ED at Columbia and UPenn - Extreme splitter Forum

[well-hello-there]

Responding to a few running themes here,

The thing with a 2.8/179 is no one REALLY knows for sure. There are very few data points.
Also, just getting a 179 =/= genius.

This

LSN shows about 1000 applicants to columbia last cycle. The applicant pool is actually 8000+. The data points on LSN paint a picture but the complete truth is a whole nother picture.

[bk1]

LSN shows about 1000 applicants to columbia last cycle. The applicant pool is actually 8000+. The data points on LSN paint a picture but the complete truth is a whole nother picture.

I'm inclined to err on the side of believing LSN. I mean it's annoying as shit that the T14's don't publish the data to LSAC whereas most of the other schools do. A splitter-unfriendly school like UT shows only 3 acceptances at sub-3.0 on LSAC.

[well-hello-there]

LSN shows about 1000 applicants to columbia last cycle. The applicant pool is actually 8000+. The data points on LSN paint a picture but the complete truth is a whole nother picture.

I'm inclined to err on the side of believing LSN. I mean it's annoying as shit that the T14's don't publish the data to LSAC whereas most of the other schools do. A splitter-unfriendly school like UT shows only 3 acceptances at sub-3.0 on LSAC.

me too. but given the fact that LSN respondents are self selecting, there's always the possibility of a few [edit] extreme [/edit] outliers who were accepted but aren't on the charts.

I didn't know that some schools report more detailed information to LSAC. interesting...i'll have to check that out.

[well-hello-there]

just looked at the UT LSAC info. good stuff but the one thing I don't like is that each applicant is placed into their LSAT score range based off average LSAT score. This is problematic because most adcomms make their decisions based off of highest LSAT score.
http://officialguide.lsac.org/Release/S ... AC6882.pdf
it shows that 20 people with 3.25-3.49 GPA's and 155-159 LSAT's were admitted.
If you take the LSAT 3 times scoring a 151, 156 and a 170, your LSAT average falls into the 155-159 range but you probably would have never been accepted without that 170. This [edit](the data presented by LSAC)[/edit] gives people below both medians a false sense of hope.

[09042014]

Responding to a few running themes here,

The thing with a 2.8/179 is no one REALLY knows for sure. There are very few data points. For the most part the advice is right that NU w/ WE and GULC pt are probably the only t14 options, but you can never know for sure. For an anecdote of 179 being > than 172 for a splitter, someone got into UT with a 3.0/179 a couple of cycle ago while pretty much all 3.2/172 types were waitlisted or rejected over the last few cycles.

Also, just getting a 179 =/= genius.

We have some people who are close. Most schools don't really seem to whore out for LSAT scores above their 75. I got dinged at Cornell with a 176, and WL'd (regular no special one) at Gtown.

http://lawschoolnumbers.com/encyclopediabrown

http://lawschoolnumbers.com/somethinganonymous

http://lawschoolnumbers.com/SPLITTERVILLE

http://lawschoolnumbers.com/n0tmy1eg

http://lawschoolnumbers.com/slimpickins

[Miracle]

I did it. I walked in Fall admission with 2.98. My Fall semester pulled me over. I was over 3.0 under 3.1 and gained myself admission to some great schools.

You overcame a much smaller gap than 2.8 to 3.0+. As I said, a 2.8 needs over 20% of his/her possible credits still left to be taken and needs to get an A in all of them (one A- can fuck this over).

My protest is to the absurdity of even bringing it up. I think the OP can infer from discussions regarding his chances (and looking at LSN) that having a sub-3.0 GPA screws him over. Of course he should try to, if he can, get above a 3.0 as that would be a game changer. But this is all in the realm of hypothetical with no real guarantee that OP is still in undergrad or has enough credits to make this possible. Top that off with the fact that the odds are against it happening (merely because one slip in one class can cause an A- or worse and that would prevent a 3.0 from being possible).

2.9 is better than 2.8, so if he can raise it a bit even if its not a 3.0 he its better than 2.8 and it will help.

[Miracle]

Responding to a few running themes here,

The thing with a 2.8/179 is no one REALLY knows for sure. There are very few data points. For the most part the advice is right that NU w/ WE and GULC pt are probably the only t14 options, but you can never know for sure. For an anecdote of 179 being > than 172 for a splitter, someone got into UT with a 3.0/179 a couple of cycle ago while pretty much all 3.2/172 types were waitlisted or rejected over the last few cycles.

