Page 1 of 1
...
Posted: Mon May 17, 2010 11:37 pm
by SYoshi11
.
Re: Numbers, Numbers, Numbers! Really?
Posted: Mon May 17, 2010 11:42 pm
by phoenix323
Numbers, Numbers, Numbers?
Yes.
Anyone that tells you it's not a numbers game is full of crap.
Softs rarely matter...
it seems to me that a lot of people applying to top law schools have equal numbers, but not all of these people are accepted.
In response to this, you have to consider that some of these people have some kind of red flag in their app (criminal record, academic disciplinary action, went to 6 different colleges...)
If you're serious about law school, keep that GPA nice and high and kick butt on the LSAT. Little else matters.
Re: Numbers, Numbers, Numbers! Really?
Posted: Mon May 17, 2010 11:43 pm
by Kobe_Teeth
If there is one spot left in a law class and you both have 3.5 / 165 and you did peace corps and want to do public interest and the other guy has been arrested once for disorderly conduct and is currently working as a cashier at the Gap for two years you will get the spot over him.
However, if there were two spots left, you both would get in.
Re: Numbers, Numbers, Numbers! Really?
Posted: Mon May 17, 2010 11:45 pm
by Kilpatrick
It shouldn't take a month of research to figure this out.
Re: Numbers, Numbers, Numbers! Really?
Posted: Mon May 17, 2010 11:48 pm
by Veyron
Wahhh wahhh, law is a meritocracy. Some soft factors (like PC, TFA, etc., military service) might matter, but not being president of a club or an SA at Goldman (not when real live adults who have actually worked in really cool jobs are also applying. If you want to make sure your soft factors matter, get an MFA.
Re: Numbers, Numbers, Numbers! Really?
Posted: Mon May 17, 2010 11:57 pm
by d34d9823
Obviously none of us are adcoms, so we don't really know. That said, the prevailing theory on here is the "bucket" theory.
Take Yale for example. They have ~200 slots. If they want to maintain their 25th, median, and 75th LSAT, they have to have 50 people with above a 176, 100 people with above a 173, and 150 people with above a 170. Likewise, they need 50 people with above a 3.96 GPA, 100 people with above a 3.90, and 150 people with above a 3.82.
At the same time, they want to have ~50% women and at least 25% URM, with the URMs probably allocated more specifically (i.e. at least 10% AA).
Furthermore, at top schools like Yale and Harvard, they try to cram as many unique achievements and diverse experiences into the class that they can.
So it turns into a bit of a logic game. It's obviously not easily solvable (which is why they have adcoms), but one thing sticks out: they're limited in their ability to fill out the class primarily by having to fill all those buckets. Which means, the more buckets you fit into, the better your shot.
> median LSAT, > median GPA? Good, but those are easy buckets to fill, still a tossup whether you get in.
Add URM to that? Welcome to Yale!
> 75th LSAT, > median GPA? This is a hard bucket to fill; there's only ~150-200 people above Yale's 75th and some of those are going to HS. Welcome to Yale!
>75th LSAT, < 25th GPA? Ooh, splitterville. You still have a shot because >75th LSAT is so hard to come by, but I'd have a backup plan.
>75th GPA, <25th LSAT? Reverse splitter, even more fucked than the regular splitter. Same deal, but way more people in this bucket. Better apply to schools that value GPA *cough* Boalt *cough*.
So yeah, all that to say, your softs only matter positively if you're in some good buckets to begin with. On the other hand, if you screw up the application or have a major negative soft like a DUI, that can sink an otherwise perfect candidate.
Re: Numbers, Numbers, Numbers! Really?
Posted: Tue May 18, 2010 12:28 am
by Tofu
dunno about internship at goldman sachs.
prestigious scholarship (rhodes, marshall, etc.) helps. tough major helps. prestigious undergrad (hyp, stanford, mit, caltech, amherst, swarthmore, williams, etc.) helps.
i'm guessing that getting published for research, etc. would help, too, in the top top schools.
Re: Numbers, Numbers, Numbers! Really?
