On the utter insignificance of the Personal Statement. Forum

[Shrimps]

Duke:
297 of 664 admitted with LSAT 170+ and GPA 3.75+ (44.7%)
249 of 484 admitted with LSAT 170+ and GPA 3.50-3.74 (51.4%)

If you went to get into Duke, LOWER your GPA fast!

[whymeohgodno]

Duke:
297 of 664 admitted with LSAT 170+ and GPA 3.75+ (44.7%)
249 of 484 admitted with LSAT 170+ and GPA 3.50-3.74 (51.4%)

If you went to get into Duke, LOWER your GPA fast!

That's a pretty skewed comparison considering 170+ is so broad.

[Shrimps]

only 25-28% of Duke's students had LSAT of 170 or higher, and only about half had GPA's of 3.7 or higher, or so it seems. The fact that over half of 3.75+, 170+ students are denied admission to Duke seems quite strange.

trutherd: where'd you get your applicant profiles?

[whymeohgodno]

only 25-28% of Duke's students had LSAT of 170 or higher, and only about half had GPA's of 3.7 or higher, or so it seems. The fact that over half of 3.75+, 170+ students are denied admission to Duke seems quite strange.

trutherd: where'd you get your applicant profiles?

I'm guessing a lot of those 170+ 3.75+ applicants who were rejected were because they didn't meet Duke's 3.8 median gpa while a lot of the 170+ sub 3.75s who got in had a stronger LSAT score.

But this is all speculative. This chart would be so much more useful if that gpa cutoff was at a 3.8 instead of a 3.75.

Then we would really see how many people who met or were above both medians got rejected.

[trutherd]

Duke rejected 367/664 with 3.75+/170+

Yale rejected 113/214 with 3.75+/175+

Are there other factors at play? Sure. But "Numbers>All, except URM" is the naive perspective in this argument.

yale and duke rejected people below their GPA median with median-or-close LSATs? NOT A SHOCK

For the latest applicant profile (shown earlier), Duke's medians were 3.76/169. You have no evidence to say that ANY of the 367 applicants with 3.75+/170+ ACTUALLY had a 3.75 (the only possible sub-median GPA); but even if there were some even 3.75s, you can't say one way or the other whether they were admitted or not.

The real problem with so many of the counter arguments in this thread (and advice on this board in general), is that they are sloppily broad. Add that to the hordes of straw men ("Are you telling me Personal statement >/= numbers and/or URM?" , "going into the application process with the notion that you can make your numbers disappear due to a brilliant personal statement is a recipe for failure"), and it's no wonder threads so quickly devolve into clusterfucking pissing contests.

[trutherd]

only 25-28% of Duke's students had LSAT of 170 or higher, and only about half had GPA's of 3.7 or higher, or so it seems. The fact that over half of 3.75+, 170+ students are denied admission to Duke seems quite strange.

trutherd: where'd you get your applicant profiles?

They're from the 2011 Edition of the ABA-LSAC Official Guide to ABA-Approved Law Schools, available online here. Find a school, then there are 2 PDFs: ABA Law School Data, and Law School Description. The applicant profiles are at the end of the latter.

[mtrl]

A lot of applicants have one number over one median while the other is under. There is no evidence that it is related to the PS.

The table segments applications by both GPA and LSAT score. Half of the candidates at the top of both categories were rejected by Duke.

[bk1]

http://www.top-law-schools.com/forums/v ... start=1825

Stats re Class of 2013 posted on Duke's Priority Track 2011 website:

Duke Class of 2013

GPA: 25th/50th/75th 3.68/3.8/3.9
LSAT: 25th/50th/75th 168/170/171

[whymeohgodno]

Duke rejected 367/664 with 3.75+/170+

Yale rejected 113/214 with 3.75+/175+

Are there other factors at play? Sure. But "Numbers>All, except URM" is the naive perspective in this argument.

yale and duke rejected people below their GPA median with median-or-close LSATs? NOT A SHOCK

For the latest applicant profile (shown earlier), Duke's medians were 3.76/169. You have no evidence to say that ANY of the 367 applicants with 3.75+/170+ ACTUALLY had a 3.75 (the only possible sub-median GPA); but even if there were some even 3.75s, you can't say one way or the other whether they were admitted or not.

The real problem with so many of the counter arguments in this thread (and advice on this board in general), is that they are sloppily broad. Add that to the hordes of straw men ("Are you telling me Personal statement >/= numbers and/or URM?" , "going into the application process with the notion that you can make your numbers disappear due to a brilliant personal statement is a recipe for failure"), and it's no wonder threads so quickly devolve into clusterfucking pissing contests.

I believe the medians listed there were for the applicants of the 2008-2009 cycle while the chart you posted is for 2009-2010 cycle.

It doesn't say explicitly either way but that's what I'm assuming (maybe wrongly).

[LawLucy]

Duke:
297 of 664 admitted with LSAT 170+ and GPA 3.75+ (44.7%)
249 of 484 admitted with LSAT 170+ and GPA 3.50-3.74 (51.4%)

If you went to get into Duke, LOWER your GPA fast!

