Spivey Consulting Q&A with Adcoms from Yale, Harvard, Penn, Chicago etc.

Special forum where professionals are encouraged to help law school applicants, students, and graduates.

Which would you prefer most?

Poll ended at Sat Apr 23, 2016 11:05 am

1. Blog advice
0
No votes
2. Podcast advice
0
No votes
3. Video advice
0
No votes
4. Just keep it all on TLS
0
No votes
5. Tweet it
0
No votes
 
Total votes: 0

User avatar
MikeSpivey
Posts: 2608
Joined: Sun May 03, 2009 4:28 pm

Re: Q&A with former Admissions Officers

Postby MikeSpivey » Wed Nov 13, 2013 9:15 pm

No beef at all with Touro. I know their dean of admission and their former one and think highly of them both, which is why I feel like I could use them as an example without any blowback.

ZVBXRPL
Posts: 258
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 10:15 pm

Re: Q&A with former Admissions Officers

Postby ZVBXRPL » Wed Nov 13, 2013 9:42 pm

I see...you had me wondering because if I correctly recall, you used the term 'Princeton LS.'

eyfl
Posts: 251
Joined: Mon Dec 24, 2012 3:28 am

Re: Q&A with former Admissions Officers

Postby eyfl » Wed Nov 13, 2013 10:07 pm

Mike & Karen, thanks a million for sharing such valuable information for free (even if its not applicant specific it's still super insightful)!

I can't resist asking a question either (although it's been partially answered earlier in the thread): I know reapplying with exactly the same PS is no-go, but would it be ok to slightly edit it and reuse? Mike said it depends on the school, I'm primarily interested in the one that rhymes with Marvard (I hope Karen can help here).

My PS is about my life journey (which I believe gives additional perspective besides what I have in the rest of the app), so the only option to write something completely different would be to talk about something else entirely (but then I'm not sure of anyone would read last year's PS to get that perspective).

Thanks in advance for your time & comment!

User avatar
cigarman
Posts: 36
Joined: Sat May 22, 2010 2:43 pm

Re: Q&A with former Admissions Officers

Postby cigarman » Wed Nov 13, 2013 10:34 pm

My son got an email from Harvard that begins with

"The Law School Admissions Council has informed me that you may be considering law school this year. I invite you to take a closer look at Harvard Law School and the unparalleled opportunities that are available here."

What bothers me is that he is NOT a URM and has a 167 3.85 GPA. Those are good numbers, but I can't see any way that Harvard would dip to a 167 non URM based on all the historical data. So I wonder:

1) Is this the sign that law school applicants have cratered, and its the "get into the school of your choice sweepstakes?" OR
2) Harvard is unethically trying to encourage people just outside reality, to apply to increase their rejection percentile and improve their USnews selectivity? If so, that would be unethical in my book to tease people into spending the APP fee and CCRS report fee to apply. Almost fraudulent. And it gets the hopes up, unfairly.

And it doesn't come with a fee waiver. I think this smells. I'd love to hear what the professionals think.

P.S. Our last name is not kennedy, bush, gore or money.

drevo
Posts: 280
Joined: Sat Jul 13, 2013 10:49 pm

Re: Q&A with former Admissions Officers

Postby drevo » Wed Nov 13, 2013 10:42 pm

cigarman wrote:My son got an email from Harvard that begins with

"The Law School Admissions Council has informed me that you may be considering law school this year. I invite you to take a closer look at Harvard Law School and the unparalleled opportunities that are available here."

What bothers me is that he is NOT a URM and has a 167 3.85 GPA. Those are good numbers, but I can't see any way that Harvard would dip to a 167 non URM based on all the historical data. So I wonder:

1) Is this the sign that law school applicants have cratered, and its the "get into the school of your choice sweepstakes?" OR
2) Harvard is unethically trying to encourage people just outside reality, to apply to increase their rejection percentile and improve their USnews selectivity? If so, that would be unethical in my book to tease people into spending the APP fee and CCRS report fee to apply. Almost fraudulent. And it gets the hopes up, unfairly.

