Yale LSN Forum

[Ajax666]

I know law school is mostly a numbers game with the exception of Yale and Stanford, but Im wondering if having high enough stats will still make one a very likely candidate for YLS. I tried to see if there were any patterns on the LSN graphs, but none seem to show. It seems scattered, whereas I would think that there would be at least a noticeable cluster of green within the top right corner (but for most recent years there isnt):

http://yale.lawschoolnumbers.com/stats/1011/

Im wondering, is it really that hard to get into YLS even with a 177+ LSAT and 3.9+ GPA? The ABA Journal shows that about 50% of the applicants with 175+ LSAT and 3.75+ GPA are accepted, but when i section off this box on the various LSN graphs for Yale, it always ends up being around ~25%. I've been treating waitlists (yellow dots) as rejections, but if many of them do turn into acceptances, then perhaps LSN shows a much lower acceptance figure for the 3.75+ 175+ group because people dont bother changing their status once they've gotten into Yale? Or do you guys think the sample size on LSN is too small to accurately reflect Yale's admissions?


Long story short, since ABA says Yale already accepts 50% of applicants with 175+ LSAT and 3.75+ GPA, I would imagine that people along the upper end (177+ 3.9+) would have very good odds of getting in. But the data/assumption doesnt seem to fit with LSN, and I wonder why that is? Any opinions? Do you think Yale really does largely accept a random distribution of students in the 175+ and 3.75+ range?

[bp shinners]

Long story short, since ABA says Yale already accepts 50% of applicants with 175+ LSAT and 3.75+ GPA, I would imagine that people along the upper end (177+ 3.9+) would have very good odds of getting in. But the data/assumption doesnt seem to fit with LSN, and I wonder why that is? Any opinions? Do you think Yale really does largely accept a random distribution of students in the 175+ and 3.75+ range?

Yale is weird, and there isn't really a trend that puts those people higher in the 3.75+/175+ bracket at better odds of getting in than someone at the lower end of that bracket. No one is a 'very likely' candidate for YLS; at most, you're a possible candidate (though more people tend to be possible candidates at YLS than other top schools because they spend a lot more time looking at each application).

[westinghouse60]

This is relevant, considering both your avi and question:

http://youtu.be/1NyzQwwO4Os

Edit: but in all seriousness, they can afford to deny anyone since they aren't going to lose any ground in the US News ranking anytime soon (I doubt Yale has to make an effort to plan for and maintain medians like most other T14s do), and hence they can say softs matter and actually mean it.

[Elston Gunn]

Have you looked into how the admissions process works? They're very upfront about the faculty review basically being down to the whims/preferences of the professors.

My suspicion is that being in the very top right hand corner makes you somewhat more likely to be a "presumptive admit" and skip faculty review all together, but that once you get in front of the professors, it's very unpredictable. And since just having one typo is (according to the admissions dean) enough to almost guarantee you won't be presumptive, you can never feel too confident. Unfortunately, there's really no way to know, as they won't tell you who was presumptive and who went through FR.

[Ajax666]

I know of the whole 12 point system. But it seems mathematically unlikely given Yale's median and 75th percentiles that they can simply afford to admit as many splitters or even not-so-stellar scored candidates as has been implied. For them to admit 50% of 3.75+ and 175+ candidates, and an abysmal number of applicants in other brackets, I would bet statistics would say that the stronger end of the spectrum of the 3.75+ 175+ (just going to term this "elite") crowd must have a large advantage.

Given the statistics from Yale's ABA data:

https://officialguide.lsac.org/RELEASE/ ... lData.aspx

http://www.lsac.org/LSACResources/Data/ ... stered.asp


First and foremost, since the median is 3.91 but the bottom quartile is 3.81, this means that the class holds twice as many students with over a 3.9 than those between 3.8 - 3.9. I do not think it is then a stretch to infer that students with 3.9+ have twice the chance as those with 3.8+ of getting in. If we apply this general pattern (okay big assumption but perfectly reasonable) to the "elite" crowd of 101/214 ~ .5 probability of being accepted:

x = probability of 3.8+ 175+ getting in
2x = probability of 3.9+ 175+ getting in

(2x + x)/3 = .5 (overall probability of getting in)
x = .333
2x = .666

So people with a 3.9+ and 175+ have a 2/3rds chance of getting in. Not bad if i do say so myself.


Even though half of the matriculating class at Yale (assuming % same for admitted - 137) has over the median of 3.9, a whole 230 admits out of 275 had over a 3.75. 85% of admits had over a 3.75, and the median for the school is 3.9. My math tells me that for those non-olympic-tier regular applicants riding on hard numbers over GPA 3.75+, at least 60% of that admitted population has over a 3.9. The theory isn't really scientific, but its quite logical. Considering people with good numbers already have 1/2 odds of getting in off the bat, you can't say YLS admission process still isn't very numbers oriented. and given that twice as many people in the class have over a 3.9 than those that have a 3.8 (saying that 3.8+ students in general represent academically desired students, rather than interesting outliers with lower GPAs and amazing softs), it would be hard to argue that Yale doesn't get excited by strong numbers in the application, including LSAT. If we can infer that Yale cares about strong numbers, than we can only imagine the odds of someone with a 3.9+ GPA and 177+ LSAT.

