Columbia 2011! Forum

[shanemahsa]

How is it that so many of you have acceptances already!
Really want to get into at least 1 school before New Years comes around.

Just a Q, are all those ED Index # based on the highest LSAT score? I'm a multiple retaker with a good chance if Columbia takes my highest LSAT, but a crappy chance if it takes my average.

Columbia receives both indexes on the law school report.

Which do they use?

Q: HOW ARE MULTIPLE LSAT SCORES VIEWED?
A: Even though the ABA requires that we report the highest LSAT score, the Committee considers the entire LSAT testing history when evaluating applications for admission.

What does that mean in reality? No freakin' clue.

Edit: As a re-taker, I'm stressing about that too.

[T6Hopeful]

How is it that so many of you have acceptances already!
Really want to get into at least 1 school before New Years comes around.

Just a Q, are all those ED Index # based on the highest LSAT score? I'm a multiple retaker with a good chance if Columbia takes my highest LSAT, but a crappy chance if it takes my average.

Columbia receives both indexes on the law school report.

Which do they use?

Q: HOW ARE MULTIPLE LSAT SCORES VIEWED?
A: Even though the ABA requires that we report the highest LSAT score, the Committee considers the entire LSAT testing history when evaluating applications for admission.

What does that mean in reality? No freakin' clue.

Edit: As a re-taker, I'm stressing about that too.

I'm also a re-taker, and from what I've heard, if you have a relatively sizable jump between scores, you should be pretty safe. My retake was significantly higher than my first, showing (or at least I hope) that the first was more of an anomaly (after all, it's much harder to believe you 'accidentally' score that much higher). I know of at least one retaker from my school in pretty much the same situation who got in a few years ago with his higher score being 173. I've seen several "thresholds" of X+ would get the higher score considered, but I don't know what the consistent admissions-room policy is.

Especially being ED, I think Columbia cares about its rankings enough to be like "ah what the hell for this case only the higher score matters anyway, right?" So if I recall your numbers correctly shane, you should be fine.

[shanemahsa]

I'm also a re-taker, and from what I've heard, if you have a relatively sizable jump between scores, you should be pretty safe. My retake was significantly higher than my first, showing (or at least I hope) that the first was more of an anomaly (after all, it's much harder to believe you 'accidentally' score that much higher). I know of at least one retaker from my school in pretty much the same situation who got in a few years ago with his higher score being 173. I've seen several "thresholds" of X+ would get the higher score considered, but I don't know what the consistent admissions-room policy is.

Especially being ED, I think Columbia cares about its rankings enough to be like "ah what the hell for this case only the higher score matters anyway, right?" So if I recall your numbers correctly shane, you should be fine.

Thanks! So is a 5 point jump relatively sizable? LOL yes I'm asking that despite you already saying you don't know.

[beleaguer]

I think I've heard that 6 is the minimum jump required for them to consider the highest. :[ might be 5? i'd recommend perusing the old CLS threads. but they definitely do, because i had a 10 point jump. with my average score, i never would've gotten in.

[padthai]

I know that logically, Columbia would benefit by concentrating on the highest score. There's probably a high chance that they'll do so and merely glance at the lower scores. But then, a little voice in the back of my head keeps saying "but what if..." Go away little voice!

Edit: on 2nd thought...maybe I shouldn't give out so much information about myself lol. Better be careful until the cycle is over.

[T6Hopeful]

I think I've heard that 6 is the minimum jump required for them to consider the highest. :[ might be 5? i'd recommend perusing the old CLS threads. but they definitely do, because i had a 10 point jump. with my average score, i never would've gotten in.

If you're saying 167->177, average of 172 wouldn't have gotten you in, I hope you mean because of your GPA, because i'm doubting myself at 172/3.7 as it is

And shane: yeah I have no idea, but I was a 12 point jumper, and that put me at a barely competitive LSAT (at least before ED) so consider yourself lucky

[shanemahsa]

Thanks T6!

Just an observation based on LSN--it seems that as well as having a 4.3+ index score, the admits so far have had high GPAs (3.8+).

[padthai]

Thanks T6!

Just an observation based on LSN--it seems that as well as having a 4.3+ index score, the admits so far have had high GPAs (3.8+).

Well, those admits were the first batch of acceptances, so they would be high! I'm sure the later batches will have lower number and splitters too.

[shanemahsa]

Thanks T6!

Just an observation based on LSN--it seems that as well as having a 4.3+ index score, the admits so far have had high GPAs (3.8+).

Well, those admits were the first batch of acceptances, so they would be high! I'm sure the later batches will have lower number and splitters too.

