Was this a bad cycle for splitters and T14? Forum

[asdfdfdfadfas]

to my knowledge lawl school admissions is way more numbers driven than bizz school

Right, I am saying if you are evaluating two people with a 177 and it comes down to X or Y and X has 3.6 and Y has 3.7 and they both have an undergrad major in Finance and you choose Y simply because he/she has a 3.7 that is literally the dumbest thing I have ever heard. It's like saying X won the fight against Y because the scorecard says X landed 2 more punches.

I won't comment on this again because I don't want to start this debate again, but I really hope that isn't what they are doing.

that is literally exactly what they are doing most likely, except kind of the other way around in that they would look at the GPA and LSAT before anything else

I just think it is an unrealistic way of thinking about people that doesn't represent that reality of the situation. It is a cop out essentially to make adcom's jobs easier. I have had this debate in another thread and it gets lengthy so I don't want to start it here. It just really grinds my gears.

Anyway, any other numbers with 2.X gpas?

[jnwa]

to my knowledge lawl school admissions is way more numbers driven than bizz school

Right, I am saying if you are evaluating two people with a 177 and it comes down to X or Y and X has 3.6 and Y has 3.7 and they both have an undergrad major in Finance and you choose Y simply because he/she has a 3.7 that is literally the dumbest thing I have ever heard. It's like saying X won the fight against Y because the scorecard says X landed 2 more punches.

I won't comment on this again because I don't want to start this debate again, but I really hope that isn't what they are doing.

that is literally exactly what they are doing most likely, except kind of the other way around in that they would look at the GPA and LSAT before anything else

Its fair though, id rather have that level of objectivity than people getting in because their personal statement was more compelling or they joined more clubs in undergrad.

[drblakedowns]

to my knowledge lawl school admissions is way more numbers driven than bizz school

Right, I am saying if you are evaluating two people with a 177 and it comes down to X or Y and X has 3.6 and Y has 3.7 and they both have an undergrad major in Finance and you choose Y simply because he/she has a 3.7 that is literally the dumbest thing I have ever heard. It's like saying X won the fight against Y because the scorecard says X landed 2 more punches.

I won't comment on this again because I don't want to start this debate again, but I really hope that isn't what they are doing.

that is literally exactly what they are doing most likely, except kind of the other way around in that they would look at the GPA and LSAT before anything else

I just think it is an unrealistic way of thinking about people that doesn't represent that reality of the situation. It is a cop out essentially to make adcom's jobs easier. I have had this debate in another thread and it gets lengthy so I don't want to start it here. It just really grinds my gears.

Anyway, any other numbers with 2.X gpas?

Looking at the myLSN data, for nearly every T14 school (minus Stanford and Yale) you can pretty much predict the outcomes for about 70% of the applicants by just looking at LSAT and GPA.

Its probably a normal distribution. There will be the folks one tail that have such amazing softs or such an amazing story, their numbers won't really matter, and a subset of folks that because of their PS or LoR or C&F issue, they will not do as well as their numbers. For everyone in the big juicy center of the normal curve, numbers are the separator.

Plus there huge sums of money at stake with the USNews rankings, and one part of that, that is in the control of schools, is medians and yield. Saying that law schools are acting in a way that coincides with their incentives doesn't seem unreasonable.

[Tempo]

I was only accepted at NYU, WLed at Columbia, Berkeley, UVA, Michigan, and Duke, rejected at Stanford. 3.7/171

So, it seems like it to me.

Your cycle makes no sense. Did u have c&f issues?

Minor in Possession (of alcohol) charge 2 years ago and a noise violation in the dorms from my freshman year.

Did u apply to the rest of the t14

Nah I was stupid with my applications sadly

[asdfdfdfadfas]

to my knowledge lawl school admissions is way more numbers driven than bizz school

Right, I am saying if you are evaluating two people with a 177 and it comes down to X or Y and X has 3.6 and Y has 3.7 and they both have an undergrad major in Finance and you choose Y simply because he/she has a 3.7 that is literally the dumbest thing I have ever heard. It's like saying X won the fight against Y because the scorecard says X landed 2 more punches.

I won't comment on this again because I don't want to start this debate again, but I really hope that isn't what they are doing.

that is literally exactly what they are doing most likely, except kind of the other way around in that they would look at the GPA and LSAT before anything else

I just think it is an unrealistic way of thinking about people that doesn't represent that reality of the situation. It is a cop out essentially to make adcom's jobs easier. I have had this debate in another thread and it gets lengthy so I don't want to start it here. It just really grinds my gears.

