Softs Forum

[whymeohgodno]

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]

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...

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.

[pppokerface]

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...

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]

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...

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.

[pppokerface]

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

[Arbiter213]

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]

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]

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%...