Columbia 2011!

Share Your Experiences, Read About Other Experiences. Please keep posts organized by school and expected year of graduation.
User avatar
LinzerTorte
Posts: 538
Joined: Wed Dec 22, 2010 11:06 am

Re: Columbia 2011!

Postby LinzerTorte » Sun Feb 06, 2011 2:58 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.


I agree with this--I wouldn't go so far as to claim that my softs are outstanding, or are anything close to military experience etc., but I think I have been outperforming my numbers in my cycle thus far. I have good enough softs to help, I think.

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

Re: Columbia 2011!

Postby plurilingue » Sun Feb 06, 2011 3:20 pm

.
Last edited by plurilingue on Sun Aug 04, 2013 6:46 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Dany
Posts: 11580
Joined: Mon Sep 28, 2009 3:00 pm

Re: Columbia 2011!

Postby Dany » Sun Feb 06, 2011 3:32 pm

FYI - 25th percentiles have nothing to do with the rankings. Only medians are included.

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

Re: Columbia 2011!

Postby plurilingue » Sun Feb 06, 2011 3:33 pm

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

User avatar
Dany
Posts: 11580
Joined: Mon Sep 28, 2009 3:00 pm

Re: Columbia 2011!

Postby Dany » Sun Feb 06, 2011 3:35 pm

I don't even understand your point, I was just clarifying that upping your 25th percentile won't help you in the rankings.

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

Re: Columbia 2011!

Postby bdubs » Sun Feb 06, 2011 3:58 pm

plurilingue wrote:No, I actually considered this point and anticipated that someone would respond with that. Columbia's 25th was 169 just 2 years ago, which means that 25% of the class had a 169 or less. Now it's 170, but I'd be very skeptical that another 5-15% of the class had a 170 based on the fact that this was not the case in recent memory. (As I was saying earlier, I don't think ANY of the schools believe that an extra LSAT point makes a whole lot of difference in the quality of the student, but for ranking purposes it's important to stay competitive. So once that 25th percentile student can be placed with a 170, I hardly think that they're going to waste any more of their slots on people with OK scores and little else to offer, and in the process refuse admission to some people who have done interesting stuff and can bring those perspectives to the classroom.)

Also, Stanford's 25th is 167, so we already know that 25% of the class is 167 or below -- and yet virtually none of these applicants show up on LSN, especially if they're non-URM. Additionally, Stanford and Columbia are peer schools, so many of the people who are competitive at the former are considering the latter too. I think it is clear that many of the matriculants at Stanford and Columbia have excellent resumes/WE/softs, do not post online, and are simply not visible on TLS/LSN. This is probably why many here overstate the impact of numbers.


Not saying that all URMs are below one or both 25%iles (they most certainly are not), however S does have ~22% URMs which could mean that all non-URM candidates are essentially at or above the 25ths on one or both measures. Account for a few with outstanding softs and you have your stats. I would doubt that LSN is that out of touch with the reality of admissions (you see a few reach admissions, plus a decent number of URMs on there)

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

Re: Columbia 2011!

Postby QuailMan » Sun Feb 06, 2011 3:59 pm

plurilingue wrote:No, I actually considered this point and anticipated that someone would respond with that. Columbia's 25th was 169 just 2 years ago, which means that 25% of the class had a 169 or less. Now it's 170, but I'd be very skeptical that another 5-15% of the class had a 170 based on the fact that this was not the case in recent memory. (As I was saying earlier, I don't think ANY of the schools believe that an extra LSAT point makes a whole lot of difference in the quality of the student, but for ranking purposes it's important to stay competitive. So once that 25th percentile student can be placed with a 170, I hardly think that they're going to waste any more of their slots on people with OK scores and little else to offer, and in the process refuse admission to some people who have done interesting stuff and can bring those perspectives to the classroom.)

