TPM's DIY thing to determining LSAT standing among your race Forum

[twenty]

There is an amazing thread by Athlone McGinnis you can find here: http://www.top-law-schools.com/forums/v ... 4&t=195443

Credit where credit's due.

This is the Z-table calculator we'll use: http://davidmlane.com/hyperstat/z_table.html

This is the LSAC data from 2012. You can find the information you're looking for on page 20: http://www.lsac.org/docs/default-source ... -12-03.pdf

- Open up the Z-table and LSAC PDF.

- Copy the mean from the LSAC PDF as it relates to the race you're interested in, and paste it in the "mean" box on the calculator.
(example: Put 146.32 in the "mean" box for Hispanic)

- Copy the SD from the LSAC PDF over to the SD box in the calculator.
(for Hispanic, this is 9.25)

[[The calculator should show the whole graph in black at this point]]

- Now change the "Above" or "Below" box to your targeted LSAT scale. Suppose I was an MA with a 166 score, I would put "166" in these boxes.

The BELOW data shows your percentile. My 166 would be in the 98th percentile.

The ABOVE data helps you calculate how many scored higher than you.



- Get out your calculator and take the total number of applicants within your selected race and multiply it by the number in the area box.

So, for example, if I put in 166 and I select the "above" option, I should get the number 0.0167

I now multiply that number by 7,213, the number of Hispanic LSAT takers last year.

My result is approximately 123, or that there are 123 people that checked "Hispanic" when they took the LSAT that have a higher score than I do.

What does this mean?

Let's first understand how other "non-URM" (let's say Caucasian + Asian) applicants do. My 166 puts me at about a 92nd percentile (if I were non-URM), which means there's about 5,000-ish applicants White/Asian candidates with better scores than I have. In theory, the 166 Hispanic score should be "equal" to a non-URM 172-173 by nature of percentile. Of course, it doesn't quite work this way, since law schools do not admit an equal proportion of URMs to the overall amount of LSAT takers.

[[Edit]] Dr. Zer0 did my work for me. Go read his post for why it matters.

[John_rizzy_rawls]

This is pretty cool. Nicely done, twenty.

[MKC]

I only have one suggestion to make here. The data regarding the number of URMs admitted to various schools would help here. IIRC, Athlon McGinnis's post had this data for African Americans. The number you're calculating, 123, is far more valuable if it includes the context of how many were admitted overall, or specifically to the T14.

[MoMettaMonk]

This is surprisingly fun to play around with. And much like Athlone McGinnis's thread, mildly depressing when you run the numbers as an AA.

[californiauser]

My work broswer doesn't support canvas . Can you guys post your scores so those of us without access can get an idea of what the numbers are?

Or maybe just post 160, 165, and 170.

[steven21]

.

[mojangles]

My work broswer doesn't support canvas . Can you guys post your scores so those of us without access can get an idea of what the numbers are?

Or maybe just post 160, 165, and 170.

mine doesn't either but i think canvas is only for the graph portion.

once you put your scores in the "above" and "below" boxes, if you select the bullet mark next to either box it will give the calculation below to show you what % of people were above or below that mark. I hope that made sense/cleared it up.

Also, thank you for this TPM, very interesting

[MoMettaMonk]

As an AA with a 170/3.92 who got rejected by Yale last year, looking at this makes me think that I must have had a typo in my Yale 250 that said something along the lines of F-Asha.

But yeah, this is depressing on a macro level, but if you're an AA applicant, you should be excited that if you can get to 170 that you're gonna get WLd at the entire lower T14 for the best of reasons.

Have you looked around LSN for the AA Yale admits? I swear there are no discernible patterns. Who they decide to accept and reject seems like a total crapshoot no matter your numbers. And seeing that you ended up at Harvard, you'll have to forgive me if I don't cry you a river.

[MoMettaMonk]

Not sure what part of my statement makes you think I wanted your sympathy.

It was much more of a "lol, congrats on Harvard," than any sort of actual sympathetic sentiment. Such is the loss of tone we face for the wonder of internet forums.

