Page 35 of 381

Re: Columbia 2011!

Posted: Sun Dec 05, 2010 10:00 pm
by Apollue
Oh, and good luck to everyone. I'm sure a lot of you will be hearing great news.

Re: Columbia 2011!

Posted: Sun Dec 05, 2010 10:02 pm
by birdlaw117
Apollue wrote:
obrienfa wrote:
JoeShmoe11 wrote:
shanemahsa wrote:Does anyone else find this profile disconcerting?
http://lawschoolnumbers.com/trc332/jd


Yea this guys profile scares me too, regardless of him "expecting" rejection - at a 4.357 he's got almost the exact same index as me. He might have said he "expected rejection" simply because he thinks he has bad luck or because he perceived law school acceptances as relatively random.

Hopefully (and this is absolutely awful to say) he had some kind of academic misconduct or something or put together a poor essay. I mean I wish he had gotten in and whatnot but it'd make me feel a bit better. Personally I'd be fairly disappointed with his cycle (though I would've probably gone with NYU).


I feel like some sort of misconduct would be the only possible explanation. You don't write a poor essay applying ED unless you are an idiot and he obviously isn't/wasn't.


And how would academic misconduct prevent him from being admitted at Columbia when he's getting money at other T10 schools?
I think you guys place -far- too much importance on your index. Honestly, adcoms aren't just looking at your index and tossing your app in a pile, and effort doesn't just miraculously produce strong essays. Sometimes, laboring over an essay for dozens of hours just doesn't yield an essay that you're very proud of. Maybe he didn't think his personal statement was tailored towards Columbia strongly enough.
We never read his application. We have two numbers to work with. If you find those numbers disconcerting, you're misunderstanding the point of a 'holistic' approach.

Also, we're assuming there are only two relevant numbers. There could be 3 or 4. Who's to say this guy's 171 isn't a retake of a 166? Pretty sure if this guy is a 166/171/3.89 he isn't a very good candidate for Columbia.

Re: Columbia 2011!

Posted: Sun Dec 05, 2010 10:08 pm
by Ghost
.

Re: Columbia 2011!

Posted: Sun Dec 05, 2010 10:09 pm
by bdubs
birdlaw117 wrote:Also, we're assuming there are only two relevant numbers. There could be 3 or 4. Who's to say this guy's 171 isn't a retake of a 166? Pretty sure if this guy is a 166/171/3.89 he isn't a very good candidate for Columbia.


This sounds more plausible to me. Maybe he even was a 3 peater with something like a 164/166/171

Re: Columbia 2011!

Posted: Sun Dec 05, 2010 10:13 pm
by cruelestgame
so tomorrow could be a big day?

Re: Columbia 2011!

Posted: Sun Dec 05, 2010 10:13 pm
by Ghost
.

Re: Columbia 2011!

Posted: Sun Dec 05, 2010 10:13 pm
by birdlaw117
Kili wrote:Doubt it Birdlaw. NYU averages don't they? Do we think he would have still been accepted there under that condition?

Wait for response to Shane's PM imo. Too much to speculate.

Yeah, I thought about the same thing. Then again, maybe he fell into the "big enough gap we'll only count the highest" at NYU. Really, the point is that we really have no idea.

Re: Columbia 2011!

Posted: Sun Dec 05, 2010 10:15 pm
by Apollue
Kili wrote:Doubt it Birdlaw. NYU averages don't they? Do we think he would have still been accepted there under that condition?

Wait for response to Shane's PM imo. Too much to speculate.


I'd like to emphasize again how terribly misguided I think your guys' approach to LSAT/GPA is.
LSAT and GPA are very important factors, but this persistent belief that law school admissions - particularly at T14 schools - is as simplistic as calculating an index is laughably incorrect. There's a reason there's a significant gap between 25/75th percentiles in both scores, and I assure you it's not as simple as attributing it to URM status.
I maintain that the most likely explanation involves his personal statement/LOR. His LOR may have carried more weight at NYU, for example. That worked in my favor when transferring to Columbia as an undergrad, and I'm sure it works both ways.

Re: Columbia 2011!

Posted: Sun Dec 05, 2010 10:19 pm
by Ghost
.