Anyway, any other numbers with 2.X gpas?

Looking at the myLSN data, for nearly every T14 school (minus Stanford and Yale) you can pretty much predict the outcomes for about 70% of the applicants by just looking at LSAT and GPA.

Its probably a normal distribution. There will be the folks one tail that have such amazing softs or such an amazing story, their numbers won't really matter, and a subset of folks that because of their PS or LoR or C&F issue, they will not do as well as their numbers. For everyone in the big juicy center of the normal curve, numbers are the separator.

Plus there huge sums of money at stake with the USNews rankings, and one part of that, that is in the control of schools, is medians and yield. Saying that law schools are acting in a way that coincides with their incentives doesn't seem unreasonable.

None of this detracts from what I said in my previous post. There are incentives to behave in all sorts of ways in life, that doesn't mean you should do so nor does that mean that by adhering to those incentives you are behaving in a logical manner. As a hyperbole, there is an incentive right now for you to buy up a bunch of armaments and sell them to Russia. You would make a lot of money! That doesn't mean you should do it?

All things held equal, simply saying X has a higher GPA than Y by .1 therefore we choose Y is literally the absolute dumbest way I could ever imagine evaluating two people and shows a complete lack of understanding of how undergraduate education works and a complete inability to subjectively judge human beings. That isn't the point though because they need someway to filter out people so the use it as an excuse to not have to go about it the hard way and critically think about every single applicant. It would take too long and this is easier!

If you want to continue this feel free to PM me. I will talk about it there but I am not going to go back and forth in this thread about it.

I honestly don't want to have this debate.

[grades??]

to my knowledge lawl school admissions is way more numbers driven than bizz school

Right, I am saying if you are evaluating two people with a 177 and it comes down to X or Y and X has 3.6 and Y has 3.7 and they both have an undergrad major in Finance and you choose Y simply because he/she has a 3.7 that is literally the dumbest thing I have ever heard. It's like saying X won the fight against Y because the scorecard says X landed 2 more punches.

I won't comment on this again because I don't want to start this debate again, but I really hope that isn't what they are doing.

that is literally exactly what they are doing most likely, except kind of the other way around in that they would look at the GPA and LSAT before anything else

I just think it is an unrealistic way of thinking about people that doesn't represent that reality of the situation. It is a cop out essentially to make adcom's jobs easier. I have had this debate in another thread and it gets lengthy so I don't want to start it here. It just really grinds my gears.

Anyway, any other numbers with 2.X gpas?

Looking at the myLSN data, for nearly every T14 school (minus Stanford and Yale) you can pretty much predict the outcomes for about 70% of the applicants by just looking at LSAT and GPA.

Its probably a normal distribution. There will be the folks one tail that have such amazing softs or such an amazing story, their numbers won't really matter, and a subset of folks that because of their PS or LoR or C&F issue, they will not do as well as their numbers. For everyone in the big juicy center of the normal curve, numbers are the separator.

Plus there huge sums of money at stake with the USNews rankings, and one part of that, that is in the control of schools, is medians and yield. Saying that law schools are acting in a way that coincides with their incentives doesn't seem unreasonable.

None of this detracts from what I said in my previous post. There are incentives to behave in all sorts of ways in life, that doesn't mean you should do so nor does that mean that by adhering to those incentives you are behaving in a logical manner. As a hyperbole, there is an incentive right now for you to buy up a bunch of armaments and sell them to Russia. You would make a lot of money! That doesn't mean you should do it?

All things held equal, simply saying X has a higher GPA than Y by .1 therefore we choose Y is literally the absolute dumbest way I could ever imagine evaluating two people and shows a complete lack of understanding of how undergraduate education works and a complete inability to subjectively judge human beings.

If you want to continue this feel free to PM me. I will talk about it there but I am not going to go back and forth in this thread about it.

I honestly don't want to have this debate.

yeah its a cop out by adcoms but its how it works. Doesn't matter if you like it. 9/10 times, adcoms will take the 3.7 over the 3.6, other things being equal. Most people have average softs. There is a rare exception for schools like MIT/princeton were grade deflation is real, otherwise tough luck. A 3.7 from middle of nowhere local college with a 170 will, on average, have better outcomes than a 3.6 from Upenn with a 170. Sure its not fair but its how this works. There is extensive data that shows this is true year after year.

