Columbia c/o 2015 Applicants (2011-2012 cycle) Forum

[83947368]

.

[lats19nys]

Sorry suspiciousandroid. I don't get it. Splitters have been struggling from what I've seen this cycle, it's as if that drop in LSAT takers meant nothing.

schools clearly are willing to drop 1-2 pts in lsat scores to preserve higher gpas. i mean...think about it, i honestly think a gpa drop looks a lot worse. why should some of these schools give the benefit of the doubt to people with low gpas when there are plenty of ppl with high gpas with just a drop lower in the ideal lsat scores. the drop in lsat scores helps the previously borderline scorers ie. someone say at harvard with a 3.9 and 170. a guy with say a 175 and a 3.5 is still a guy who in Harvards eye probably didn't take school as seriously as they could have.

Wait what? Aren't LSAT scores weighted more than gpa in rankings? Also it was my understanding, as a splitter, that splitters are doing pretty well this cycle. I disagree with the above statement about schools being willing to drop 1-2 points in LSAT to preserve gpa. Why would they be willing to do so if LSATs are weighted higher? It's 12.5 (lsat) vs 10 (gpa) percent. Not exactly a lot but certainly not incentive to consider gpa over lsat score.

Remember you're talking about Columbia here. Columbia is not exactly a splitter school. It never was. Don't infer too about how people are treating splitters from how Columbia is treating splitters.

relax kid. stop bring arrogant without knowing anything you're talking about. despite the speculation before, traditional splitters are not doing well. only school where i've seen splitters do well is northwestern, although they have a history of that if you have work experience. And no, it's not as simple as LSAT is more important. At elite schools LIKE COLUMBIA, they have a good number of 170+ to choose from. I don't think and has been shown so far from this cycle that COLUMBIA OR ANY OTHER ELITE SCHOOL is suddenly going to say "oh wow that 3.3 with a 175 is suddenly great." Nope. They're saying oh wow that kid with a 3.75 with a 169 isn't too bad, let's give him a second look. And remember EVERY SCHOOL HAS A DIFFERENT FORMULA AND IT MAKES AN INDEX THAT COMPARES KIDS AT THE VERY BEGINNING TO GIVE A ROUGH ESTIMATE. If you're in the acceptable range that's when honestly they start really looking at things.

[Hawkeye Pierce]

If schools want to game the USNWR rankings, then they'd favor LSAT to GPA, because as Adm.Doppleganger said, LSAT is weighted slightly more than UGPA. Thus, it seems a little more logical to think that schools will take a slight GPA hit to secure more high LSAT scores.

[83947368]

.

[WhiteGuy5]

neverrrmind.

[KevinP]

Out at Columbia via snail mail. Annoyed that they didn't just e-mail me, not sure what happened. Maybe they lost my e-mail address over their leisurely winter break.

Sorry to hear that, man.


@Everyone else:
Columbia has never been numbers efficient. They also expect ~8k applications.

If schools were trying to maintain their rankings, they should focus more on the LSAT. Even though the LSAT accounts for 12.5% in rankings, what most people don't realize is that the other factors (excluding GPA) tend have very few differences among schools. Hence, 90% of the overall differences in rankings can be explained by median LSAT of the entering classes.

[Onthebrink]

Haha the waiting game is a lot of fun, especially considering the fact that I live about fifteen minutes from Columbia and have contemplated just driving there and sitting on the stoop of the admissions office with a note taped to my lapel telling them that I am theirs.