And it doesn't come with a fee waiver. I think this smells. I'd love to hear what the professionals think.

P.S. Our last name is not kennedy, bush, gore or money.


A lot of people got that today including me. I'm at the LSAT 75th but below the GPA 25th so they are a big long shot for me. The fact that others with numbers that seem like a no-go for Harvard received this email made me assume it was sent for reason #2 in your post. Would like to see what Karen and Mike have to say about it as well as I would imagine that Harvard doesn't exactly have to beg for applicants and isn't really going anywhere soon in those rankings. But then again I know basically nothing.

User avatar
MikeSpivey
Posts: 2608
Joined: Sun May 03, 2009 4:28 pm

Re: Q&A with former Admissions Officers

Postby MikeSpivey » Wed Nov 13, 2013 10:45 pm

eyfl,

I'm not Karen (...or maybe I am...) but the effect is the same. the admissions dean as Marvard will be looking at your last year PS next to this year -- so unless there were some kind of significant change they might worry you did not care enough to write a new one.

At Brevard (NC) Law School you would be fine, is this is the one you are referring to.

Karen likely will weigh in too, especially if she thinks I am being a dolt with the answer.

User avatar
KarenButtenbaum
Posts: 591
Joined: Thu Aug 08, 2013 11:39 am

Re: Q&A with former Admissions Officers

Postby KarenButtenbaum » Wed Nov 13, 2013 11:45 pm

MikeSpivey wrote:eyfl,

I'm not Karen (...or maybe I am...) but the effect is the same. the admissions dean as Marvard will be looking at your last year PS next to this year -- so unless there were some kind of significant change they might worry you did not care enough to write a new one.

At Brevard (NC) Law School you would be fine, is this is the one you are referring to.

Karen likely will weigh in too, especially if she thinks I am being a dolt with the answer.


I'll just add that "slightly edit" is not enough. Significantly update is better.

User avatar
KarenButtenbaum
Posts: 591
Joined: Thu Aug 08, 2013 11:39 am

Re: Q&A with former Admissions Officers

Postby KarenButtenbaum » Thu Nov 14, 2013 12:06 am

drevo wrote:
cigarman wrote:My son got an email from Harvard that begins with

"The Law School Admissions Council has informed me that you may be considering law school this year. I invite you to take a closer look at Harvard Law School and the unparalleled opportunities that are available here."

What bothers me is that he is NOT a URM and has a 167 3.85 GPA. Those are good numbers, but I can't see any way that Harvard would dip to a 167 non URM based on all the historical data. So I wonder:

1) Is this the sign that law school applicants have cratered, and its the "get into the school of your choice sweepstakes?" OR
2) Harvard is unethically trying to encourage people just outside reality, to apply to increase their rejection percentile and improve their USnews selectivity? If so, that would be unethical in my book to tease people into spending the APP fee and CCRS report fee to apply. Almost fraudulent. And it gets the hopes up, unfairly.

And it doesn't come with a fee waiver. I think this smells. I'd love to hear what the professionals think.

P.S. Our last name is not kennedy, bush, gore or money.


A lot of people got that today including me. I'm at the LSAT 75th but below the GPA 25th so they are a big long shot for me. The fact that others with numbers that seem like a no-go for Harvard received this email made me assume it was sent for reason #2 in your post. Would like to see what Karen and Mike have to say about it as well as I would imagine that Harvard doesn't exactly have to beg for applicants and isn't really going anywhere soon in those rankings. But then again I know basically nothing.


