Post removed.
Posted: Sat Oct 24, 2015 12:44 am
Post removed.
Law School Discussion Forums
https://www.top-law-schools.com/forums/
https://www.top-law-schools.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=253919
benwyatt wrote:Should be fixed!omd3117 wrote:Sorry to be annoying and make it get updated, but if possible, can we get a URM column going in all of the spreadsheets? option is only listed for a couple.
I'm pretty sure the only 2 missing it were Columbia and GULC.
No it shouldn't, people should just stop lying about their softs.kepfd24 wrote:I know TLS posters tend to be more competitive than the rest ... but the 'softs' categories should be reworked if ~50% of the people are "above average" and ~50% are "average"
but that doesnt mean it is not importantbenwyatt wrote:No it shouldn't, people should just stop lying about their softs.kepfd24 wrote:I know TLS posters tend to be more competitive than the rest ... but the 'softs' categories should be reworked if ~50% of the people are "above average" and ~50% are "average"
Either way, that's easily the least important part of the sheets.
It does.kepfd24 wrote:but that doesnt mean it is not importantbenwyatt wrote:No it shouldn't, people should just stop lying about their softs.kepfd24 wrote:I know TLS posters tend to be more competitive than the rest ... but the 'softs' categories should be reworked if ~50% of the people are "above average" and ~50% are "average"
Either way, that's easily the least important part of the sheets.
I see what you're talking about. I can experiment a bit with it later, but there may not be a good solution for that. On other spreadsheets the effect is minimal but with Berkeley it skews it a bit more because there are fewer applicants.scone wrote:Something's funny with the mean admit GPA in Berkeley's spreadsheet (i.e. it includes blank GPA cells in the calculation)
Happy to update with new medians if you can give them to me.schocolate wrote:Hi, sorry to be a hassle, but would it be possible to update the Stanford sheet with the new medians? Thanks!
Done!schocolate wrote:3.78 - 3.89 - 3.97benwyatt wrote:Happy to update with new medians if you can give them to me.schocolate wrote:Hi, sorry to be a hassle, but would it be possible to update the Stanford sheet with the new medians? Thanks!
I stopped following the new median stuff and I'm pretty slammed at work today so I can't track them down myself. (He said while typing on TLS)
169 - 171 - 173
https://law.stanford.edu/aba-required-disclosures/
Thanks! You're a champ.
I think you were referring to the mean lsat of WL decisions.scone wrote:There's some very funky stuff going on in the Duke analytics, fyi.
Sorrybenwyatt wrote:I think you were referring to the mean lsat of WL decisions.scone wrote:There's some very funky stuff going on in the Duke analytics, fyi.
Fixed.
Please be as specific as possible WRT issues so I can fix them quickly
No worries! It's just easier for me to jump right in if you say something along the lines of "The Applicant count is off"scone wrote:Sorrybenwyatt wrote:I think you were referring to the mean lsat of WL decisions.scone wrote:There's some very funky stuff going on in the Duke analytics, fyi.
Fixed.
Please be as specific as possible WRT issues so I can fix them quickly
Fixed!gamerish wrote:The Cornell analytics says the average wait time for a decision is 42,000 days
I know decisions have started rolling out so maybe someone typed something in incorrectly? Nothing jumped out at me when I looked though
They're just trying to lock in their C/O 2134.gamerish wrote:The Cornell analytics says the average wait time for a decision is 42,000 days
I know decisions have started rolling out so maybe someone typed something in incorrectly? Nothing jumped out at me when I looked though