$75K Total Scholarship at UVA - Worth It? Forum

[BaronBarrister]

It's true that URM cycles can be upredictable, but pretty sure that the OP doesn't have to hit 170+ to get an improved outcome, and they were PTing higher than they scored.

Yeah, the above discussion is moot. OP got $$ to a T-10 with a 157. All their non-LSAT boxes are clearly ticked.No way UVA is going to look at OP with +5 LSAT points and say "nah, we accepted you last time with money 10 point below our median but we won't do it again 5 points below."

OP's outcomes will clearly improve with each additional LSAT point.

This is just wrong. A 157 vs. a 159 or 161 would likely make no difference. We don't know whether OP got into other T14s, and you have no absolutely idea what could happen. Obviously if UVA would admit OP once, they'd probably do it again, but that's a risk.

In addition, the point is whether OP could do BETTER than UVA. If Columbia waitlisted OP at a 157, they're probably not going to accept him at 162. OP should at least try to land within a few points of median to move the dial a bit. If OP can do it and pull out another 8-9 pts, that'd be great, but less than that would not be worth waiting a year because it would likely not produce any substantially difference cycle results.

[QContinuum]

It's true that URM cycles can be upredictable, but pretty sure that the OP doesn't have to hit 170+ to get an improved outcome, and they were PTing higher than they scored.

Yeah, the above discussion is moot. OP got $$ to a T-10 with a 157. All their non-LSAT boxes are clearly ticked.No way UVA is going to look at OP with +5 LSAT points and say "nah, we accepted you last time with money 10 point below our median but we won't do it again 5 points below."

OP's outcomes will clearly improve with each additional LSAT point.

This is just wrong. A 157 vs. a 159 or 161 would likely make no difference. We don't know whether OP got into other T14s, and you have no absolutely idea what could happen. Obviously if UVA would admit OP once, they'd probably do it again, but that's a risk.

In addition, the point is whether OP could do BETTER than UVA. If Columbia waitlisted OP at a 157, they're probably not going to accept him at 162. OP should at least try to land within a few points of median to move the dial a bit. If OP can do it and pull out another 8-9 pts, that'd be great, but less than that would not be worth waiting a year because it would likely not produce any substantially difference cycle results.

I thought you were the one, Baron, who was vociferously arguing ITT that there is no way of predicting how schools treat URMs for admissions purposes? How can you make that argument on the one hand and simultaneously turn around and confidently conclude that getting an additional +5 points on the LSAT wouldn't make any substantial difference in OP's prospects? I absolutely think OP's prospects would improve with a LSAT in the 160s vs. 150s. That's true of anyone, URM or non-URM. It's puzzling why you're so confident OP wouldn't do better with +5 points.

[nixy]

It's true that URM cycles can be upredictable, but pretty sure that the OP doesn't have to hit 170+ to get an improved outcome, and they were PTing higher than they scored.

Yeah, the above discussion is moot. OP got $$ to a T-10 with a 157. All their non-LSAT boxes are clearly ticked.No way UVA is going to look at OP with +5 LSAT points and say "nah, we accepted you last time with money 10 point below our median but we won't do it again 5 points below."

OP's outcomes will clearly improve with each additional LSAT point.

This is just wrong. A 157 vs. a 159 or 161 would likely make no difference. We don't know whether OP got into other T14s, and you have no absolutely idea what could happen. Obviously if UVA would admit OP once, they'd probably do it again, but that's a risk.

In addition, the point is whether OP could do BETTER than UVA. If Columbia waitlisted OP at a 157, they're probably not going to accept him at 162. OP should at least try to land within a few points of median to move the dial a bit. If OP can do it and pull out another 8-9 pts, that'd be great, but less than that would not be worth waiting a year because it would likely not produce any substantially difference cycle results.

What is your basis for saying this? Have you looked at, say, LSN? It doesn’t make any sense to me to say that if a school waitlisted OP at 157, they won’t accept him at a 162 - how do you know this? For many people a 157 would be a flat rejection, so the waitlist actually strongly suggests that if the OP can improve the clearly weakest part of their application, they have a shot.

[BaronBarrister]

I thought you were the one, Baron, who was vociferously arguing ITT that there is no way of predicting how schools treat URMs for admissions purposes? How can you make that argument on the one hand and simultaneously turn around and confidently conclude that getting an additional +5 points on the LSAT wouldn't make any substantial difference in OP's prospects? I absolutely think OP's prospects would improve with a LSAT in the 160s vs. 150s. That's true of anyone, URM or non-URM. It's puzzling why you're so confident OP wouldn't do better with +5 points.

