Why is Stanford hard to get into? Forum

[WhiteGuy5]

I don't mean to make this a dumb thread, but their 25/75 percentiles are not THAT high. In fact, some of the other T6s have higher medians than they do. I know their class size is small, but does that really put it in the same level of competitiveness as Harvard and Yale?

[birdlaw117]

I don't mean to make this a dumb thread, but their 25/75 percentiles are not THAT high. In fact, some of the other T6s have higher medians than they do. I know their class size is small, but does that really put it in the same level of competitiveness as Harvard and Yale?

It means they look at *GASP* things other than numbers!

[WhiteGuy5]

I don't mean to make this a dumb thread, but their 25/75 percentiles are not THAT high. In fact, some of the other T6s have higher medians than they do. I know their class size is small, but does that really put it in the same level of competitiveness as Harvard and Yale?

It means they look at *GASP* things other than numbers!

Wouldn't Harvard and Yale be doing that as well (especially since Yale has a small class size too)? I imagine competition to protect their yield would but downward pressure on relative ease of getting in.

I also don't understand how/when/why it's grouped in with Harvard and Yale.

[birdlaw117]

I don't mean to make this a dumb thread, but their 25/75 percentiles are not THAT high. In fact, some of the other T6s have higher medians than they do. I know their class size is small, but does that really put it in the same level of competitiveness as Harvard and Yale?

It means they look at *GASP* things other than numbers!

Wouldn't Harvard and Yale be doing that as well (especially since Yale has a small class size too)? I imagine competition to protect their yield would but downward pressure on relative ease of getting in.

I also don't understand how/when/why it's grouped in with Harvard and Yale.

Yale does. But since they're at the top they get great numbers AND amazing softs. Stanford gets amazing softs and just very good numbers. Harvard has a larger class size so it is more numbers based.

Obviously that is a super simplified analysis.

Also, not sure what you're saying about the yield...

[minnesotamike]

I also don't understand how/when/why it's grouped in with Harvard and Yale.

Its acceptance rate is closer to Y than to H. Do you really think it is impossible to be simultaneously (a) more selective and (b) not as focused on numbers?

[WhiteGuy5]

I don't mean to make this a dumb thread, but their 25/75 percentiles are not THAT high. In fact, some of the other T6s have higher medians than they do. I know their class size is small, but does that really put it in the same level of competitiveness as Harvard and Yale?

It means they look at *GASP* things other than numbers!

Wouldn't Harvard and Yale be doing that as well (especially since Yale has a small class size too)? I imagine competition to protect their yield would but downward pressure on relative ease of getting in.

I also don't understand how/when/why it's grouped in with Harvard and Yale.

Yale does. But since they're at the top they get great numbers AND amazing softs. Stanford gets amazing softs and just very good numbers. Harvard has a larger class size so it is more numbers based.

Obviously that is a super simplified analysis.

Also, not sure what you're saying about the yield...

I just don't get how it hangs around the HY neighborhood in the rankings despite the lower numbers (edit: WHILE being so competitive). People getting into Harvard and Yale are presumably getting into Stanford as well, especially people with AMAZING softs. Wouldn't that make it easier to get in - they would have to let more people in to maintain their numbers/protect their yield.

Does that make sense?

[WhiteGuy5]

I also don't understand how/when/why it's grouped in with Harvard and Yale.

Its acceptance rate is closer to Y than to H. Do you really think it is impossible to be simultaneously (a) more selective and (b) not as focused on numbers?

...with the big discrepancy between S medians and its peer schools, sort of.

[birdlaw117]

I just don't get how it hangs around the HY neighborhood in the rankings despite the lower numbers (edit: WHILE being so competitive). People getting into Harvard and Yale are presumably getting into Stanford as well, especially people with AMAZING softs. Wouldn't that make it easier to get in - they would have to let more people in to maintain their numbers/protect their yield.

Does that make sense?

A lot of people get into H and not S. Also, I think of students that get into both more choose S (I could be wrong on this, but it's close to 50/50 I think).