Also, Stanford's 25th is 167, so we already know that 25% of the class is 167 or below -- and yet virtually none of these applicants show up on LSN, especially if they're non-URM. Additionally, Stanford and Columbia are peer schools, so many of the people who are competitive at the former are considering the latter too. I think it is clear that many of the matriculants at Stanford and Columbia have excellent resumes/WE/softs, do not post online, and are simply not visible on TLS/LSN. This is probably why many here overstate the impact of numbers.


This is actually a really interesting point. Certainly there isn't enough consideration of sample size when people discuss LSN on this site.

LSN's records from last year show 5 Stanford acceptances for people 167 and below. 4 are URMs with what looks like exceptional experiences. The one non-URM is a combat vet with a 3.89.

So I don't think that TLS overstates the importance of numbers for the vast majority of people. It seems that the kind of people who are going to get somewhere where their numbers say they shouldn't get (lets say someone at best below one median AND below one 25%) are people who have such substantial experience that they could continue with whatever they are currently doing, not go to law school and still be highly successful people. They dont need another major experience.

For most of us who are within 3 years or graduating, thats not really the case, something else is going to go on in your life that determines where you end up...grad school, a job, joining an organization, w/e.

It is absolutely logical to say that once 75% of a class is over 170, a law school is more likely to look for the those applicants who can bring more depth, but you have to remember that the cycle is not a static process, they dont know who is going to come as they are sending acceptances. They rely on history and depending on their projections might be more or less conservative.

And yes, there are people missing from TLS, but you also have to consider that the few people who beat out LSP projections are also a lot louder on this site. Ultimately the numbers do matter most and are the best possible projection of where someone can get into school. Like the one non-URM who got into Furd last year says in his profile, if you have the money go ahead an apply the worst they can say is no.

Edit: clarity

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

Re: Columbia 2011!

Postby starrydreamz3 » Sun Feb 06, 2011 4:04 pm

bdubs wrote:
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.


To this I say:


Confused7 wrote: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. :(

neonx
Posts: 1025
Joined: Tue Sep 07, 2010 2:36 pm

Re: Columbia 2011!

Postby neonx » Sun Feb 06, 2011 4:06 pm

LinzerTorte wrote:
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.


I agree with this--I wouldn't go so far as to claim that my softs are outstanding, or are anything close to military experience etc., but I think I have been outperforming my numbers in my cycle thus far. I have good enough softs to help, I think.


Yeah, there are other softs that count significantly, for sure. My LSAT has been below 25th percentile for some schools to which I've been admitted; personally, I think NYU and Columbia -- contrary to popular belief -- actually care a lot about these Personal Statements.

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

Re: Columbia 2011!

Postby plurilingue » Sun Feb 06, 2011 4:21 pm

.
Last edited by plurilingue on Fri Jul 10, 2015 3:11 pm, edited 1 time in total.

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

Re: Columbia 2011!

Postby r6_philly » Sun Feb 06, 2011 4:24 pm

plurilingue wrote:
But that's exactly the point: Stanford's OWN statistics indicate that 25% of the matriculants over the past few years had a score of 167 or below, and 50% had 170 or below, and yet exceedingly few of the people self-reporting onto LSN had these scores. So I tend to think that the more unusual Stanford and Columbia applicants, who may not be very numbers strong, do not indicate their stats on LSN. That's why I think some person's comment here was somewhat presumptuous, asking why less-qualified 170 candidates were reserved when some 168/169 candidates were still under consideration.

Certainly the numbers matter, but comments like that are quite ridiculous. People put way too much faith into getting an extra question right on the LSAT.


The problem is that I asked that question. I was held by Harvard and still UR at Stanford. I have a much stronger application(other than the fact that I am older) than the average 168/169 applicants. You made a bunch of false assumptions on me (who asked that question), which invalidate your point.

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

Re: Columbia 2011!

Postby plurilingue » Sun Feb 06, 2011 4:26 pm

.
Last edited by plurilingue on Fri Jul 10, 2015 3:11 pm, edited 2 times in total.

neonx
Posts: 1025
Joined: Tue Sep 07, 2010 2:36 pm

Re: Columbia 2011!

