Softs

[sharrin7]

So, I think it's safe to assume that all softs are not created equal... but, I'm wondering if there's some compiled list regarding what softs carry more weight than others. For example, would Peace Corps > Graduate Degree > Published fiction > upwards grade trend?

Any input would be greatly appreciated.

[tourdeforcex]

there might be some compiled list out there but i think it would vary dramatically dependent on school because different schools care for different things. and then we have the whole situation of tiers. are we discussing YHS or T14 or 1st T, etc?

i would guess for an overall answer it would depend on rarity and your diversity factor. what can you add? if no one at the school has done Peace Corps and you have, then that makes you different and i would guess they'd like to have 1 Peace Corps amongst.

next thing is softs are softs, unless we're discussing international recognition for a lifetime achievement in a field, in the average case, it's not going to count more than 10% of adcom's decision. most estimates have it at 5%. conclusion: don't stress too much about it

hope this helps.

[sharrin7]

Thanks for the input!

Yeah, I realize softs are a relatively small component of an adcomms decision, but, to me, they seem to be what can push an applicant past neutrality...

For the sake of this post, I would say softs at the T14.

I gather that a lot of people with similar numbers apply to HYS and CCN and the rest of the T14, so what sets an applicant apart? What makes one 173/3.9 applicant get accepted to Yale (or Harvard or Stanford or XXXXX) and another get dinged?

[whymeohgodno]

Thanks for the input!

Yeah, I realize softs are a relatively small component of an adcomms decision, but, to me, they seem to be what can push an applicant past neutrality...

For the sake of this post, I would say softs at the T14.

I gather that a lot of people with similar numbers apply to HYS and CCN and the rest of the T14, so what sets an applicant apart? What makes one 173/3.9 applicant get accepted to Yale (or Harvard or Stanford or XXXXX) and another get dinged?

Not really. There are only so many 172+/3.85+ applicants every cycle.

[r6_philly]

Not really. There are only so many 172+/3.85+ applicants every cycle.

I would really love to see this data on the entire LSAC registrant pool. LSN is not representative of the whole pool because it's biased not random.

Finding out where we stand numbers wise would really be helpful. But law school admissions people want to look more holistic so we will never know.

[whymeohgodno]

Not really. There are only so many 172+/3.85+ applicants every cycle.

I would really love to see this data on the entire LSAC registrant pool. LSN is not representative of the whole pool because it's biased not random.

Finding out where we stand numbers wise would really be helpful. But law school admissions people want to look more holistic so we will never know.

If they hide it in order to appear holistic, the numbers probably show them not being very holistic?

[r6_philly]

Not really. There are only so many 172+/3.85+ applicants every cycle.

I would really love to see this data on the entire LSAC registrant pool. LSN is not representative of the whole pool because it's biased not random.

Finding out where we stand numbers wise would really be helpful. But law school admissions people want to look more holistic so we will never know.

If they hide it in order to appear holistic, the numbers probably show them not being very holistic?

That's what I am implying. It will at least be open to that interpretation.

Also school stats overlap with other schools, so a LSAC compiled stats would be more useful. We already have LSAT, we need GPA, and LSAT-GPA data.

[whymeohgodno]

Not really. There are only so many 172+/3.85+ applicants every cycle.

I would really love to see this data on the entire LSAC registrant pool. LSN is not representative of the whole pool because it's biased not random.

Finding out where we stand numbers wise would really be helpful. But law school admissions people want to look more holistic so we will never know.

If they hide it in order to appear holistic, the numbers probably show them not being very holistic?

That's what I am implying. It will at least be open to that interpretation.

Also school stats overlap with other schools, so a LSAC compiled stats would be more useful. We already have LSAT, we need GPA, and LSAT-GPA data.

Have you seen the Duke chart?

They apparently didn't admit over 2/3 of people who were at/above for both LSAT/GPA.

Insane YP or holistic?

[fugitivejammer]

OP, i'll give this a shot, but let me warn you: I am basing this on completely nothing at all, and ALL kinds of variables can change any one of these softs higher or lower. Having said that:

Great Softs:
-Military (deployment)
-Peace Corps
-TFA
-launching social enterprise
-working in IB/PE, or in some presitigious position in the gov't (diplomat/official for the state department or something)
-URM

Good Softs:
-Significant published work (academic in nature?)
-PhD
-creating a significant organization in undergrad
-Having a legit research position
-very interesting life stories demonstrating immense growth or overcoming adversity
-Substantial and/or managerial full-time work experience

Average-ish softs:
-Most grad schools
-Leadership experience in school clubs/orgs
-Most publishable work
-"Average" full-time work experience (ie. paralegal)
-Internships
-Most study abroad programs

These lists are obviously not all-inclusive, and I should probably mention that I think "average-ish softs" is the vast majority of softs.