Re: Columbia 2011!

Posted: Sun Dec 05, 2010 10:20 pm
by thecilent
Kili wrote:
Apollue wrote:
Kili wrote:Doubt it Birdlaw. NYU averages don't they? Do we think he would have still been accepted there under that condition?

Wait for response to Shane's PM imo. Too much to speculate.


I'd like to emphasize again how terribly misguided I think your guys' approach to LSAT/GPA is.
LSAT and GPA are very important factors, but this persistent belief that law school admissions - particularly at T14 schools - is as simplistic as calculating an index is laughably incorrect. There's a reason there's a significant gap between 25/75th percentiles in both scores, and I assure you it's not as simple as attributing it to URM status.
I maintain that the most likely explanation involves his personal statement/LOR. His LOR may have carried more weight at NYU, for example. That worked in my favor when transferring to Columbia as an undergrad, and I'm sure it works both ways.



Nope. Look at the YP thread and NYU and Harvard's yields. The two have very predictable admits. Exceed their 75th percentiles and its almost assuredly an admit. The fact is LSAT especially matters a lot because it's the only way to level applicants for different majors/schools/etc.

I think you're giving law schools too much credit. They care about softs, but not at the cost of US News rankings.


+1 on everything.

Re: Columbia 2011!

Posted: Sun Dec 05, 2010 10:23 pm
by JoeShmoe11
bdubs wrote:
birdlaw117 wrote:Also, we're assuming there are only two relevant numbers. There could be 3 or 4. Who's to say this guy's 171 isn't a retake of a 166? Pretty sure if this guy is a 166/171/3.89 he isn't a very good candidate for Columbia.


This sounds more plausible to me. Maybe he even was a 3 peater with something like a 164/166/171


I agree that this is most plausible but NYU does average. However NYU also has a slightly lower LSAT median than Columbia. I think it's possible that he averaged somewhere around 169.5 (168/171 sounds plausible) and Columbia saw this as not good enough since his average is a full 2.5 points below their median. NYU might look at it and be like "Well even his lowest is at our 25% and his GPA is at our 75% so we'll let him in". This wouldn't explain it entirely as with the ED boost I really would expect him to get into Columbia with that index. I would've even guessed he had a decent shot at RD.

As far as the "holistic" approach - even if we assume schools actually use a holistic approach then why did he get into NYU RD but not CLS ED? Who's to say CLS is more holistic than NYU? Don't get me wrong - there is DEFINITELY the possibility that the Columbia addcom just didn't think he fit their image of a Columbia student. Maybe he made a major error in his essay or something and it was too late to correct by the time he had sent it out to CLS. He would still, however, have time to fix it before NYU received it. This is definitely a possibility. But this is all pure speculation.

EDIT: Another applicant I am shocked did not get in - double major, non-traditional (1-2 years off), softs are not bad at all, early decision with a 4.296 index (http://lawschoolnumbers.com/wildflower).

Re: Columbia 2011!

Posted: Sun Dec 05, 2010 10:26 pm
by JoeShmoe11
Kili wrote:
cruelestgame wrote:so tomorrow could be a big day?


I'm calling Tuesday as the second "big day" - two years ago the second round of decisions was released exactly five business days after the first. If applied to this situation we get Tuesday as the day. Plus decisions tend to go out about once a week overall and decisions were released last Tuesday. Just my two cents! PS I hope Im wrong and we hear back tomorrow!

Re: Columbia 2011!

Posted: Sun Dec 05, 2010 10:45 pm
by Ghost
.

Re: Columbia 2011!

Posted: Sun Dec 05, 2010 10:49 pm
by cruelestgame
haha

Re: Columbia 2011!

Posted: Sun Dec 05, 2010 10:50 pm
by Apollue
Kili wrote:
Apollue wrote:
Kili wrote:Doubt it Birdlaw. NYU averages don't they? Do we think he would have still been accepted there under that condition?

Wait for response to Shane's PM imo. Too much to speculate.