[asdfdfdfadfas]

to my knowledge lawl school admissions is way more numbers driven than bizz school

Right, I am saying if you are evaluating two people with a 177 and it comes down to X or Y and X has 3.6 and Y has 3.7 and they both have an undergrad major in Finance and you choose Y simply because he/she has a 3.7 that is literally the dumbest thing I have ever heard. It's like saying X won the fight against Y because the scorecard says X landed 2 more punches.

I won't comment on this again because I don't want to start this debate again, but I really hope that isn't what they are doing.

that is literally exactly what they are doing most likely, except kind of the other way around in that they would look at the GPA and LSAT before anything else

I just think it is an unrealistic way of thinking about people that doesn't represent that reality of the situation. It is a cop out essentially to make adcom's jobs easier. I have had this debate in another thread and it gets lengthy so I don't want to start it here. It just really grinds my gears.

Anyway, any other numbers with 2.X gpas?

Looking at the myLSN data, for nearly every T14 school (minus Stanford and Yale) you can pretty much predict the outcomes for about 70% of the applicants by just looking at LSAT and GPA.

Its probably a normal distribution. There will be the folks one tail that have such amazing softs or such an amazing story, their numbers won't really matter, and a subset of folks that because of their PS or LoR or C&F issue, they will not do as well as their numbers. For everyone in the big juicy center of the normal curve, numbers are the separator.

Plus there huge sums of money at stake with the USNews rankings, and one part of that, that is in the control of schools, is medians and yield. Saying that law schools are acting in a way that coincides with their incentives doesn't seem unreasonable.

None of this detracts from what I said in my previous post. There are incentives to behave in all sorts of ways in life, that doesn't mean you should do so nor does that mean that by adhering to those incentives you are behaving in a logical manner. As a hyperbole, there is an incentive right now for you to buy up a bunch of armaments and sell them to Russia. You would make a lot of money! That doesn't mean you should do it?

All things held equal, simply saying X has a higher GPA than Y by .1 therefore we choose Y is literally the absolute dumbest way I could ever imagine evaluating two people and shows a complete lack of understanding of how undergraduate education works and a complete inability to subjectively judge human beings.

If you want to continue this feel free to PM me. I will talk about it there but I am not going to go back and forth in this thread about it.

I honestly don't want to have this debate.

yeah its a cop out by adcoms but its how it works. Doesn't matter if you like it. 9/10 times, adcoms will take the 3.7 over the 3.6, other things being equal. Most people have average softs. There is a rare exception for schools like MIT/princeton were grade deflation is real, otherwise tough luck. A 3.7 from middle of nowhere local college with a 170 will, on average, have better outcomes than a 3.6 from Upenn with a 170. Sure its not fair but its how this works.

I agree, I never claimed that it was fair or anything like that.

[mornincounselor]

I don't know, last year was quite a bit easier than the year before, and the year before was one of the easiest cycles ever. It's really just a return to normal, if anything. Based on my research the 3.0-3.3 GPA people in this thread have results right around normal. Cornell is hard to pull for splitters along with the California schools, NU has a lot of WE variance, Penn and UVA seem the most willing to work with low GPA people. Early applications lead to better results for splitters. Surely, the increase (it's up from last year, but compare it to 2-4 years ago where does it stand?) in high LSAT scorers have some impact, but I don't think it's massive.

Here's the graph excluding last cycle.

[Nagster5]

to my knowledge lawl school admissions is way more numbers driven than bizz school

Right, I am saying if you are evaluating two people with a 177 and it comes down to X or Y and X has 3.6 and Y has 3.7 and they both have an undergrad major in Finance and you choose Y simply because he/she has a 3.7 that is literally the dumbest thing I have ever heard. It's like saying X won the fight against Y because the scorecard says X landed 2 more punches.

I won't comment on this again because I don't want to start this debate again, but I really hope that isn't what they are doing.

that is literally exactly what they are doing most likely, except kind of the other way around in that they would look at the GPA and LSAT before anything else

I just think it is an unrealistic way of thinking about people that doesn't represent that reality of the situation. It is a cop out essentially to make adcom's jobs easier. I have had this debate in another thread and it gets lengthy so I don't want to start it here. It just really grinds my gears.

Anyway, any other numbers with 2.X gpas?

peep me on lsn, same username. Im in the bottom right corner of almost the whole T14.

