Is everyone that good? Forum

[Iwanttolawschool]

HLS

I was wandering whether or not . . .

LOL.

English isn't my first language.

You laugh but I have 173 LSAT with a 3.97 GPA majoring in Math and Economics. All in all, I would say that i'm much smarter than you.

I have your same majors, a 3.99 gpa at a top ug, and a 175 LSAT. Just retook in June for a better chance at $$$$ at CCN. So since grades and standardized test scores are what we're going to use to measure intelligence, where does that put me in relation to you? Slightly smarter or much smarter?

I am not going to dispute that you're smart. I admire math majors that manage to get a gpa over a 3.8. What bugs me is when polisci/english/soft majors that think they're so smart because they can correct a sentence.

You do realize that law is 98% about writing skills...? I fear a reality check is in your future.

[Jurssiczz]

HLS

I was wandering whether or not . . .

LOL.

English isn't my first language.

You laugh but I have 173 LSAT with a 3.97 GPA majoring in Math and Economics. All in all, I would say that i'm much smarter than you.

I have your same majors, a 3.99 gpa at a top ug, and a 175 LSAT. Just retook in June for a better chance at $$$$ at CCN. So since grades and standardized test scores are what we're going to use to measure intelligence, where does that put me in relation to you? Slightly smarter or much smarter?

I am not going to dispute that you're smart. I admire math majors that manage to get a gpa over a 3.8. What bugs me is when polisci/english/soft majors that think they're so smart because they can correct a sentence.

You do realize that law is 98% about writing skills...? I fear a reality check is in your future.

Like I said, I'm not even sure if I'm going to law school.

[BizBro]

Wtf are you ~4.0's in math/econ doing going to law school?

I'm also applying to MFIN and MFE programs. If I get into my top choice finance program, i'll probably go for it. However, if I don't, I would like to go to a top 5 law school.

What's top 5? Also, it'll be terribly sad when you end up with median grades at law school despite being so much smarter with your math and econ background

By top 5, I mean HYSCC. BTW, I only took 1 month to prep for the LSAT because I also took the GMAT

1. Its HYS, or T6 HYSCCN. There's no T5 distinction.
2. If you could do better on the LSAT because you only "studied for a month", do it and retake. Because each point means extra $$$. You could get full rides at CCN.
3. LSAT does not really correlate to law school grades. If you're not good at issue spotting, writing/typing quickly, thinking on the fly and coming up at BS, you wont do well. Especially compared to these poly-sci heathens you look down upon.

Doesn't sound like law school is for you, especially since you're "unsure" about it. Go to biz school.

[Hikikomorist]

Wtf are you ~4.0's in math/econ doing going to law school?

I'm also applying to MFIN and MFE programs. If I get into my top choice finance program, i'll probably go for it. However, if I don't, I would like to go to a top 5 law school.

What's top 5? Also, it'll be terribly sad when you end up with median grades at law school despite being so much smarter with your math and econ background

By top 5, I mean HYSCC. BTW, I only took 1 month to prep for the LSAT because I also took the GMAT

Mind sharing what you scored on that?

[Iwanttolawschool]

Wtf are you ~4.0's in math/econ doing going to law school?

I'm also applying to MFIN and MFE programs. If I get into my top choice finance program, i'll probably go for it. However, if I don't, I would like to go to a top 5 law school.

What's top 5? Also, it'll be terribly sad when you end up with median grades at law school despite being so much smarter with your math and econ background

By top 5, I mean HYSCC. BTW, I only took 1 month to prep for the LSAT because I also took the GMAT

Mind sharing what you scored on that?

Do you even have to ask bro!? he obviously scored 800. He's too smart!

[yellowyak46]

post removed

[Jurssiczz]

Wtf are you ~4.0's in math/econ doing going to law school?

I'm also applying to MFIN and MFE programs. If I get into my top choice finance program, i'll probably go for it. However, if I don't, I would like to go to a top 5 law school.

What's top 5? Also, it'll be terribly sad when you end up with median grades at law school despite being so much smarter with your math and econ background

By top 5, I mean HYSCC. BTW, I only took 1 month to prep for the LSAT because I also took the GMAT

Mind sharing what you scored on that?

Do you even have to ask bro!? he obviously scored 800. He's too smart!

740

[Iwanttolawschool]

HLS

I was wandering whether or not . . .

LOL.

English isn't my first language.

You laugh but I have 173 LSAT with a 3.97 GPA majoring in Math and Economics. All in all, I would say that i'm much smarter than you.