[JamMasterJ]

If schools want to game the USNWR rankings, then they'd favor LSAT to GPA, because as Adm.Doppleganger said, LSAT is weighted slightly more than UGPA. Thus, it seems a little more logical to think that schools will take a slight GPA hit to secure more high LSAT scores.

ran here

[WhiteGuy5]

If schools want to game the USNWR rankings, then they'd favor LSAT to GPA, because as Adm.Doppleganger said, LSAT is weighted slightly more than UGPA. Thus, it seems a little more logical to think that schools will take a slight GPA hit to secure more high LSAT scores.

ran here

But what if the presumably smaller number of applicants that have BOTH competitive GPAs AND high scores is so small that they can't afford to play around with their GPA medians this year? (Only about 2200 test takers scored above 172 this past year, an even smaller group probably has a high enough GPA for T3/T6 schools). Smaller number of high LSAT scorers could be, ironically, putting upward pressure on GPAs.

[plurilingue]

Redacted.

[smokeylarue]

If schools want to game the USNWR rankings, then they'd favor LSAT to GPA, because as Adm.Doppleganger said, LSAT is weighted slightly more than UGPA. Thus, it seems a little more logical to think that schools will take a slight GPA hit to secure more high LSAT scores.

ran here

But what if the presumably smaller number of applicants that have BOTH competitive GPAs AND high scores is so small that they can't afford to play around with their GPA medians this year? (Only about 2200 test takers scored above 172 this past year, an even smaller group probably has a high enough GPA for T3/T6 schools). Smaller number of high LSAT scorers could be, ironically, putting upward pressure on GPAs.

Hey Whiteguy, just curious do you have a link or source to that 2200 number? I'd want to check that out.

[thederangedwang]

If schools want to game the USNWR rankings, then they'd favor LSAT to GPA, because as Adm.Doppleganger said, LSAT is weighted slightly more than UGPA. Thus, it seems a little more logical to think that schools will take a slight GPA hit to secure more high LSAT scores.

ran here

But what if the presumably smaller number of applicants that have BOTH competitive GPAs AND high scores is so small that they can't afford to play around with their GPA medians this year? (Only about 2200 test takers scored above 172 this past year, an even smaller group probably has a high enough GPA for T3/T6 schools). Smaller number of high LSAT scorers could be, ironically, putting upward pressure on GPAs.

Hey Whiteguy, just curious do you have a link or source to that 2200 number? I'd want to check that out.

It's probably estimated. 172=99th percentile. So just basically take all the LSAT takers for the entire year and multiply by .01 to get those who scored at the 99th percentile.

[83947368]

.

[WhiteGuy5]

About 2,200 LSATs are 170+ (top ~2.5%), not 172+ (top ~1%) in this cycle. 172+ will be as few as 1200 this year.

172 was the 98.8th percentile, actually -- people/LSAC just rounds up to the 99th. A little more than 190,000 people took the LSAT last year (from Feb-Dec). 190,000 * .012 = a little more than 2200.

You probably weren't counting the December takers.

Although, I can't imagine that all of the 172+ers from December decided to apply this cycle (in fact, I wouldn't be surprised if more than half of the high scorers tend to take the December exam for the next cycle). So this figure includes all of them. Furthermore, this DOESN'T include people who got 172+ from previous years that nonetheless decided to apply this cycle.

Some people have said that less people are applying to more schools, giving schools the illusion that more high scorers are applying. But I doubt this would be a change from previous cycles for 172+ers. People who score high probably know they should blanket the T6.

There's just a lot to speculate about. Any one of these schools could be considering dropping their class size by a significant amount--especially since it would 1) help their rankings and 2) make it easier to maintain/increase their medians in the years to come. They probably know the trend of a decreasing applicant pool will continue for another year or two.

Good luck to everyone! The next few days should bring a lot of news.

[Tiago Splitter]

http://www.lsac.org/LSACResources/Data/ ... ummary.asp

The highest number of test takers in a year was 171,500. It has never approached 190,000. The total number of test takers between February and December of this year was about 130,000.

[WhiteGuy5]

http://www.lsac.org/LSACResources/Data/ ... ummary.asp

The highest number of test takers in a year was 171,500. It has never approached 190,000. The total number of test takers between February and December of this year was about 130,000.