[JazzOne]

OP, i'll give this a shot, but let me warn you: I am basing this on completely nothing at all. Having said that:

Great Softs:
-Military (deployment)
-Peace Corps
-TFA
-launching social enterprise
-working in IB/PE, or in some presitigious position in the gov't (diplomat/official for the state department or something)
-URM

Good Softs:
-Significant published work (academic in nature?)
-PhD
-creating a significant organization in undergrad
-Having a legit research position
-very interesting life stories demonstrating immense growth or overcoming adversity
-Substantial and/or managerial full-time work experience

Average-ish softs:
-Most grad schools
-Leadership experience in school clubs/orgs
-Most publishable work
-"Average" full-time work experience (ie. paralegal)
-Internships
-Most study abroad programs

These lists are obviously not all-inclusive, and I should probably mention that I think "average-ish softs" is the vast majority of softs.

That seems to be a good synopsis of TLS collective wisdom. However, I would move everything down one notch. "Great" softs would be truly unique game changers like gold medals, Nobel prizes, a publication in Science or Nature, Purple Heart, etc.

[r6_philly]

Have you seen the Duke chart?

They apparently didn't admit over 2/3 of people who were at/above for both LSAT/GPA.

Insane YP or holistic?

That's probably both. They probably use a yield formula developed by actuaries which predicts actual yield. So maybe the formula only suggest a 33% accept rate above both medians. Then they will use holistic methods to determine which 1/3 to admit. Just guesses.

How holistic should be based on standard deviation below medians, and again below 25%. The idea is that lower number applicants can benefit from heavier emphasis on soft factors, so their numbers may be farther away from the quartile/half lines than schools that are more number based. I don't think softs can defeat cut-offs mostly because schools have to defend their published numbers. But within each of the lower 2 quarter they are free to admit from the lower range. So if a school emphasis on softs they may choose a lower number app than a higher one based on softs as long as they are both in the same range. So with that logic, standard deviation from the upper bound should be higher at schools that are more holistic. Unfortunately we can only glean that from full sets of data, not selectively self-reported ones.

[whymeohgodno]

OP, i'll give this a shot, but let me warn you: I am basing this on completely nothing at all. Having said that:

Great Softs:
-Military (deployment)
-Peace Corps
-TFA
-launching social enterprise
-working in IB/PE, or in some presitigious position in the gov't (diplomat/official for the state department or something)
-URM

Good Softs:
-Significant published work (academic in nature?)
-PhD
-creating a significant organization in undergrad
-Having a legit research position
-very interesting life stories demonstrating immense growth or overcoming adversity
-Substantial and/or managerial full-time work experience

Average-ish softs:
-Most grad schools
-Leadership experience in school clubs/orgs
-Most publishable work
-"Average" full-time work experience (ie. paralegal)
-Internships
-Most study abroad programs

These lists are obviously not all-inclusive, and I should probably mention that I think "average-ish softs" is the vast majority of softs.

That seems to be a good synopsis of TLS collective wisdom. However, I would move everything down one notch. "Great" softs would be truly unique game changers like gold medals, Nobel prizes, a publication in Science or Nature, Purple Heart, etc.

So average softs become below average?

But I agree. The above listed great softs aren't game changers.

[arism87]

OP, i'll give this a shot, but let me warn you: I am basing this on completely nothing at all, and ALL kinds of variables can change any one of these softs higher or lower. Having said that:

Great Softs:
-Military (deployment)
-Peace Corps
-TFA
-launching social enterprise
-working in IB/PE, or in some presitigious position in the gov't (diplomat/official for the state department or something)
-URM

Good Softs:
-Significant published work (academic in nature?)
-PhD
-creating a significant organization in undergrad
-Having a legit research position
-very interesting life stories demonstrating immense growth or overcoming adversity
-Substantial and/or managerial full-time work experience

Average-ish softs:
-Most grad schools
-Leadership experience in school clubs/orgs
-Most publishable work
-"Average" full-time work experience (ie. paralegal)
-Internships
-Most study abroad programs

These lists are obviously not all-inclusive, and I should probably mention that I think "average-ish softs" is the vast majority of softs.