I have your same majors, a 3.99 gpa at a top ug, and a 175 LSAT. Just retook in June for a better chance at $$$$ at CCN. So since grades and standardized test scores are what we're going to use to measure intelligence, where does that put me in relation to you? Slightly smarter or much smarter?

I am not going to dispute that you're smart. I admire math majors that manage to get a gpa over a 3.8. What bugs me is when polisci/english/soft majors that think they're so smart because they can correct a sentence.

Want to know what bugs me? When people think they're smarter than other people because of what they chose to study. It's cool that you think you can self-select intelligence. I'd discourage you from thinking that poli sci/english/ "soft" (?) majors aren't smart, despite being able to write well. Do you want to know what's completely useless? A STEM major who can't communicate their work. Want to know what else is useless? A social science or humanities major who can't analyze. There are plenty of STEM majors that could easily have chosen social sciences or humanities to study and done very well, just like there are plenty of social sciences or humanities majors who could have studied STEM fields and done very well. Don't pretend you know how hard or easy fields of study are until you've done them yourself. And no, I'm not simply suggesting we dabble in intro classes them make sweeping judgments about the difficulty of learning that field of study. Please consider the other side before launching an attack on something you evidently don't know much about, especially on a website filled with people, many of whom are social sciences and humanities majors, who like the argue and call people out when they need to be.

You may be taking this a little too close to the heart.
This guy clearly just wants people he knows to go, "wow he is smart", because so far no one cares. So he thinks if he can get into HYS, that'll show them! He believes that everyone will finally be envious of him. Unfortunately, if he does decide to go through with this, he'll be scorned worse than before, because still...STILL... no one cares.

[yellowyak46]

post removed

[gnomgnomuch]

HLS

I was wandering whether or not . . .

LOL.

English isn't my first language.

You laugh but I have 173 LSAT with a 3.97 GPA majoring in Math and Economics. All in all, I would say that i'm much smarter than you.

I have your same majors, a 3.99 gpa at a top ug, and a 175 LSAT. Just retook in June for a better chance at $$$$ at CCN. So since grades and standardized test scores are what we're going to use to measure intelligence, where does that put me in relation to you? Slightly smarter or much smarter?

I am not going to dispute that you're smart. I admire math majors that manage to get a gpa over a 3.8. What bugs me is when polisci/english/soft majors that think they're so smart because they can correct a sentence.

Want to know what bugs me? When people think they're smarter than other people because of what they chose to study. It's cool that you think you can self-select intelligence. I'd discourage you from thinking that poli sci/english/ "soft" (?) majors aren't smart, despite being able to write well. Do you want to know what's completely useless? A STEM major who can't communicate their work. Want to know what else is useless? A social science or humanities major who can't analyze. There are plenty of STEM majors that could easily have chosen social sciences or humanities to study and done very well, just like there are plenty of social sciences or humanities majors who could have studied STEM fields and done very well. Don't pretend you know how hard or easy fields of study are until you've done them yourself. And no, I'm not simply suggesting we dabble in intro classes them make sweeping judgments about the difficulty of learning that field of study. Please consider the other side before launching an attack on something you evidently don't know much about, especially on a website filled with people, many of whom are social sciences and humanities majors, who like the argue and call people out when they need to be.

YES!!! So many people I know who are in STEM fields think they're SOOOOOO smart because they're taking physics or something. One of them once told me that my degree (poli sci) was the easiest class he took. After some probing, I found out that he took the introduction to government poli-sci class that basically teaches how our government is set up. He actually equated that ONE INTRO CLASS with the entirety of the poli-sci degree. Then, when I told him I took chem 1001 (science req) and aced it he told me "but thats the intro class, those are super easy."

[xael]

"S looks at softs" is a flame imho

[abl]

Remember, almost half of the classes at HYS have <~171 LSAT scores (and/or <3.8 GPAs). So even if there are roughly 900 folks applying to HLS each year who have >171 LSAT and >3.8 GPAs, not all of them are getting in. I think it's fair to say that likely admission (e.g., "you have a good shot!") to HYS is somewhat of a numbers game. Thus, if you have a 175 LSAT with a 3.85 GPA, you're likely to get into at least one of HYS. Application to HYS can be a numbers game if you have the numbers--there are few enough applicants with both LSATs and GPAs above HYS medians that many if not most of them get into one of HYS.

