Small nit: Harvard Law itself does not do merit ‘scholarships’; HLS (along with Yale and Stanford) offer need-based aid only. Of course, that applicant could have earned a community scholarship somewhere.
Maryann: even with a sub 3.8, a 17x will get you a strong look at the T6, and likely merit money at the lower T14. (And unless you are from a wealthy family, tax-free merit money is the easiest cash that you will ever make.)
@bluebayou I didn’t question him on if it was a need based award or outside of Harvard based award, but they are at HLS out of UChicago and they aren’t paying for tuition, or at least that is what they told my son.
@bluebayou: Curious as to your source regarding Harvard Law School admissions as you wrote above in post #282:
“Get above both of Harvard’s (Harvard Law School) medians and you have a better than 65% chance of admission” [to Harvard Law School].
@Waitlistedparent: Regarding your post #293 above defining “splitter” and “reverse splitter”.
My understanding is a bit different.
“Splitter” and “reverse splitter” use any particular law school’s median GPA & median LSAT score in comparison to a particular applicant’s LSAT score & undergraduate GPA.
Your explanation refers to “significantly higher” & “with the two scores (applicant’s LSAT & GPA) being separated by at least a quartile based on a school’s admissions profile”. I do not think that this is correct.
My understanding of the terms “splitter” and “reverse splitter” are illustrated below:
If Harvard Law School’s medians are: 173 LSAT & 3.80 GPA, then a “splitter” would have any LSAT score above a 173 and any GPA below 3.80. Example: 174 LSAT & 3.70 GPA.
A “reverse splitter” would have any GPA above 3.80 & any LSAT score below 173. Example: 3.90 GPA & 171 LSAT score.
With respect to Harvard Law School, I am curious as to @bluebayou’s statement that an applicant to HLS with both numbers (LSAT & GPA) above Harvard Law School’s medians would have a better than 65% chance of admission.
Seems as though the odds of admission for any HLS applicant with above median numbers would have a significantly higher than 65% chance of admission as there just are not many law school applicants with both an LSAT score of 174 or higher and an undergraduate GPA above HLS’s median GPA.
I may be wrong so that is why I requested @bluebayou’s source.
I might’ve missed this when Chicago created their new Latin honors system - what are Chicago’s gpa cutoffs for cum laude, manga cum laude, and summa cum laude? That might give us clues to what some of the gpa breakdowns are.
For cum laude for instance, which is for the top 25%, whats the cutoff?
Sorry, I should have been more clear, at or above the median, so it includes 173. And yes, odds do up significantly at 174+. I was just being conservative so all the HLS alums don’t get concerned that their school is more of a numbers-game than they’d like to admit. 
There is a pretty good source on the internet, but I don’t think posting to another blog is approved. (when I had posted it in a prior thread, it was removed. sry)
How “split” do you have to be to be a splitter? Was under the impresssion it was something like 75th for one stat and 25th for another. If you are near the median with both (say, GPA a bit above and LSAT a bit below) are you truly a splitter? (or reverse-splitter, in that case)
@Cue7, here is the link to Latin Honors (scroll down). There is no GPA cut-off stated. They assess it by major using data from the past five years.
http://collegecatalog.uchicago.edu/thecollege/takingcourses/
Hmm @JBStillFlying - maybe we covered this before, but Chicago’s new policy seems to hinder future prospects, not help.
We estimated that maybe 40-50% of Harvard students made cum laude, but only half that at Chicago will receive that recognition. Couldn’t that hurt prospects for grads? (I’m sure McKinsey and certain prof schools like getting cum laude grads, and there will literally be fewer Chicago cum laude grads than at Harvard.)
Put another way, maybe 40%- 50% of Harvard grads will get cum laude (something employers like), but only 25% of Chicago grads will get those same honors. Wouldn’t this negatively impact Chicago grads, in this competition?
If Chicago already has grade inflation, why didn’t they simply widen or maintain the market of students receiving honors? The class is more talented now than before, but Latin awards seem harder to come by. Doesn’t make sense.
As an employer, I’ll say it again. I’ve never looked at “Latin Honors” nor do I know anyone who does. It is a nothing burger in private industry. You will never hear anyone say “we would have taken you, but you know we only hire Cum Laude or better.” What we do look at are “so what did you do on campus to practically apply your education.” We are impressed with degrees from UChicago, Northwestern, Harvard, MIT, Michigan, Purdue, etc. We are less impressed by degrees from University of Phoenix, Pipersville State, etc. Obviously, to be considered often times we put a GPA floor on the job, but that isn’t even set in stone and have hired below that floor when the candidate comes in and explains why their GPA is below that floor and has excelled in other areas.
If a Harvard grad and a UChicago Grad are presented to us, we look at them equally in the “did they go to a good school” category. When we have a UChicago vs. a Purdue grad, a slight edge is given to UChicago, however, it is very possible that the Purdue grad blows up the UChicago grad in the interview and the interview carries much more weight than the pedigree.
The only time I commented on a GPA is when a great young engineer was in the interview and near the end of a great interview, we already knew we were going to offer. He had a 3.97 so I asked him what happened in that one class where you only got an A-. It was a tension breaker.
Can I speak for everyone? No, there may be some HR person out there who filters on Latin honors, but I’ve not met him in 35 years of recruiting for some fairly big and reputable companies and firms.
