Columbia 2011!

Share Your Experiences, Read About Other Experiences. Please keep posts organized by school and expected year of graduation.
User avatar
forward
Posts: 413
Joined: Thu May 13, 2010 12:16 am

Re: Columbia 2011!

Postby forward » Sun Feb 06, 2011 2:36 am

r6_philly wrote:Haha looking at the LSN graph, they reserved a bunch of 170's. I wonder why then are a bunch of 168/169's held? I don't understand CLS's tactics.


Many - with you as a notable exception - are sub 3.8. Perhaps the 168/169 holds are compelling and high GPA? There's some speculation CLS may desire to up its GPA median, possibly to combat any effects of the Ruby's at UChi.

User avatar
law_monkey
Posts: 1709
Joined: Sun Nov 28, 2010 5:25 pm

Re: Columbia 2011!

Postby law_monkey » Sun Feb 06, 2011 2:42 am

r6_philly wrote:Haha looking at the LSN graph, they reserved a bunch of 170's. I wonder why then are a bunch of 168/169's held? I don't understand CLS's tactics.


I don't think they have tactics this cycle. They're just drawing names out of hats and assigning people with decisions. I can't even begin to guess what to expect anymore since the URMs with better numbers than me got held. The ones with lower numbers than me got held/waitlisted/a couple acceptances (and actually the only URM acceptances on LSN have been splitters). And a few of us with mediocre numbers are just forgotten. I think we can all just kind of give up trying to predict what's going on here. :?

WestOfTheRest
Posts: 1412
Joined: Mon Jul 07, 2008 11:10 pm

Re: Columbia 2011!

Postby WestOfTheRest » Sun Feb 06, 2011 2:48 am

I'm still forgotten. Mail should be here this week (hopefully) for anything sent during the first wave.

User avatar
math101
Posts: 124
Joined: Sat May 01, 2010 12:28 pm

Re: Columbia 2011!

Postby math101 » Sun Feb 06, 2011 2:49 am

r6_philly wrote:Haha looking at the LSN graph, they reserved a bunch of 170's. I wonder why then are a bunch of 168/169's held? I don't understand CLS's tactics.


Good question. I am in the 169 held batch (3.7x GPA). My numbers are nowhere near their medians, so I assume I'm headed for a ding.

User avatar
kazu
Posts: 1602
Joined: Sun Dec 06, 2009 9:35 pm

Re: Columbia 2011!

Postby kazu » Sun Feb 06, 2011 2:51 am

math101 wrote:
r6_philly wrote:Haha looking at the LSN graph, they reserved a bunch of 170's. I wonder why then are a bunch of 168/169's held? I don't understand CLS's tactics.


Good question. I am in the 169 held batch (3.7x GPA). My numbers are nowhere near their medians, so I assume I'm headed for a ding.

IS THAT A SAILOR MERCURY TAR???

User avatar
math101
Posts: 124
Joined: Sat May 01, 2010 12:28 pm

Re: Columbia 2011!

Postby math101 » Sun Feb 06, 2011 2:54 am

kazu wrote:IS THAT A SAILOR MERCURY TAR???


Haha, yes it is! Favorite cartoon growing up.

User avatar
kazu
Posts: 1602
Joined: Sun Dec 06, 2009 9:35 pm

Re: Columbia 2011!

Postby kazu » Sun Feb 06, 2011 3:04 am

math101 wrote:
kazu wrote:IS THAT A SAILOR MERCURY TAR???


Haha, yes it is! Favorite cartoon growing up.

Me too!!!!

That is def. going to be my next tar. Do you mind if I copy you? :P I promise to go w/ a different Sailor though!

User avatar
Ikki
Posts: 405
Joined: Tue Jan 25, 2011 3:37 pm

Re: Columbia 2011!

Postby Ikki » Sun Feb 06, 2011 3:47 am

I went complete in late November and haven't heard anything yet, should I be worried? URM 3.5 167

User avatar
law_monkey
Posts: 1709
Joined: Sun Nov 28, 2010 5:25 pm

Re: Columbia 2011!

