Online Mock Admissions Event on Monday, August 19 Forum

[Power Clean]

I love how they make the Republican look like an arrogant, self-righteous applicant. Coupled with that they talk under the clear assumption that anyone not with the liberal status quo view is a "non-traditional applicant", I guess that means conservatives can write diversity statements based on their political beliefs..

Actually, the impression I got was that they recognized diversity to encompass diversity of opinion and, further, that this is something they actively strive to produce in the classes they create. The irony is that he took it upon himself to bash the notion of emphasizing diversity, when in fact he took the time to write a diversity statement on the very fact that he holds an unconventional (he recognizes "too much of the world" holds the countervailing view) outlook.

[paglababa]

According to TLS, the adcoms are bs-ing except for JS. She gave considerable weight to the guy, who despite having an asshole PS, had the ivy league S undergrad, coupled with high lsat/gpa. Candidate B with the 3.9 and 17X would also get into UVA/Penn/NYU easily. I highly doubt those schools would pick a splitter with a 2.9 Sci bg over the higher numbers. Her military experience was significant, I admit.

[062914123]

.

[paglababa]

According to TLS, the adcoms are bs-ing except for JS. She gave considerable weight to the guy, who despite having an asshole PS, had the ivy league S undergrad, coupled with high lsat/gpa. Candidate B with the 3.9 and 17X would also get into UVA/Penn/NYU easily. I highly doubt those schools would pick a splitter with a 2.9 Sci bg over the higher numbers. Her military experience was significant, I admit.

Exactly how I felt about it. The Stanford guy sounded like a douche, but I'm sure he would've been admitted to most of these schools.

I understand why they do their usual spiel. They don't want to discourage applications from those who would think it would be a waste to apply. One of the adcoms alluded to it. Lawschool is consumer driven, and rankings matter. They directly mentioned that lawschools will guard their medians because it affects rankings, and rankings affect demand. Overall, spending the two hours watching this was a waste of my time and better spent probably taking a practice RC section.

Obviously numbers are going to be first and foremost. But if they are deciding between similar numbers, I took away a few lessons.
1. Resume is important to paint picture of what you were doing. For instance, showing how many hours you worked during undergrad to offset lack of campus activity.
2. My fear of letters of rec have been affirmed. If you're going back a few years out of school and didn't build relationships with any professors, tough cookies. If you didn't, try to reconnect with professor asap and let them know about your goals, aspirations, and performance in class (bring in a term paper ect).
3. Don't come off offensive in the PS or do anything too controversial. I don't think the PS would make or break an applicant so if it's meh, whatever.
4. Don't write a dumbass addendum. Facts and remorse/growth from experience. Say you're sick or something else was going on if LSAT addendum, not "yea i didn't study first time because my friend in lawschool told me it wasn't so important." Be truthful, but use your judgement.

GET THAT LSAT TO 99th percentile. Because that you do control.

[bimmer11]

According to TLS, the adcoms are bs-ing except for JS. She gave considerable weight to the guy, who despite having an asshole PS, had the ivy league S undergrad, coupled with high lsat/gpa. Candidate B with the 3.9 and 17X would also get into UVA/Penn/NYU easily. I highly doubt those schools would pick a splitter with a 2.9 Sci bg over the higher numbers. Her military experience was significant, I admit.

IMO it would have been more interesting to see a 3.2 or 3.3/171 as opposed to a 2.9 but whatever. I found it interesting they were all willing to forgive the 1st applicant for straight out lying on his application.

[062914123]

.

[Typhoon24]

I guess it was too much to ask for them to tell us "HLS/NYU/UVA/PENN gives a x boost to URMs, and here it is per category."

[Dr. Dre]

paglababa thank you for the nice summary. Unfortunately I wasn't able to see it cause I took a long nap

[gottago]

deleted

[Lavitz]

no one else finds it amusing that when given statements from admissions staff that conflicts with TLS "wisdom," TLS thinks that the admissions people are "bs-ing"?

I know TLS would say "the LSN data suggests ABC," but it's as if TLS would dispute physics Ph.Ds who say XYZ by saying that "our observations suggest ABC."

Personally, I don't think they're BSing.

But I did notice that a few factors that would normally influence admissions were missing from this exercise. They were asked to fill one seat off the WL, so they weren't going to read the apps the same way they would in the beginning of the cycle when there are many seats available. They knew last year's medians, but they weren't told where the medians stood for the incoming class or how they would be affected by admitting each candidate. (Does the LSAT median drop a point if they admit student A? Does the GPA median drop if they admit student C? And how far does it drop? etc.) I think it would be easy for them to rationalize that the medians were mostly set in stone at this point and they could look past the numbers and analyze the softs. Finally, a lot of emphasis was placed on admitting someone who could bring in a different perspective, but we don't know the makeup of the rest of the class. (If National Law already has plenty of conservatives, student C is out of luck, etc.)

So I think this was a fun exercise and I do believe that they were honest when they gave their opinions of each app. But I think the numbers factor was downplayed a bit in the exercise. Dean Richard admitted that numbers were important for rankings, so they obviously care about them. And it's tough to say how their decisions in the exercise would have been influenced if they had to weigh the applicants' softs against a real possibility of median drops.

[paglababa]

no one else finds it amusing that when given statements from admissions staff that conflicts with TLS "wisdom," TLS thinks that the admissions people are "bs-ing"?

I know TLS would say "the LSN data suggests ABC," but it's as if TLS would dispute physics Ph.Ds who say XYZ by saying that "our observations suggest ABC."

You're not the spokesperson for "no one else" to make such a blanket statement. I may not have clearly or elegantly stated what I meant when I said they were bs-ing, but I think my point is valid. The exercise was meaningful, only in that it showed how softs were relevent to the admissions process, when looking PRIMARILY at softs. But it's easy for people to be mislead by watching that video, especially Kaplan kids who don't have TLS to inform them.

But I did notice that a few factors that would normally influence admissions were missing from this exercise. They were asked to fill one seat off the WL, so they weren't going to read the apps the same way they would in the beginning of the cycle when there are many seats available. They knew last year's medians, but they weren't told where the medians stood for the incoming class or how they would be affected by admitting each candidate. (Does the LSAT median drop a point if they admit student A? Does the GPA median drop if they admit student C? And how far does it drop? etc.) I think it would be easy for them to rationalize that the medians were mostly set in stone at this point and they could look past the numbers and analyze the softs. Finally, a lot of emphasis was placed on admitting someone who could bring in a different perspective, but we don't know the makeup of the rest of the class. (If National Law already has plenty of conservatives, student C is out of luck, etc.)

So I think this was a fun exercise and I do believe that they were honest when they gave their opinions of each app. But I think the numbers factor was downplayed a bit in the exercise. Dean Richard admitted that numbers were important for rankings, so they obviously care about them. And it's tough to say how their decisions in the exercise would have been influenced if they had to weigh the applicants' softs against a real possibility of median drops.

+1, You hit it right on the head.