This, although I would move URM a step above. The boost a URM gets is far more significant than any of these.

[whymeohgodno]

Have you seen the Duke chart?

They apparently didn't admit over 2/3 of people who were at/above for both LSAT/GPA.

Insane YP or holistic?

That's probably both. They probably use a yield formula developed by actuaries which predicts actual yield. So maybe the formula only suggest a 33% accept rate above both medians. Then they will use holistic methods to determine which 1/3 to admit. Just guesses.

How holistic should be based on standard deviation below medians, and again below 25%. The idea is that lower number applicants can benefit from heavier emphasis on soft factors, so their numbers may be farther away from the quartile/half lines than schools that are more number based. I don't think softs can defeat cut-offs mostly because schools have to defend their published numbers. But within each of the lower 2 quarter they are free to admit from the lower range. So if a school emphasis on softs they may choose a lower number app than a higher one based on softs as long as they are both in the same range. So with that logic, standard deviation from the upper bound should be higher at schools that are more holistic. Unfortunately we can only glean that from full sets of data, not selectively self-reported ones.

But unless most of the people who didn't get admitted at Duke had CCN numbers it doesn't seem like it would be YP. So I guess it's a question of how likely it is that 2/3 of 170+ 3.75+ applicants to Duke were at/above CCN numbers.

If they weren't at CCN numbers it probably wasn't a YP.

[JazzOne]

OP, i'll give this a shot, but let me warn you: I am basing this on completely nothing at all. Having said that:

Great Softs:
-Military (deployment)
-Peace Corps
-TFA
-launching social enterprise
-working in IB/PE, or in some presitigious position in the gov't (diplomat/official for the state department or something)
-URM

Good Softs:
-Significant published work (academic in nature?)
-PhD
-creating a significant organization in undergrad
-Having a legit research position
-very interesting life stories demonstrating immense growth or overcoming adversity
-Substantial and/or managerial full-time work experience

Average-ish softs:
-Most grad schools
-Leadership experience in school clubs/orgs
-Most publishable work
-"Average" full-time work experience (ie. paralegal)
-Internships
-Most study abroad programs

These lists are obviously not all-inclusive, and I should probably mention that I think "average-ish softs" is the vast majority of softs.

That seems to be a good synopsis of TLS collective wisdom. However, I would move everything down one notch. "Great" softs would be truly unique game changers like gold medals, Nobel prizes, a publication in Science or Nature, Purple Heart, etc.

So average softs become below average?

But I agree. The above listed great softs aren't game changers.

I wouldn't call them "below average." I'd say they are "weak" softs.

[fugitivejammer]

I have a purple heart, but don't think it helped me out NEARLY as much as a Nobel Prize or Olympics Medal LOL. I like your guys improvements though, that makes complete sense. I didn't even bother to mention those "crazy" softs, cuz i figured if you HAVE a Nobel Prize, you should immediately disregard anything I ever say.

[whymeohgodno]

I have a purple heart, but don't think it helped me out NEARLY as much as a Nobel Prize or Olympics Medal LOL. I like your guys improvements though, that makes complete sense. I didn't even bother to mention those "crazy" softs, cuz i figured if you HAVE a Nobel Prize, you should immediately disregard anything I ever say.

Knowing TLS, I'm sure there's someone waiting to rank the TTT's of Nobel Prizes.

[tea_drinker]

OP, i'll give this a shot, but let me warn you: I am basing this on completely nothing at all, and ALL kinds of variables can change any one of these softs higher or lower. Having said that:

Great Softs:
-Military (deployment)
-Peace Corps
-TFA
-launching social enterprise
-working in IB/PE, or in some presitigious position in the gov't (diplomat/official for the state department or something)
-URM

Good Softs:
-Significant published work (academic in nature?)
-PhD
-creating a significant organization in undergrad
-Having a legit research position
-very interesting life stories demonstrating immense growth or overcoming adversity
-Substantial and/or managerial full-time work experience

Average-ish softs:
-Most grad schools
-Leadership experience in school clubs/orgs
-Most publishable work
-"Average" full-time work experience (ie. paralegal)
-Internships
-Most study abroad programs

These lists are obviously not all-inclusive, and I should probably mention that I think "average-ish softs" is the vast majority of softs.

Dude, is this a joke?