Postby law_monkey » Sun Feb 06, 2011 3:50 am

Ikki wrote:I went complete in late November and haven't heard anything yet, should I be worried? URM 3.5 167


There are several of us who applied earlier than that and haven't heard anything. Speculation is that we're either getting an acceptance or rejection in the mail soon since if we were held/WL we would've got the email already. But that's not for certain.

plurilingue
Posts: 150
Joined: Wed Feb 02, 2011 5:58 pm

Re: Columbia 2011!

Postby plurilingue » Sun Feb 06, 2011 4:04 am

.
Last edited by plurilingue on Fri Jul 10, 2015 3:18 pm, edited 1 time in total.

jrose5
Posts: 660
Joined: Tue Feb 01, 2011 7:54 pm

Re: Columbia 2011!

Postby jrose5 » Sun Feb 06, 2011 4:10 am

plurilingue wrote:
r6_philly wrote:Haha looking at the LSN graph, they reserved a bunch of 170's. I wonder why then are a bunch of 168/169's held? I don't understand CLS's tactics.


I mean, it's a bit presumptuous to assume that everyone with a 168/169 is an auto-reject based on a sub-25th LSAT -- and not just because a lot of those candidates had extremely high GPAs. And I've already communicated with two people on TLS who have 166/167 scores and were admitted (not URM) because they had stellar applications otherwise. (An excellent PS or good softs can be compelling for the admissions committee.)

So in other words, those 170s might have had comparatively lacking applications...

+1
These forums have led me to believe that TLSers believe in numbers a little too much.

User avatar
Ikki
Posts: 405
Joined: Tue Jan 25, 2011 3:37 pm

Re: Columbia 2011!

Postby Ikki » Sun Feb 06, 2011 4:13 am

law_monkey wrote:
Ikki wrote:I went complete in late November and haven't heard anything yet, should I be worried? URM 3.5 167


There are several of us who applied earlier than that and haven't heard anything. Speculation is that we're either getting an acceptance or rejection in the mail soon since if we were held/WL we would've got the email already. But that's not for certain.


So a definitely maybe :?

User avatar
Ikki
Posts: 405
Joined: Tue Jan 25, 2011 3:37 pm

Re: Columbia 2011!

Postby Ikki » Sun Feb 06, 2011 4:15 am

plurilingue wrote:
And I've already communicated with two people on TLS who have 166/167 scores and were admitted (not URM) because they had stellar applications otherwise. (An excellent PS or good softs can be compelling for the admissions committee.)



Wow, what were their GPAs?

plurilingue
Posts: 150
Joined: Wed Feb 02, 2011 5:58 pm

Re: Columbia 2011!

Postby plurilingue » Sun Feb 06, 2011 6:10 am

.
Last edited by plurilingue on Fri Jul 10, 2015 3:18 pm, edited 1 time in total.

jrose5
Posts: 660
Joined: Tue Feb 01, 2011 7:54 pm

Re: Columbia 2011!

Postby jrose5 » Sun Feb 06, 2011 12:18 pm

plurilingue wrote:
jrose5 wrote:These forums have led me to believe that TLSers believe in numbers a little too much.


Absolutely. With pretty much every school -- but Stanford and Columbia most -- there are a LOT of people who get in with sub-170 scores (by definition almost 25% of matriculants at Columbia and almost 50% at Stanford) and yet LSN/TLS show virtually none of them. We're only getting part of the picture here.

Also, since schools only publish the 25/50/75 numbers, you really don't know exactly how low the sub-25th LSAT admits go -- I personally know one girl who had some exceptional circumstances, an unusually interesting life story, etc. and was admitted to Columbia with a 15X score last cycle.


The way I see it is (and this is pure speculation), the vast majority of applicants don't have the extracurricular credentials or work experience to exempt them from a sub median LSAT/GPA... despite the fact that a lot of TLSers like to claim that they have "super softs," the fact is, tons of other people have been highly active individuals throughout college. Even being president of a club, for example, is probably not a game-changer (unless it was SGA president, then maybe). Hence, adcomms focus on numbers for the vast majority of applicants... but don't mistakenly believe from that, that they are focused exclusively on numbers.

