Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Ryn

(2016 Edition) - Predict your chances for Ontario schools. Generate your OLSAS cGPA, L2, & B3

Recommended Posts

(This is a follow up to this old thread. If you want some background on how this whole thing started, look there.)

 

Check it out if you're impatient or if you only want to know your OLSAS GPA stats.

 

Hey everyone! It's your favourite amateur statistician who, with two weeks to go before 2L starts, has nothing better to do than work on things like this ;) Many of you probably remember the old chances predictor. Well, I've updated it for 2016 with fresh data and a new model. I had this whole long explanation typed up with extended details, but Chrome is pretty useless and closes with no confirmation if you accidentally press Ctrl+Q (I tried to press Ctrl+Tab to switch tabs. Oops), so all of it is lost. I guess it's an opportunity to exercise brevity. So off we go:

 

Data

 

I gathered about 1,000 data points from 2011-2016 from the accepted and rejected threads on the forums. I included, in addition to cGPA and LSAT like last time, L2 scores (more on that in a bit). I used these data points to generate models for five Ontario schools: Ottawa, U of T, Queen's, Osgoode, and Western. I didn't include Windsor or Lakehead, because like last time there either was no significant correlation between stats and acceptances (Windsor) or there wasn't enough data (Lakehead). I thought about expanding to other provinces, but the OLSAS scale that Ontario uses makes things really simple; once you get out of province, standardizing the data becomes much more difficult.

 

For the purposes of the binary logistic regressions, I used significance of p <= 0.2 (hey, this isn't hard science; get out of here with your p <= 0.1 or p <= 0.05). Anything above that I just discarded. Cutoffs for the accepted/rejected points varied between 0.5 and 0.78, depending on the school. I was trying to shoot for at least 80% accuracy in both accepted/rejected, with a bit of bias towards false negatives (I'm pessimistic by default) than the opposite.

 

Model

 

I took a different approach than last time, where I only regressed CGPA and LSAT. This time, I also took in to consideration L2 as well as the effect of moderators. What's a moderator, you ask? A moderator is a variable that has an effect on another variable. For example, if I say LSAT moderates cGPA, it means that a high LSAT can potentially boost the effect of a low cGPA in order to improve your chances (this is a fairly simplified explanation but it will suffice for our purposes; if you're super curious, here's a more detailed explanation). 

 

The result was that three schools (Osgoode, Queen's, and Western) had significantly stronger models when I included a variable describing LSAT's moderation of cGPA. Unfortunately, the effects of L2 on any of the schools was inconclusive. This likely stemmed from the fact that not everyone included their L2 scores (especially in rejected threads) and thus I had to throw out the variable completely. It was the same case with U of T and B3, though it's very clear that B3 would have been a better choice than cGPA (ever so slightly, anyway). This is a limitation of the state of the data and not reflective of the schools admissions practices per se.

 

Results

 

  • U of T: I wasn't able to use B3 like I wanted, but cGPA is only slightly less accurate (at least given the data set). The model accounts for about 54% of the effect on admission.
  • Queen's: LSAT moderates cGPA. L2 wasn't significant enough to include. The model accounts for about 60% of the effect on admission.
  • Western: LSAT moderates cGPA. Again, L2 wasn't significant enough to include. Accounts for about 47% of the effect on admission.
  • Osgoode: LSAT moderates cGPA. L2 isn't a factor at all at Oz (unlike with Western and Queen's, where it was easy to see there was an effect but it wasn't usable for the model). Accounts for about 61% of the effect on admission.
  • Ottawa: Straight up LSAT and cGPA. In fact, LSAT is nearly irrelevant, as was evidenced last time. L2 has no effect either. Ottawa must also have some sort of X factor, however, as only 25% of one's admission is accounted for by this data.

The table on this page gives some more stats, including means and medians of accepted applicants for each school.

 

 

Conclusion

 

I'm pleased with how the updated model turned out, especially with the moderation interactions between cGPA and LSAT. You can check it out yourself here. The results page is a bit different; in lieu of raw percentages, I opted for displaying a range of chances along with a description of what that range means. I think this method is a bit better in presenting the information as raw numbers tend to be somewhat meaningless for many people (including me).

 

As before, the actual predictions are useless if you're a splitter (very high LSAT and very low cGPA or vice-versa). And finally, don't use the predictions to make life-altering decisions; it's not a substitute for critical thought and the data could very well be extremely wrong.

 

Check it out here.

