Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Blondlaw

Is 161 a good score?

Recommended Posts

I was worried about a 161, but my friend who has gotten into law school and is now practicing told me it's a good score, and forums like these skew opinion. I decided to crunch some numbers and was surprised with my results. I161 is definitely a good score, i'll lay out my math below, any input and/or corrections would be appreciated!

Assumptions: 2000 applicants per school, each applicant applies to 4 schools , average class size = 130 students

2000 X 18 (law schools in Canada pertaining to this forum) = 36000 applications

36000 applications/ 4 (because each person applies 4 times) = 9000 applicants

161 = 83 percentile, ergo scored better than 83% of applicants ( I understand that people who score very low may not apply)

.83 x 9000 = 7470 ( your score beats this many applicants)

9000-7470= 1530 (the amount of applicants with your score or above)

130 (average class size) x 18 = 2340

Therefore, a 161  is better than 810 students admitted and definitely gives one a good shot at law school. It may not give you the pick of the litter, but it will get you in. 

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The main problem with this approach is that you're assuming people who scored 120-140 are going to apply and is a consistent part of that applicant pool. A 161 is in the 83rd percentile of LSAT takers for a particular test. It doesn't mean you're the 83rd percentile of the 9,000 (or so) applicants.

Not to say a 161 isn't a good score. It's just an erroneous perspective to be looking at things.

Edited by iReminisce
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For most Canadian schools. the line for competitive LSAT scores is ~160, so on a loose definition, then 161 is indeed a "good score:. At the same time, LSAT score isn't everything, and everyone has different definitions of "good".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah your math is entirely wrong for the reason @iReminisce stated. 161 is right around the median LSAT accepted for most of the big schools, so it's (definitionally) better than or equal to the score of 50% of the accepted applicants. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, Blondlaw said:

I was worried about a 161, but my friend who has gotten into law school and is now practicing told me it's a good score, and forums like these skew opinion. I decided to crunch some numbers and was surprised with my results. I161 is definitely a good score, i'll lay out my math below, any input and/or corrections would be appreciated!

Assumptions: 2000 applicants per school, each applicant applies to 4 schools , average class size = 130 students

2000 X 18 (law schools in Canada pertaining to this forum) = 36000 applications

36000 applications/ 4 (because each person applies 4 times) = 9000 applicants

161 = 83 percentile, ergo scored better than 83% of applicants ( I understand that people who score very low may not apply)

.83 x 9000 = 7470 ( your score beats this many applicants)

9000-7470= 1530 (the amount of applicants with your score or above)

130 (average class size) x 18 = 2340

Therefore, a 161  is better than 810 students admitted and definitely gives one a good shot at law school. It may not give you the pick of the litter, but it will get you in. 

 

 

A 161 is a perfectly reasonable score based on the profile of people taking the LSAT. It's a score around most of the medians for Canadian law schools, so getting in depends on your GPA. It isn't a near auto-admit (not many people will be refused anywhere with a 180) or an auto-reject (GPA doesn't matter much for someone with 120). Plenty of people will be accepted or rejected with that, depending on other parts of their applications.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
55 minutes ago, Blondlaw said:

I was worried about a 161, but my friend who has gotten into law school and is now practicing told me it's a good score, and forums like these skew opinion. I decided to crunch some numbers and was surprised with my results. I161 is definitely a good score, i'll lay out my math below, any input and/or corrections would be appreciated!

Assumptions: 2000 applicants per school, each applicant applies to 4 schools , average class size = 130 students

2000 X 18 (law schools in Canada pertaining to this forum) = 36000 applications

36000 applications/ 4 (because each person applies 4 times) = 9000 applicants

161 = 83 percentile, ergo scored better than 83% of applicants ( I understand that people who score very low may not apply)

.83 x 9000 = 7470 ( your score beats this many applicants)

9000-7470= 1530 (the amount of applicants with your score or above)

130 (average class size) x 18 = 2340

Therefore, a 161  is better than 810 students admitted and definitely gives one a good shot at law school. It may not give you the pick of the litter, but it will get you in. 

 

I deliberately haven't read any of the posts. Just the title. Yes...161 is a good score. Period end of story. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.


  • Recent Posts

    • Les notes sont courbées à UdeM en droit de sorte à ce que les chances que t'ailles 4/4.3 sont vraiment minimes. Par contre, le bac en droit est un bac considéré fort en termes de CRU donc c'est facile d'être admis/convoqué en entrevue avec beaucoup moins que 4/4.3. Juste pour te donner une idée, Droit à ulaval donne facilement plus que 31 de CRU(le minimum pour être considéré en médecine) si tu maintiens 3.55-3.7/4.3.
    • Thanks, Shankar, for the reassurance and quick response (and yep, it was Corporate with Nicholls). I'm definitely missing the in-person post-exam experience, so it's hard to gauge how other people might have done. There were a few questions I didn't even get to because I thought it'd be better to answer other questions quickly rather than try to dig for the provision he's looking for. 
    • I can't imagine it being that easy. I imagine a fair number of students would be eager to slash their tuition by transferring. 
    • Considering you're taking Corporate in 1L, I'm just assuming you go to Western.  If not, disregard everything I say.  Nicholls' exams are all long and hardly anyone finishes them.  It's true of Corporate, Securities, and probably anything else he teaches.  He's a phenomenal professor in every sense, but his exams are very long.   So yeah, don't worry about it.  Every year everyone comes out of that exam worried that they bombed it because there wasn't enough time to finish, but that's where the curve comes in.   I don't remember how much of the exam I actually completed, but it definitely wasn't near the whole thing (eg: my "essay" was a couple sentences long) and I did fine.  Take a breath, you'll very likely be fine.  You'd probably feel better if you were able to see that everyone else had the same experience as you, but that's just how it is this year.  
    • This isn't how it works when grading on a curve. Relax and wait to get your mark back for now, once you receive it you can go from there. Often times if an exam seems incredibly difficult or crunched for time for you, it's likely that was the case for many other students who wrote it alongside you.

×
×
  • Create New...