[Foghornleghorn]

3.7 v. 3.6 isn't the argument. It's 3.7 vs. 2.8. Don't move the goal posts.

[drblakedowns]

I don't know, last year was quite a bit easier than the year before, and the year before was one of the easiest cycles ever. It's really just a return to normal, if anything. Based on my research the 3.0-3.3 GPA people in this thread have results right around normal. Cornell is hard to pull for splitters along with the California schools, NU has a lot of WE variance, Penn and UVA seem the most willing to work with low GPA people. Early applications lead to better results for splitters. Surely, the increase (it's up from last year, but compare it to 2-4 years ago where does it stand?) in high LSAT scorers have some impact, but I don't think it's massive.

This is a great point, and good perspective on it. However it does illustrate the main issue with predicting splitter outcomes; sample sizes are really small.

[4'sup]

I applied on Jan31st with a 167 LSAT. I then received a 176 in February. So my stats are now 3.52, 176 with mediocre softs.

A combination of applying late and having the LSAT score change altered my cycle.

IN: UCLA, Vandy $$, Texas$$, WUSTL $$$,

WL: USC, GTown, Duke, Cornell, NU, Michigan, UVA, Berkeley.

I'm gonna apply again next cycle. Dreaming of Harvard but would be really happy with Columbia or Penn. As an aside, isn't it sad how no matter how well you do, you start looking down on your current situation and dreaming for better? When I got the 167, I would have been stoked to get into Northwestern or Cornell. Now I feel like Columbia is a given and I'm disappointed Harvard or Stanford aren't likely. Can't I just be happy with success 99.9 percent of others dream of? Why do i have to compare myself against HYS now. it's pathetic. End rant.

[Lexaholik]

Part of the reason why people think it's harder is because of the oft-repeated TLS wisdom that says if you have a 170+ you will get into the T14 (at least NU) regardless of your GPA.

This overstates the case and makes splitters have unrealistic expectations. Even super splitters get shut out of the T14. It's true that if you're a splitter with a 170+ you'll have a good shot at getting into NU. But it's far from guaranteed. Plus, a lot of T14 admits (including at NU) happen off the waitlist. We're still in early May so there's a ways to go before this cycle is over.

[tsujimoto74]

Part of the reason why people think it's harder is because of the oft-repeated TLS wisdom that says if you have a 170+ you will get into the T14 (at least NU) regardless of your GPA.

This overstates the case and makes splitters have unrealistic expectations. Even super splitters get shut out of the T14. It's true that if you're a splitter with a 170+ you'll have a good shot at getting into NU. But it's far from guaranteed. Plus, a lot of T14 admits (including at NU) happen off the waitlist. We're still in early May so there's a ways to go before this cycle is over.

I think TLS's general optimism with splitters is more due to recency bias than anything. The most recent cycle we have complete data for (CO2018) was the lowest point in a succession of down years for high LSAT scorers and overall # of law school applicants. If there aren't that many applicants, and there are even fewer with ~97+ percentile LSAT scores, of course those scores are going to be more valuable than usual even if they have subpar GPAs attached to them. With applications and LSATs trending back up this year, I think it should come as a surprise to no one that high scorers with <25th percentile GPAs are struggling compared to last year.

There's also an aspect of unpredictability to splitter cycles. You really don't know where you'll get in until you apply. While a 3.0/175 obviously has a lower likelihood of success than a 3.9/175, T14s take splitters every year. Which ones they'll like and admit is guess work; all TSL can say is cross your Ts, dot your Is, apply broadly, and hope for the best. I don't think the prevailing wisdom of TLS is that every splitter will get into at least one T14 so much as that they know some splitters will, so each individual should be encouraged to try.

Just my $.02.

[Mullens]

I applied on Jan31st with a 167 LSAT. I then received a 176 in February. So my stats are now 3.52, 176 with mediocre softs.

A combination of applying late and having the LSAT score change altered my cycle.

IN: UCLA, Vandy $$, Texas$$, WUSTL $$$,

WL: USC, GTown, Duke, Cornell, NU, Michigan, UVA, Berkeley.

I'm gonna apply again next cycle. Dreaming of Harvard but would be really happy with Columbia or Penn. As an aside, isn't it sad how no matter how well you do, you start looking down on your current situation and dreaming for better? When I got the 167, I would have been stoked to get into Northwestern or Cornell. Now I feel like Columbia is a given and I'm disappointed Harvard or Stanford aren't likely. Can't I just be happy with success 99.9 percent of others dream of? Why do i have to compare myself against HYS now. it's pathetic. End rant.