  • Like 12

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey all -

 

Just a quick note that this thread should not turn into a generic "chances" thread like the last one did on occasion.

 

So if you just want to know your chances, post a new topic WITH YOUR GPA AND LSAT INCLUDED IN THE TITLE and make sure to mention where you are applying, applicable last two / best two calculations, and whatever soft factors you deem relevant. Helpful to note if it isn't the regular category too - mature and access categories have different criteria.

 

Any chances posts that ignore this request will be spliced into their own topic and I may even use an amusing title.

 

Thanks :)

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

After punching in the CGPA and LSAT values, I noticed that as my CGPA decreases; I have a better chance at getting into Queens. 

 

LSAT 157

L2 3.78

(CGPA 3.78)

 

When I punch in LSAT 157, CGPA 3.5; I seem to have better chances at getting into Queens. Something wrong with the formula?

 

(strong LORs and ECs -- I founded a social enterprise that focuses on food literacy and skills training)

Edited by TielliFan
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

According to program, I have better chances at getting into Queens with a CGPA of 3.5 than I do with a CGPA of a 3.78 (LSAT the same). Something wrong with the formula maybe?

 

EDIT: It appears that there *is* something wrong with the Queens predictor as it is suggesting that I would have an excellent chance of getting in with a 2.5 CGPA... lol.

Edited by TielliFan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Both Queen's and Western act weird because of the moderation effect, since the result isn't linear. It's more accurate but because I don't think my sample size for "rejected" data points is large enough, the equation does weird stuff.

 

I'm probably going to swap it out for a linear equation, because while it's less accurate it doesn't give stupid results with odd GPA/LSAT combos.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Okay I had some time and fixed Western and Queen's.

 

I also changed Osgoode's to a linear formula. I was debating keeping the moderation element in it, as it only acted weird if you put in a cGPA of like 2.0 and an LSAT below 140, but I decided against it. I feel like it's better if people see consistently predictable (and linear) results than some weird combination because it can be confusing, despite the fact that it's (marginally) less accurate (though when dealing with odds and chances, what is "accurate" anyway?). If I had more samples of rejected stats, the formulas could be better but unfortunately there aren't many posted here that I can use.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is great thanks. Quick question, does the "year" section refer to the year that you took the course in or the level of the course? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is great thanks. Quick question, does the "year" section refer to the year that you took the course in or the level of the course?

The year you took it in.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Would someone explain that "cutoff" means in the chances calculator? For Ottawa I got a 78% cutoff... what would that mean?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Would someone explain that "cutoff" means in the chances calculator? For Ottawa I got a 78% cutoff... what would that mean?

 

The cutoff is the chance percentage at which your odds of being accepted drops off dramatically. This percent is derived from testing the algorithm against existing data and seeing how accurate it is. Below this "cutoff" percentage, the model became very inaccurate. 

 

I can be more specific if you're actually interested, but the tl;dr is that it's not specific to you but to each school generally, and won't change based on what you enter. The actual prediction (likely, unlikely, etc) takes in to account this cutoff when displaying your chances.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Any idea how accurate the GPA calculator is? Like in terms of determining how OLSAS will calculate it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Any idea how accurate the GPA calculator is? Like in terms of determining how OLSAS will calculate it?

Obviously I can't make any guarantees but it's as accurate as I believe it can be given the information we have about the conversion scale. The cumulative GPA, anyway. This assumes that you attended only one undergrad institution, though. Once you insert a factor like having transferred universities, it becomes unclear how OLSAS takes it in to consideration.

 

The last/best scores are estimates for sure, because each school will be using a different formula on what it considers a year, etc. And anyway, OLSAS doesn't generate those scores.

 

So yeah I think it's pretty good but your real OLSAS GPA might differ from what you get on the calculator. The app should only be used to ballpark your competitiveness and not as definitive.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How would you suggest that I fill in my grades for the cGPA, given that I completed my first year of school at one university, and then transferred to another for the rest of my undergrad?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How would you suggest that I fill in my grades for the cGPA, given that I completed my first year of school at one university, and then transferred to another for the rest of my undergrad?

I don't know how OLSAS handles this situation. My suggestion would be to call them and ask! Then let me know here so I can update how the app works :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How would you suggest that I fill in my grades for the cGPA, given that I completed my first year of school at one university, and then transferred to another for the rest of my undergrad?