But these aren't the folks who make up the majority of the class at HYS. And for those closer to the medians, it becomes much more about other things. Thus, a fairly substantial number of folks with 169 or 170 LSATs get into HYS, and a fairly substantial number of folks with 3.4 or 3.5 GPAs do as well. And a fairly substantial number of folks with 172/3.7s don't get into any of HYS.

If I had to bet, I'd bet that of the roughly 6,000 applicants to Harvard, around 1,000 have solidly above-median scores, around 3,000 have scores near the median, and around 2,000 have either an LSAT or a GPA score (or both) well below the median. And, I'd bet that admissions rates are something like 500/1,000 (50%) for the folks with above median LSATs and GPAs, 300/3,000 (10%) for folks near the medians, and 100/2,000 (5%) for folks notably below median. I'd also guess that of the folks who get in with below-median scores, most of them (90/100?) are splitters and/or URMs.*

If you buy the above numbers, it becomes clear how softs do play a fairly big role in even Harvard admissions. My sense is that they play an even bigger role in YS admissions.

*I rounded a lot because I felt stupid guessing something specific, like that 700 applicants have above median scores (which is probably closer to what my actual guess would be).

[pancakes3]

YES!!! So many people I know who are in STEM fields think they're SOOOOOO smart because they're taking physics or something. One of them once told me that my degree (poli sci) was the easiest class he took. After some probing, I found out that he took the introduction to government poli-sci class that basically teaches how our government is set up. He actually equated that ONE INTRO CLASS with the entirety of the poli-sci degree. Then, when I told him I took chem 1001 (science req) and aced it he told me "but thats the intro class, those are super easy."

Uh, no? Intro classes are infamously weed-out classes.

[abl]

YES!!! So many people I know who are in STEM fields think they're SOOOOOO smart because they're taking physics or something. One of them once told me that my degree (poli sci) was the easiest class he took. After some probing, I found out that he took the introduction to government poli-sci class that basically teaches how our government is set up. He actually equated that ONE INTRO CLASS with the entirety of the poli-sci degree. Then, when I told him I took chem 1001 (science req) and aced it he told me "but thats the intro class, those are super easy."

Uh, no? Intro classes are infamously weed-out classes.

Depends on the school and department. They weren't at mine. (If anything, the STEM departments generally tried to entice majors, and therefore generally offered among the easiest / most "fun" intro courses.) On the other hand, my friend went to a school where the Art History 101 class was the most widely acknowledged weed-out intro class. And I know one other top school where arguably the hardest department is Film.

Different folks have different skills, and STEM and humanities and social sciences all require different skills. Being able to ace a problem set or memorize and apply a complicated formula or design and execute a successful lab aren't greater or lesser skills than being able to write a beautiful paper on Madame Bovary or pull apart a philosophical argument. That we live in a society where there is any question about this is, IMO, a sad reflection of the deeply routed sexism that still underlies folks' assumptions about the world. I think it is no coincidence that the majors where the professors and the students are predominantly male are the "hard" majors, and the majors where the professors and the students are predominantly female are the "easy" majors.

For what it's worth, I have a HYS-level STEM graduate degree in addition to my HYS JD. For me, the STEM degree was far easier. I had to work substantially less for better grades, and ultimately finished higher in my class.

[foles]

.

[abl]

Remember, almost half of the classes at HYS have <~171 LSAT scores (and/or <3.8 GPAs). So even if there are roughly 900 folks applying to HLS each year who have >171 LSAT and >3.8 GPAs, not all of them are getting in. I think it's fair to say that likely admission (e.g., "you have a good shot!") to HYS is somewhat of a numbers game. Thus, if you have a 175 LSAT with a 3.85 GPA, you're likely to get into at least one of HYS. Application to HYS can be a numbers game if you have the numbers--there are few enough applicants with both LSATs and GPAs above HYS medians that many if not most of them get into one of HYS.

But these aren't the folks who make up the majority of the class at HYS. And for those closer to the medians, it becomes much more about other things. Thus, a fairly substantial number of folks with 169 or 170 LSATs get into HYS, and a fairly substantial number of folks with 3.4 or 3.5 GPAs do as well. And a fairly substantial number of folks with 172/3.7s don't get into any of HYS.

