Law School Discussion Forums
https://www.top-law-schools.com/forums/
https://www.top-law-schools.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=162870
Same here.Status checker and complete.
I got one directly from the dean.JamMasterJ wrote:How tough are fee waivers at M? I'm applying either way, but i was hoping to save the $
Isn't that how all the merit-based waivers are (with the nice little note)?I got one directly from the dean.
Where does it say ten weeks?80eight wrote:Complete! So ten weeks from now will be...what, December 20th-ish?
Scroll down:Tiago Splitter wrote:Where does it say ten weeks?80eight wrote:Complete! So ten weeks from now will be...what, December 20th-ish?
--ImageRemoved--Tiago Splitter wrote:Good stuff. Looks like they started sending acceptances in the middle of November last year. It won't be long...
Yes, it's yield protect.ahnhub wrote:Weird thing I noticed on LSN:
For the 09-10 and 10-11 cycles, Michigan accepted 27/35 (77%) with a 170/3.8-4.0
It only accepted 15/40 (38%) with a 171/identical GPA.
I know sample size caution applies and Michigan has a somewhat more holistic process, but that's a rather startling statistic. One point higher on the LSAT drops admission rate 40%? That can't be yield protect, can it? 171/3.8x are very likely to attend Michigan.
Well, then I just don't get it. 170 3.8/4x is prob 50/50 to get one of CCN, <10% shot HYS. 171 doesn't increase those odds a whole lot. I played around with numbers a lot on LSN and haven't found a discrepancy anywhere near this big. Must be some fancy admissions thing.Hawkeye Pierce wrote:Yes, it's yield protect.ahnhub wrote:Weird thing I noticed on LSN:
For the 09-10 and 10-11 cycles, Michigan accepted 27/35 (77%) with a 170/3.8-4.0
It only accepted 15/40 (38%) with a 171/identical GPA.
I know sample size caution applies and Michigan has a somewhat more holistic process, but that's a rather startling statistic. One point higher on the LSAT drops admission rate 40%? That can't be yield protect, can it? 171/3.8x are very likely to attend Michigan.
Remember, they aren't rejecting those people. They are WLing them. So if they don't get CCN, they send in a LOCI and can get in later. Start clicking in those ranges though and you will see almost all are attending CCN or HYS and hence, no LOCI and no late admittance. That is why Duke's PT is a brilliant invention. If you look down the list of Yalies, almost every single one that applied broadly was WL at either UVA, Penn, or Michigan. Usually not all of them, but at least one.ahnhub wrote:Well, then I just don't get it. 170 3.8/4x is prob 50/50 to get one of CCN, <10% shot HYS. 171 doesn't increase those odds a whole lot. I played around with numbers a lot on LSN and haven't found a discrepancy anywhere near this big. Must be some fancy admissions thing.Hawkeye Pierce wrote:Yes, it's yield protect.ahnhub wrote:Weird thing I noticed on LSN:
For the 09-10 and 10-11 cycles, Michigan accepted 27/35 (77%) with a 170/3.8-4.0
It only accepted 15/40 (38%) with a 171/identical GPA.
I know sample size caution applies and Michigan has a somewhat more holistic process, but that's a rather startling statistic. One point higher on the LSAT drops admission rate 40%? That can't be yield protect, can it? 171/3.8x are very likely to attend Michigan.
http://www.law.umich.edu/connection/a2z ... aspx?ID=11Hawkeye Pierce wrote:Yes, it's yield protect.ahnhub wrote:Weird thing I noticed on LSN:
For the 09-10 and 10-11 cycles, Michigan accepted 27/35 (77%) with a 170/3.8-4.0
It only accepted 15/40 (38%) with a 171/identical GPA.
I know sample size caution applies and Michigan has a somewhat more holistic process, but that's a rather startling statistic. One point higher on the LSAT drops admission rate 40%? That can't be yield protect, can it? 171/3.8x are very likely to attend Michigan.
Dean X wrote:And frankly, there are reasons other than dramatic negatives that make an admissions officer disinclined to offer admission. What about the applicant who is just …. fine? There’s nothing wrong, but there’s no zing, no sense of connection, no firm conviction when you close the application file that you want to have that person in the class. Isn’t it reasonable for schools not to make offers to such candidates, if the school is in the fortunate position of having more than enough candidates who are academically strong and who do have some zing? What about the applicant who shows a strong interest in a field in which the school has little to offer? The student wouldn’t be happy there, and it seems to me entirely rational—and entirely not devious—not to admit.
The interview she links to from AdmissionsDean.com in that post is also a good read. It is slightly long.thelaststraw05 wrote:http://www.law.umich.edu/connection/a2z ... aspx?ID=11Hawkeye Pierce wrote:Yes, it's yield protect.ahnhub wrote:Weird thing I noticed on LSN:
For the 09-10 and 10-11 cycles, Michigan accepted 27/35 (77%) with a 170/3.8-4.0
It only accepted 15/40 (38%) with a 171/identical GPA.
I know sample size caution applies and Michigan has a somewhat more holistic process, but that's a rather startling statistic. One point higher on the LSAT drops admission rate 40%? That can't be yield protect, can it? 171/3.8x are very likely to attend Michigan.
Dean X wrote:And frankly, there are reasons other than dramatic negatives that make an admissions officer disinclined to offer admission. What about the applicant who is just …. fine? There’s nothing wrong, but there’s no zing, no sense of connection, no firm conviction when you close the application file that you want to have that person in the class. Isn’t it reasonable for schools not to make offers to such candidates, if the school is in the fortunate position of having more than enough candidates who are academically strong and who do have some zing? What about the applicant who shows a strong interest in a field in which the school has little to offer? The student wouldn’t be happy there, and it seems to me entirely rational—and entirely not devious—not to admit.
Oh, I'm not sure anymore. I'm getting so many from TTT that it confuses me. LOLBuckinghamB wrote:Isn't that how all the merit-based waivers are (with the nice little note)?I got one directly from the dean.
For all I know you are probably correct, but b/c the sample size is relatively small statistically speaking, you can't rule out the possibility that the result is due to random chance. My stats knowledge is rusty, with a 75 data points for, say, a population of 400 (which is probably conservative, since I would be surprised if even 1 in 6 people actually put their results up on LSN), you could still only be 95% confident that the true result falls within plus or minus 10 or 15% of your result from your sample population. And that is assuming that your sample is representative of that actual population which, since we are dealing with self-section and self-reporting, there is no reason to think that it is.Hawkeye Pierce wrote:Yes, it's yield protect.ahnhub wrote:Weird thing I noticed on LSN:
For the 09-10 and 10-11 cycles, Michigan accepted 27/35 (77%) with a 170/3.8-4.0
It only accepted 15/40 (38%) with a 171/identical GPA.
I know sample size caution applies and Michigan has a somewhat more holistic process, but that's a rather startling statistic. One point higher on the LSAT drops admission rate 40%? That can't be yield protect, can it? 171/3.8x are very likely to attend Michigan.