Yeah true. I guess that was just my way of keeping up hope despite not being admitted yet .

[wiseguy33]

Thanks T6!

Just an observation based on LSN--it seems that as well as having a 4.3+ index score, the admits so far have had high GPAs (3.8+).

Well, those admits were the first batch of acceptances, so they would be high! I'm sure the later batches will have lower number and splitters too.[/quote]

Please let that be true, Law School Admissions Gods.

[shanemahsa]

Thanks T6!

Just an observation based on LSN--it seems that as well as having a 4.3+ index score, the admits so far have had high GPAs (3.8+).

Well, those admits were the first batch of acceptances, so they would be high! I'm sure the later batches will have lower number and splitters too.

Please let that be true, Law School Admissions Gods.

I just cruised through LSN and he's totally right

Edit: Fixed quotes.

[hellojd]

Thanks T6!

Just an observation based on LSN--it seems that as well as having a 4.3+ index score, the admits so far have had high GPAs (3.8+).

Well, those admits were the first batch of acceptances, so they would be high! I'm sure the later batches will have lower number and splitters too.[/quote]

Please let that be true, Law School Admissions Gods.

It would make me feel amazing if I saw some high 4.2s accepted.

That is all.

[wiseguy33]

Oh wow, complete quote fail on my part. My bad. Is this why splitters haven't been receiving emails? Sigh.

[shanemahsa]

Oh wow, complete quote fail on my part. My bad. Is this why splitters haven't been receiving emails? Sigh.

I'm not sure but it makes sense when I look through LSN. Hopefully splitters get some love today....*cough* *cough*

[Calla Lily]

I think I've heard that 6 is the minimum jump required for them to consider the highest. :[ might be 5? i'd recommend perusing the old CLS threads. but they definitely do, because i had a 10 point jump. with my average score, i never would've gotten in.

At the information session, Columbia said if your score is 6+ points higher than your previous score, they will take the higher score. Based on anecdotal evidence, it seems that they do not always average for gaps smaller than that, but the 6+ point gap is what they officially stated for taking the higher score.

[shanemahsa]

I think I've heard that 6 is the minimum jump required for them to consider the highest. :[ might be 5? i'd recommend perusing the old CLS threads. but they definitely do, because i had a 10 point jump. with my average score, i never would've gotten in.

At the information session, Columbia said if your score is 6+ points higher than your previous score, they will take the higher score. Based on anecdotal evidence, it seems that they do not always average for gaps smaller than that, but the 6+ point gap is what they officially stated for taking the higher score.

Poop

[tomwatts]

Just for background to some of this discussion...

The usual number cited is either 6 or 7 at more or less any school that ever mentions caring about the average, the idea being that if your score band is +3/-3, then you're performing differently if you're 6-7 points higher on the second test. (LSAC says that people, statistically, will vary between 3 points above and 3 points below a given score upon repeated testing without significant changes in between [e.g. studying] That score is called your "true score," and it is thought to be the [theoretical] accurate measure of your ability to take the LSAT. The +3/-3 is the score band.]

To illustrate the point, let's look at an example. Let's say you get a 165 on your first test. That means that your "true score" could be anywhere from 162 to 168, based on LSAC's score band.

Let's imagine that you jump 4 points on your second test. If your next score is 169, with a score band of 166-172, then they figure that 166-168 (the overlap of the two score bands) is probably your true score, so they average your 165 and your 169 and get a 167; this 167 is probably a good estimate of your "true score" (or so they think).

On the other hand, let's imagine that you jump 10 points. If your second score is a 175, suggesting a score band of 172-178, they don't know what to do. A score band of 162-168 has no overlap with 172-178, so one of those scores was more likely an anomaly.

That's the reason for the margin of 6-7 points. If you jump 6 points to a 171, your band is 168-174; there's an outside chance that your "true score" is a 168, but you would've had to be very unlucky on the first test (-3) and very lucky on the second (+3). If you jump 7 points to a 172, the score bands have no overlap at all, and now you're in anomaly territory.

So there are quite a lot of schools that want you to write an addendum if your score jumps 6-7 points or more on a retake. Your goal in such an addendum is to talk them into thinking that the anomaly was the first score, not the second.

[shanemahsa]

Omg what's wrong with tls? I can't view new posts. It says they've disabled many useful features.

[Ghost]

.

[shanemahsa]

Omg what's wrong with tls? I can't view new posts. It says they've disabled many useful features.

+1. I feel so disconnected. In fact, I'm thinking about walking out into the real world.

Good luck!

Edit: see you back here at 4pm est

[bdubs]

So I've been sitting at "Completion Pending" for about a month now (submitted Nov 3). All of the boxes are checked on the status page, but I have yet to receive a Complete e-mail or a change in status.

