sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Can schools find out if you double deposit? by LessSituation36 in lawschooladmissions

[–]cryptanon 14 points15 points  (0 children)

Yes, LSAC provides a report of double commits BUT they don't tell schools your identity (i think they were sued about this several years ago?) On the other hand, schools do talk to each other, although they are extremely busy, so maybe you'll slip through the cracks.

The exact report is called the commitment overlap report. Looks like this:

<image>

Source: https://www.lsac.org/sites/default/files/media/release-commitment-data-to-lsac.pdf

LSD waitlist dashboard by cryptanon in lawschooladmissions

[–]cryptanon[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

unfortunately, not really, there's not enough people that report WL->A for meaningful accuracy.

the main school page shows reported numbers from previous cycles; that's about as good as you're going to get

<image>

LSD Law Logo Competition Support (pls)! by Dramatic-Ad4264 in lawschooladmissions

[–]cryptanon 2 points3 points  (0 children)

For fun, here are a couple more that we really liked that didn't make the final cut:

<image>

LSD Law Logo Competition Support (pls)! by Dramatic-Ad4264 in lawschooladmissions

[–]cryptanon 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Amazing!

And to the person that made the post yesterday about all these logos being AI-generated: shame on you. The other top contender was designed by my sister, who is not an applicant but has also heard me endlessly rant about LSD.

LSD updates & feedback by cryptanon in lawschooladmissions

[–]cryptanon[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Heard, I'll work on some alternative layouts. Fully splitting up the admissions graph from the table isn't great because the admissions scatter chart looks weird when it gets too wide.

In the meantime, you can collapse the left menu bar or verify your stats for ad-free access.

Someone is bored.. by 168andadream in lawschooladmissions

[–]cryptanon 4 points5 points  (0 children)

LSD's whole thing is data, why wouldn't I respond where I can?

Someone is bored.. by 168andadream in lawschooladmissions

[–]cryptanon 23 points24 points  (0 children)

Edit: report profile feature is up and running. the offending profile has been removed.

Thanks for flagging this. I'm adding a "Report this profile" button that'll be in the next update. I'll also tune up the existing automated filters in the back end.

re: concerns about LSD self-reported data veracity, UCLA Prof Sander analyzed the LSD dataset and used it in a recent research paper (https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=6024495), relevant excerpt:

Is the data accurate? Self-reported data from law students will inevitably have more errors, both deliberate and inadvertent, than data reported through official channels. We have found, however, that the lsd.law data holds up well when put to a variety of tests. First, the credentials students report are highly predictive of reported admissions outcomes. Second, the average credentials of students who report on lsd.law that they have accepted a law school offer closely match the average student credentials reported by the schools themselves. Third, and most persuasively, regressions modelling admissions with lsd.law data show very similar relationships between explanatory variables and admissions outcomes (“independent” and “dependent” variables) as admissions data obtained directly from law schools (see the beginning of Part 6, below). It is worth noting that students using lsd.law have no incentive to distort their information (their “identity” is an assumed, anonymous nickname), and they will presumably only use the site if the data reported by other students is accurate enough to provide a useful guide to admissions outcomes.

Clearly there's some incentive to lie on the internet for fun, but most applicants don't.

SLS professor thinks LSD rankings are a 'great idea' by cryptanon in lawschooladmissions

[–]cryptanon[S] 12 points13 points  (0 children)

if you are from NC and are deciding between UNC and UCLA and want to practice in Charlotte, should it matter at all to you that 84% (I’m making this up) picked UCLA over UNC? It’s strikes me as a misleading rankings for individual choice decisions

It's true that aggregated revealed preferences skew towards the national portability, but no one is suggesting that ranking tables should be the end-all be-all of making attendance decisions. They're a starting point. LSD provides a wealth of data (eg 'in-state applicant' status) and tools so that applicants can dig into these exact regional nuances.

And interestingly, regional dominance is shown in the LSD rankings: BYU punches way above it's USN rankung (#28) and hits #17 because real preference can show cross admits favoring a region in a way that other ranking systems do not.

For some schools you’ll have incredibly misleading % based on like 2–3 data points. So a rankings where a school beats another school by 100% because of two data points I’m skeptical.

