Columbia 2011! Forum

[arism87]

Sorry but 99.5% of the time (making this number up) that is enough to know which is more compelling to an adcomm.

And the reason you're sure of this is LSN & TLS, nothing else, right? Both of which have an obvious self-selection bias and contradict the stated claims of the adcomms themselves.

Obviously super high numbers usually get accepted and super low ones usually get rejected. Anybody would be a fool to deny either of those things. But there are enough exceptions to both to temper the LSN/TLS numbers obsession.

Or not. The other option is to just keep being shocked every other day.

And anecdotal evidence, and medians, etc etc

I'm certainly not saying there aren't exceptions.

And I'm done, wrong place, beating a dead horse, etc etc

[NikaneOkie]

I am not normal on that spreadsheet... what's wrong with my application?
4.5 URM theoretically I should have a pretty good shot right?

[r6_philly]

You guys are presuming people similar to what you describe are not still waiting for decisions.

i didnt understand that sentence

Sorry!

[pastadog]

+1

I'm going to make this a list. Next person quote it:

r6
dulcatis
justhoping
RJ127
absolutazn87
forward
Philip_J_Fry
Kent M
TrustMeI'mAnActress
glitched
ahduth
pastadog

[r6_philly]

Use the spreadsheet!

[melamine]

So yes, i agree. although i don't think softs and PS count for 1/3... That said, this high level, i think they're looking for people who have other qualities that make them stand out. A 98% LSAT vs. a 99% LSAT isn't going to mean much in terms of the final product of being a lawyer. I would imagine having certain softs (or good writing ability - which can very GREATLY amongst applicants with high LSATS) makes a bigger difference to their actually being a good lawyer or not. In which case, the difference between a 170 and a 176 isn't going to mean much, is it? I can see why - from a practical standpoint (not thinking about USN rankings) softs are going to start counting more after a while.

I see you are new to TLS.

that's not an argument. I think the reverse problem is that people have a very impoverished notion of what "good softs" are. No? Good softs doesn't mean that you held an okay job helping (insert minority here), and have an MA. That's what gives the impression that having good softs doesn't make a lick of difference. I'm just saying at this level, a lot of applicants have softs that make the aforementioned look really mediocre. But on LSN, people seem to think (at least in their own applications) that these are great softs.

[forward]

+1

I'm going to make this a list. Next person quote it:

r6
dulcatis
justhoping
RJ127
absolutazn87
forward
Philip_J_Fry
Kent M
TrustMeI'mAnActress
glitched
ahduth
pastadog

[pereira6]

So I went through the past 100 pages of the thread (give or take 90), and I STILL don't know what to think of the holds.

My deduction from everyone: No big deal. It's not a waitlist.

Am I right? Being as this is probably the most active thread I hope I get an answer haha

[r6_philly]

that's not an argument. I think the reverse problem is that people have a very impoverished notion of what "good softs" are. No? Good softs doesn't mean that you held an okay job helping (insert minority here), and have an MA. That's what gives the impression that having good softs doesn't make a lick of difference. I'm just saying at this level, a lot of applicants have softs that make the aforementioned look really mediocre. But on LSN, people seem to think (at least in their own applications) that these are great softs.

I have very good softs by whatever standards.

[absolutazn87]

Yeah who am I kidding? For us confuzzled applicants:

Form:

--LinkRemoved--

Spreadsheet:

https://spreadsheets.google.com/ccc?key ... y=COCx7rcG

QF new page

[c_dubya_s]

CLS admissions:

This.


In general, I'd agree that admissions is a bit more holistic than we give them credit for. However, there's not much you can say about a single case, and right now I'm willing to bet a substantial portion of those held will get in, particularly the high index people.

Can I be part of that club?

[Knock]

I see you are new to TLS.

So much win.

Hey I said it first (in a Columbia-esque, gunner voice).

Indeed, I give all credit to R6 for a brilliant response, which will soon join the official TLS lexicon .