User avatar
glitched
Posts: 1040
Joined: Wed May 19, 2010 9:50 am

Re: Columbia 2011!

Postby glitched » Sun Feb 06, 2011 12:22 pm

jrose5 wrote:The way I see it is (and this is pure speculation), the vast majority of applicants don't have the extracurricular credentials or work experience to exempt them from a sub median LSAT/GPA... despite the fact that a lot of TLSers like to claim that they have "super softs," the fact is, tons of other people have been highly active individuals throughout college. Even being president of a club, for example, is probably not a game-changer (unless it was SGA president, then maybe). Hence, adcomms focus on numbers for the vast majority of applicants... but don't mistakenly believe from that, that they are focused exclusively on numbers.


Most TLS users actually claim they have average softs (because if you've been here long enough, someone will tell you that everything you do is average until you get a 173+). From just what I've seen, the only people that claim to have "great softs, LoRs, and PS" are people with below median numbers.

In my opinion, the only great softs are anything that will provide diversity or a proven track record of success. that's just me though.

Confused7
Posts: 660
Joined: Mon Oct 11, 2010 2:01 pm

Re: Columbia 2011!

Postby Confused7 » Sun Feb 06, 2011 12:25 pm

Sometimes a high GPA isn't enough to offput a "mediocre" LSAT either. Who knows how adcomms really do their job? For the record, my GPA is 4.04 and have been lacking CLS love. :(

jrose5
Posts: 660
Joined: Tue Feb 01, 2011 7:54 pm

Re: Columbia 2011!

Postby jrose5 » Sun Feb 06, 2011 12:29 pm

glitched wrote:
jrose5 wrote:The way I see it is (and this is pure speculation), the vast majority of applicants don't have the extracurricular credentials or work experience to exempt them from a sub median LSAT/GPA... despite the fact that a lot of TLSers like to claim that they have "super softs," the fact is, tons of other people have been highly active individuals throughout college. Even being president of a club, for example, is probably not a game-changer (unless it was SGA president, then maybe). Hence, adcomms focus on numbers for the vast majority of applicants... but don't mistakenly believe from that, that they are focused exclusively on numbers.


Most TLS users actually claim they have average softs (because if you've been here long enough, someone will tell you that everything you do is average until you get a 173+). From just what I've seen, the only people that claim to have "great softs, LoRs, and PS" are people with below median numbers.

In my opinion, the only great softs are anything that will provide diversity or a proven track record of success. that's just me though.


Really? I didn't notice that actually.
I agree with the comment after that, though.

User avatar
starrydreamz3
Posts: 677
Joined: Sat May 05, 2007 11:42 am

Re: Columbia 2011!

Postby starrydreamz3 » Sun Feb 06, 2011 1:09 pm

I think my cycle is proof that TFA/Peace Corp/Military experience are not the only softs that will make you stand out in a crowd. I think I've out-preformed my numbers and I have none of those on my resume.

QuailMan
Posts: 90
Joined: Fri Oct 16, 2009 5:22 pm

Re: Columbia 2011!

Postby QuailMan » Sun Feb 06, 2011 1:10 pm

plurilingue wrote:
jrose5 wrote:These forums have led me to believe that TLSers believe in numbers a little too much.


Absolutely. With pretty much every school -- but Stanford and Columbia most -- there are a LOT of people who get in with sub-170 scores (by definition almost 25% of matriculants at Columbia and almost 50% at Stanford) and yet LSN/TLS show virtually none of them. We're only getting part of the picture here.

Also, since schools only publish the 25/50/75 numbers, you really don't know exactly how low the sub-25th LSAT admits go -- I personally know one girl who had some exceptional circumstances, an unusually interesting life story, etc. and was admitted to Columbia with a 15X score last cycle.


This is a fallacy, just b/c the median is 170 does not mean that 50% of people score 169 or less. It could mean that 170 is the lowest score they accept, but more than half the class has it.