Also, numbers aren't the entirety of rankings. It's a lot easier to have great job placement with a smaller class (see Chicago vs CLS and NYU) and it's a lot easier to spend more $$ per student with a smaller class.

[Richie Tenenbaum]

You seem to be wanting to know three different things:
1) Why is Stanford so hard to get into?
2) Why is Stanford ranked so high by US News with it's relatively low LSAT median?
3) Why is the commonly accepted grouping "HYS" when S's admissions #'s are behind YH?

Here are your answers:

3) The grouping of HYS is considering job prospects.
2) Stanford is ranked so high by US News because of their rep scores, their expenditures per student, their acceptance rate, their GPA, etc.
1) Stanford is so hard to get into because they build their class with an eye towards softs. You think Harvard emphasizes the value of softs that much when making their class? Hell no--how many applicants do you think have #'s that can maintain Harvard's medians? Harvard has to be a numbers whore because it has a huge class and the amount of applicants who have the requisite #'s is limited.

Plenty of people choose Stanford over Harvard. If your goal is simply biglaw, going to Stanford over Harvard seems like a no-brainer in terms of quality of life during law school.

[American_in_China]

There are more good schools on the East Coast- 1000 spots at HY, 200 at Stanford. Then there are another 6 spots until you hit Boalt. If you want to work on the West Coast but have HYS numbers, you apply to Stanford.

[1988AndX]

Why doesn't Stanford just take applicants with the highest LSAT/GPA it can get, increase its medians to HY level, and climb up the ranking? It has the reputation, expenditures per student, and acceptance rate to raise in the ranking.

[CanadianWolf]

High LSATs & GPAs don't necessarily equate with success in the real world. Stanford doesn't need to rise in the rankings and Yale & Harvard are unlikely to fall anytime soon.
My best guess is that because Stanford is fairly small & very wealthy as well as sought after, it has the luxury of building each entering class based on factors in addition to & beyond mere numbers.

[Aberzombie1892]

Why doesn't Stanford just take applicants with the highest LSAT/GPA it can get, increase its medians to HY level, and climb up the ranking? It has the reputation, expenditures per student, and acceptance rate to raise in the ranking.

I'm certain that it is because of expenditures per student. A study came out a few years ago that showed that if Harvard had an LSAT median of 180 and Yale had a 150, Yale would still be ranked higher because it significantly outspends Harvard. Likely, Stanford cannot outspend Harvard or Yale (and doesn't need to) and so there is no reason to change its admissions strategy unless Yale/Harvard ever pull away in the rankings (which they won't) or Columbia/Chicago get to close in the rankings (which they most likely won't as there is no incentive to). As far as HYS-CC are concerned, there is no incentive to move up in the rankings unless it is to the #1 spot as it won't affect perception or placement - Because Yale spends a crapload to maintain that spot, there is simply no point.

[shmoo597]

Why doesn't Stanford just take applicants with the highest LSAT/GPA it can get, increase its medians to HY level, and climb up the ranking? It has the reputation, expenditures per student, and acceptance rate to raise in the ranking.

Lol, just lol.

[WhiteGuy5]

So..Stanford is THAT much richer than Chicago and Columbia for it to be able to spend an insane amount per student? I don't think so...

[Aberzombie1892]

So..Stanford is THAT much richer than Chicago and Columbia for it to be able to spend an insane amount per student? I don't think so...

I didn't say Stanford is only ranked higher than Chicago or Columbia because of expenditures, but it is likely that it does outspend them. However, Stanford has a larger endowment than Chicago and Columbia, and for that reason (and a few other reasons) it likely spends more per student than those schools (don't focus on this too much as it requires a long explanation dealing with historical employment outcomes for graduates, alumni giving, the fact that tip-top law schools really don't make money off of the tuition students pay to attend because they spend more than that amount on each student, and so on).

Stanford has peer and judge/lawyer assessment scores and a GPA median that are above those of Chicago or Columbia.