Also, just getting a 179 =/= genius.

why are we discussing UT?

[bk1]

2.9 is better than 2.8, so if he can raise it a bit even if its not a 3.0 he its better than 2.8 and it will help.

A 2.9 is better than a 2.8. However the difference isn't that large. The difference between a 2.9 and 3.0 is huge though. The differences between the types of acceptances a 2.8 and 2.9 will get is very slim (and likely close to nonexistent). The differences between the types of acceptances a 2.9X and a 3.0 will get is many magnitudes larger.

[09042014]

2.9 is better than 2.8, so if he can raise it a bit even if its not a 3.0 he its better than 2.8 and it will help.

A 2.9 is better than a 2.8. However the difference isn't that large. The difference between a 2.9 and 3.0 is huge though. The differences between the types of acceptances a 2.8 and 2.9 will get is very slim (and likely close to nonexistent). The differences between the types of acceptances a 2.9X and a 3.0 will get is many magnitudes larger.

Even 3.0 isn't that huge. Michigan seems to have a more 3.1 cut off. Penn with ED might take a 3.0, but only from a good school. Cornell still probably won't, duke definitely won't. UVA is the big jump you get, but again only if you ED.

[seriously????]

152- average
160-nice
165- pretty good, better than nice
170-excellent, brilliant
179,180- Genius
Now this person may only be a genius with regards the LSAT, but a genius, nonetheless.

bk187:
Key emphasis on YOU WOULD CONSIDER. You are not an adcomm, nobody cares what you think. The fact is that most of the T14 have pretty hard and fast 3.0 floors (with minor exceptions for NU and GULC PT, as well as the occasional outlier). The evidence in LSN is that plenty of sub-3.0/170+ applicants apply to MVP and only an insanely tiny minority have ever gotten in, not to mention that this was in the past and their application cycles have gotten tougher as of late.>



Are you an ADCOMM? So I don't care what you think, and nobody should care what anybody thinks, since none of us are ADCOMMS?
Also, again, your reading skills are sub-par. Again, there is a difference between a splitter and an EXTREME splitter. There is a huge difference between someone with a 170 and someone with a 179. You can not generalize with 170+.
I do not know who is likely to be right on this matter, but your argument is extremely faulty.

[09042014]

152- average
160-nice
165- pretty good, better than nice
170-excellent, brilliant
179,180- Genius
Now this person may only be a genius with regards the LSAT, but a genius, nonetheless.

bk187:
Key emphasis on YOU WOULD CONSIDER. You are not an adcomm, nobody cares what you think. The fact is that most of the T14 have pretty hard and fast 3.0 floors (with minor exceptions for NU and GULC PT, as well as the occasional outlier). The evidence in LSN is that plenty of sub-3.0/170+ applicants apply to MVP and only an insanely tiny minority have ever gotten in, not to mention that this was in the past and their application cycles have gotten tougher as of late.>



Are you an ADCOMM? So I don't care what you think, and nobody should care what anybody thinks, since none of us are ADCOMMS?
Also, again, your reading skills are sub-par. Again, there is a difference between a splitter and an EXTREME splitter. There is a huge difference between someone with a 170 and someone with a 179. You can not generalize with 170+.
I do not know who is likely to be right on this matter, but your argument is extremely faulty.

Most schools don't want fuck ups.

[bk1]

2.9 is better than 2.8, so if he can raise it a bit even if its not a 3.0 he its better than 2.8 and it will help.

A 2.9 is better than a 2.8. However the difference isn't that large. The difference between a 2.9 and 3.0 is huge though. The differences between the types of acceptances a 2.8 and 2.9 will get is very slim (and likely close to nonexistent). The differences between the types of acceptances a 2.9X and a 3.0 will get is many magnitudes larger.

Even 3.0 isn't that huge. Michigan seems to have a more 3.1 cut off. Penn with ED might take a 3.0, but only from a good school. Cornell still probably won't, duke definitely won't. UVA is the big jump you get, but again only if you ED.

This is true. I also get the feeling that they are starting to raise those floors but I could be off. I was thinking mainly Penn/UVa ED.

[bk1]

Are you an ADCOMM? So I don't care what you think, and nobody should care what anybody thinks, since none of us are ADCOMMS?
Also, again, your reading skills are sub-par. Again, there is a difference between a splitter and an EXTREME splitter. There is a huge difference between someone with a 170 and someone with a 179. You can not generalize with 170+.
I do not know who is likely to be right on this matter, but your argument is extremely faulty.