[JazzOne]

I have a purple heart, but don't think it helped me out NEARLY as much as a Nobel Prize or Olympics Medal LOL. I like your guys improvements though, that makes complete sense. I didn't even bother to mention those "crazy" softs, cuz i figured if you HAVE a Nobel Prize, you should immediately disregard anything I ever say.

Knowing TLS, I'm sure there's someone waiting to rank the TTT's of Nobel Prizes.

I personally think the peace prize is TTT, but the science prizes are legit.

[whymeohgodno]

I have a purple heart, but don't think it helped me out NEARLY as much as a Nobel Prize or Olympics Medal LOL. I like your guys improvements though, that makes complete sense. I didn't even bother to mention those "crazy" softs, cuz i figured if you HAVE a Nobel Prize, you should immediately disregard anything I ever say.

Knowing TLS, I'm sure there's someone waiting to rank the TTT's of Nobel Prizes.

I personally think the peace prize is TTT, but the science prizes are legit.

Peace prize gets super lay prestige compared to most science prizes though.

[JazzOne]

I have a purple heart, but don't think it helped me out NEARLY as much as a Nobel Prize or Olympics Medal LOL. I like your guys improvements though, that makes complete sense. I didn't even bother to mention those "crazy" softs, cuz i figured if you HAVE a Nobel Prize, you should immediately disregard anything I ever say.

Knowing TLS, I'm sure there's someone waiting to rank the TTT's of Nobel Prizes.

I personally think the peace prize is TTT, but the science prizes are legit.

Peace prize gets super lay prestige compared to most science prizes though.

Yeah, I almost edited my post to add that I bet the law schools would gobble up nuts for a peace prize winner.

[r6_philly]

But unless most of the people who didn't get admitted at Duke had CCN numbers it doesn't seem like it would be YP. So I guess it's a question of how likely it is that 2/3 of 170+ 3.75+ applicants to Duke were at/above CCN numbers.

If they weren't at CCN numbers it probably wasn't a YP.

CCN numbers are not the issues though. They are probably more holistic than what we give them credit for by admitting people that are mostly like to turn into yield ... by looking past the numbers. So fit, region, UG, WE, stuff like that. But that's not what YP is about, YP, to me, simply refer to putting quota on admit numbers based on numerical ranges - which I think they do.

Most discussions about being holistic occurs below median, which I find more interesting. YP usually results in a WL which you can easily overcome by LOCI's and other efforts if you have better numbers. Below the median, you really have to rely on your softs because your numbers are not competitive. So knowing which schools, and how holistic they are, will help people with their reaches.

[fugitivejammer]

OP, i'll give this a shot, but let me warn you: I am basing this on completely nothing at all, and ALL kinds of variables can change any one of these softs higher or lower. Having said that:

Great Softs:
-Military (deployment)
-Peace Corps
-TFA
-launching social enterprise
-working in IB/PE, or in some presitigious position in the gov't (diplomat/official for the state department or something)
-URM

Good Softs:
-Significant published work (academic in nature?)
-PhD
-creating a significant organization in undergrad
-Having a legit research position
-very interesting life stories demonstrating immense growth or overcoming adversity
-Substantial and/or managerial full-time work experience

Average-ish softs:
-Most grad schools
-Leadership experience in school clubs/orgs
-Most publishable work
-"Average" full-time work experience (ie. paralegal)
-Internships
-Most study abroad programs

These lists are obviously not all-inclusive, and I should probably mention that I think "average-ish softs" is the vast majority of softs.

Dude, is this a joke?

Sorry man....this is not an exact science, and they aren't paying me....so yea, this is what u get.

[tea_drinker]

Sorry man....this is not an exact science, and they aren't paying me....so yea, this is what u get.

I guess having something is better than nothing.

[bdubs]

I gather that a lot of people with similar numbers apply to HYS and CCN and the rest of the T14, so what sets an applicant apart? What makes one 173/3.9 applicant get accepted to Yale (or Harvard or Stanford or XXXXX) and another get dinged?

I think that the kind of substantive WE that most 173+ 3.9+ applicants can get in the first 1 to 2 years is one thing that helps get someone into H. It's anecdotal but I had two colleagues get into H last year after working for 2 years (I work in a consulting firm that does a lot of high profile litigation work).

For Y and S, I think that uniqueness matters a lot. Those are both small schools that can take their pick of a lot of those who also have H acceptances (maybe not all S acceptees). My guess would be that their adcomm process is much more akin to a top business school where they try to form a "balanced" class from their applicant pool (i.e. intellectually and culturally diverse).