How many people with 3.9+ GPAs and 175+ LSATs could could have amazing softs anyway? I would figure WE, extracurricular, and community service should count, but thats far from writing a book/winning an olympic medal. Im hard pressed to believe that Yale Law is a black box. I would bet money its gamebable as every other law school is, the standards are simply higher. But nothing that cant be panned out for someone planning from year 1 of undergrad.


tl;dr People with strong numbers have a coin toss chance of getting in as it is, which is already phenomenal. If you dont buy into the Yale being above desiring people with strong scores, then its still easy to game the system and get a high GPA in an easy major, and study for a year to master the LSAT.

[Elston Gunn]

Now you're talking about something different from the OP. There, you were saying the LSN data doesn't match your assumptions and asking for explanations.

I agree that Yale is impressed by high numbers as much as softs (I'm living proof), and anyone not drinking the kool aid will agree. You simply can't have medians that high without really caring about the numbers. That said, their medians are about the same as Harvard with a third of the class size, so you can conclude that numbers aren't usually sufficient to get in on their own. I think here it's important to remember that "softs" can encompass the quality of your personal statement and LORs too. So, yes, I do think admissions are "gameable" in the sense that you can "game" your way into a 3.9/175 and write a really good PS and have good LORs. All those things can certainly be accomplished without being an extraordinary person or accomplishing a ton, and the combination will probably get you Yale.

[Ajax666]

I agree that Yale is impressed by high numbers as much as softs (I'm living proof), and anyone not drinking the kool aid will agree. You simply can't have medians that high without really caring about the numbers. That said, their medians are about the same as Harvard with a third of the class size, so you can conclude that numbers aren't usually sufficient to get in on their own. I think here it's important to remember that "softs" can encompass the quality of your personal statement and LORs too. So, yes, I do think admissions are "gameable" in the sense that you can "game" your way into a 3.9/175 and write a really good PS and have good LORs. All those things can certainly be accomplished without being an extraordinary person or accomplishing a ton, and the combination will probably get you Yale.

Yeah that is basically what I was trying to say. Im just surprised everyone acts as if Yale admission is largely random, whereas the numbers imply that odds are still extremely heavily weighed in your favor with high numbers. Understandably the bar is still very high, I simply don't believe its a random miracle to get in without ultra-softs.

Now you're talking about something different from the OP. There, you were saying the LSN data doesn't match your assumptions and asking for explanations.

Yeah, this part still goes unanswered. It probably is just too small a sample on LSN.

[westbayguy]

Your analysis is partly on point- high GPA and LSa will keep you in the pile.

In response to your original quesiotn- face it LSN is not a full and pure sample that will give you anytiung approaching an accurate distribution. Your ABA data analysis is likely much closer to the real thing.

But unlike HLS, where hi numbers will virtually guarantee an acceptance, hi numbers alone will NOT guarantee YLS accceptance.

You will still need remarkable academic references from profs who now you well and think you walk on water, a stellar 250 and Personal Statement (not a "Why Yale" essay), some really interesting UG or Post Grad experience- it does not have to be curing cancer, but it should be something that separates you from the numbers only folks. Those things are the part you can't "game"- unless by gaming you mean you come up with a great idea and spend a couple of years passionately pursuing it or can "plan" on Rhodes, Marshall or Truman Scholarship. YLS students are remarkable n many difetrnt weays- and maybe great numbers gives you good/great odds- but the fact is a 3.9 and 177 does not guarantee anything- unlike HLS.

[Ajax666]

Your analysis is partly on point- high GPA and LSa will keep you in the pile.
You will still need remarkable academic references from profs who now you well and think you walk on water, a stellar 250 and Personal Statement (not a "Why Yale" essay), some really interesting UG or Post Grad experience- it does not have to be curing cancer, but it should be something that separates you from the numbers only folks. Those things are the part you can't "game"- unless by gaming you mean you come up with a great idea and spend a couple of years passionately pursuing it or can "plan" on Rhodes, Marshall or Truman Scholarship. YLS students are remarkable n many difetrnt weays- and maybe great numbers gives you good/great odds- but the fact is a 3.9 and 177 does not guarantee anything- unlike HLS.

I never implied high numbers would guarantee a YLS acceptance. Only that its not the blackbox that everyone makes it out to be. Having more than 50-67% odds by just having the numbers alone is an accomplishment. And Im surprised to hear law school applicants NOT put in the effort to write a stellar 250 given how much I've read about student bodies being filled with gunners. Its really not much to ask people to actually try on their essay. And of course the softs, but I wonder how many people have such softs, and what proportion of them dont hold the strongest numbers. Remember that only 1/3rd of the class even has stellar numbers. I wouldn't be surprised if most of the Olympic/Scholar softs are reserved for the other 2/3rds.

My main point is, it doesn't sound like a magical selection process. Having very high numbers can be gamed, and then holding a job and spending time on an essay probably increases those odds significantly to make rejection very unlikely.