180-180-180-175-175-175-170-170-170-170-170-170-170-170-170-170-168-154

180-180-180-175-175-175-170-170-170-170-169-169-168-168-168-168-165-154

Both of those classes have a median of 170.

jrose5
Posts: 660
Joined: Tue Feb 01, 2011 7:54 pm

Re: Columbia 2011!

Postby jrose5 » Sun Feb 06, 2011 1:15 pm

QuailMan wrote:
plurilingue wrote:
jrose5 wrote:These forums have led me to believe that TLSers believe in numbers a little too much.


Absolutely. With pretty much every school -- but Stanford and Columbia most -- there are a LOT of people who get in with sub-170 scores (by definition almost 25% of matriculants at Columbia and almost 50% at Stanford) and yet LSN/TLS show virtually none of them. We're only getting part of the picture here.

Also, since schools only publish the 25/50/75 numbers, you really don't know exactly how low the sub-25th LSAT admits go -- I personally know one girl who had some exceptional circumstances, an unusually interesting life story, etc. and was admitted to Columbia with a 15X score last cycle.


This is a fallacy, just b/c the median is 170 does not mean that 50% of people score 169 or less. It could mean that 170 is the lowest score they accept, but more than half the class has it.

180-180-180-175-175-175-170-170-170-170-170-170-170-170-170-170-168-154

180-180-180-175-175-175-170-170-170-170-169-169-168-168-168-168-165-154

Both of those classes have a median of 170.


As a former stats tutor, I feel ashamed for having forgotten that. :mrgreen:

bdubs
Posts: 3729
Joined: Sat Feb 06, 2010 2:23 pm

Re: Columbia 2011!

Postby bdubs » Sun Feb 06, 2011 2:14 pm

starrydreamz3 wrote:I think my cycle is proof that TFA/Peace Corp/Military experience are not the only softs that will make you stand out in a crowd. I think I've out-preformed my numbers and I have none of those on my resume.


A 4.0 GPA is a damn good "number" to have.

r6_philly
Posts: 10707
Joined: Sat Dec 19, 2009 4:32 pm

Re: Columbia 2011!

Postby r6_philly » Sun Feb 06, 2011 2:21 pm

plurilingue wrote:
r6_philly wrote:Haha looking at the LSN graph, they reserved a bunch of 170's. I wonder why then are a bunch of 168/169's held? I don't understand CLS's tactics.


I mean, it's a bit presumptuous to assume that everyone with a 168/169 is an auto-reject based on a sub-25th LSAT -- and not just because a lot of those candidates had extremely high GPAs. And I've already communicated with two people on TLS who have 166/167 scores and were admitted (not URM) because they had stellar applications otherwise. (An excellent PS or good softs can be compelling for the admissions committee.)

So in other words, those 170s might have had comparatively lacking applications...


Your post is full of assumptions.

User avatar
cardinals1989
Posts: 1191
Joined: Sat Jun 19, 2010 1:04 pm

Re: Columbia 2011!

Postby cardinals1989 » Sun Feb 06, 2011 2:38 pm

starrydreamz3 wrote:I think my cycle is proof that TFA/Peace Corp/Military experience are not the only softs that will make you stand out in a crowd. I think I've out-preformed my numbers and I have none of those on my resume.


Completely agree with this post!

jrose5
Posts: 660
Joined: Tue Feb 01, 2011 7:54 pm

Re: Columbia 2011!

Postby jrose5 » Sun Feb 06, 2011 2:41 pm

starrydreamz3 wrote:I think my cycle is proof that TFA/Peace Corp/Military experience are not the only softs that will make you stand out in a crowd. I think I've out-preformed my numbers and I have none of those on my resume.


You also have a kickass GPA, though... congrats on the awesome cycle!!

May I ask what your softs were? PM if you don't feel like posting here (or don't, if you don't want to share at all, whichever :mrgreen: ).




Return to “Law School Acceptances, Denials, and Waitlists”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests