Top Law Schools

Posted: **Thu Jan 13, 2011 4:35 pm**

http://www.top-law-schools.com/forums/v ... 5#p2253435

Helmholtz wrote:m51 (a current CLS student who has been incredibly good about CLS admittance discussion) said this about index:

M51 wrote:Basically, if a school has an index #, use that instead of your GPA/LSAT when trying to figure out your odds.

M51 wrote:Just glanced at CLS graphs... compared to their previous years, they're doing the same amount of YP-ing as they've traditionally done (not much). CCN has always randomly taken and rejected and WL-ed borderline candidates... and whatever you may think... 3.75/170 is NOT even a 4.3 on CLS's index... of which only 50% get admitted w/o first being WL-ed. A 4.2 has only a 25% historical success rate.

These people have a higher chance of being WL-ed/Rejected than of being outright Accepted. That's been true for 3 years running. I don't see what the big confusion is. For a school that uses index #s, your LSAT/GPA is mostly meaningless... take the index #s, which have been steady through the years for CLS. 4.4 = you're in unless we find dirt on you. 4.3 = you have a good shot. 4.2 = you have a shot, but it's not great. 4.1 = you're kindda screwed.

M51 wrote: Just using Columbia as an example because I ED-ed here and did a lot of research. Normal 4.3 index # acceptance rate is somewhere around 50%. ED 4.3 acceptance rate is well over 75%. Normal 4.2 index # acceptance rate is somewhere around 20%. ED rate is well over 33%..

Posted: **Thu Jan 13, 2011 4:42 pm**

knock wrote:
M51 wrote:Just glanced at CLS graphs... compared to their previous years, they're doing the same amount of YP-ing as they've traditionally done (not much). CCN has always randomly taken and rejected and WL-ed borderline candidates... and whatever you may think... 3.75/170 is NOT even a 4.3 on CLS's index... of which only 50% get admitted w/o first being WL-ed. A 4.2 has only a 25% historical success rate.

These people have a higher chance of being WL-ed/Rejected than of being outright Accepted. That's been true for 3 years running. I don't see what the big confusion is. For a school that uses index #s, your LSAT/GPA is mostly meaningless... take the index #s, which have been steady through the years for CLS. 4.4 = you're in unless we find dirt on you. 4.3 = you have a good shot. 4.2 = you have a shot, but it's not great. 4.1 = you're kindda screwed.

Do they truncate, round, or other?

Posted: **Thu Jan 13, 2011 4:43 pm**

bdubs wrote:
knock wrote:
M51 wrote:Just glanced at CLS graphs... compared to their previous years, they're doing the same amount of YP-ing as they've traditionally done (not much). CCN has always randomly taken and rejected and WL-ed borderline candidates... and whatever you may think... 3.75/170 is NOT even a 4.3 on CLS's index... of which only 50% get admitted w/o first being WL-ed. A 4.2 has only a 25% historical success rate.

These people have a higher chance of being WL-ed/Rejected than of being outright Accepted. That's been true for 3 years running. I don't see what the big confusion is. For a school that uses index #s, your LSAT/GPA is mostly meaningless... take the index #s, which have been steady through the years for CLS. 4.4 = you're in unless we find dirt on you. 4.3 = you have a good shot. 4.2 = you have a shot, but it's not great. 4.1 = you're kindda screwed.

Do they truncate, round, or other?

I have no idea, but I would guess they wouldn't.

Posted: **Thu Jan 13, 2011 4:46 pm**

Does anyone know how all of this applies to URMs, or are we still stuck at being unpredictable?

Posted: **Thu Jan 13, 2011 4:47 pm**

law_monkey wrote:Does anyone know how all of this applies to URMs, or are we still stuck at being unpredictable?

If your above those indexes your in.

Posted: **Thu Jan 13, 2011 4:49 pm**

law_monkey wrote:Does anyone know how all of this applies to URMs, or are we still stuck at being unpredictable?

There is actually a companion graph for URMs. It's pretty much shifted down a little bit, I can't recall exactly. But it groups all URMs together, so it may be inaccurate for certain types of URMs. I wish I could locate these graphs, they were pretty informative

.

Posted: **Thu Jan 13, 2011 4:53 pm**

I was about to ask about these mythical index graphs.

Posted: **Thu Jan 13, 2011 4:54 pm**

ahduth wrote:I was about to ask about these mythical index graphs.

I've been searching for them for a little while, no luck. Someone must have them saved or have an idea where they can be found.

Posted: **Thu Jan 13, 2011 4:55 pm**

Knock wrote:
law_monkey wrote:Does anyone know how all of this applies to URMs, or are we still stuck at being unpredictable?
There is actually a companion graph for URMs. It's pretty much shifted down a little bit, I can't recall exactly. But it groups all URMs together, so it may be inaccurate for certain types of URMs. I wish I could locate these graphs, they were pretty informative .

Those do sound super helpful. Luckily CLS is definitely one of my reaches, so a ding will be expected and anything else will be a pleasant surprise.

Posted: **Thu Jan 13, 2011 5:54 pm**

For applicants identified as White or unreported

ED:
--ImageRemoved--

RD:
--ImageRemoved--

Posted: **Thu Jan 13, 2011 6:05 pm**

Is their any consensus on the index cutoff for Butlers/Hamiltons, or are those basically done from softs among the high number people?

Posted: **Thu Jan 13, 2011 6:11 pm**

jdstl wrote:Is their any consensus on the index cutoff for Butlers/Hamiltons, or are those basically done from softs among the high number people?

I've heard quoted several times on TLS that the Hamilton cutoff is roughly 3.8+, 174+.

Posted: **Thu Jan 13, 2011 6:30 pm**

tag. chances aren't great but i'm banking on URM cycles being unpredictable and crossing my fingers

Posted: **Thu Jan 13, 2011 7:53 pm**

c_dubya_s wrote:
jdstl wrote:Is their any consensus on the index cutoff for Butlers/Hamiltons, or are those basically done from softs among the high number people?
I've heard quoted several times on TLS that the Hamilton cutoff is roughly 3.8+, 174+.

Yeah, that's about what I hear too. I guess I should phrase the question "is there any idex above which a certin scholarship becomes automatic?"

Posted: **Thu Jan 13, 2011 11:10 pm**

Ugh, I'd rather be straight rejected than WL, but I have a feeling I'm headed for the waitlist.

Posted: **Fri Jan 14, 2011 8:40 am**

Can someone tell me how they grade UG grades from abroad, or convert them into indices?

Posted: **Fri Jan 14, 2011 10:48 am**

ryukpark wrote:Can someone tell me how they grade UG grades from abroad, or convert them into indices?

Considering that they are not reportable to USNWR, I would doubt that they go into the formula. My guess is that it is a tie breaker for borderline candidates.

Posted: **Fri Jan 14, 2011 11:53 am**

knock wrote:
M51 wrote:Just glanced at CLS graphs... compared to their previous years, they're doing the same amount of YP-ing as they've traditionally done (not much). CCN has always randomly taken and rejected and WL-ed borderline candidates... and whatever you may think... 3.75/170 is NOT even a 4.3 on CLS's index... of which only 50% get admitted w/o first being WL-ed. A 4.2 has only a 25% historical success rate.

These people have a higher chance of being WL-ed/Rejected than of being outright Accepted. That's been true for 3 years running. I don't see what the big confusion is. For a school that uses index #s, your LSAT/GPA is mostly meaningless... take the index #s, which have been steady through the years for CLS. 4.4 = you're in unless we find dirt on you. 4.3 = you have a good shot. 4.2 = you have a shot, but it's not great. 4.1 = you're kindda screwed.

I cannot believe this is perfectly accurate. I'm a 4.4 URM, and I'm not that confident in getting in, and not just because I'm a crazy pessimist. I just don't think my 3.4 is going to be impressing anyone anytime soon.

Posted: **Fri Jan 14, 2011 12:59 pm**

s0ph1e2007 wrote:
I cannot believe this is perfectly accurate. I'm a 4.4 URM, and I'm not that confident in getting in, and not just because I'm a crazy pessimist. I just don't think my 3.4 is going to be impressing anyone anytime soon.