Do you really think any of the T-20 will admit you if you cannot write worth a shit or have only held a 'Starbucks barista' job? yes numbers matter, especially to those who get SOOO wrapped up in the numbers...but there are many, many softs that come into play as well.

[whymeohgodno]

Duke:
297 of 664 admitted with LSAT 170+ and GPA 3.75+ (44.7%)
249 of 484 admitted with LSAT 170+ and GPA 3.50-3.74 (51.4%)

If you went to get into Duke, LOWER your GPA fast!

Do you really think any of the T-20 will admit you if you cannot write worth a shit or have only held a 'Starbucks barista' job? yes numbers matter, especially to those who get SOOO wrapped up in the numbers...but there are many, many softs that come into play as well.

This describes the limits of my WE. Am I done?

[trutherd]

Duke rejected 367/664 with 3.75+/170+

Yale rejected 113/214 with 3.75+/175+

Are there other factors at play? Sure. But "Numbers>All, except URM" is the naive perspective in this argument.

My god you are stupid, you didn't even try to mask the shift in your argument. Just because a PS/softs can't really help doesn't mean that it cannot definitely hurt you. Also the fact that you are using Yale to justify this is el oh el.

I never made a shift. You distorted my argument:

Of course adcomms are bored by numbers and prefer reading PS's, that doesn't mean that they make the PS a larger factor than numbers in their decision.

I never argued that the PS carries more weight than the numbers. Not even close.

My initial post to start the thread was a sarcastic jab at the prevailing notion that the PS is close to meaningless. My responses after that were only arguing narrowly against the even more absurd belief that numbers are greater than everything. If this were unequivocally true, as initially stated, than Yale would have accepted 214/214 with 3.75+/175+, and Duke would have accepted 664/664. That's all. The broadening of my argument was courtesy of you.

[whymeohgodno]

Duke rejected 367/664 with 3.75+/170+

Yale rejected 113/214 with 3.75+/175+

Are there other factors at play? Sure. But "Numbers>All, except URM" is the naive perspective in this argument.

My god you are stupid, you didn't even try to mask the shift in your argument. Just because a PS/softs can't really help doesn't mean that it cannot definitely hurt you. Also the fact that you are using Yale to justify this is el oh el.

I never made a shift. You distorted my argument:

Of course adcomms are bored by numbers and prefer reading PS's, that doesn't mean that they make the PS a larger factor than numbers in their decision.

I never argued that the PS carries more weight than the numbers. Not even close.

My initial post to start the thread was a sarcastic jab at the prevailing notion that the PS is close to meaningless. My responses after that were only arguing narrowly against the even more absurd belief that numbers are greater than everything. If this were unequivocally true, as initially stated, than Yale would have accepted 214/214 with 3.75+/175+, and Duke would have accepted 664/664. That's all. The broadening of my argument was courtesy of you.

How does being below/above make you a lock? Especially for a school such as Yale? Tailor your arguments more carefully next time.

[bk1]

The shift was from the focus on those who were below median to those who were above which doesn't account for things like YP (not sure if Duke does this).

Very few people have a PS that is actually "good," most are merely passable even after tons of hours. The point isn't to ignore the PS, but to accept that making a stellar one isn't going to change things. It doesn't matter because it will almost never help, not because it won't hurt.

Numbers are greater than everything, but that doesn't mean that saying "I hate Jews" or having typos in your PS doesn't get you dinged. And as I said, it is ridiculous that you are using Yale to justify this argument in any way.

[trutherd]

http://www.top-law-schools.com/forums/v ... start=1825

Stats re Class of 2013 posted on Duke's Priority Track 2011 website:

Duke Class of 2013

GPA: 25th/50th/75th 3.68/3.8/3.9
LSAT: 25th/50th/75th 168/170/171

The official guide is always a cycle behind--the numbers in the current edition are from the Class of 2012 (started Fall 2009 - the book comes out in the summer before numbers are finalized for the class starting Fall 2010).

I believe the medians listed there were for the applicants of the 2008-2009 cycle while the chart you posted is for 2009-2010 cycle.

It doesn't say explicitly either way but that's what I'm assuming (maybe wrongly).

This is from the current guide (I'd assume the medians listed here match the applicant profile, which is on the next page in the print edition):

--ImageRemoved--

[trutherd]

I never argued that the PS carries more weight than the numbers. Not even close.

My initial post to start the thread was a sarcastic jab at the prevailing notion that the PS is close to meaningless. My responses after that were only arguing narrowly against the even more absurd belief that numbers are greater than everything. If this were unequivocally true, as initially stated, than Yale would have accepted 214/214 with 3.75+/175+, and Duke would have accepted 664/664. That's all. The broadening of my argument was courtesy of you.

How does being below/above make you a lock? Especially for a school such as Yale? Tailor your arguments more carefully next time.