Because that's now how admissions (and math) works. A 157 is no different to Columbia than is a 162. Columbias 25th percentile is a 168. Their MEDIAN is a 172. If Columbia chooses to admit a URM with an LSAT below 168, they have already essentially overlooked the LSAT entirely from a mathematical perspective and are admitting them based on other factors. That's precisely what happened with OP's UVA admit in all likelihood - the LSAT was clearly overlooked because the school thought they were otherwise a strong applicant. A 163 would not have changed that calculus, not for UVA and definitely not for Columbia.

You are both overestimating the impact that a few points will have. A score in the low 160s will in all likelihood not make a substantial difference in their cycle. I honestly think OP did great this cycle by snagging a T10, and I would strongly recommend against throwing that away for a slim chance at a slightly better cycle next year. However, if OP is confident about pulling a 168+, then there may be reason to do so. However, that would mean moving from the 70th percentile to the 98th percentile - this is not a feat to be taken lightly, and not one I would bank an acceptance letter from UVA on.

[QContinuum]

I thought you were the one, Baron, who was vociferously arguing ITT that there is no way of predicting how schools treat URMs for admissions purposes? How can you make that argument on the one hand and simultaneously turn around and confidently conclude that getting an additional +5 points on the LSAT wouldn't make any substantial difference in OP's prospects? I absolutely think OP's prospects would improve with a LSAT in the 160s vs. 150s. That's true of anyone, URM or non-URM. It's puzzling why you're so confident OP wouldn't do better with +5 points.

Because that's now how admissions (and math) works. A 157 is no different to Columbia than is a 162. Columbias 25th percentile is a 168. Their MEDIAN is a 172. If Columbia chooses to admit a URM with an LSAT below 168, they have already essentially overlooked the LSAT entirely from a mathematical perspective and are admitting them based on other factors. That's precisely what happened with OP's UVA admit in all likelihood - the LSAT was clearly overlooked because the school thought they were otherwise a strong applicant. A 163 would not have changed that calculus, not for UVA and definitely not for Columbia.

You are both overestimating the impact that a few points will have. A score in the low 160s will in all likelihood not make a substantial difference in their cycle. I honestly think OP did great this cycle by snagging a T10, and I would strongly recommend against throwing that away for a slim chance at a slightly better cycle next year. However, if OP is confident about pulling a 168+, then there may be reason to do so. However, that would mean moving from the 70th percentile to the 98th percentile - this is not a feat to be taken lightly, and not one I would bank an acceptance letter from UVA on.

Why are you so sure OP needs to perform as well as a non-URM on the LSAT in order to do better than his current cycle? I'm very confused about your continued fixation over what LSAT score OP would need to get into the T6/T13 if he were a non-URM.

And again, your current argument flies in the face of your past argument that URM performance is completely unpredictable. Now you are asserting that URM performance is predictable: They simply need the same stats as non-URMs. That's simply wrong.

[BaronBarrister]

Why are you so sure OP needs to perform as well as a non-URM on the LSAT in order to do better than his current cycle? I'm very confused about your continued fixation over what LSAT score OP would need to get into the T6/T13 if he were a non-URM.

And again, your current argument flies in the face of your past argument that URM performance is completely unpredictable. Now you are asserting that URM performance is predictable: They simply need the same stats as non-URMs. That's simply wrong.

You are misunderstanding my point. And by the way, my continued fixation about the LSAT? What exactly are we discussing here? The law schools care about it, we're discussing whether OP would benefit from a retake, and the name of the game is how much s/he needs for a better cycle.

I agree that cycles are dramatically differently for URMs — however, comparing soft factors to hard factors (LSAT, GPA) is apples to oranges. There is no mathematical reason why a 162 LSAT would make OP any more appealing than would a 157 LSAT to Columbia or a school ranked higher than Virginia. Below the 25th percentile, it's basically a crap shoot, and small differences in numbers have almost no predictive value because they are all essentially the same based on how medians and ranking operate. If you don't believe me, look at CLS LSN and how scattered URM admits/waitlists are across the graph.

http://columbia.lawschoolnumbers.com/stats/1819

Better yet, look at Harvard. They hardly admit any below 170, even URM.

http://harvard.lawschoolnumbers.com/stats/1415

OP has got a very good outcome this cycle. It will ultimately be his/her decision, and I think OP should consider their own feeling about the school, if they would prefer T6, and how they feel about retaking the LSAT. My recommendation is to think very carefully about how a retake would go before declining that UVA seat, but obviously not my call.