Okay, this is NOT the place for a debate on what does or should matter to AdComms. It's pretty clear that with the avalanche of holds that something is up at CLS. We're trying to figure that out. CLS is historically quite numbers-based, but holds today went up and down the pool. Something deeper must be afoot. There are countless other threads to debate the merits of softs vs. numbers.

ETA: remove me from the 'not held' list - I'm there erroneously. Held just after 5 pm CST.

Credited.

[sarahlawg]

I just went to the Columbia 2010 thread and put at the top 3800 for posts...and this is the first thing I see

A glance at the '08 deferral thread indicates that "held" applicants really don't hear back until early-mid April. Yikes.

aye.

[ahduth]

So I went through the past 100 pages of the thread (give or take 90), and I STILL don't know what to think of the holds.

My deduction from everyone: No big deal. It's not a waitlist.

Am I right? Being as this is probably the most active thread I hope I get an answer haha

Yeah, I think we're just contemplating how meaningless it all is...

[arism87]

that's not an argument. I think the reverse problem is that people have a very impoverished notion of what "good softs" are. No? Good softs doesn't mean that you held an okay job helping (insert minority here), and have an MA. That's what gives the impression that having good softs doesn't make a lick of difference. I'm just saying at this level, a lot of applicants have softs that make the aforementioned look really mediocre. But on LSN, people seem to think (at least in their own applications) that these are great softs.

[Evrydyhonestliar]

Held e-mail around 6:00. While in line for specialty mac n cheese. Made it a little easier.

Edit: Here are my stats: 170/3.7 Submitted mid Nov Complete early December

[arism87]

I just went to the Columbia 2010 thread and put at the top 3800 for posts...and this is the first thing I see

A glance at the '08 deferral thread indicates that "held" applicants really don't hear back until early-mid April. Yikes.

aye.

3800?? We are TTT.

lol

[r6_philly]

I just went to the Columbia 2010 thread and put at the top 3800 for posts...and this is the first thing I see

A glance at the '08 deferral thread indicates that "held" applicants really don't hear back until early-mid April. Yikes.

aye.

3800?? We are TTT.

lol

We are on 5875

[speedyj88]

First time posting in this thread. I just got held by CLS as well. 3.5/170.

I guess I should be honored to be in this category after looking at some of the numbers that were held.

what time was the email dated

5:57PM EST.

[AdamAndSteve]

Haha, lowest LSAT and GPA on that list. The URM force is strong with this one.

But, anyway, I'm going to go ahead and guess that this "forgotten" group is a waitlist group in the making considering the strength of the #s around me.

Oh, and one's writing ability varies, it doesn't very.

[arism87]

I just went to the Columbia 2010 thread and put at the top 3800 for posts...and this is the first thing I see

A glance at the '08 deferral thread indicates that "held" applicants really don't hear back until early-mid April. Yikes.

aye.

3800?? We are TTT.

lol

We are on 5875

OOOOH posts?! I was thinking pages and thought it was a typo. Got it.

[CM612]

First time posting in this thread. I just got held by CLS as well. 3.5/170.

I guess I should be honored to be in this category after looking at some of the numbers that were held.

what time was the email dated

5:57PM EST.

It's over.

[pereira6]

So I went through the past 100 pages of the thread (give or take 90), and I STILL don't know what to think of the holds.

My deduction from everyone: No big deal. It's not a waitlist.

Am I right? Being as this is probably the most active thread I hope I get an answer haha

Yeah, I think we're just contemplating how meaningless it all is...

(In a southern preacher man voice)

Can I get a +1 on this?!

I SAID CAN I GET A +1?!?!

[somewhere]

And anecdotal evidence, and medians, etc etc

Medians aren't so instructive unless understood in conjunction with quartiles and outliers. Some schools publish their extremities. At Yale last year the lower ones were 3.4 and 158.

[sarahlawg]

3800?? We are TTT.

lol

We are on 5875

OOOOH posts?! I was thinking pages and thought it was a typo. Got it.

lol yeah no. we're totally going to surpass their total page count soon though.