Jesus. This was your argument. If, unequivocally, numbers are greater than all, then Yale accepts 214/214.

Perhaps you should have tailored your argument to say that numbers carry the most weight? If so, I agree, but this is not the same as

Numbers>All. The end.

in a thread arguing that the PS is not utterly insignificant.

[bk1]

arguing that the PS is not utterly insignificant.

Outside of the notable exceptions, we may just be arguing over the slightly hyperbolic use of "utterly."

[sarahh]

Is this what law school is going to be like?

[whymeohgodno]

I never argued that the PS carries more weight than the numbers. Not even close.

My initial post to start the thread was a sarcastic jab at the prevailing notion that the PS is close to meaningless. My responses after that were only arguing narrowly against the even more absurd belief that numbers are greater than everything. If this were unequivocally true, as initially stated, than Yale would have accepted 214/214 with 3.75+/175+, and Duke would have accepted 664/664. That's all. The broadening of my argument was courtesy of you.

How does being below/above make you a lock? Especially for a school such as Yale? Tailor your arguments more carefully next time.

Jesus. This was your argument. If, unequivocally, numbers are greater than all, then Yale accepts 214/214.

Perhaps you should have tailored your argument to say that numbers carry the most weight? If so, I agree, but this is not the same as

Numbers>All. The end.

in a thread arguing that the PS is not utterly insignificant.

Yale is a black box and also not all of those 214 are over/over which makes your example utterly worthless even if we were talking about a lower t14 school instead of Yale.

[Shrimps]

Duke's numbers were a revelation. Sadly, few schools provide this data (Northwestern, Duke, NYU, Columbia at least do not). But Duke's numbers disprove the rather widespread thinking that LSAT/GPA-whoring is rampant among the lower T14's.

Duke denied 367 applicants with 170+, 3.75+ (while granting admission to 298 165-169, 3.75's applicants and to 144 165-169, 3.5-3.74 applicants. Clearly, they could've replaced most of those with 170+ applicants and raised their LSAT range by a coupla points. Or not?

Could some of those denials be yield protection (why admit a 177, 3.85-er from NY or CA if he's clearly headed for Columbia, NYU or Stanford?) or Duke's too good for stringent yield protection? After all, of the 1100 acceptances, only about.. what is it, 200-250 choose to attend?

[whymeohgodno]

Duke's numbers were a revelation. Sadly, few schools provide this data (Northwestern, Duke, NYU, Columbia at least do not). But Duke's numbers disprove the rather widespread thinking that LSAT/GPA-whoring is rampant among the lower T14's.

Duke denied 367 applicants with 170+, 3.75+ (while granting admission to 298 165-169, 3.75's applicants and to 144 165-169, 3.5-3.74 applicants. Clearly, they could've replaced most of those with 170+ applicants and raised their LSAT range by a coupla points. Or not?

Could some of those denials be yield protection (why admit a 177, 3.85-er from NY or CA if he's clearly headed for Columbia, NYU or Stanford?) or Duke's too good for stringent yield protection? After all, of the 1100 acceptances, only about.. what is it, 200-250 choose to attend?

I'm going to say YP or that some of them applied really late.

I could totally see Duke YPing someone with a 175+/3.8+

[bk1]

Duke's numbers were a revelation. Sadly, few schools provide this data (Northwestern, Duke, NYU, Columbia at least do not). But Duke's numbers disprove the rather widespread thinking that LSAT/GPA-whoring is rampant among the lower T14's.

Duke denied 367 applicants with 170+, 3.75+ (while granting admission to 298 165-169, 3.75's applicants and to 144 165-169, 3.5-3.74 applicants. Clearly, they could've replaced most of those with 170+ applicants and raised their LSAT range by a coupla points. Or not?

Could some of those denials be yield protection (why admit a 177, 3.85-er from NY or CA if he's clearly headed for Columbia, NYU or Stanford?) or Duke's too good for stringent yield protection? After all, of the 1100 acceptances, only about.. what is it, 200-250 choose to attend?

It says acceptances which means the others are waitlists or rejections, not 100% rejections.

Duke didn't have to pull anybody off the waitlist last year, IIRC. Which means to me they are pretty good at accurately predicting who they will get to attend.

[Shrimps]

There are only 700 people each year who score 175 or higher. Harvard, Yale and Stanford have incoming classes of 855 people, combined , so if they wanted to, they could fill it to the brim with 174+ scorers. Obviously, they don't do that. "Senators' kids", URMs, extremely interesting people (successful writers by the age of 20 or somesuch) get a fairly large chunk of admissions, and a quarter of their incoming class scores 170 or lower.

T14 enroll a total of 4500 students or so each year. About the same number that score 169 and above.

[edgarfigaro]

Duke didn't have to pull anybody off the waitlist last year, IIRC. Which means to me they are pretty good at accurately predicting who they will get to attend.

Not really...they significantly over-enrolled for the 2nd year in a row.

[ahduth]

Is this what law school is going to be like?

Very much so, yes.