Schools cast a very wide net when sending out these emails, but it's not done completely unrealistically. I know that there have been non-URM students who have been admitted with lower number profiles because they had something else in the app that stood out (amazing work experience, overcoming extreme obstacles, for example). Schools cast that wide net in hopes of catching that one special student who wouldn't have otherwise applied.
And to get more apps.
If you feel that your numbers are very far off and you don't have something extraordinary in your application, you should save your $85.
Cheers,
Karen

User avatar
MoMettaMonk
Posts: 513
Joined: Thu Jul 04, 2013 3:29 pm

Re: Q&A with former Admissions Officers

Postby MoMettaMonk » Thu Nov 14, 2013 12:24 am

MikeSpivey wrote:Ok, so the way the question was asked before was "Did you ever look at lsn when you were in admissions?" My answer, which applies to the question at hand, was "No, why would I the data I had was 100% complete and lsn not nearly so"

So to elaborate on "how accurate is lsn" I think (obviously) its power and predictability are way down versus a school's entire data set. I think, as GWB alludes to, it is confounded by strong applicants. But is also often fails to show an important component of how much number (ugpa/LSAT) overlap there is, particularity at schools that get large numbers of applications. So in other words, Harvard may have 8 people with a 3.55/176, 3 of which are admitted and 5 of which are not? lsn may so some skewed reality like 2/2 admits or 02/. Now that I think about it, Karen and I would likely get more business if LSN WERE complete because it would beg a lot more questions "why did 3 people get admitted where 5 did not"


As an extension of the skewed reality problem that you talked about with LSN, do you think that this causes LSN to become essentially useless for URM applicants, especially URM applicants with high LSAT/GPA combos? For example, searching across all 10 years of data for AA applicants with an LSAT above 170 (with any GPA) only produces about 40 profiles, and at least 3 of those are probably fake. Do you think that these few data points are enough to get even a generally predictive look at an applicants chances, or is it such a sporadic data set that it's probably best to not use it for anything more than to look at individual profiles?

And as always, thanks for putting so much great info into this thread.

User avatar
cigarman
Posts: 36
Joined: Sat May 22, 2010 2:43 pm

Re: Q&A with former Admissions Officers

Postby cigarman » Thu Nov 14, 2013 12:36 am

KarenButtenbaum wrote:
drevo wrote:
cigarman wrote:My son got an email from Harvard that begins with

"The Law School Admissions Council has informed me that you may be considering law school this year. I invite you to take a closer look at Harvard Law School and the unparalleled opportunities that are available here."

What bothers me is that he is NOT a URM and has a 167 3.85 GPA. Those are good numbers, but I can't see any way that Harvard would dip to a 167 non URM based on all the historical data. So I wonder:

1) Is this the sign that law school applicants have cratered, and its the "get into the school of your choice sweepstakes?" OR
2) Harvard is unethically trying to encourage people just outside reality, to apply to increase their rejection percentile and improve their USnews selectivity? If so, that would be unethical in my book to tease people into spending the APP fee and CCRS report fee to apply. Almost fraudulent. And it gets the hopes up, unfairly.

And it doesn't come with a fee waiver. I think this smells. I'd love to hear what the professionals think.

P.S. Our last name is not kennedy, bush, gore or money.


A lot of people got that today including me. I'm at the LSAT 75th but below the GPA 25th so they are a big long shot for me. The fact that others with numbers that seem like a no-go for Harvard received this email made me assume it was sent for reason #2 in your post. Would like to see what Karen and Mike have to say about it as well as I would imagine that Harvard doesn't exactly have to beg for applicants and isn't really going anywhere soon in those rankings. But then again I know basically nothing.