Anyways, I'm not really interested in a drawn-out argument over this. Best of luck OP! Whatever happens, you have some terrific options on the table.

[jsnow212]

Because that's now how admissions (and math) works. A 157 is no different to Columbia than is a 162. Columbias 25th percentile is a 168. Their MEDIAN is a 172. If Columbia chooses to admit a URM with an LSAT below 168, they have already essentially overlooked the LSAT entirely from a mathematical perspective and are admitting them based on other factors. That's precisely what happened with OP's UVA admit in all likelihood - the LSAT was clearly overlooked because the school thought they were otherwise a strong applicant. A 163 would not have changed that calculus, not for UVA and definitely not for Columbia.

The mathematical irrelevancy of a score below the 25th percentile empirically does not stop admissions from giving different weights to scores below the 25th percentile. Literal case-in-point in one of your previous comments was the Harvard barely accepts URMs below 170 when it clearly could without hurting its median number. This is because, for whatever reason, it views candidates one point below their 25th as better than 10 points below.
Additional evidence: Alex Johnson, a former LSAC head, makes a whole point in his URM LSAT discussion how Deans have the ability to go far below the 25th without sacrificing rank to get URM or soft-strong candidates but always prefer people slightly below the 25th than more, even though it makes no mathematical difference: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_7_xHsce57c

Conclusion: Each additional point will help OP. To say otherwise is to be speaking based on no evidence or evidence that is irrelevant to OP (A URM candidate who already had a strong enough app to get a half-ride to a T10 school with a 157).

Edit: Relevent part starts at 28:40. I think it is an interesting explanation.

[BaronBarrister]

The mathematical irrelevancy of a score below the 25th percentile empirically does not stop admissions from giving different weights to scores below the 25th percentile. Literal case-in-point in one of your previous comments was the Harvard barely accepts URMs below 170 when it clearly could without hurting its median number. This is because, for whatever reason, it views candidates one point below their 25th as better than 10 points below.
Additional evidence: Alex Johnson, a former LSAC head, makes a whole point in his URM LSAT discussion how Deans have the ability to go far below the 25th without sacrificing rank to get URM or soft-strong candidates but always prefer people slightly below the 25th than more, even though it makes no mathematical difference: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_7_xHsce57c

Conclusion: Each additional point will help OP. To say otherwise is to be speaking based on no evidence or evidence that is irrelevant to OP (A URM candidate who already had a strong enough app to get a half-ride to a T10 school with a 157).

Edit: Relevent part starts at 28:40. I think it is an interesting explanation.

That is actually quite a good source, and not one I was aware of - thank you for contributing that. However, I'll go back to my original point, which was that OP would, in all likelihood, have to aim for a substantial increase for a better shot at T6.

In my earlier post on this thread, I said that Penn's median is 169, and OP should aim for 168. For Columbia, a 167 or 168 would seem almost necessary to place OP in the "very likely admit" category. While acknowledging that a retake would help OP if it resulted in a sharp increase, I do not think one that fails to bring OP significantly closer to at least the 25th for all of the T6, which seems to be around 168-170 (Columbia-Harvard) has a good chance of leading to a dramatically different cycle. I think OP should delay only if they can get that improvement and/or valuable work experience. This advice would seem to be reaffirmed by the LSAC official stating that schools prefer URMs that are at least close to the 25th. Your argument that a 161 or 162 would be good enough for CLS or higher is actually not supported by the source you provided - it will not preclude admission, but it will not give the kind of odds that I would be comfortable giving up a T10 seat for (or advising someone to do).

[QContinuum]

Why are you so sure OP needs to perform as well as a non-URM on the LSAT in order to do better than his current cycle? I'm very confused about your continued fixation over what LSAT score OP would need to get into the T6/T13 if he were a non-URM.

And again, your current argument flies in the face of your past argument that URM performance is completely unpredictable. Now you are asserting that URM performance is predictable: They simply need the same stats as non-URMs. That's simply wrong.

You are misunderstanding my point. And by the way, my continued fixation about the LSAT? What exactly are we discussing here? The law schools care about it, we're discussing whether OP would benefit from a retake, and the name of the game is how much s/he needs for a better cycle.