If I had to bet, I'd bet that of the roughly 6,000 applicants to Harvard, around 1,000 have solidly above-median scores, around 3,000 have scores near the median, and around 2,000 have either an LSAT or a GPA score (or both) well below the median. And, I'd bet that admissions rates are something like 500/1,000 (50%) for the folks with above median LSATs and GPAs, 300/3,000 (10%) for folks near the medians, and 100/2,000 (5%) for folks notably below median. I'd also guess that of the folks who get in with below-median scores, most of them (90/100?) are splitters and/or URMs.*

If you buy the above numbers, it becomes clear how softs do play a fairly big role in even Harvard admissions. My sense is that they play an even bigger role in YS admissions.

*I rounded a lot because I felt stupid guessing something specific, like that 700 applicants have above median scores (which is probably closer to what my actual guess would be).

I was actually just looking at this the other day. If you look at Harvard's admissions graph this cycle, the drop in high scoring applicants seems like it's made them pretty much abandon holistic admissions.



There seem to be distinct categories:

Decently above the line = admit
Around the line = waitlist/admit
Decently below the line = waistlist/reject (depending on how

Eyeballing it, it looks like roughly ~80-90% of applicants above both medians were accepted. This seems to imply that numbers are now dominating H's admissions process.
All in all, fantastic news for applicants if even HLS has to defend its medians to this extent.

I'm not sure that really changes my big picture conclusion--especially if you accept that HLS has had to change its practices because of smaller numbers of tippy-top applicants. Accepting that there are only 500 folks with numbers above both medians these days, you can leave the rest of my numbers unchanged. (And that would leave you with approximately 80% of applicants with above median numbers being accepted.)

[BigZuck]

"S looks at softs" is a flame imho

This statement hurts the hivemind's brainhole

The hive DEMANDS that you back it up

[BizBro]

Work experience will substantially boost your odds of admissions at H if you already have median numbers.

[alphasteve]

Applied or abstract math?

[TasmanianToucan]

Wtf are you ~4.0's in math/econ doing going to law school?

I'm also applying to MFIN and MFE programs. If I get into my top choice finance program, i'll probably go for it. However, if I don't, I would like to go to a top 5 law school.

What's top 5? Also, it'll be terribly sad when you end up with median grades at law school despite being so much smarter with your math and econ background

By top 5, I mean HYSCC. BTW, I only took 1 month to prep for the LSAT because I also took the GMAT

It's amazing that you've been able to accomplish all that you have given all the time you spend patting yourself on the back.

[xael]

"S looks at softs" is a flame imho

This statement hurts the hivemind's brainhole

The hive DEMANDS that you back it up

You just have to be one of the 40 or so accepted off the waitlist.

[BigZuck]

"S looks at softs" is a flame imho

This statement hurts the hivemind's brainhole

The hive DEMANDS that you back it up

You just have to be one of the 40 or so accepted off the waitlist.

Consider this post to be the hive's OFFICIAL REJECTION of your anecdata

[foles]

.

[abl]

I'm not sure that really changes my big picture conclusion--especially if you accept that HLS has had to change its practices because of smaller numbers of tippy-top applicants. Accepting that there are only 500 folks with numbers above both medians these days, you can leave the rest of my numbers unchanged. (And that would leave you with approximately 80% of applicants with above median numbers being accepted.)

I think it's more a matter of degree. My read of the graph (chart?) is that softs are playing a rather small role in admissions based on how easily applicants fit into admit/waitlist/deny buckets based on their stats. While we both agree that people above both medians are highly likely to be admitted, I'd extend that significantly further based how how the chart reads. So applicants with a 172 and above a 3.9 are ~ as likely to be admitted as people above both medians as are applicants with a 174 and above a 3.8, applicants with a 176 and above a 3.7, etc. going up and down the black line.

Just marinating some thoughts.

I'm confused: aren't all of those examples of folks at or above both medians? The question that I have is how likely Harvard is to accept folks with at least one below-median number. The chart seems to reflect my point, which is that admission for these folks is far more of a mixed bag--and that chances for folks with below median GPAs or LSATs appear to be determined by far more than just raw numbers.* (And we know that tons of these applicants are getting in -- Harvard has to admit at least enough to fill half of its class.) Just look at the muddle around 170-174 LSAT and 3.5-3.9 GPA.

*With possibly the exception of extraordinarily high-LSAT splitters, who do seem to do pretty well at Harvard.

[xael]

"S looks at softs" is a flame imho

This statement hurts the hivemind's brainhole

The hive DEMANDS that you back it up

You just have to be one of the 40 or so accepted off the waitlist.

Consider this post to be the hive's OFFICIAL REJECTION of your anecdata