Postby neonx » Sun Feb 06, 2011 4:27 pm

r6_philly wrote:
plurilingue wrote:
But that's exactly the point: Stanford's OWN statistics indicate that 25% of the matriculants over the past few years had a score of 167 or below, and 50% had 170 or below, and yet exceedingly few of the people self-reporting onto LSN had these scores. So I tend to think that the more unusual Stanford and Columbia applicants, who may not be very numbers strong, do not indicate their stats on LSN. That's why I think some person's comment here was somewhat presumptuous, asking why less-qualified 170 candidates were reserved when some 168/169 candidates were still under consideration.

Certainly the numbers matter, but comments like that are quite ridiculous. People put way too much faith into getting an extra question right on the LSAT.


The problem is that I asked that question. I was held by Harvard and still UR at Stanford. I have a much stronger application(other than the fact that I am older) than the average 168/169 applicants. You made a bunch of false assumptions on me (who asked that question), which invalidate your point.


This really isn't relevant to Columbia, but I have complete faith in Stanford to choose the right incoming class (not even talking about numbers here.) I think numbers can only take you so far, and, obviously, r6 has turned in an amazing app to each of his schools.

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

Re: Columbia 2011!

Postby r6_philly » Sun Feb 06, 2011 4:27 pm

plurilingue wrote:
r6_philly wrote:The problem is that I asked that question. I was held by Harvard and still UR at Stanford. I have a much stronger application(other than the fact that I am older) than the average 168/169 applicants. You made a bunch of false assumptions on me (who asked that question), which invalidate your point.


I would actually say the opposite: you're assuming that those 168/169 candidates who were "held" were just average applicants, which they may very well not be. (Those who had nothing else to offer may have been rejected.)

I'm not going to comment on your application in particular -- I'm sure it's exceedingly strong -- but you did presuppose that those candidates were just "average".


Ok let me rephrase. I am confident that I have a stronger application than an average strong application. so on, so forth ...

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

Re: Columbia 2011!

Postby plurilingue » Sun Feb 06, 2011 4:28 pm

.
Last edited by plurilingue on Fri Jul 10, 2015 3:19 pm, edited 1 time in total.

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

Re: Columbia 2011!

Postby r6_philly » Sun Feb 06, 2011 4:30 pm

plurilingue wrote:I'm not going to comment on anyone's application in particular -- I'm sure yours is exceedingly strong -- but still I don't think we should use such reductionary terms, assuming that our LSAT score defines our app.


You are not going to comment on my application in particular, but yet you beat around the bush saying that a 170 reserved is probably lacking than the 168/169 held. Since the only 170 applicant who posted about being reserved in this thread is me, you are effectively commenting on my application.

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

Re: Columbia 2011!

Postby r6_philly » Sun Feb 06, 2011 4:33 pm

plurilingue wrote:Better =] I hope you get admitted to Harvard, since my roommate told me that you had some very interesting stuff and went thru some difficult times.


They are only tidbits about me as a person, they don't speak to the strength of my application. Don't think that just because I have some interesting stuff, that's the only "softs" or "strength" that I have on my application. :wink:

I really don't mean to argue about my application, but you were making the same faulty assumptions you were accusing me of making. The fact is you have no idea what or how CLS is deciding on applications (just as I have not the faintest idea) so don't presume that being held is and indication that the application may be stronger than those reserved.

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

Re: Columbia 2011!

Postby plurilingue » Sun Feb 06, 2011 4:39 pm

.
Last edited by plurilingue on Fri Jul 10, 2015 3:11 pm, edited 1 time in total.

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

Re: Columbia 2011!

Postby r6_philly » Sun Feb 06, 2011 4:42 pm

plurilingue wrote:
r6_philly wrote:
I really don't mean to argue about my application, but you were making the same faulty assumptions you were accusing me of making. The fact is you have no idea what or how CLS is deciding on applications (just as I have not the faintest idea) so don't presume that being held is and indication that the application may be stronger than those reserved.