I'd like to emphasize again how terribly misguided I think your guys' approach to LSAT/GPA is.
LSAT and GPA are very important factors, but this persistent belief that law school admissions - particularly at T14 schools - is as simplistic as calculating an index is laughably incorrect. There's a reason there's a significant gap between 25/75th percentiles in both scores, and I assure you it's not as simple as attributing it to URM status.
I maintain that the most likely explanation involves his personal statement/LOR. His LOR may have carried more weight at NYU, for example. That worked in my favor when transferring to Columbia as an undergrad, and I'm sure it works both ways.



Nope. Look at the YP thread and NYU and Harvard's yields. The two have very predictable admits. Exceed their 75th percentiles and its almost assuredly an admit. The fact is LSAT especially matters a lot because it's the only way to level applicants for different majors/schools/etc.

I think you're giving law schools too much credit. They care about softs, but not at the cost of US News rankings.



I assure you that I'm every bit as familiar with LSAT and GPA yields as every person who reads these forums is likely to be. Perhaps you think that I'm not well acquainted with these spreads, given my lack of participation on these forums... that'd be a mistake. We all know the spreads, but we don't know each other.
I like to think that communities like TLS are comparable to monasteries. If I were to stroll into my nearest monastery and ask a resident monk, "How do I get into heaven?", I'm sure he'd answer thoughtfully and deliberately. I bet he'd believe what he was saying, too. But this monk could never be certain that he's right because he's not responsible for making that decision. Similarly, it is foolish for a community of law school aspirants to pretend as if they understand what makes and does not make a successful application based on observation of a limited number of cases.

An admissions index will tell you a lot of things. Most importantly, it weeds out candidates who don't demonstrate the measurables that schools are looking for. But it will never tell you about the promise an applicant has, and that is adcoms are really looking for.

What those yields don't tell you is that for every dot on the scatter plot there are ten more that didn't bother to submit their numbers to TLS or LSN. A lot of them have quite different outcomes from their number twins, or whatever jargon you'd prefer to use to describe that situation. Despite what those yields you study might lead you to believe, you are always competing with someone who is identical or nearly identical to you as far as numbers go. Numbers only tell so much.
You should know that the only school that is satisfied with USNWR is Yale. None of the other schools are pleased with their ranking at all, I can guarantee you that much. And while law schools are very considerate of their placement in these rankings, in many cases there are a dozen applicants for one slot who will not alter a school's selectivity measurables (medians, percentiles, etc). This is when those writing samples really stand out. Oh, and as for the reliability of scatter-plots, I'd assume that some of it is because kids who submit their data to TLS and LSN are liable to be highly motivated and spend a lot of time on their essays to begin with. Don't assume that the data is accurate, and don't assume those are the only numbers out there. Conversely, there are a lot of kids with lower measurables who don't bother submitting to these sites - I can't even speculate why they wouldn't, I can't read their minds - who demonstrate a ton of potential that those scatter plots can never and will never convey accurately. Rest assured, adcoms can pick up on that.

Look at it from the perspective of a simple cost/benefit analysis. Law schools are offering you a spot in their class, which can be exceedingly valuable at certain institutions. They want to admit kids who will provide them some benefits down the road. They want to admit kids who are going to succeed in their respective fields. They want to admit movers and shakers of society - not just the type of kids who are gonna contribute hefty sums of money to an already-sizable endowment, but end up in positions of power promoting their school. HLS adores the publicity that a President-alumni gives them. I know you guys think that Harvard admissions are almost entirely a function of numbers, but I can assure you that they'd take a 174/3.9 over a 3.95/176 any day of the week if that 174 kid shows an incredible amount of promise in his personal statement and LOR. They want endowment money, yeah, powerful alumni will do much more for their rankings in the long run than a slight bump in their selectivity (Tell Stanford that, perenially sniffing Harvard's ass on those rankings despite their selectivity).

Re: Columbia 2011!

Posted: Sun Dec 05, 2010 10:50 pm
by Apollue
Kili wrote:
Apollue wrote:
Kili wrote:Doubt it Birdlaw. NYU averages don't they? Do we think he would have still been accepted there under that condition?

Wait for response to Shane's PM imo. Too much to speculate.