Schools cast a very wide net when sending out these emails, but it's not done completely unrealistically. I know that there have been non-URM students who have been admitted with lower number profiles because they had something else in the app that stood out (amazing work experience, overcoming extreme obstacles, for example). Schools cast that wide net in hopes of catching that one special student who wouldn't have otherwise applied.
And to get more apps.
If you feel that your numbers are very far off and you don't have something extraordinary in your application, you should save your $85.
Cheers,
Karen


I think you are being charitable to former colleagues in the industry. Why would Harvard NEED to cast a "wide net"? Like they wouldn't be able to fill their class without trolling? And can ANYONE with a straight face really believe they are going to admit anyone 3 LSAT points under their 25th LSAT percentile from last year, that isn't a URM or a famous person. Oh heck, lets be generous, more than five people? If they really mean it, then a fee waiver should be included. But, short of that, I stand by it is a game to raise their selectivity and effectively defraud applicants of their application fee. There is no historical data, I can see that they seriously would admit people well below their 25%'s. Just look at the Yale data on the LSAC website. It just doesn't happen. And the Yale data Includes URM's. I'm sorry this smells like gamesmanship.

User avatar
MikeSpivey
Posts: 2608
Joined: Sun May 03, 2009 4:28 pm

Re: Q&A with former Admissions Officers

Postby MikeSpivey » Thu Nov 14, 2013 12:49 am

cigarman wrote:
I think you are being charitable to former colleagues in the industry. Why would Harvard NEED to cast a "wide net"? Like they wouldn't be able to fill their class without trolling? And can ANYONE with a straight face really believe they are going to admit anyone 3 LSAT points under their 25th LSAT percentile from last year, that isn't a URM or a famous person. Oh heck, lets be generous, more than five people? If they really mean it, then a fee waiver should be included. But, short of that, I stand by it is a game to raise their selectivity and effectively defraud applicants of their application fee. There is no historical data, I can see that they seriously would admit people well below their 25%'s. Just look at the Yale data on the LSAC website. It just doesn't happen. And the Yale data Includes URM's. I'm sorry this smells like gamesmanship.


Cigarman, of course it is a game, just as some law schools invite everyone to apply. The entire applicant pool. Fee waiver or not obviously the entire applicant pool will not be admitted and the majority of people invited to apply will be denied. Game also.

Harvard has to do it too, I promise you. If they are not mindful of their selectivity and others are, they will take a hit. Rankings are determined at the margins of mutable factors like the three from admissions, and every admissions office is under pressure from the dean to keeps this at or above competition.

So Harvard did a CRS run at people above their median gpa. No harm no foul. I'm not sure why this would offend you in as much as, would a Hardee's commercial using a woman eating a burger offend you because they should just have a burger sitting on a table? It's marketing. They can not make you apply.

I missed 10 minutes of Colbert over this obvious fact that all law schools have to market themselves.

californiauser
Posts: 1184
Joined: Sun Jul 01, 2012 1:10 am

Re: Q&A with former Admissions Officers

Postby californiauser » Thu Nov 14, 2013 1:01 am

MoMettaMonk wrote:
MikeSpivey wrote:Ok, so the way the question was asked before was "Did you ever look at lsn when you were in admissions?" My answer, which applies to the question at hand, was "No, why would I the data I had was 100% complete and lsn not nearly so"

So to elaborate on "how accurate is lsn" I think (obviously) its power and predictability are way down versus a school's entire data set. I think, as GWB alludes to, it is confounded by strong applicants. But is also often fails to show an important component of how much number (ugpa/LSAT) overlap there is, particularity at schools that get large numbers of applications. So in other words, Harvard may have 8 people with a 3.55/176, 3 of which are admitted and 5 of which are not? lsn may so some skewed reality like 2/2 admits or 02/. Now that I think about it, Karen and I would likely get more business if LSN WERE complete because it would beg a lot more questions "why did 3 people get admitted where 5 did not"


As an extension of the skewed reality problem that you talked about with LSN, do you think that this causes LSN to become essentially useless for URM applicants, especially URM applicants with high LSAT/GPA combos? For example, searching across all 10 years of data for AA applicants with an LSAT above 170 (with any GPA) only produces about 40 profiles, and at least 3 of those are probably fake. Do you think that these few data points are enough to get even a generally predictive look at an applicants chances, or is it such a sporadic data set that it's probably best to not use it for anything more than to look at individual profiles?