Stanford has a lower student/faculty ratio and acceptance rate than that of Chicago or Columbia.

Stanford clearly deserves the rank it has, even if it has an LSAT median 2 points below Columbia's or 1 point below Chicago's.

[birdlaw117]

So..Stanford is THAT much richer than Chicago and Columbia for it to be able to spend an insane amount per student? I don't think so...

Stanford's endowment is 3x that of CLS's and it's class size is 1/2 the size. So they have a 6x advantage over CLS. I think they're pretty safe in that category.

[WhiteGuy5]

So..Stanford is THAT much richer than Chicago and Columbia for it to be able to spend an insane amount per student? I don't think so...

I didn't say Stanford is only ranked higher than Chicago or Columbia because of expenditures, but it is likely that it does outspend them. However, Stanford has a larger endowment than Chicago and Columbia, and for that reason (and a few other reasons) it likely spends more per student than those schools (don't focus on this too much as it requires a long explanation dealing with historical employment outcomes for graduates, alumni giving, the fact that tip-top law schools really don't make money off of the tuition students pay to attend because they spend more than that amount on each student, and so on).

Stanford has peer and judge/lawyer assessment scores and a GPA median that are above those of Chicago or Columbia.

Stanford has a lower student/faculty ratio and acceptance rate than that of Chicago or Columbia.

Stanford clearly deserves the rank it has, even if it has an LSAT median 2 points below Columbia's or 1 point below Chicago's.

I see. That about settles it.

[Nobody]

Isn't the academic/legal reputation a huge determiner in the US News Rankings? That would explain why the T-14 are so calcified, and why the highest ranked schools are more likely to take chances on an interesting candidate below median. The lower schools try and game their rankings through admission numbers because those are the easiest to control, and probably because the reputational scores even out by the twenties or so--I mean, I can't imagine any judges or professors with an opinion on Alabama v. Davis, for example.

[jim-green]

Harvard has a larger class size so it is more numbers based.

With a larger class size, I'd think you'd have to be less numbers-based. With a smaller class size, you can use a numbers software.

[jim-green]

Harvard has to be a numbers whore because it has a huge class and the amount of applicants who have the requisite #'s is limited.

Isn't that the reason it should not be a numbers wh**e? Because not many applicants have those numbers, so it should look at softs, right? What am I missing?

[Transferthrowaway]

Harvard has to be a numbers whore because it has a huge class and the amount of applicants who have the requisite #'s is limited.

Isn't that the reason it should not be a numbers wh**e? Because not many applicants have those numbers, so it should look at softs, right? What am I missing?

You serious, Clark?

[jim-green]

Why doesn't Stanford just take applicants with the highest LSAT/GPA it can get, increase its medians to HY level, and climb up the ranking? It has the reputation, expenditures per student, and acceptance rate to raise in the ranking.

Exactly, they could easily move to #2 this way. No good answer in this thread for the Q above.

[jim-green]

Harvard has to be a numbers whore because it has a huge class and the amount of applicants who have the requisite #'s is limited.

Isn't that the reason it should not be a numbers wh**e? Because not many applicants have those numbers, so it should look at softs, right? What am I missing?

You serious, Clark?

Yes.

[Richie Tenenbaum]

Harvard has to be a numbers whore because it has a huge class and the amount of applicants who have the requisite #'s is limited.

Isn't that the reason it should not be a numbers wh**e? Because not many applicants have those numbers, so it should look at softs, right? What am I missing?

If Harvard put too much weight on softs, it would make it harder for Harvard to maintain their medians. Harvard has ridiculously high medians and a huge class size; only a select amount of applicants can help them maintain their medians and if they get too picky, they'll have to take a hit with their medians. It doesn't seem like Harvard wants to do that.

Stanford, on the other hand, emphasizes the LSAT much less the most other T14 schools. Stanford has shown a pretty consistent devotion to preferring softs and GPA over LSAT. And Stanford has been #2 plenty of times in the past decade with this approach.