Well let's go with my argument is supported more by LSN (the only data we have) than your argument is.

FWIW, it does not tend to be the extreme splitters who buck the sub-3.0/170+ trend of not making it anywhere except NU/GULC PT. Add on top of that that schools are median whores so for many of them, the difference between lower 170's and higher 170's isn't that big compared to a few points on the GPA for someone whose GPA is already that low.

[09042014]

People just aren't impressed by a 179 when it's accompanied by a 2.X

[Stringer Bell]

why are we discussing UT?

Because it's an example of a school with a pretty hard GPA floor that treated an extreme splitter with a 179 differently than many applicants with 172-174 type LSAT scores. Maybe it was the fact that the score was a 179 or maybe there were some other things in the app.

[Miracle]

People just aren't impressed by a 179 when it's accompanied by a 2.X

They got you fooled.

[bk1]

People just aren't impressed by a 179 when it's accompanied by a 2.X

They got you fooled.

What he said is accurate of top tier schools.

[Stringer Bell]

We have some people who are close. Most schools don't really seem to whore out for LSAT scores above their 75. I got dinged at Cornell with a 176, and WL'd (regular no special one) at Gtown.

http://lawschoolnumbers.com/encyclopediabrown

http://lawschoolnumbers.com/somethinganonymous

http://lawschoolnumbers.com/SPLITTERVILLE

http://lawschoolnumbers.com/n0tmy1eg

http://lawschoolnumbers.com/slimpickins

Right, but that's a very small group and it looks like you still can't find a single person on lsn with a 179 in OP's GPA range. Yes, OP's outcomes will likely be the same, but there aren't nearly enough data points to be talking in absolutes.

I think I remember someone on here awhile back that got into NYU with like a 3.0/180 even though there are plenty of sub 3.5/172+ folks that didn't have the same outcome.

[bk1]

Right, but that's a very small group and even it looks like you still can't find a single person on lsn with a 179 in OP's GPA range. Yes, OP's outcomes will likely be the same, but there aren't nearly enough data points to be talking in absolutes.

I think I remember someone on here awhile back that got into NYU with like a 3.0/180 even though there are plenty of sub 3.5/172+ folks that didn't have the same outcome.

It's so unlikely that it is as close to an absolute as you can get. Splitters are harder to predict than regular applicants, but it doesn't mean that you can't reasonable estimate the chances of somebody at slim to none.

Worth the app fee for a 5% chance at it? Sure I guess so.

[Miracle]

Right, but that's a very small group and even it looks like you still can't find a single person on lsn with a 179 in OP's GPA range. Yes, OP's outcomes will likely be the same, but there aren't nearly enough data points to be talking in absolutes.

I think I remember someone on here awhile back that got into NYU with like a 3.0/180 even though there are plenty of sub 3.5/172+ folks that didn't have the same outcome.

It's so unlikely that it is as close to an absolute as you can get. Splitters are harder to predict than regular applicants, but it doesn't mean that you can't reasonable estimate the chances of somebody at slim to none.

Worth the app fee for a 5% chance at it? Sure I guess so.

I thin you're pushing it with 5%

If a person that got in Michigan with 172-3.07 would of posted here you would of said the same thing to her/him, and look what happened-they got in.

[bk1]

I thin you're pushing it with 5%

If a person that got in Michigan with 172-3.07 would of posted here you would of said the same thing to her/him, and look what happened-they got in.

Maybe, but I think that's pretty close to accurate.

3.07 != 2.8, I thought we already hashed this out?

[Miracle]

I thin you're pushing it with 5%

If a person that got in Michigan with 172-3.07 would of posted here you would of said the same thing to her/him, and look what happened-they got in.

Maybe, but I think that's pretty close to accurate.

3.07 != 2.8, I thought we already hashed this out?

I though we agreed he can bring it up! lol

[bk1]

I though we agreed he can bring it up! lol

Sure. He can also get into Yale if he cures cancer and raises his GPA to a 3.9.

Why are we discussing stupid hypothetical situations?

[Miracle]

I though we agreed he can bring it up! lol

Sure. He can also get into Yale if he cures cancer and raises his GPA to a 3.9.

Why are we discussing stupid hypothetical situations?

and you're acting like he can't do it!

[09042014]

People just aren't impressed by a 179 when it's accompanied by a 2.X

They got you fooled.

What he said is accurate of top tier schools.

Lower tier schools care even less.