[Dr.Zer0]

OP i think your interpretation of the ABA data for Columbia might be off. The 41 students you are referring to is actually the total number of hispanic males currently enrolled. Instead the number you might want to consider is 35 which is the total number of enrolled hispanics that are 1L's.

[PDaddy]

Read below...the poster is correct. Now is the time for NA's to apply!

[juristhedoctor]

Wicked. Last year, an African-American who scored 160 would have been in the 98th percentile for his/her group, and only eight test takers would have scored above him, which means that the top-10 schools would have been slobbering all over themselves to get him (since there were only 475 AA applicants).

If the top-10 hypothetically admits, say, at least 100 of them, AA's would have had at least a one in five shot just by virtue of the applicant pool alone...forsaking consideration of the LSAT score. When you add in a 160 and at least a 3.3 GPA, it looks like now would be the best time to apply.

If you are an AA with 164/3.6 the show is over...pack your bags for Cambridge.

The problem now is that people will start to get that memo and apply in greater numbers. The applicant numbers could spike soon, though not to circa-2010 levels

You're mistaking NA for AA. There were 11, 453 AA test-takers and 475 NA test-takers.

[PDaddy]

You're mistaking NA for AA. There were 11, 453 AA applicants and 475 NA applicants.

Thanks...you are correct.

A 160 AA test-taker would have only 208/11,453 scorers above him and sill be in the 98th percentile. If his GPA and softs are at least solid (3.3+ and decent WE and Cmusvc), his chances of top-10 admission are still high, though no better than they are traditionally.

AA applications haven't declined that dramatically.

[juristhedoctor]

You're mistaking NA for AA. There were 11, 453 AA applicants and 475 NA applicants.

Thanks...

No prob man. I had to edit my post though. Not all who took the test applied.

[Gamine]

This is very interesting stuff

[AAJD2B]

Extremely depressing....

[mandyjay11]

this is cool!

[twenty]

OP i think your interpretation of the ABA data for Columbia might be off. The 41 students you are referring to is actually the total number of hispanic males currently enrolled. Instead the number you might want to consider is 35 which is the total number of enrolled hispanics that are 1L's.

Good catch, I'll update later today. Thanks.

[PDaddy]

Extremely depressing....

Not IMO. I think it's a very important piece for applicants, all of who should know how they as individuals stack up against their demographic groups.

The regional statistics prove exactly what I have known all along: that we in the northwest are pretty badass (scores topped only by New England, which has fewer test takers by about 65%).

It also means that our colleges and universities are doing a better job of preparing students to pursue (not necessarily to perform) law school work - and maybe grad school work generally - than are the other regions.

In translation, the colleges and universities in the northwest, especially Washington and Oregon, are extremely underrated - and that would have to go double for top northwest schools like the University of Washington and Seattle University.

[John_rizzy_rawls]

As I said before for an individual AA this isnt depressing at all, on a macro level, its depressing as fuck.

Cosign. Dat raging self interest is a bitch though so URM applicants tend to be happy about it, on average.

[Dr.Zer0]

OP i think your interpretation of the ABA data for Columbia might be off. The 41 students you are referring to is actually the total number of hispanic males currently enrolled. Instead the number you might want to consider is 35 which is the total number of enrolled hispanics that are 1L's.

Good catch, I'll update later today. Thanks.

Hey OP so I decided to compile a list of the # of Hispanics currently enrolled in t-14 and the next three LS after that. Here are the stats:

Yale 14
Harvard 53
Stanford 23
Columbia 25
U Chicago 15
NYU 39
U Penn 16
UVA 12
UC Berkeley 28
U Michigan 21
Duke 15
Northwestern 25
Cornell 22
Georgetown 36
U Texas 58
Vanderbilt 4
UCLA 28

T-14: 316
T-14+: 406

I ran the calculations using my stats (Hispanic/160 LSAT) and figured out my score places me in the 93th percentile with roughly 505 Hispanics ahead of me. Not taking GPA into consideration and if the LSAT was the only factor that determined acceptance, my score would place me out of t-14 and the next three law schools .