 

 You should probably convert your first year grades to the scale your second school uses, then enter them all into the calculator as if they came from the second school - I believe this will give you your cGPA on OLSAS's scale.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How would you suggest that I fill in my grades for the cGPA, given that I completed my first year of school at one university, and then transferred to another for the rest of my undergrad?

 

 

Also, but this only applies if both of your schools use the same number according to this table: https://www.ouac.on.ca/guide/olsas-conversion-table/, then I think you can just input all of your grades together into the same calculation when using the calculator (since there would be no difference from the perspective of the calculation). 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Also, but this only applies if both of your schools use the same number according to this table: https://www.ouac.on.ca/guide/olsas-conversion-table/, then I think you can just input all of your grades together into the same calculation when using the calculator (since there would be no difference from the perspective of the calculation).

 

Oh good idea, they do use the same scale. Do you know if OLSAS averages all your grades and then converts to their GPA or vice versa?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't know how OLSAS handles this situation. My suggestion would be to call them and ask! Then let me know here so I can update how the app works :)

Haha, I'd feel a bit awkward calling them, but perhaps once I need more tools of procrastination during exam season I will.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.



  • Recent Posts

    • Your threads are getting shut down pretty quickly, so this appears to be my last shot. I’m writing this because prospective students and other people heading into OCIs read the forum and they should have a reasonable response to the anxiety in your threads in order for them to build their own healthy relationship to law school. I think everyone has confirmed for you that you do not need an HH to get an OCI position. That’s statistically demonstrated in the UV surveys and every graduate of UT law will (and has) told you that we knew people with no HHs who got the same jobs as people with HHs. It’s been a few years since I dug into the stats, but while only 40-something percent get an OCI gig, something like 70+% of the people who toss in their name get interviews. That’s an extraordinarily high number - there is no other job I have known of other than medicine where such a huge number of graduates get a shot at top paying jobs. It may well depress you to know that buying the UT admission didn’t buy you a job, but relative to the world of options any of us could have faced, we all came out of law school with pretty remarkable employability, especially considering law school teaches so few skills. It’s late August. If your year is anything like my year, you will find the halls of UT largely insufferable until call back day. Students will grow increasingly nervous. They will share greater and greater numbers of supposed ‘insider’ wisdom and little tricks like ‘Blakes likes people who wear straight colored ties; no design’ - that’s one a human being, a real live breathing human being who considers themselves smarter than your average anti-vaxxer, actually said to me. They actually thought a serious law firm had a secret tie color policy, like a caricature of skull & bones. The real truth is, as it almost always is, far more boring and straightforward: law firms may have grade floors, they may have flexible floors that can be impacted by your resume/life experience, but once OCIs start it’s just a question of whether you interview well and leave a good impression on people, as in literally every other job on the face of planet earth. Get this deep into your heads - law student job apps are not unique, they are just job interviews like any other, and the more you buy into the skull & bones image of Toronto law, the sillier you sound. This is all a function of immaturity, crippling inability to deal with uncertainty (itself a function of inexperience in life), and, bizarrely, success. At law schools with very low biglaw rates, students do not experience the same kind of stress about grades or OCIs. It sounds weird to say that the higher your chances at something, the higher your anxiety, but with students it’s often true. The reason is that you’re not merely hoping to get a job or pay a bill, but actually trying to affirm your sense of self. We talk about law students as ‘type A’, but it’s far more accurate to say they’re just highly insecure and lack the life experience to contextualize unfamiliar developments. You walk out of undergrad seeing yourself as one of the smart kids, one of the success stories - then law school comes and there’s a meaningful risk you’ll have to reframe yourself as someone who isn’t always awarded the highest honors by whatever authority is standing nearby - scary! And what’s worse, half of your friends get to keep that identity as you watch it sail away. That’s far harder to swallow than if one out of twenty friends retains that identity.  