You are mischaracterizing my post. Of course LSAT is critically important for any applicant. My disagreement is with your dogged insistence ("fixation") on evaluating OP as if he was a non-URM "reverse splitter". If OP was a non-URM, then yes, with a 4.0 GPA, he would need a LSAT at or near a school's 25% to have solid odds of getting in. But OP's a URM! We know URMs very significantly "outperform" their numbers. Continuing to evaluate OP's chances as if he was a non-URM makes zero sense.

I agree that cycles are dramatically differently for URMs — however, comparing soft factors to hard factors (LSAT, GPA) is apples to oranges.

I do not propose "comparing" URM status to LSAT/GPA. Rather, I am simply saying that URMs are not evaluated using the same LSAT/GPA scale as non-URMs. URMs do not need remotely the same numbers as non-URMs to achieve similar admissions outcomes. Schools admit URMs to build diversity, not to boost their LSAT/GPA numbers for USNWR.

[BaronBarrister]

Why are you so sure OP needs to perform as well as a non-URM on the LSAT in order to do better than his current cycle? I'm very confused about your continued fixation over what LSAT score OP would need to get into the T6/T13 if he were a non-URM.

And again, your current argument flies in the face of your past argument that URM performance is completely unpredictable. Now you are asserting that URM performance is predictable: They simply need the same stats as non-URMs. That's simply wrong.

You are misunderstanding my point. And by the way, my continued fixation about the LSAT? What exactly are we discussing here? The law schools care about it, we're discussing whether OP would benefit from a retake, and the name of the game is how much s/he needs for a better cycle.

You are mischaracterizing my post. Of course LSAT is critically important for any applicant. My disagreement is with your dogged insistence ("fixation") on evaluating OP as if he was a non-URM "reverse splitter". If OP was a non-URM, then yes, with a 4.0 GPA, he would need a LSAT at or near a school's 25% to have solid odds of getting in. But OP's a URM! We know URMs very significantly "outperform" their numbers. Continuing to evaluate OP's chances as if he was a non-URM makes zero sense.

I agree that cycles are dramatically differently for URMs — however, comparing soft factors to hard factors (LSAT, GPA) is apples to oranges.

I do not propose "comparing" URM status to LSAT/GPA. Rather, I am simply saying that URMs are not evaluated using the same LSAT/GPA scale as non-URMs. URMs do not need remotely the same numbers as non-URMs to achieve similar admissions outcomes. Schools admit URMs to build diversity, not to boost their LSAT/GPA numbers for USNWR.

We all know that URMs fare better than non-URMs, and I haven't disputed that. What I am saying is that, in advising the OP, we should not be telling him that a 162 or 163 will necessarily cut it for HYSCCN. Remember, OP is already at #8 with UVA. The poster above indicated that an LSAC official said that schools want to see URMs close to their 25th, so I think the best advice we can give OP is that if they retake and shoot for one of those T6, they should at least be close to their 25th for a solid chance at admission. There are a lot of URM rejects at those schools with OPs #s and several points higher, so I don't think it's bad advice to tell him that if they gives up that UVA spot this cycle for a chance at T6 the next, they better make sure to give themselves the best chance possible and shoot for another 8, 9, or even 10 pts.

[QContinuum]

We all know that URMs fare better than non-URMs, and I haven't disputed that. What I am saying is that, in advising the OP, we should not be telling him that a 162 or 163 will necessarily cut it for HYSCCN. Remember, OP is already at #8 with UVA. The poster above indicated that an LSAC official said that schools want to see URMs close to their 25th, so I think the best advice we can give OP is that if they retake and shoot for one of those T6, they should at least be close to their 25th for a solid chance at admission.

Didn't watch the video but either the LSAC official was wrong or he meant that non-splitter URMs should have a GPA and LSAT near a school's 25% GPA & LSAT. The latter would ring true. But suggesting that a URM with a 4.0 GPA needs a 25% LSAT is simply wrong. Non-URMs can get in with a 4.0 and a 25% LSAT (as classic "reverse splitters"). Saying URMs need the same 4.0 and 25% LSAT to achieve a similar outcome flies in the face of what we know to be a substantial URM 'boost'.

[BaronBarrister]

We all know that URMs fare better than non-URMs, and I haven't disputed that. What I am saying is that, in advising the OP, we should not be telling him that a 162 or 163 will necessarily cut it for HYSCCN. Remember, OP is already at #8 with UVA. The poster above indicated that an LSAC official said that schools want to see URMs close to their 25th, so I think the best advice we can give OP is that if they retake and shoot for one of those T6, they should at least be close to their 25th for a solid chance at admission.

