Softs

(Applications Advice, Letters of Recommendation . . . )
whymeohgodno
Posts: 2508
Joined: Mon Jul 19, 2010 8:15 pm

Softs

Postby whymeohgodno » Sun Nov 07, 2010 1:48 pm

Anyone here with really weak softs apply in a previous cycle? How did your cycles go? Did it go as numbers predicted?

Also does anyone else suspect that LSN is a bit biased since it seems that the self selected group who post information there would be more motivated than those who don't and would be more likely to have above average softs?

RTFM
Posts: 307
Joined: Fri Feb 26, 2010 8:45 pm

Re: Softs

Postby RTFM » Sun Nov 07, 2010 4:47 pm

whymeohgodno wrote:Anyone here with really weak softs apply in a previous cycle? How did your cycles go? Did it go as numbers predicted?


I'm applying this cycle, but I have friends from UG who had basically no softs who are now at Harvard (3.8x, 170), NYU (3.6x, 172; 3.7x, 168), and Northwestern (3.1x, 170) just to give you an idea...

whymeohgodno wrote:Also does anyone else suspect that LSN is a bit biased since it seems that the self selected group who post information there would be more motivated than those who don't and would be more likely to have above average softs?


I'm willing to bet that there's some merit in this argument. LSN is probably not a representative sample.

User avatar
pppokerface
Posts: 205
Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2010 4:45 pm

Re: Softs

Postby pppokerface » Mon Nov 08, 2010 11:13 am

RTFM wrote:
whymeohgodno wrote:Anyone here with really weak softs apply in a previous cycle? How did your cycles go? Did it go as numbers predicted?


I'm applying this cycle, but I have friends from UG who had basically no softs who are now at Harvard (3.8x, 170), NYU (3.6x, 172; 3.7x, 168), and Northwestern (3.1x, 170) just to give you an idea...

whymeohgodno wrote:Also does anyone else suspect that LSN is a bit biased since it seems that the self selected group who post information there would be more motivated than those who don't and would be more likely to have above average softs?


I'm willing to bet that there's some merit in this argument. LSN is probably not a representative sample.

How did they get into those schools with those numbers and no softs?? amazing PS...? esp that NYU 168 person....

QuailMan
Posts: 90
Joined: Fri Oct 16, 2009 5:22 pm

Re: Softs

Postby QuailMan » Mon Nov 08, 2010 2:43 pm

pppokerface wrote:
RTFM wrote:
whymeohgodno wrote:Anyone here with really weak softs apply in a previous cycle? How did your cycles go? Did it go as numbers predicted?


I'm applying this cycle, but I have friends from UG who had basically no softs who are now at Harvard (3.8x, 170), NYU (3.6x, 172; 3.7x, 168), and Northwestern (3.1x, 170) just to give you an idea...

whymeohgodno wrote:Also does anyone else suspect that LSN is a bit biased since it seems that the self selected group who post information there would be more motivated than those who don't and would be more likely to have above average softs?


I'm willing to bet that there's some merit in this argument. LSN is probably not a representative sample.

How did they get into those schools with those numbers and no softs?? amazing PS...? esp that NYU 168 person....


Also remember that not all accounts on LSN are real and many people also change their numbers slightly out of fear that ad coms will look up their profiles, but probably forget to ever change them back once their cycle is over.

User avatar
pppokerface
Posts: 205
Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2010 4:45 pm

Re: Softs

Postby pppokerface » Mon Nov 08, 2010 3:30 pm

This guy says that its his friend, so I thought I'd ask.

User avatar
Arbiter213
Posts: 2249
Joined: Mon Oct 11, 2010 10:16 pm

Re: Softs

Postby Arbiter213 » Mon Nov 08, 2010 3:39 pm

Makes sense. After all- by definition half of every class has to be below Medians. So the TLS mantra that you must be above can't strictly be true. Though it could be true you have to be above at least one.

whymeohgodno
Posts: 2508
Joined: Mon Jul 19, 2010 8:15 pm

Re: Softs

Postby whymeohgodno » Mon Nov 08, 2010 3:41 pm

Arbiter213 wrote:Makes sense. After all- by definition half of every class has to be below Medians. So the TLS mantra that you must be above can't strictly be true. Though it could be true you have to be above at least one.


Well....I'd say at least 20-25% are URM admits.

Also I'd say a lot of schools accept splitters which explains a lot.

RTFM
Posts: 307
Joined: Fri Feb 26, 2010 8:45 pm

Re: Softs

Postby RTFM » Mon Nov 08, 2010 8:01 pm

The one who got a 168 applied three years ago and I think the medians were slightly lower then.

In general though, the people that I mentioned didn't necessarily have cycles that made sense--e.g., the one who went to Harvard was rejected at NYU and Chicago (but straight out admitted to Harvard, not waitlisted). I think my point was more that it could be worth applying to schools you don't think you have a chance at because a certain adcomm might really like your application. (I also think that everyone I mentioned had some pretty outstanding academic LORs.)

It's important to remember that LSN comprises of a tiny fraction of the applicant pool. They've gotta let someone in below their 25%...




Return to “Law School Admissions Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 7 guests