You'll get in. 4.4 URM is in. See you in New York!

Posted: **Fri Jan 14, 2011 3:34 pm**

I got something in the mail from Columbia today.

It wasn't this color.

I said 'ello, reject pile.

It was just the viewbook I requested 3 months ago

Posted: **Fri Jan 14, 2011 3:36 pm**

pereira6 wrote:I got something in the mail from Columbia today.

It wasn't this color.

I said 'ello, reject pile.

It was just the viewbook I requested 3 months ago

lol what color is the viewbook?

I still only have 2 viewbooks total (Berkeley + USC). You'd think I would get viewbooks from places I am already admitted...

Posted: **Fri Jan 14, 2011 3:38 pm**

pereira6 wrote:I got something in the mail from Columbia today.

It wasn't this color.

I said 'ello, reject pile.

It was just the viewbook I requested 3 months ago

That is seriously evil.

Posted: **Fri Jan 14, 2011 7:42 pm**

r6_philly wrote:
pereira6 wrote:I got something in the mail from Columbia today.

It wasn't this color.

I said 'ello, reject pile.

It was just the viewbook I requested 3 months ago
lol what color is the viewbook?

I still only have 2 viewbooks total (Berkeley + USC). You'd think I would get viewbooks from places I am already admitted...

Amazingly enough, the viewbook has a this color picture of the law school and the same color back cover

Yet the envelope was not. Alas, no acceptance yet! Haha hopefully I get one.

I requested viewbooks from all schools that didn't say "look at it online" because I like looking at them for info and they make good looking coffee-table books. Along with the Onion's Our Dumb World.

Posted: **Fri Jan 14, 2011 7:43 pm**

Why I didnt get a viewbook from columbia, I don't know. Those bastards.

Posted: **Fri Jan 14, 2011 8:07 pm**

s0ph1e2007 wrote:
knock wrote:
M51 wrote:Just glanced at CLS graphs... compared to their previous years, they're doing the same amount of YP-ing as they've traditionally done (not much). CCN has always randomly taken and rejected and WL-ed borderline candidates... and whatever you may think... 3.75/170 is NOT even a 4.3 on CLS's index... of which only 50% get admitted w/o first being WL-ed. A 4.2 has only a 25% historical success rate.

These people have a higher chance of being WL-ed/Rejected than of being outright Accepted. That's been true for 3 years running. I don't see what the big confusion is. For a school that uses index #s, your LSAT/GPA is mostly meaningless... take the index #s, which have been steady through the years for CLS. 4.4 = you're in unless we find dirt on you. 4.3 = you have a good shot. 4.2 = you have a shot, but it's not great. 4.1 = you're kindda screwed.

I cannot believe this is perfectly accurate. I'm a 4.4 URM, and I'm not that confident in getting in, and not just because I'm a crazy pessimist. I just don't think my 3.4 is going to be impressing anyone anytime soon.

if it were perfect, there wouldn't be yellow in the 4.4 range, but of course there is, and I doubt those who are in yellow have some crazy dirt against them.
It's a tough GPA to have, but good luck! I'm really pulling for you!

Top Law Schools

Columbia 2011! Forum

Re: Columbia 2011!

Re: Columbia 2011!

Re: Columbia 2011!

Re: Columbia 2011!

Re: Columbia 2011!

Re: Columbia 2011!

Re: Columbia 2011!

Re: Columbia 2011!

Re: Columbia 2011!

Re: Columbia 2011!

Re: Columbia 2011!

Re: Columbia 2011!

Re: Columbia 2011!

Re: Columbia 2011!

Re: Columbia 2011!

Re: Columbia 2011!

Re: Columbia 2011!

Re: Columbia 2011!

Re: Columbia 2011!

Re: Columbia 2011!

Re: Columbia 2011!

Re: Columbia 2011!

Re: Columbia 2011!

Re: Columbia 2011!

Re: Columbia 2011!