I did notice the LSAC began incorporating MA test-takers in the Hispanic pool after the 08-09 cycle. I wonder why they made this change and also why they don't include PR test-takers in that same Hispanic pool. In addition, the data the ABA provides is for all Hispanics (MA and PR included). These differences make it difficult for Hispanic applicants to determine their ranking among other Hispanics.

Does anyone know if MA's and PR's still get URM boosts while other Hispanics don't?

Also just out of curiosity OP, what type of URM are you? (I'm guessing some sort of Hispanic)
Oh,and thanks for the awesome post!

[PDaddy]

Extremely depressing....

Not IMO. I think it's a very important piece for applicants, all of who should know how they as individuals stack up against their demographic groups.

The northwest statistics prove exactly what I have known all along: that we are pretty badass (scores topped only by New England, which has fewer test takers by about 65%). It also means that our colleges and universities are doing a better job of preparing students for pursuing (not necessarily performing) law school work (and maybe grad school work generally) than are the other regions.

In translation, the colleges and universities in the northwest, especially Washington and Oregon, are extremely underrated - and that would have to go double for top northwest schools like the University of Washington and Seattle University.

As I said before for an individual AA this isnt depressing at all, on a macro level, its depressing as fuck.

I can appreciate that. You have a point. What will it take to make us as Blacks value education the way we value other, clearly less valuable, things? Research shows that, when given the right nurturing and resources early in life, black students' accomplishments are on par with those of other groups. The academic prowess of native Africans or second and third generation African immigrants living in the U.S. further supports this view.

No group is inherently inferior to another group, and black folks will be the first to tell you that. Yet we continually blame substandard schools, institutional racism, environmental racism, and other external factors for our relative underachievement. If we aren't inferior we should be able to compete regardless. African students do it, and their family incomes mirror those of black American families.

I am tired of that. Even the most substandard American schools are paradise compared to schools in poor countries, many of which produce some of the most dynamic leaders in those countries. Torn books still have words in them, and too many black students claim they cannot afford LSAT courses and books; yet they purchase expensive hot lunches on their undergrad campuses daily, carry the latest cell phones and wear designer clothing.

It's a simple lack of priorities and DISCIPLINE...period. If Black parents would "take care of home" and prepare their kids to be good students by instilling in them the values of discipline, self-restraint and frugality, we would achieve more - regardless of the racism.

Furthermore, as long as we continue to glorify or accept antisocial behaviors such as sexism, out-of-wedlock births, truancy, illiteracy, drug and alcohol abuse, and other unacceptable behaviors, we will continue to lag behind academically.

We need to stand up and take responsibility. Our LSAT scores are poor because we don't prepare academically despite the existence of a wealth of resources. Not being able to afford an LSAT course is no excuse, neither is attendance of inner-city or rural schools. As long as you have books and someone willing to teach you, you're good to go.

Master the English language (as well as Latin), study formal logic, study math, study history beyond just American history, study and appreciate hard sciences, buy used or torn books, watch less television, save your money, and work the LSAT like a job.

I would like to see "African-Americans" try to mimic Chinese and East African cultures, two of which put spiritual development, family and education above all else.

[twenty]

Hey OP so I decided to compile a list of the # of Hispanics currently enrolled in t-14 and the next three LS after that. Here are the stats:

Hey man, I really appreciate that. Today's been kind of nuts. Thanks for the help.

Does anyone know if MA's and PR's still get URM boosts while other Hispanics don't?

It's possible, but the data is super limited. Profiles like this one: http://lawschoolnumbers.com/bro2baseball

...Cause me to think that Hispanic alone doesn't provide a significant URM boost. On the other hand, my last cycle is living proof that URM status and a decent LSAT score doesn't ensure T14 admission. So who knows.

Also just out of curiosity OP, what type of URM are you? (I'm guessing some sort of Hispanic)

MA.

[Nova]

great thread

(bump)

[Nucky]

Just wanted to say that this is awesome! Props OP.