I'd like to emphasize again how terribly misguided I think your guys' approach to LSAT/GPA is.
LSAT and GPA are very important factors, but this persistent belief that law school admissions - particularly at T14 schools - is as simplistic as calculating an index is laughably incorrect. There's a reason there's a significant gap between 25/75th percentiles in both scores, and I assure you it's not as simple as attributing it to URM status.
I maintain that the most likely explanation involves his personal statement/LOR. His LOR may have carried more weight at NYU, for example. That worked in my favor when transferring to Columbia as an undergrad, and I'm sure it works both ways.



Nope. Look at the YP thread and NYU and Harvard's yields. The two have very predictable admits. Exceed their 75th percentiles and its almost assuredly an admit. The fact is LSAT especially matters a lot because it's the only way to level applicants for different majors/schools/etc.

I think you're giving law schools too much credit. They care about softs, but not at the cost of US News rankings.



I assure you that I'm every bit as familiar with LSAT and GPA yields as every person who reads these forums is likely to be. Perhaps you think that I'm not well acquainted with these spreads, given my lack of participation on these forums... that'd be a mistake. We all know the spreads, but we don't know each other.
I like to think that communities like TLS are comparable to monasteries. If I were to stroll into my nearest monastery and ask a resident monk, "How do I get into heaven?", I'm sure he'd answer thoughtfully and deliberately. I bet he'd believe what he was saying, too. But this monk could never be certain that he's right because he's not responsible for making that decision. Similarly, it is foolish for a community of law school aspirants to pretend as if they understand what makes and does not make a successful application based on observation of a limited number of cases.

An admissions index will tell you a lot of things. Most importantly, it weeds out candidates who don't demonstrate the measurables that schools are looking for. But it will never tell you about the promise an applicant has, and that is adcoms are really looking for.

What those yields don't tell you is that for every dot on the scatter plot there are ten more that didn't bother to submit their numbers to TLS or LSN. A lot of them have quite different outcomes from their number twins, or whatever jargon you'd prefer to use to describe that situation. Despite what those yields you study might lead you to believe, you are always competing with someone who is identical or nearly identical to you as far as numbers go. Numbers only tell so much.
You should know that the only school that is satisfied with USNWR is Yale. None of the other schools are pleased with their ranking at all, I can guarantee you that much. And while law schools are very considerate of their placement in these rankings, in many cases there are a dozen applicants for one slot who will not alter a school's selectivity measurables (medians, percentiles, etc). This is when those writing samples really stand out. Oh, and as for the reliability of scatter-plots, I'd assume that some of it is because kids who submit their data to TLS and LSN are liable to be highly motivated and spend a lot of time on their essays to begin with. Don't assume that the data is accurate, and don't assume those are the only numbers out there. Conversely, there are a lot of kids with lower measurables who don't bother submitting to these sites - I can't even speculate why they wouldn't, I can't read their minds - who demonstrate a ton of potential that those scatter plots can never and will never convey accurately. Rest assured, adcoms can pick up on that.

Look at it from the perspective of a simple cost/benefit analysis. Law schools are offering you a spot in their class, which can be exceedingly valuable at certain institutions. They want to admit kids who will provide them some benefits down the road. They want to admit kids who are going to succeed in their respective fields. They want to admit movers and shakers of society - not just the type of kids who are gonna contribute hefty sums of money to an already-sizable endowment, but end up in positions of power promoting their school. HLS adores the publicity that a President-alumni gives them. I know you guys think that Harvard admissions are almost entirely a function of numbers, but I can assure you that they'd take a 174/3.9 over a 3.95/176 any day of the week if that 174 kid shows an incredible amount of promise in his personal statement and LOR. They want endowment money, yeah, powerful alumni will do much more for their rankings in the long run than a slight bump in their selectivity (Tell Stanford that, perenially sniffing Harvard's ass on those rankings despite their selectivity).

Re: Columbia 2011!

Posted: Sun Dec 05, 2010 10:55 pm
by WestOfTheRest
Kili wrote:
Apollue wrote:
Kili wrote:Doubt it Birdlaw. NYU averages don't they? Do we think he would have still been accepted there under that condition?

Wait for response to Shane's PM imo. Too much to speculate.