So how to stay sane, happy, un-anxious and productive? You need to recognize that the set of fears you’re treading in is quick sand. There is no set of secret buttons you can push to get As or get the job you want. There is no checklist. There is no secret another classmate knows that you don’t know, and the student who tells you they know the secret is masking their insecurity by feigning knowledge. There is no magic, no incantation, no study approach, no flash card trick, no reading selection method, nothing at all that will give you certainty. All you can do is your best, and the good news is that’s very often enough. A prof is mean or another classmate cold? Son. You’re out here talking about your dream of being a bigshot corporate lawyer. Someone was mean to you? Boo hoo. Aren’t you trying to become the guy who fields furious calls from private equity clients at 11pm? None of us enjoys assholes, and I’m the first guy to tell you all of that shit should end, but you can’t really cry to me that you’re struggling in life over a prof being mean to you but also you deserve to represent some of the most notably asshole-ish clients on earth. If you can’t stay happy through a mean prof, why should I recommend hiring and putting you in front of a mean client? Sounds like a terrible idea. And this applies far wider than corporate law - you want to be a criminal defence lawyer? Want to handle divorces? Employment disputes? We have a job to do here, some people are going to be assholes and you need to be able to just set that aside and not take it personally in order to do your duty effectively. School is hard? You don’t know if you’ll get an A? Son. You’re asking for a seat at the table of stress. You think school is hard, wait till you’re the only person really in charge of making sure $800,000,000 is transferred properly and correctly. Wait till someone’s liberty is on your shoulders. A child’s life. I’ve written this spiel a bunch of times, but you need to reframe all of this in your head as something motivational. You want to be great at something? Good. It’s hard work and there’s stiff competition. Do you think Sidney Crosby was sad the first time he found a league he couldn’t score 280 points in? Or do you think he woke up and thought ‘great, I’m where I belong and I’m being challenged’? Take a look at yourself. Do you want to be the person who can only feel happy when they’re in a room they can dominate? Or are you the person who wants to grow, challenge and find their ceiling - actually flex the muscles of their ambition and capacity with real peers? Be the second guy. Not because it gets you riches, but because it’s more fun for you and everyone else in the room. Do the right things. Exercise, take long breaks, smoke a joint and play video games...whatever is pleasurable. Be happy because life is happy - the sky is beautiful and rain feels nice and dogs are entertaining and strawberries are delicious. If you literally have zero friends, go make friends. Honestly, take a week to go camping and clear your head if you get too deep into the muck. Law will be here when you return. Stop listening to the rumor mill. Stop paying attention to everyone else’s anxiety. Stop using the hallways as an echo chamber of fear and intrigue and judgment. For the love of sweet baby Jesus, stop believing that 2Ls have secret insider information on law firms - they barely know how to get to the buildings and much of the ‘knowledge’ they pass along sounds hilarious to practicing lawyers. But most important of all, stop letting your sense of self and identity get tied up with being a law student. You are not a law student, you are a human who happens to sometimes go to a law school. I am not a lawyer, I am Hoju and I spend too much of my time at a law firm. One day I will be Hoju-who-doesn’t-spend-too-much-time-at-a-law-firm. One day I will be Hoju-who-doesn’t-practice-law. One day after that I will be Hoju-who-is-dying. The only consistency is Hoju, everything else is just sauce. You are your interests, your loves, your creation, your intent, your actions and your thoughts, and only some of those do or should relate to being a student. Here’s the good news: being stable in your identity, having a healthy response to school, and managing challenges with motivation rather than anxiety are all things that will help you to succeed in our field much, much, much, so much more than one extra HH. I can’t tell you how much more. This is where you come back and say “that’s all well and good but I have a practical problem in front of me where I need to get a job and the odds are uncertain”. Indeed they are and always will be - it’s entirely possible that OCIs is the time in your life when the odds you get some job you want are highest, but sure, I agree they are uncertain. That is precisely the reason your rock in the storm is your actual identity - you, a human, who among other things, happens to go to law school. Now that we’re back to square one, I’ll ask it again: Are you the human who wants to coast, or are you the human who wants to be challenged and to grow? You’re the latter. So enjoy it - you’ve finally found the right room. 
    • Hi there, I have used the powerscore books as well as Nathan's books to study LR and LG's. Reading the question stem first is not great advice because it promotes a shallow understanding of the material. The Fox LSAT books promote active reading of the material which is made difficult when one is simply scanning for the bit of the passage that answers the question. I think reading the question stem first wil help people who are scoring in the 140s move to the 150s. However, if you have aspirations of a high-score, I do not think that reading the stem first will get you there because reading the stem first inevitably leads to a shallower understanding of the test and more wrong answers. Using Nathan and Ben's teachings I have managed to go from a 151 to a 162 in two months ish of study. That is just my two cents, but honestly what do I know.
    • Orientation started today so it's unlikely.
    • Really appreciate the info. To recap - (the most likely scenario is) you'd be able to participate in the recruitment process in the summer after your second year (out of four). Work as a summer associate after the third year. And return for articling after the four year program.  
×
×
  • Create New...