Posted: Tue May 18, 2010 12:34 am
by fiftyonefifty
I'd say 95 percent of the time it's a numbers game, and the other 5% percent is based on softs. Just based on some people I know, their numbers and non-urm status.
Re: Numbers, Numbers, Numbers! Really?
Posted: Tue May 18, 2010 12:38 am
by futurelawyer413
Kilpatrick wrote:It shouldn't take a month of research to figure this out.
OP's a frosh, loL
Re: Numbers, Numbers, Numbers! Really?
Posted: Tue May 18, 2010 12:57 am
by yeff
First, in response to your thread title: yes, yes, yes.
OP - getting a 4.0 and/or a 180 is far more uncommon than getting an internship or being the president of a club and far more impressive. There are dozens not hundreds of people with a 180 each year. How many of the ~150,000 LSAT-takers each year do you think had an internship or did a club? And how many 4.0/180ers didn't do other amazing things?
There's plenty else to complain about with regard to the actively non-holistic practices common to law school admissions. This is a little silly.
Re: Numbers, Numbers, Numbers! Really?
Posted: Tue May 18, 2010 1:16 am
by 09042014
Other than Yale yes it is. And even at Yale it is a numbers game in addition to other factors.
Why is a different story. Partially because a lot of the things you mention will not make one a better law student, or lawyer. And at schools lower than top 6, it is mainly over the battle for USNWR rankings. Hours of community service don't help, but LSAT and GPA do.
Re: Numbers, Numbers, Numbers! Really?
Posted: Tue May 18, 2010 1:24 am
by SYoshi11
.
Re: Numbers, Numbers, Numbers! Really?
Posted: Tue May 18, 2010 1:33 am
by lakerfanimal
SYoshi11 wrote: That being said, law school admission officers have to, at least in some part, be concerned with the same things undergraduate admission officers are concerned about (selecting individuals who will go to be successful students/professionals/lawyers). That the admission criteria are radically different surprised me. I would consider someone who was the president of multiple clubs to be more valuable, even as a lawyer, than someone who did nothing and had a GPA higher by .1 or .2. I now also suspect that law schools might disagree with me.
I think softs might help compensate for a .02-.05 difference in GPA, but .1 or .2 is huge- a 3.9 vs. a 3.7 is essentially the difference between a top 10 law school and a top 3 law school for people with low to mid 170's lsat scores.
Re: Numbers, Numbers, Numbers! Really?
Posted: Tue May 18, 2010 2:04 am
by 09042014
SYoshi11 wrote:First, thanks to everyone for the responses. My original post wasn't meant as a critique of the admissions process -- I just wanted to assess the degree to which law schools were focused on numbers. Moreover, I wasn't really aware of how rare very high LSAT scores are.
That being said, law school admission officers have to, at least in some part, be concerned with the same things undergraduate admission officers are concerned about (selecting individuals who will go to be successful students/professionals/lawyers). That the admission criteria are radically different surprised me. I would consider someone who was the president of multiple clubs to be more valuable, even as a lawyer, than someone who did nothing and had a GPA higher by .1 or .2. I now also suspect that law schools might disagree with me.
Clubs, while awesome, are a joke. A third of them are an excuse to play grab ass and get drunk, a third are bullshit resume builders, and the rest are a circle jerk.
Nobody does anything that impressive in undergrad. And a lot of law students are coming right out of undergrad.
Re: Numbers, Numbers, Numbers! Really?
Posted: Tue May 18, 2010 2:08 am
by IAFG
lakerfanimal wrote:SYoshi11 wrote: That being said, law school admission officers have to, at least in some part, be concerned with the same things undergraduate admission officers are concerned about (selecting individuals who will go to be successful students/professionals/lawyers). That the admission criteria are radically different surprised me. I would consider someone who was the president of multiple clubs to be more valuable, even as a lawyer, than someone who did nothing and had a GPA higher by .1 or .2. I now also suspect that law schools might disagree with me.