Hm. Yeah that makes sense. I think I presumed that the 155 figure was the preliminary, and I added the 35,000 that took it in December. Well, in that case...this is a much more optimistic outlook than I had previously imagined.

Sorry for the confusion. Thanks for the clarification, I should've spotted that.

Edit: 130 is the correct figure.

[plurilingue]

.

[WhiteGuy5]

Edit: 130 is the correct figure.

I thought that a cycle was considered June through February, not February through December? February 2012 will also see a year-over-year decline in numbers, so I think 1,200, as I stated earlier, is a more accurate prediction for 172+s minted in this cycle.

While not specifically related to Columbia, it is feasible for higher-ranked law schools to cut class sizes by 20% in 1L, and then go ahead and admit a larger transfer class for 2L, thereby retaining funding sources and remaining as selective as in the past. People who suggest that cutting class sizes yields a three-year drought in funding are being too pessimistic. Law schools have many ways of combatting the decline in applicants.

Well, I was going by who I think is more likely to apply this cycle. People who took it last February were too late to apply in 2010, so they must have been applying in 2011. I included them in the figure just to be safe (as I did the December takers).

On your second point, I do think schools are more likely to cut class sizes than many of us presume.

But honestly, we really haven't seen much, if anything at all, out of the ordinary this cycle. So I dunno...

[plurilingue]

.

[WhiteGuy5]

Well, I was going by who I think is more likely to apply this cycle. People who took it last February were too late to apply in 2010, so they must have been applying in 2011. I included them in the figure just to be safe (as I did the December takers).

That's for applicants with foresight like you, who generally aim for top-ranked law schools. When it comes to the general applicant pool, I think only one-third of all applicants submit by the end of December, and something like 25% in the week before school deadlines. As such, I think it would be fair to say that the overwhelming majority of February administrations are for the cycle currently underway, either to complete an initial application, or to bolster it with a higher score.

You're misreading my post. People who took it Feb 2011 = too late to apply for the previous cycle. So, Feb 2011 takers = are applying with us. That's why I counted them.

[plurilingue]

.

[WhiteGuy5]

You're misreading my post. People who took it Feb 2011 = too late to apply for the previous cycle. So, Feb 2011 takers = are applying with us. That's why I counted them.

No, I'm rather suggesting the opposite, that they applied for Fall 2011 entry.

Yes, but I'm presuming those who scored 172+ are more likely to be TLS lurkers who know to wait and apply the following cycle than the irresponsible few who apply last minute. Thus, I think it's safe to include them in our calculation than not.

(You're misreading my post in that you're presuming that 172+ers behave like the average applicant, which, as you correctly stated, is more likely to apply a bit last minute-ish).

[plurilingue]

.

[Tiago Splitter]

Oh ok, if just pertaining to 172+ scorers, then I would agree that most would defer their applications to the following year. But again, I think February is the administration with the fewest high-scoring test takers, and from personal experience, I sense that many of the 172+ scorers are retakers who need that higher score for applications already pending.

I think there is enough overlap across administrations that we can only look for general trends anyway. Hell, I know a guy who took the LSAT in February 2010 and is only applying this year.

All I really know is that the trend in the number of test takers is definitely down, which is a good thing.

[JamMasterJ]

Oh ok, if just pertaining to 172+ scorers, then I would agree that most would defer their applications to the following year. But again, I think February is the administration with the fewest high-scoring test takers, and from personal experience, I sense that many of the 172+ scorers are retakers who need that higher score for applications already pending.

I think there is enough overlap across administrations that we can only look for general trends anyway. Hell, I know a guy who took the LSAT in February 2010 and is only applying this year.

All I really know is that the trend in the number of test takers is definitely down, which is a good thing.

yeah, my assumption would be that the number of applicants with high scores is going to be pretty closely correlated with the number of takers from Feb 2011 to Dec 2011. I think the rest of it would even itself out (i.e. people with really old scores applying, Feb and June takers trying to get off the WL...)