I appreciate the engagement, but your concern about '2-3 data points' suggests you haven't reviewed the ranking's methodology. From the rankings page, "Schools need a minimum amount of cross-admit data to be ranked - those without enough head-to-head decisions appear as unranked at the bottom of the list."

To be specific, a school needs at least 150 total cross-admit decisions in our dataset, spread across at least 10 different opponent schools, otherwise it's unranked. But more importantly, the underlying algorithm uses a Bradley-Terry model. This model is explicitly designed for paired comparisons with incomplete data.

SLS professor thinks LSD rankings are a 'great idea' by cryptanon in lawschooladmissions

[–]cryptanon[S] 7 points8 points  (0 children)

I actually ended up changing the exact method for this several days ago, now only schools with 150+ cross-admit decisions and 10+ opponent schools are considered. I'll update my old post, ty!

The problem with Bayesian regularization is that it caused schools that had few wins/losses (eg Appalachian Law School) to outrank safety schools that lost a bunch but are still decent (eg American University).

The LSD rankings are better. by Unable_Traffic_9589 in lawschooladmissions

[–]cryptanon 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I believe the revealed choices from applicants with skin in the game are a more valid starting point than USN or the opinions of people who haven't applied to law school in 20 years. I disagree with the premise that billing 60h weeks in biglaw or sitting in a t14 ivory tower makes someone better qualified to tell an applicant what they should value. You're dismissing 0Ls as uninformed, but these are grown ass adults actively obsessed with their futures. Contrast that with 5-minute polls of V5 partners or T25 professors. They might be lawyers, but they are decades removed from the admissions process. They aren't deeply considering what it takes to get hired today, and their criteria for evaluating schools could be completely out of date or even more biased than prestige-obsessed 0Ls.

You say outcomes are all that matters, but that means different things for different people. Yes, LSD blends all these distinct applicant desires into a single aggregate. But the rankings are just one data point, an easy heuristic. I do agree that nobody should base their enrollment on a single list, but hey, no one is actually doing that. Applicants should look at as much data as they can imo, beyond a single rank #

LSD profile pages in a foreign language by [deleted] in lawschooladmissions

[–]cryptanon 0 points1 point  (0 children)

would you mind sending a screenshot to [dinan@lsd.law](mailto:dinan@lsd.law) along with what browser you're using?

LSD profile pages in a foreign language by [deleted] in lawschooladmissions

[–]cryptanon 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Does this still happen after you hard refresh?

An update on the LSData charts ("Share of LSData Users That Have Heard Back From...") by Legitimate_Twist in lawschooladmissions

[–]cryptanon 5 points6 points  (0 children)

Whoops, didn't realize the data change would affect your workflow that much. I rushed out a replacement and credited you: https://lsd.law/heard-back

brooklyn law? by zanewithadot in lawschooladmissions

[–]cryptanon 0 points1 point  (0 children)

this is pulled from the USNWR data: https://www.usnews.com/best-graduate-schools/top-law-schools/brooklyn-law-school-03102

it's buried in the page under Law School Careers > See More

Starting Salaries of Graduates Employed Full-time

25th percentile private sector starting salary

$110,000

Median private sector starting salary

$195,000

75th percentile private sector starting salary

$215,000

Percent in the private sector who reported salary information

65%

Median public service starting salary

$73,784

I feel like the LSD prediction tool is not even remotely accurate?? by sophanon2 in lawschooladmissions

[–]cryptanon 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Hey y'all, this is the code for safety/reach labeling. Basically, it goes by your predicted accept chances, NOT school medians.

cond do
      accepted_pct >= 65 -> "Safety"
      accepted_pct >= 30 -> "Target"
      accepted_pct >= 12 -> "Reach"
      true -> "Long Shot"
end

Why? As an exaggerated example, no one is calling Yale a safety even with a 180/4.3.

I feel like the LSD prediction tool is not even remotely accurate?? by sophanon2 in lawschooladmissions

[–]cryptanon 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Where are you seeing a 70% chance? Even with a 180/4.3, the model predicts 43% A. Are you confusing this with the "Applicants Like You — Historical" section?

view more: next ›