You're better off applying ED to NU than likely paying sticker or close to it at CCNP with those numbers if you're debt-financing.

[Lexaholik]

Part of the reason why people think it's harder is because of the oft-repeated TLS wisdom that says if you have a 170+ you will get into the T14 (at least NU) regardless of your GPA.

This overstates the case and makes splitters have unrealistic expectations. Even super splitters get shut out of the T14. It's true that if you're a splitter with a 170+ you'll have a good shot at getting into NU. But it's far from guaranteed. Plus, a lot of T14 admits (including at NU) happen off the waitlist. We're still in early May so there's a ways to go before this cycle is over.

I think TLS's general optimism with splitters is more due to recency bias than anything. The most recent cycle we have complete data for (CO2018) was the lowest point in a succession of down years for high LSAT scorers and overall # of law school applicants. If there aren't that many applicants, and there are even fewer with ~97+ percentile LSAT scores, of course those scores are going to be more valuable than usual even if they have subpar GPAs attached to them. With applications and LSATs trending back up this year, I think it should come as a surprise to no one that high scorers with <25th percentile GPAs are struggling compared to last year.

There's also an aspect of unpredictability to splitter cycles. You really don't know where you'll get in until you apply. While a 3.0/175 obviously has a lower likelihood of success than a 3.9/175, T14s take splitters every year. Which ones they'll like and admit is guess work; all TSL can say is cross your Ts, dot your Is, apply broadly, and hope for the best. I don't think the prevailing wisdom of TLS is that every splitter will get into at least one T14 so much as that they know some splitters will, so each individual should be encouraged to try.

Just my $.02.

That's a fair point--I'm probably just remembering a lot of comments that tell splitters "you'll definitely get into NU."

One thing I'd add is that it really is early on in the cycle for splitters. I had a 2.9/170 years ago, and got into NU in early June. During 1L year I met a bunch of people who got in off the WL in June, July, and August. So it's a bit early to tell I think. But your point about broader trends may end up being right.

[Akech]

Part of the reason why people think it's harder is because of the oft-repeated TLS wisdom that says if you have a 170+ you will get into the T14 (at least NU) regardless of your GPA.

This overstates the case and makes splitters have unrealistic expectations. Even super splitters get shut out of the T14. It's true that if you're a splitter with a 170+ you'll have a good shot at getting into NU. But it's far from guaranteed. Plus, a lot of T14 admits (including at NU) happen off the waitlist. We're still in early May so there's a ways to go before this cycle is over.

To be fair, this guy seems to have taken 'blanket the T14' as "apply to only 4 of the 14 schools in the T14". Sure, not applying to HYS is reasonable enough, but seeing as he's been waitlisted at 2 of the schools he applied to, which weren't even the bottom T14 schools, I'd say he would've had a decent chance had he actually followed through with the advice given.

[drblakedowns]

I blanketed the T13, and ended up on 8 WLs (and was only rejected from Harvard, Yale and Berkeley). Though I also applied to a wide variety of schools because as a splitter, the sample size is so low for comparable students on LSN, it is hard to know where you stand.


But then again, I did get into a T14 school (though not NU).

[4'sup]

I applied on Jan31st with a 167 LSAT. I then received a 176 in February. So my stats are now 3.52, 176 with mediocre softs.

A combination of applying late and having the LSAT score change altered my cycle.

IN: UCLA, Vandy $$, Texas$$, WUSTL $$$,

WL: USC, GTown, Duke, Cornell, NU, Michigan, UVA, Berkeley.

I'm gonna apply again next cycle. Dreaming of Harvard but would be really happy with Columbia or Penn. As an aside, isn't it sad how no matter how well you do, you start looking down on your current situation and dreaming for better? When I got the 167, I would have been stoked to get into Northwestern or Cornell. Now I feel like Columbia is a given and I'm disappointed Harvard or Stanford aren't likely. Can't I just be happy with success 99.9 percent of others dream of? Why do i have to compare myself against HYS now. it's pathetic. End rant.

You're better off applying ED to NU than likely paying sticker or close to it at CCNP with those numbers if you're debt-financing.

Nah. If I don't get a butler at columbia, ill hopefully get duke money and go there.