Is this normal???

Site says "We kindly ask that you allow at least two weeks from the date of your last submission for completion to occur." Considering that it's been twice that long I was considering calling. Anyone else have any insight?

Am I the only one? I am definitely calling tomorrow. I need to resolve this before I go on vacation.

These seems odd. You probably applied at a high volume time, but I would call anyway to make sure nothing's wrong.

Thanks to all. Apparently Columbia didn't accept my electronic copy of a letter from my school saying my minor alcohol violation record was expunged. I guess they don't contact you if your file is incomplete.

If you're in the same situation and sit at Completion Pending for more than 2 weeks, definitely contact them and ask.

[shanemahsa]

Just for background to some of this discussion...

The usual number cited is either 6 or 7 at more or less any school that ever mentions caring about the average, the idea being that if your score band is +3/-3, then you're performing differently if you're 6-7 points higher on the second test. (LSAC says that people, statistically, will vary between 3 points above and 3 points below a given score upon repeated testing without significant changes in between [e.g. studying] That score is called your "true score," and it is thought to be the [theoretical] accurate measure of your ability to take the LSAT. The +3/-3 is the score band.]

To illustrate the point, let's look at an example. Let's say you get a 165 on your first test. That means that your "true score" could be anywhere from 162 to 168, based on LSAC's score band.

Let's imagine that you jump 4 points on your second test. If your next score is 169, with a score band of 166-172, then they figure that 166-168 (the overlap of the two score bands) is probably your true score, so they average your 165 and your 169 and get a 167; this 167 is probably a good estimate of your "true score" (or so they think).

On the other hand, let's imagine that you jump 10 points. If your second score is a 175, suggesting a score band of 172-178, they don't know what to do. A score band of 162-168 has no overlap with 172-178, so one of those scores was more likely an anomaly.

That's the reason for the margin of 6-7 points. If you jump 6 points to a 171, your band is 168-174; there's an outside chance that your "true score" is a 168, but you would've had to be very unlucky on the first test (-3) and very lucky on the second (+3). If you jump 7 points to a 172, the score bands have no overlap at all, and now you're in anomaly territory.

So there are quite a lot of schools that want you to write an addendum if your score jumps 6-7 points or more on a retake. Your goal in such an addendum is to talk them into thinking that the anomaly was the first score, not the second.

Thanks man!

[pinkzeppelin]

Just for background to some of this discussion...

The usual number cited is either 6 or 7 at more or less any school that ever mentions caring about the average, the idea being that if your score band is +3/-3, then you're performing differently if you're 6-7 points higher on the second test. (LSAC says that people, statistically, will vary between 3 points above and 3 points below a given score upon repeated testing without significant changes in between [e.g. studying] That score is called your "true score," and it is thought to be the [theoretical] accurate measure of your ability to take the LSAT. The +3/-3 is the score band.]

To illustrate the point, let's look at an example. Let's say you get a 165 on your first test. That means that your "true score" could be anywhere from 162 to 168, based on LSAC's score band.

Let's imagine that you jump 4 points on your second test. If your next score is 169, with a score band of 166-172, then they figure that 166-168 (the overlap of the two score bands) is probably your true score, so they average your 165 and your 169 and get a 167; this 167 is probably a good estimate of your "true score" (or so they think).

On the other hand, let's imagine that you jump 10 points. If your second score is a 175, suggesting a score band of 172-178, they don't know what to do. A score band of 162-168 has no overlap with 172-178, so one of those scores was more likely an anomaly.

That's the reason for the margin of 6-7 points. If you jump 6 points to a 171, your band is 168-174; there's an outside chance that your "true score" is a 168, but you would've had to be very unlucky on the first test (-3) and very lucky on the second (+3). If you jump 7 points to a 172, the score bands have no overlap at all, and now you're in anomaly territory.

So there are quite a lot of schools that want you to write an addendum if your score jumps 6-7 points or more on a retake. Your goal in such an addendum is to talk them into thinking that the anomaly was the first score, not the second.

credited!

[vertex]

Only two more hours! Everyone hold on to your hats!!

[T6Hopeful]

Thanks T6!

Just an observation based on LSN--it seems that as well as having a 4.3+ index score, the admits so far have had high GPAs (3.8+).

Well, those admits were the first batch of acceptances, so they would be high! I'm sure the later batches will have lower number and splitters too.[/quote]

Please let that be true, Law School Admissions Gods.

It would make me feel amazing if I saw some high 4.2s accepted.

That is all.

Well let me go ahead and try and get an acceptance for you then