I'd like to emphasize again how terribly misguided I think your guys' approach to LSAT/GPA is.
LSAT and GPA are very important factors, but this persistent belief that law school admissions - particularly at T14 schools - is as simplistic as calculating an index is laughably incorrect. There's a reason there's a significant gap between 25/75th percentiles in both scores, and I assure you it's not as simple as attributing it to URM status.
I maintain that the most likely explanation involves his personal statement/LOR. His LOR may have carried more weight at NYU, for example. That worked in my favor when transferring to Columbia as an undergrad, and I'm sure it works both ways.



Accio CastleRock!!! 8)

You wanted me?


I could rag on about numbers vs softs. But what's the point?

Re: Columbia 2011!

Posted: Sun Dec 05, 2010 10:57 pm
by Apollue
CastleRock wrote:
Kili wrote:
Apollue wrote:
Kili wrote:Doubt it Birdlaw. NYU averages don't they? Do we think he would have still been accepted there under that condition?

Wait for response to Shane's PM imo. Too much to speculate.


I'd like to emphasize again how terribly misguided I think your guys' approach to LSAT/GPA is.
LSAT and GPA are very important factors, but this persistent belief that law school admissions - particularly at T14 schools - is as simplistic as calculating an index is laughably incorrect. There's a reason there's a significant gap between 25/75th percentiles in both scores, and I assure you it's not as simple as attributing it to URM status.
I maintain that the most likely explanation involves his personal statement/LOR. His LOR may have carried more weight at NYU, for example. That worked in my favor when transferring to Columbia as an undergrad, and I'm sure it works both ways.



Accio CastleRock!!! 8)

You wanted me?


I could rag on about numbers vs softs. But what's the point?


Unfortunately, I feel the same way. No matter what I say, I'm unlikely to change any minds here.
Numbers are very important. At least you guys aren't going to be underestimating their importance...

Re: Columbia 2011!

Posted: Sun Dec 05, 2010 11:01 pm
by 4102011
Only a month and a half left of random-ass convos ITT until decisions <3

I'm not counting you ED kids. But you're cool, too :)

Re: Columbia 2011!

Posted: Sun Dec 05, 2010 11:03 pm
by Ghost
.

Re: Columbia 2011!

Posted: Sun Dec 05, 2010 11:06 pm
by Apollue
Kili wrote:
CastleRock wrote:
Kili wrote:
Apollue wrote:
I'd like to emphasize again how terribly misguided I think your guys' approach to LSAT/GPA is.
LSAT and GPA are very important factors, but this persistent belief that law school admissions - particularly at T14 schools - is as simplistic as calculating an index is laughably incorrect. There's a reason there's a significant gap between 25/75th percentiles in both scores, and I assure you it's not as simple as attributing it to URM status.
I maintain that the most likely explanation involves his personal statement/LOR. His LOR may have carried more weight at NYU, for example. That worked in my favor when transferring to Columbia as an undergrad, and I'm sure it works both ways.



Accio CastleRock!!! 8)

You wanted me?


I could rag on about numbers vs softs. But what's the point?



:shock: It worked??? Holy S* I'm a wizard! Screw law school....I'm going to Hogwarts!


Didn't anybody tell you? Morningside Heights is Hogwarts.

Re: Columbia 2011!

Posted: Sun Dec 05, 2010 11:13 pm
by Apollue
I'm not joking, by the way. If you really wanted to wear robes and carry a wand in St. John's Cathedral, I doubt anyone would notice. Compared to, say, an Orthodox Jew or a Hare Krishna that sort of attire would probably look conservative for Manhattan.

Re: Columbia 2011!

Posted: Sun Dec 05, 2010 11:13 pm
by 4102011
Apollue wrote:
Kili wrote:
:shock: It worked??? Holy S* I'm a wizard! Screw law school....I'm going to Hogwarts!


Didn't anybody tell you? Morningside Heights Michigan is Hogwarts.


FTFY

Woooo CLS <3

Re: Columbia 2011!

Posted: Sun Dec 05, 2010 11:14 pm
by T6Hopeful
Apollue wrote:Didn't anybody tell you? Morningside Heights is Hogwarts.


Does that make Harlem Hogsmeade?

Re: Columbia 2011!

Posted: Sun Dec 05, 2010 11:15 pm
by cruelestgame
or hoboken since it's out of the city