Didn't watch the video but either the LSAC official was wrong or he meant that non-splitter URMs should have a GPA and LSAT near a school's 25% GPA & LSAT. The latter would ring true. But suggesting that a URM with a 4.0 GPA needs a 25% LSAT is simply wrong. Non-URMs can get in with a 4.0 and a 25% LSAT (as classic "reverse splitters"). Saying URMs need the same 4.0 and 25% LSAT to achieve a similar outcome flies in the face of what we know to be a substantial URM 'boost'.

LSN #s show that a 6-7 pt increase, which is substantial (putting OP at 163 or 164) would help for a significantly better shot at Columbia, where OP was WLed this cycle. It's not clear that a smaller increase (3-4) would have the same impact. Anyways, it's all up to OP and what they want to do. My advice has been that they should retake if they are confident they can get a much higher score, but if not, there's no guarantee that the next cycle will result in a T6 admit. OP should at least be aware of that in making their decision, and LSN shows it's a possibility.

[albanach]

It's true that URM cycles can be upredictable, but pretty sure that the OP doesn't have to hit 170+ to get an improved outcome, and they were PTing higher than they scored.

Yeah, the above discussion is moot. OP got $$ to a T-10 with a 157. All their non-LSAT boxes are clearly ticked.No way UVA is going to look at OP with +5 LSAT points and say "nah, we accepted you last time with money 10 point below our median but we won't do it again 5 points below."

OP's outcomes will clearly improve with each additional LSAT point.

Indeed, we do have stats to show this:



UVA's offer might not change much with a higher LSAT, but a high 160s could make Yale a possibility. A hairsbreadth more and Yale becomes more likely than not:



OPs prospects won't go down if they gain a couple of points. If they make an improvement commensurate with that of a huge number of others on these boards, they can attend one of the best law schools in the world, or attend the same school they would this year but at next to no cost.

[QContinuum]

And further to albanach's post, we see improvement with a "mere" +5 LSAT (i.e., going from 157 to 162). We don't even need to get to 167 before we start seeing an effect. Behold:

We're looking at significantly better outcomes than with a 157.

And for the record, OP right now has performed pretty much in line with their stats:

[BaronBarrister]

Thank you for providing this data, I think this definitely gives a more fleshed-out perspective.

The first graph considers OP's chances with a 9-11 point gain, which as I've been saying, WOULD likely improve OP's chances significantly. This is also a substantial increase for most people.

An even more dramatic points gain of 11 to 14 would virtually guarantee admission at the top schools, unsurprisingly.

And finally, and this is the crux of what we've been discussing, this last graph shows the results of a 5-6 point increase.

We see that likely admits at Chicago, Harvard, and Stanford are still just out of reach with this score. The green bar for Yale is misleading because it is based only on a single data point, and we cannot draw any conclusions from such a limited pool. Now we get to NYU, Columbia, and Penn. UVA and Penn are so close that honestly I'd say they're almost interchangeable in terms of prestige and post-grad options, so I'd only recommend a reapp to Penn if OP has visited/researched both schools and thinks it would be a substantially better fit than UVA, or if OP would prefer Phili vs. DC as far as post-LS employment, etc.

NYU and maybe Columbia would be within reach with another 5-6 points. Now again, LSN is self-selecting, and a WL may still be a possibility, but it looks like a good shot if OP can pull it off.

[QContinuum]

Of course, though, we're not just talking about acceptances. We're also talking about $. The +5 takes OP from a $75k scholly at UVA to a $180k scholly at UVA. Sure, OP would get a UVA J.D. either way, but $100k+ (add interest too) in post-tax money (requiring OP to actually make ~$150k+ in pre-tax income to pay it off) is a huge amount and well worth retaking the LSAT for. Not even BigLaw gives someone so much money in exchange for so little work.

Also, no one ever claimed that +5 would get OP into Yale, Stanford, Harvard or Chicago.

[Wild Card]

That's really good for a 157 URM.

But if you're Black, you could get into Harvard and Stanford with a 164, so you should spend more time studying, and retake.

Also, even after a $75,000 scholarship, you'll owe over $200,000, which will take years of hard labor to pay back. Might as well walk away with a Harvard credential if you're going to do that.