I think softs might help compensate for a .02-.05 difference in GPA, but .1 or .2 is huge- a 3.9 vs. a 3.7 is essentially the difference between a top 10 law school and a top 3 law school for people with low to mid 170's lsat scores.
this is definitely not quantifiable like this. it's silly to even try. they might make you "zing-y" enough for UMich or make you chosen over people with the same quartile numbers, but it's just silly to try to assign a GPA or LSAT amount that is the equivalent of softs.
Re: Numbers, Numbers, Numbers! Really?
Posted: Tue May 18, 2010 3:07 am
by Sogui
I didn't even get an interview from Harvard (the more numbers oriented of the YHS top 3) with a 176 (only LSAT) and 3.87 GPA
Don't let anyone tell you softs don't matter, they do.
Re: Numbers, Numbers, Numbers! Really?
Posted: Tue May 18, 2010 3:11 am
by rayiner
Desert Fox wrote:SYoshi11 wrote:First, thanks to everyone for the responses. My original post wasn't meant as a critique of the admissions process -- I just wanted to assess the degree to which law schools were focused on numbers. Moreover, I wasn't really aware of how rare very high LSAT scores are.
That being said, law school admission officers have to, at least in some part, be concerned with the same things undergraduate admission officers are concerned about (selecting individuals who will go to be successful students/professionals/lawyers). That the admission criteria are radically different surprised me. I would consider someone who was the president of multiple clubs to be more valuable, even as a lawyer, than someone who did nothing and had a GPA higher by .1 or .2. I now also suspect that law schools might disagree with me.
Clubs, while awesome, are a joke. A third of them are an excuse to play grab ass and get drunk, a third are bullshit resume builders, and the rest are a circle jerk.
Nobody does anything that impressive in undergrad. And a lot of law students are coming right out of undergrad.
Re: Numbers, Numbers, Numbers! Really?
Posted: Tue May 18, 2010 3:11 am
by 09042014
Sogui wrote:I didn't even get an interview from Harvard (the more numbers oriented of the YHS top 3) with a 176 (only LSAT) and 3.87 GPA
Don't let anyone tell you softs don't matter, they do.
You fucked something up.
http://harvard.lawschoolnumbers.com/app ... ,8&type=jd
Re: Numbers, Numbers, Numbers! Really?
Posted: Tue May 18, 2010 3:26 am
by prezidentv8
Veyron wrote:Wahhh wahhh, law is a meritocracy.
It is?!?!?!?!
Re: Numbers, Numbers, Numbers! Really?
Posted: Tue May 18, 2010 4:10 am
by Kilpatrick
Desert Fox wrote:Sogui wrote:I didn't even get an interview from Harvard (the more numbers oriented of the YHS top 3) with a 176 (only LSAT) and 3.87 GPA
Don't let anyone tell you softs don't matter, they do.
You fucked something up.
http://harvard.lawschoolnumbers.com/app ... ,8&type=jd
Applied late for one thing.
Re: Numbers, Numbers, Numbers! Really?
Posted: Tue May 18, 2010 10:39 am
by Sogui
Kilpatrick wrote:Desert Fox wrote:Sogui wrote:I didn't even get an interview from Harvard (the more numbers oriented of the YHS top 3) with a 176 (only LSAT) and 3.87 GPA
Don't let anyone tell you softs don't matter, they do.
You fucked something up.
http://harvard.lawschoolnumbers.com/app ... ,8&type=jd
Applied late for one thing.
December is late? Only on TLS
I know at least 2 other members on this board who got 3.7+ and a 175+ and didn't get an interview from HLS. Not saying their softs are deficient, but I know mine were.
've learned not to trust TLS, but even then there are people on there who got rejected (not WL'd like me) with numbers close to mine.
As for fucking up? Yea I "fucked up" by going through undergrad and not claiming any serious softs, having a serious "downward trend" on my GPA, and not having a single leadership position. But those are all softs and shouldn't matter according to TLS.
I'd say softs start to matter at any of the top 10, sure numbers are always a game-breaker, but there are plenty of scattered threads here on TLS of people who were "sure things" not getting accepted.