Well, that's exactly the comment that I made above: I don't defer my own perception of how qualified an applicant is the admissions committee's decision. The admissions committee is indeed bound by the school's ranking, LSAT/GPA medians, etc, and the people who fall in what is (numerically-speaking) the bottom part of the pool face the most vigorous competition, yes. But I do think that there's a general trend toward speaking of applications in exceedingly reductionary terms, and I don't think it does justice to the overall process.


That's not what you said before.

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

Re: Columbia 2011!

Postby r6_philly » Sun Feb 06, 2011 4:44 pm

neonx wrote:This really isn't relevant to Columbia, but I have complete faith in Stanford to choose the right incoming class (not even talking about numbers here.) I think numbers can only take you so far, and, obviously, r6 has turned in an amazing app to each of his schools.


BTW thank you! I am fairly certain it isn't as amazing as yours :)

melamine
Posts: 196
Joined: Sat May 22, 2010 11:06 am

Re: Columbia 2011!

Postby melamine » Sun Feb 06, 2011 4:45 pm

r6_philly wrote:
plurilingue wrote:Better =] I hope you get admitted to Harvard, since my roommate told me that you had some very interesting stuff and went thru some difficult times.


They are only tidbits about me as a person, they don't speak to the strength of my application. Don't think that just because I have some interesting stuff, that's the only "softs" or "strength" that I have on my application. :wink:

I really don't mean to argue about my application, but you were making the same faulty assumptions you were accusing me of making. The fact is you have no idea what or how CLS is deciding on applications (just as I have not the faintest idea) so don't presume that being held is and indication that the application may be stronger than those reserved.


hey - look. speculation that HAPPENS to apply to someone's application is totally fair game - otherwise 99% of this thread's discussions should be eliminated. you certainly think its fair game - i.e., the "Columbia must be irrational" discussion for 30+ pages. i certainly didn't take any of that personally. given that his points are actually relevant (i.e., not about avatars or inane chatter) i'm finding it a lot more interesting to read - even if i might disagree with some of it.
Last edited by melamine on Sun Feb 06, 2011 4:49 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 4:47 pm

Not that I think I can end this huge debate, but as my brother likes to chide me when he sees me on these forums: you've already turned in your applications, no amount of speculation about how law schools XYZ will view your application will really influence their ultimate decision... So maybe it's time to take a step back and wait patiently.

User avatar
Knock
Posts: 5152
Joined: Wed Jun 10, 2009 3:09 pm

Re: Columbia 2011!

Postby Knock » Sun Feb 06, 2011 4:48 pm

jrose5 wrote:Not that I think I can end this huge debate, but as my brother likes to chide me when he sees me on these forums: you've already turned in your applications, no amount of speculation about how law schools XYZ will view your application will really influence their ultimate decision... So maybe it's time to take a step back and wait patiently.


If you speculate really, REALLY hard, it will come true though.

neonx
Posts: 1025
Joined: Tue Sep 07, 2010 2:36 pm

Re: Columbia 2011!

Postby neonx » Sun Feb 06, 2011 4:49 pm

jrose5 wrote:Not that I think I can end this huge debate, but as my brother likes to chide me when he sees me on these forums: you've already turned in your applications, no amount of speculation about how law schools XYZ will view your application will really influence their ultimate decision... So maybe it's time to take a step back and wait patiently.


I thought this around November... but seriously? It's like crack. I cannot get enough!

Also, I've sent several LOCI's since then, and TLS has been a godsent.

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

Re: Columbia 2011!

Postby kazu » Sun Feb 06, 2011 4:51 pm

Knock wrote:
jrose5 wrote:Not that I think I can end this huge debate, but as my brother likes to chide me when he sees me on these forums: you've already turned in your applications, no amount of speculation about how law schools XYZ will view your application will really influence their ultimate decision... So maybe it's time to take a step back and wait patiently.


If you speculate really, REALLY hard, it will come true though.

Amen.




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

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: laowhynot109 and 11 guests