And as always, thanks for putting so much great info into this thread.

littleaaron
Posts: 20
Joined: Thu Jul 11, 2013 8:00 pm

Re: Q&A with former Admissions Officers

Postby littleaaron » Thu Nov 14, 2013 1:47 am

cigarman wrote:I think you are being charitable to former colleagues in the industry. Why would Harvard NEED to cast a "wide net"? Like they wouldn't be able to fill their class without trolling? And can ANYONE with a straight face really believe they are going to admit anyone 3 LSAT points under their 25th LSAT percentile from last year, that isn't a URM or a famous person. Oh heck, lets be generous, more than five people? If they really mean it, then a fee waiver should be included. But, short of that, I stand by it is a game to raise their selectivity and effectively defraud applicants of their application fee. There is no historical data, I can see that they seriously would admit people well below their 25%'s. Just look at the Yale data on the LSAC website. It just doesn't happen. And the Yale data Includes URM's. I'm sorry this smells like gamesmanship.



The other option: on the off chance there was any chance for his son to attend harvard, who wouldn't try to dissuade others on TLS from applying by decrying these emails as nothing more than part of a game to boost selectivity? :)

But seriously, it makes sense, and it even makes sense to not include a fee waiver. My feeling is, what they're hoping to accomplish is that most people will read it and go, well, no, i'm not getting in, and there's no fee waiver so it's not worth it.

But then a few people will say, well, it's a long shot, and i never really considered it, but i guess i DO have these softs that might be interesting, and they apply.

Long story short, I think they're hoping to snag a few exceptional people and trusting the applicant pool to self-select.

User avatar
KarenButtenbaum
Posts: 591
Joined: Thu Aug 08, 2013 11:39 am

Re: Q&A with former Admissions Officers

Postby KarenButtenbaum » Thu Nov 14, 2013 10:19 am

cigarman wrote:I think you are being charitable to former colleagues in the industry. Why would Harvard NEED to cast a "wide net"? Like they wouldn't be able to fill their class without trolling? And can ANYONE with a straight face really believe they are going to admit anyone 3 LSAT points under their 25th LSAT percentile from last year, that isn't a URM or a famous person. Oh heck, lets be generous, more than five people? If they really mean it, then a fee waiver should be included. But, short of that, I stand by it is a game to raise their selectivity and effectively defraud applicants of their application fee. There is no historical data, I can see that they seriously would admit people well below their 25%'s. Just look at the Yale data on the LSAC website. It just doesn't happen. And the Yale data Includes URM's. I'm sorry this smells like gamesmanship.


I am sitting here with a straight face telling you that in my time at HLS, MANY people with a 167 or below who are not URM or famous people were admitted to HLS. I think you may be forgetting that HLS's entering class is about 560 people. That means that about 140 people in each entering class have below the 25th percentile. They aren't all URMs or famous people. HLS has the luxury of taking a chance on someone who may not be a good test taker or someone who has interesting work experience, etc.

User avatar
nothingtosee
Posts: 865
Joined: Tue May 03, 2011 12:08 am

How to say "I'm retaking, but process me now please!"

Postby nothingtosee » Thu Nov 14, 2013 12:08 pm

I am happy with my LSAT score from October, but will be retaking in December because I do not feel I maximized my potential. Would either of the following work as an addendum? Is there a "right" way to phrase this? I plan on calling the various admissions offices to see which will not read it until I have the December result, but I would like to get some acceptances soon to ease my angst.

I will be retaking the LSAT in December in order to maximize scholarship opportunities. However, I would like my application to be processed using my October result.


I will be retaking the LSAT in December since I do not feel I have maximized my potential. However, I would like my application processed using my October result.

User avatar
MikeSpivey
Posts: 2608
Joined: Sun May 03, 2009 4:28 pm

Re: How to say "I'm retaking, but process me now please!"

Postby MikeSpivey » Thu Nov 14, 2013 12:17 pm

nothingtosee wrote:I am happy with my LSAT score from October, but will be retaking in December because I do not feel I maximized my potential. Would either of the following work as an addendum? Is there a "right" way to phrase this? I plan on calling the various admissions offices to see which will not read it until I have the December result, but I would like to get some acceptances soon to ease my angst.

I will be retaking the LSAT in December in order to maximize scholarship opportunities. However, I would like my application to be processed using my October result.


I will be retaking the LSAT in December since I do not feel I have maximized my potential. However, I would like my application processed using my October result.


I realize this may seem minor but picking specific addenda, even something as concise as the above, skirts too close to what we do for clients so we can't get in that much micro level detail. Apologies.

I agree that it simply warrants a one sentence statement.

KingofSplitters55
Posts: 139
Joined: Sun May 13, 2012 7:40 pm

Re: Q&A with former Admissions Officers

Postby KingofSplitters55 » Thu Nov 14, 2013 12:19 pm

KarenButtenbaum wrote:
cigarman wrote:I think you are being charitable to former colleagues in the industry. Why would Harvard NEED to cast a "wide net"? Like they wouldn't be able to fill their class without trolling? And can ANYONE with a straight face really believe they are going to admit anyone 3 LSAT points under their 25th LSAT percentile from last year, that isn't a URM or a famous person. Oh heck, lets be generous, more than five people? If they really mean it, then a fee waiver should be included. But, short of that, I stand by it is a game to raise their selectivity and effectively defraud applicants of their application fee. There is no historical data, I can see that they seriously would admit people well below their 25%'s. Just look at the Yale data on the LSAC website. It just doesn't happen. And the Yale data Includes URM's. I'm sorry this smells like gamesmanship.


I am sitting here with a straight face telling you that in my time at HLS, MANY people with a 167 or below who are not URM or famous people were admitted to HLS. I think you may be forgetting that HLS's entering class is about 560 people. That means that about 140 people in each entering class have below the 25th percentile. They aren't all URMs or famous people. HLS has the luxury of taking a chance on someone who may not be a good test taker or someone who has interesting work experience, etc.


Exactly. Admissions is largely a numbers game, but that doesn't mean there's a select bunch who just hit the jackpot. These admissions officers live in the real world where they know much more matters. It is just true that most people with low numbers have no special features distinguishing them enough to compensate. But when they do, it makes for an interesting cycle.

eyfl
Posts: 251
Joined: Mon Dec 24, 2012 3:28 am

Re: Q&A with former Admissions Officers

Postby eyfl » Thu Nov 14, 2013 12:28 pm

KarenButtenbaum wrote:
MikeSpivey wrote:eyfl,

I'm not Karen (...or maybe I am...) but the effect is the same. the admissions dean as Marvard will be looking at your last year PS next to this year -- so unless there were some kind of significant change they might worry you did not care enough to write a new one.

At Brevard (NC) Law School you would be fine, is this is the one you are referring to.

Karen likely will weigh in too, especially if she thinks I am being a dolt with the answer.


I'll just add that "slightly edit" is not enough. Significantly update is better.


Thanks!

While Brevard must be a really nice school, I'm interested in the one that is a little bit closer to Maine... Time to "significantly update" the PS!

User avatar
MikeSpivey
Posts: 2608
Joined: Sun May 03, 2009 4:28 pm

Re: Q&A with former Admissions Officers

Postby MikeSpivey » Thu Nov 14, 2013 12:28 pm

KingofSplitters55 wrote:Exactly. Admissions is largely a numbers game, but that doesn't mean there's a select bunch who just hit the jackpot. These admissions officers live in the real world where they know much more matters. It is just true that most people with low numbers have no special features distinguishing them enough to compensate. But when they do, it makes for an interesting cycle.


I have been so candid about this my mentors have told me to shut up with it but again, for 50% of the class it is entirely about numbers and all Karen and I can do is help get you more $$$. For the other 50%, there are 65,000 moving parts, some of which can legitimately get you in or out.

User avatar
MikeSpivey
Posts: 2608
Joined: Sun May 03, 2009 4:28 pm

Re: Q&A with former Admissions Officers

Postby MikeSpivey » Thu Nov 14, 2013 1:16 pm

californiauser wrote:
MoMettaMonk wrote:
MikeSpivey wrote:Ok, so the way the question was asked before was "Did you ever look at lsn when you were in admissions?" My answer, which applies to the question at hand, was "No, why would I the data I had was 100% complete and lsn not nearly so"

So to elaborate on "how accurate is lsn" I think (obviously) its power and predictability are way down versus a school's entire data set. I think, as GWB alludes to, it is confounded by strong applicants. But is also often fails to show an important component of how much number (ugpa/LSAT) overlap there is, particularity at schools that get large numbers of applications. So in other words, Harvard may have 8 people with a 3.55/176, 3 of which are admitted and 5 of which are not? lsn may so some skewed reality like 2/2 admits or 02/. Now that I think about it, Karen and I would likely get more business if LSN WERE complete because it would beg a lot more questions "why did 3 people get admitted where 5 did not"


As an extension of the skewed reality problem that you talked about with LSN, do you think that this causes LSN to become essentially useless for URM applicants, especially URM applicants with high LSAT/GPA combos? For example, searching across all 10 years of data for AA applicants with an LSAT above 170 (with any GPA) only produces about 40 profiles, and at least 3 of those are probably fake. Do you think that these few data points are enough to get even a generally predictive look at an applicants chances, or is it such a sporadic data set that it's probably best to not use it for anything more than to look at individual profiles?

And as always, thanks for putting so much great info into this thread.


Cali,

Without having looked, I tend to think that lsn would likely deflate the elevating factor that URMs will get at some schools because of this lack of data. In other words, at the top the bump might be "x" and "x" is represented a bit better on lsn but outside the very top the bump starts becoming "y....z...etc" and this is greater is than "x".

This is just a guess but a guess based on years of industry experience.

User avatar
nothingtosee
Posts: 865
Joined: Tue May 03, 2011 12:08 am

Re: How to say "I'm retaking, but process me now please!"

Postby nothingtosee » Thu Nov 14, 2013 1:29 pm

MikeSpivey wrote:
nothingtosee wrote:I am happy with my LSAT score from October, but will be retaking in December because I do not feel I maximized my potential. Would either of the following work as an addendum? Is there a "right" way to phrase this? I plan on calling the various admissions offices to see which will not read it until I have the December result, but I would like to get some acceptances soon to ease my angst.

I will be retaking the LSAT in December in order to maximize scholarship opportunities. However, I would like my application to be processed using my October result.


I will be retaking the LSAT in December since I do not feel I have maximized my potential. However, I would like my application processed using my October result.


I realize this may seem minor but picking specific addenda, even something as concise as the above, skirts too close to what we do for clients so we can't get in that much micro level detail. Apologies.

I agree that it simply warrants a one sentence statement.


Understood! All the information in here is already a valuable resource.

californiauser
Posts: 1184
Joined: Sun Jul 01, 2012 1:10 am

Re: Q&A with former Admissions Officers

Postby californiauser » Thu Nov 14, 2013 1:35 pm

MikeSpivey wrote:
californiauser wrote:
MoMettaMonk wrote:
MikeSpivey wrote:Ok, so the way the question was asked before was "Did you ever look at lsn when you were in admissions?" My answer, which applies to the question at hand, was "No, why would I the data I had was 100% complete and lsn not nearly so"

So to elaborate on "how accurate is lsn" I think (obviously) its power and predictability are way down versus a school's entire data set. I think, as GWB alludes to, it is confounded by strong applicants. But is also often fails to show an important component of how much number (ugpa/LSAT) overlap there is, particularity at schools that get large numbers of applications. So in other words, Harvard may have 8 people with a 3.55/176, 3 of which are admitted and 5 of which are not? lsn may so some skewed reality like 2/2 admits or 02/. Now that I think about it, Karen and I would likely get more business if LSN WERE complete because it would beg a lot more questions "why did 3 people get admitted where 5 did not"


As an extension of the skewed reality problem that you talked about with LSN, do you think that this causes LSN to become essentially useless for URM applicants, especially URM applicants with high LSAT/GPA combos? For example, searching across all 10 years of data for AA applicants with an LSAT above 170 (with any GPA) only produces about 40 profiles, and at least 3 of those are probably fake. Do you think that these few data points are enough to get even a generally predictive look at an applicants chances, or is it such a sporadic data set that it's probably best to not use it for anything more than to look at individual profiles?

And as always, thanks for putting so much great info into this thread.


Cali,

Without having looked, I tend to think that lsn would likely deflate the elevating factor that URMs will get at some schools because of this lack of data. In other words, at the top the bump might be "x" and "x" is represented a bit better on lsn but outside the very top the bump starts becoming "y....z...etc" and this is greater is than "x".

This is just a guess but a guess based on years of industry experience.



Thanks!

Instinctive
Posts: 436
Joined: Fri Oct 05, 2012 11:23 pm

Re: Q&A with former Admissions Officers

Postby Instinctive » Thu Nov 14, 2013 3:55 pm

Karen,

With respect to HLS, is there any light you can shed on the possibility of acceptance/denial decisions before Thanksgiving/before end of the fall semester?

I see conflicting data on this from people, but it seems that if you interview pre-Thanksgiving, you could hear back pre-Thanksgiving as well. Is this true?

(Are you allowed to answer?)

User avatar
KarenButtenbaum
Posts: 591
Joined: Thu Aug 08, 2013 11:39 am

Re: Q&A with former Admissions Officers

Postby KarenButtenbaum » Thu Nov 14, 2013 4:07 pm

Instinctive wrote:Karen,

With respect to HLS, is there any light you can shed on the possibility of acceptance/denial decisions before Thanksgiving/before end of the fall semester?

I see conflicting data on this from people, but it seems that if you interview pre-Thanksgiving, you could hear back pre-Thanksgiving as well. Is this true?

(Are you allowed to answer?)


Historically, as many of you probably know, the first wave of admit decisions comes out the week of Thanksgiving. I see no reason this will change this year. Please know that this is not the one and only time that a pre-Thanksgiving interview will be admitted. There will be subsequent admit waves post-Thanksgiving. :)

Instinctive
Posts: 436
Joined: Fri Oct 05, 2012 11:23 pm

Re: Q&A with former Admissions Officers

Postby Instinctive » Thu Nov 14, 2013 4:15 pm

KarenButtenbaum wrote:
Instinctive wrote:Karen,

With respect to HLS, is there any light you can shed on the possibility of acceptance/denial decisions before Thanksgiving/before end of the fall semester?

I see conflicting data on this from people, but it seems that if you interview pre-Thanksgiving, you could hear back pre-Thanksgiving as well. Is this true?

(Are you allowed to answer?)


Historically, as many of you probably know, the first wave of admit decisions comes out the week of Thanksgiving. I see no reason this will change this year. Please know that this is not the one and only time that a pre-Thanksgiving interview will be admitted. There will be subsequent admit waves post-Thanksgiving. :)


Thanks! I'm an MBA applicant as well, and I'm trying to gauge whether or not I'll be able to say I've been admitted to HLS on my application (or know that I haven't) before the Round 2 HBS deadline on January 6th.

Sounds like it is enough of a possibility to hold off! Thank you.


Return to “Free Help and Advice from Professionals”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: mse2020 and 4 guests