It is a little depressing not even getting a call from HLS. I feel like there's a flaw in the sytem if I can get auto-accepted + $$$ from NYU and Columbia but don't even move past the first stage at Harvard (considered to be the least soft-sensitive of YHS nonetheless).
Re: Numbers, Numbers, Numbers! Really?
Posted: Tue May 18, 2010 10:41 am
by Unitas
Sogui wrote:Kilpatrick wrote:Desert Fox wrote:Sogui wrote:I didn't even get an interview from Harvard (the more numbers oriented of the YHS top 3) with a 176 (only LSAT) and 3.87 GPA
Don't let anyone tell you softs don't matter, they do.
You fucked something up.
http://harvard.lawschoolnumbers.com/app ... ,8&type=jd
Applied late for one thing.
December is late? Only on TLS
I know at least 2 other members on this board who got 3.7+ and a 175+ and didn't get an interview from HLS. Not saying their softs are deficient, but I know mine were.
've learned not to trust TLS, but even then there are people on there who got rejected (not WL'd like me) with numbers close to mine.
As for fucking up? Yea I "fucked up" by going through undergrad and not claiming any serious softs, having a serious "downward trend" on my GPA, and not having a single leadership position. But those are all softs and shouldn't matter according to TLS.
I'd say softs start to matter at any of the top 10, sure numbers are always a game-breaker, but there are plenty of scattered threads here on TLS of people who were "sure things" not getting accepted.
You make me sad..
Re: Numbers, Numbers, Numbers! Really?
Posted: Tue May 18, 2010 10:51 am
by BaiAilian2013
I think what Sogui is saying, and what is my experience too, is that while standard softs won't help you, lack of softs or "negative softs" can hurt you, especially at the top schools. FWIW, I had my HLS interview in early November and was waitlisted in late April. While I know I didn't say anything bad, I think I must have come off as a flat or lacking in personality, and Harvard has enough applicants with good numbers that it can afford not to take the boring ones.
Re: Numbers, Numbers, Numbers! Really?
Posted: Tue May 18, 2010 10:52 am
by IAFG
Sogui wrote:
It is a little depressing not even getting a call from HLS. I feel like there's a flaw in the sytem if I can get auto-accepted + $$$ from NYU and Columbia but don't even move past the first stage at Harvard (considered to be the least soft-sensitive of YHS nonetheless).
wait... Which system? You mean the TLS "model"?
Re: Numbers, Numbers, Numbers! Really?
Posted: Tue May 18, 2010 11:27 am
by 09042014
Sogui wrote:Kilpatrick wrote:Desert Fox wrote:Sogui wrote:I didn't even get an interview from Harvard (the more numbers oriented of the YHS top 3) with a 176 (only LSAT) and 3.87 GPA
Don't let anyone tell you softs don't matter, they do.
You fucked something up.
http://harvard.lawschoolnumbers.com/app ... ,8&type=jd
Applied late for one thing.
December is late? Only on TLS
I know at least 2 other members on this board who got 3.7+ and a 175+ and didn't get an interview from HLS. Not saying their softs are deficient, but I know mine were.
've learned not to trust TLS, but even then there are people on there who got rejected (not WL'd like me) with numbers close to mine.
As for fucking up? Yea I "fucked up" by going through undergrad and not claiming any serious softs, having a serious "downward trend" on my GPA, and not having a single leadership position. But those are all softs and shouldn't matter according to TLS.
I'd say softs start to matter at any of the top 10, sure numbers are always a game-breaker, but there are plenty of scattered threads here on TLS of people who were "sure things" not getting accepted.
It is a little depressing not even getting a call from HLS. I feel like there's a flaw in the sytem if I can get auto-accepted + $$$ from NYU and Columbia but don't even move past the first stage at Harvard (considered to be the least soft-sensitive of YHS nonetheless).
It was probably your downward trend that killed ya. I'll grant you softs matter at Yale, Standford, Bolat, and somewhat at HLS. But CCN and down, it isn't that important, as your $$$$ at CN show.
I also think negative softs matter a whole lot more than positive ones do. When you hit their numbers sweet spot they are only trying to find a reason why you shouldn't be a student at their school.