[Mullens]

I applied on Jan31st with a 167 LSAT. I then received a 176 in February. So my stats are now 3.52, 176 with mediocre softs.

A combination of applying late and having the LSAT score change altered my cycle.

IN: UCLA, Vandy $$, Texas$$, WUSTL $$$,

WL: USC, GTown, Duke, Cornell, NU, Michigan, UVA, Berkeley.

I'm gonna apply again next cycle. Dreaming of Harvard but would be really happy with Columbia or Penn. As an aside, isn't it sad how no matter how well you do, you start looking down on your current situation and dreaming for better? When I got the 167, I would have been stoked to get into Northwestern or Cornell. Now I feel like Columbia is a given and I'm disappointed Harvard or Stanford aren't likely. Can't I just be happy with success 99.9 percent of others dream of? Why do i have to compare myself against HYS now. it's pathetic. End rant.

You're better off applying ED to NU than likely paying sticker or close to it at CCNP with those numbers if you're debt-financing.

Nah. If I don't get a butler at columbia, ill hopefully get duke money and go there.

You'll end up in the same place with way more debt but okay.

[lolRCscrewyou]

I didn't feel it TOO bad, but maybe that's because I'm a reverse-splitter.
165 LSAT
3.86 GPA

Accepted
Duke and Georgetown (big money)
NYU and U of Chicago (moderate money)
Berkeley (no money)

Wait listed
Stanford, Columbia, Penn, UVA, Michigan, Northwestern

Rejected
Harvard

Didn't apply to Yale or Cornell

So 5/12 acceptances in the T-14, and wailisted at 6. Not bad but not great.

Maybe with the number of higher LAST scores, the demand for them wasn't that large? And subsequently higher GPAs were?

[zoov]

I didn't feel it TOO bad, but maybe that's because I'm a reverse-splitter.
165 LSAT
3.86 GPA

Accepted
Duke and Georgetown (big money)
NYU and U of Chicago (moderate money)
Berkeley (no money)

Wait listed
Stanford, Columbia, Penn, UVA, Michigan, Northwestern

Rejected
Harvard

Didn't apply to Yale or Cornell

So 5/12 acceptances in the T-14, and wailisted at 6. Not bad but not great.

Maybe with the number of higher LAST scores, the demand for them wasn't that large? And subsequently higher GPAs were?

Okay this post makes me incredibly happy. I am currently a 165/3.87. WOW! Hopefully next cycle looks like this for me.

[gsy987]

I'm curious what you guys think of my cycle! I'm pretty happy with my end result..but I don't think I had an amazing cycle by any stretch:

Stats: 169/3.3

Accepted:
-NW
-Michigan (half tuition scholarship..but after some negotiation. Also where I decided to go.)

WL'ed:
-Gtown (priority waitlisted... still kind of mystified about this one)
-Cornell
-UVA
-Penn
-Duke

Rejected:
-Harvard (I know it was a complete longshot... but fuck it, I wanted to apply to goddamned Harvard.)
-U of Chicago
-NYU

[Hikikomorist]

I'm curious what you guys think of my cycle! I'm pretty happy with my end result..but I don't think I had an amazing cycle by any stretch:

Stats: 169/3.3

Accepted:
-NW
-Michigan (half tuition scholarship..but after some negotiation. Also where I decided to go.)

WL'ed:
-Gtown (priority waitlisted... still kind of mystified about this one)
-Cornell
-UVA
-Penn
-Duke

Rejected:
-Harvard (I know it was a complete longshot... but fuck it, I wanted to apply to goddamned Harvard.)
-U of Chicago
-NYU

I'd say that's a really good cycle. It's really only your best offer that matters, and I'd so your best offer was better than what one should expect with those numbers.

[jflaw]

I'm curious what you guys think of my cycle! I'm pretty happy with my end result..but I don't think I had an amazing cycle by any stretch:

Stats: 169/3.3

Accepted:
-NW
-Michigan (half tuition scholarship..but after some negotiation. Also where I decided to go.)

WL'ed:
-Gtown (priority waitlisted... still kind of mystified about this one)
-Cornell
-UVA
-Penn
-Duke

Rejected:
-Harvard (I know it was a complete longshot... but fuck it, I wanted to apply to goddamned Harvard.)
-U of Chicago
-NYU

I'd say that's a really good cycle. It's really only your best offer that matters, and I'd so your best offer was better than what one should expect with those numbers.

I swear Michigan was giving out scholarships like candy this year