I’ll put it this way @BrianBoiler - how is having fewer awards honors than its peers helping Chicago graduates in any way? Across all industries and exit options, is it better to have grads with awards or not?
What you argue is it is either net neutral or possibly a negative (with that one HR person screening resumes). Is there any positive to this? If no, why do this? Your explanation was not in any way an endorsement of Chicago’s current restrictive awards practice. At best you are saying, it’s even. That doesnt sounds like a reason to make the recent change.
@Waitlistedparent and @JBStillFlying:
With respect to the law school admissions discussion concerning “splitters” & “reverse splitters”, apparently we are all correct as some use these terms in reference to medians while others use them in terms of 25% & 75% LSAT scores/GPA.
I use the terms in regard to medians, and I use the term “super splitter” or “super reverse splitter” when referring to those law school applicants with one number above a school’s 75th% and one number below that law school’s 25th%.
I apologize for moving the discussion off track, but just wanted to try to resolve differences among very knowledgeable posters.
In short, it is up to a school or a particular individual how to define “splitter” & “reverse splitter” = i.e. whether refering to medians or to 25th% & 75th%.
I can’t really talk about grad schools, but in industry, Latin Honors have zero impact on grads. If just one HR person is filtering on it, then it is still zero.
My post was just pointing out that it does not matter to industry. Now from another point of view, if everyone gets a shiny prize, is the shiny prize worth anything? My kids go to a HS that awards Latin Honors. 500 kids/per class. 380ish got some sort of Latin Honor, around 200 got the top (Magna or Suma, I can’t remember which is the top). To my sons (and eventually my daughter), to them it meant very little to get it and to those who didn’t get it, it was a huge black eye. To me that is the motivation to get Latin Honors. Not for outside recognition, but for “inside” recognition. It should mean something to those who got it that it is recognized that I finished at the top. If everyone finishes at the top, is it worth anything?
Those are good points, @BrianBoiler , but my impulse here would be to imitate what the other top schools are doing. Frankly, the system seems to work very well for them in hiring and placement. What benefit does Chicago have here in separating? It certainly doesn’t seem to hurt demand that Harvard has 40% graduate cum laude (or whatever). How would it help Chicago to have less achieve the same feat?
Again, I’m trying to figure out what the net positive is here. Any ideas?
@Cue7 at #314. Perhaps UChicago isn’t awarding Latin Honors to be like all the other schools, especially Harvard. From wikipedia, we can see that Harvard has indeed had an upward drift from the “old days” if 40% now graduate Cum Laude:
"History
In 1869, Harvard College became the first college in the United States to award final honors to its graduates. From 1872 to 1879, cum laude and summa cum laude were the two Latin honors awarded to graduates. Beginning in 1880, magna cum laude was also awarded:
The Faculty then prepared regulations for recommending candidates for the Bachelor’s degree, either for an ordinary degree or for a degree with distinction; the grades of distinction being summa cum laude, magna cum laude, and cum laude. The degree summa cum laude is for those who have attained ninety percent on the general scale, or have received Highest Honors in any department, and carries with it the assignment of an oration on the list of Commencement parts; the degree magna cum laude is for those who have attained eighty percent on the general scale, or have received Honors in any department, and carries with it the assignment of a dissertation; and the degree cum laude is to be given to those who attain seventy-five percent on the general scale, and to those who receive Honorable Mention in any study together with sixty-five percent on the general scale, or seventy percent on the last three years, or seventy-five percent on the last two.
— Annual Reports of the President and Treasurer of Harvard College, 1877–78"
@marlowe1 at #315 - NOW I get your baseball references!
@Cue7 I don’t think imitating Harvard for the sake of imitating Harvard is a good idea. Benchmark, find the stuff that they are good at, the stuff they are bad at. Glean the practices you want, improve on those you don’t. To me if you want a Latin Honor to mean something, make it mean something. I’d do that with other universities too, for instance Purdue has held tuition flat for 9 straight years (cough, cough).
I’ve already let you know my thoughts from industry, Latin Honors mean absolutely nothing.
I suspect those in Academia who understand what Latin Honors mean also understand the differences between a UChciago Latin and a Harvard Latin, and will act accordingly. So no reason to change.
To the recipient, if it is just a participation price, it will not mean anything if close to half the class receive it. It will take away from those in the lower half of the class. “Da%#, I’m not even an average student.” This way if it is truly prestegious, those who don’t get it will hopefully be happy for those who do, instead of wallowing in self pity.
So why do it? Because your peer does it? If your peer would jump off a bridge, would you too? (Sorry that was my Mom’s logic)
@JBStillFlying - but per this thread, it looks like Chicago already grade inflates like Yale (or close to it). It’s not like faculty have interest in stemming that tide - it’s already happened. That to me is the biggest takeaway from this thread - the grade inflation debate is dead. It’s happened.
Accordingly, why not have clear cut-offs presented to students, and widen the array of honors given? At Harvard, cum laude is, say, something that 40% of the class gets. As talented as their class is, graduating in the top 40% seems notable. Why shouldn’t it be the same at Chicago?
@BrianBoiler - I don’t endorse following peers blindly but, also per this thread, the “genius” of Chicago’s transformation seems to be a McKinsey Report, delivered in the mid-2000s, encouraging Chicago to have more of an “ivy league mix of students” and offer “ivy league amenities/experiences” for these students.
As offering more awards seems to function well at our peers, why not adopt that, too, as we’ve adopted so many other things?