher caliber because of whom they <em>reject</em>, not whom they accepted. At the end of the day, Chicago/NU students have similar SAT/ACT scores as Brown/Penn. In terms of #students winning prestigious fellowships in recent years, Chicago/NU may have been even doing better than Penn (just based on what I can recall; I haven’t looked into Brown that much). Saying one is at higher level than other is splitting hairs. Also, it seems to me you are being inconsistent by lumping Columbia/Dartmouth with Brown/Penn together when actually the former pair have higher test scores than the latter; yet, at the same time, you think Penn/Brown are at higher level than Chicago/NU when Chicago/NU/Brown/Penn have similar test scores (in case you are wondering who has had the lowest in recent years, it’s actually Penn). Seeing how you like splitting hairs, I would expect you to add another layer between Columbia/Dartmouth and at least Penn, if not Brown also. </p>
<p>I also wonder if you go school in NE; NU has the most trouble to get kids from that area. I wouldn’t be surprised if NU is a bit easier on them as NU tries to build a diverse class.</p>
<p>SAT/ACT scores only tell part of the story. Some schools are less holistic in their admissions process and select more for standardized test scores. One measure of selectivity is to see which schools win the cross-admit battles and which schools get the leftovers. By this measure, Brown/Columbia/Dartmouth/Penn and even Cornell soundly beat Northwestern:</p>
<p>[The</a> New York Times > Week in Review > Image > Collegiate Matchups: Predicting Student Choices](<a href=“http://www.nytimes.com/imagepages/2006/09/17/weekinreview/20060917_LEONHARDT_CHART.html]The”>The New York Times > Week in Review > Image > Collegiate Matchups: Predicting Student Choices)</p>
<p>Revealed preference rankings which are 4 years old are better than none, but that only shows perceived prestige, facilities, weather, etc. That doesn’t actually show much more than what high-schoolers in 2006 thought was more appealing. I’ve always wondered why people value those stats…</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>So you admit that NU is perceived as being less prestigious than even the “lesser” Ivies.</p>
<p>First of all, being perceived more or less prestigious by high schoolers really doesn’t mean squat.</p>
<p>Furthermore, thats hardly the only thing that influences why a student might pick one school over another; financial aid, location, academic programs and majors, and countless other factors sway students one way or another. There’s no way you can separate something as intangible as prestige from everything else in these statistics.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>It means that some schools get the students that their peer institutions want; others get the students that their peer institutions don’t want.</p>