Columbia c/o 2016 Applicants (2012-2013)

Share Your Experiences, Read About Other Experiences. Please keep posts organized by school and expected year of graduation.
User avatar
Lavitz
Posts: 3098
Joined: Mon May 31, 2010 1:39 am

Re: Columbia c/o 2016 Applicants (2012-2013)

Postby Lavitz » Wed Feb 27, 2013 10:58 pm

banjo wrote:
sinfiery wrote:So any advice on those of us who have heard nothing since going complete 3+ months ago?


Maybe we'll be unceremoniously reserved in April? http://lawschoolnumbers.com/PhilosophyOrLaw

Lovely.

User avatar
letsjustsee
Posts: 35
Joined: Sat Dec 01, 2012 12:38 am

Re: Columbia c/o 2016 Applicants (2012-2013)

Postby letsjustsee » Wed Feb 27, 2013 10:59 pm

.
Last edited by letsjustsee on Sun Jun 02, 2013 2:14 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
02889
Posts: 479
Joined: Wed Dec 28, 2011 12:21 pm

Re: Columbia c/o 2016 Applicants (2012-2013)

Postby 02889 » Wed Feb 27, 2013 11:25 pm

letsjustsee wrote:So, sorry if this has already been discussed, but I am tired, did not want to read through all the recent pages, and I really just wanted to post this for the benefit of all. For those who were also recently Held or placed on Reserve, and you are interested in submitting a LOCI to Columbia, I found that the admissions Web site actually has a tool/form for doing so:

http://web.law.columbia.edu/admissions/ ... d-interest

Hope this helps some of you out there!

Thanks for linking that!

Clearly this is a school that is accustomed to putting everyone on Reserve and receiving thousands of LOCIs a year.

User avatar
Audeamus
Posts: 430
Joined: Thu Nov 29, 2012 10:28 pm

Re: Columbia c/o 2016 Applicants (2012-2013)

Postby Audeamus » Wed Feb 27, 2013 11:30 pm

letsjustsee wrote:So, sorry if this has already been discussed, but I am tired, did not want to read through all the recent pages, and I really just wanted to post this for the benefit of all. For those who were also recently Held or placed on Reserve, and you are interested in submitting a LOCI to Columbia, I found that the admissions Web site actually has a tool/form for doing so:

http://web.law.columbia.edu/admissions/ ... d-interest

Hope this helps some of you out there!


You are awesome. Thanks for taking the time to post this!

User avatar
abcde12345
Posts: 255
Joined: Sun Jun 03, 2012 8:41 pm

Re: Columbia c/o 2016 Applicants (2012-2013)

Postby abcde12345 » Wed Feb 27, 2013 11:35 pm

grapefruits wrote:We can quibble over what "all the time" means, but this certainly qualifies for me. A statistically significant number of people at or above Columbia's medians, are rejected every year. I.e., it happens every year, and it happens to 10% and 17% respectively, of two groups that met my criteria.

Interesting idea: make sure that you don't disagree over the definition of a term before you start trying to argue substance.


I don't see how 10% of the time "certainly" qualifies as "all the time." In fact, one of my arguments was that you were using hyperbole. This is an argument directly related to your definition, isn't it?

Also, this is counting WL as reject. Very, very few are outright rejected, which was your initial claim (they "deny" people all the time)--3 out of 326 for 173-177, 3.8-4.0 according to mylsn. I wouldn't say that counts as "all the time," but you might just adjust your definition, so I won't press the point.
Last edited by abcde12345 on Wed Feb 27, 2013 11:44 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Crowing
Posts: 2636
Joined: Fri Feb 10, 2012 4:20 pm

Re: Columbia c/o 2016 Applicants (2012-2013)

Postby Crowing » Wed Feb 27, 2013 11:43 pm

Lavitz wrote:
banjo wrote:
sinfiery wrote:So any advice on those of us who have heard nothing since going complete 3+ months ago?


Maybe we'll be unceremoniously reserved in April? http://lawschoolnumbers.com/PhilosophyOrLaw

Lovely.


Well at least that dude decided not to go. Good for him, but probably not too comforting for everybody else.

grapefruits
Posts: 181
Joined: Fri Jan 11, 2013 7:13 pm

Re: Columbia c/o 2016 Applicants (2012-2013)

Postby grapefruits » Wed Feb 27, 2013 11:45 pm

abcde12345 wrote:
grapefruits wrote:We can quibble over what "all the time" means, but this certainly qualifies for me. A statistically significant number of people at or above Columbia's medians, are rejected every year. I.e., it happens every year, and it happens to 10% and 17% respectively, of two groups that met my criteria.

Interesting idea: make sure that you don't disagree over the definition of a term before you start trying to argue substance.


I don't see how 10% of the time "certainly" qualifies as "all the time." This sounds like an adjustment of definition to cover up hyperbole. Also, this is counting WL as reject. Very, very few are outright rejected, which was your initial claim (they "deny" people all the time)--3 out of 326 for 173-177, 3.8-4.0 according to mylsn. I wouldn't say that counts as "all the time," but you might just adjust your definition, so I won't press the point.


First, you left out the "for me" part. So if you are having a hard time seeing how it qualifies, please see where I wrote, "for me." Also, I would count WL as reject, for most purposes. Also, LSN doesn't paint a perfect picture, especially when we consider that people are less likely to report adverse outcomes in these types of self-selection databases. Don't get mad bruh, I can sense you're on the verge of getting mad.
Last edited by grapefruits on Wed Feb 27, 2013 11:49 pm, edited 1 time in total.

bfigsan
Posts: 61
Joined: Wed Jan 09, 2013 10:06 pm

Re: Columbia c/o 2016 Applicants (2012-2013)

Postby bfigsan » Wed Feb 27, 2013 11:46 pm

ph5354a wrote:
dukie4 wrote:hey filling out information for grant aid, I never received the financial aid questionnaire in the mail does anyone know how I can access this online?


Nope, it's not online. It's included in the spiral notebook of admitted student information that comes after NCE. Two green sheets towards the end of the book. I got it about 4 days after my NCE. If you haven't received it yet, I could call to ask them how to proceed.


It is in fact online, but you have to log into the admitted students web page and go the Financial Aid section.

User avatar
sinfiery
Posts: 3308
Joined: Thu Jul 14, 2011 2:55 am

Re: Columbia c/o 2016 Applicants (2012-2013)

Postby sinfiery » Wed Feb 27, 2013 11:49 pm

To be fair, WL is generally assumed as a denial in LS applicant circles. Couple that with CLS having a higher waitlist to rejection ratio than probably any other school and you can fairly define a WL here as a denial.


But yeah, 10% can be considered a lot to some if you consider CLS has historically had, statistically, the most numbers based approach to admissions out of anyone in the t14.

User avatar
abcde12345
Posts: 255
Joined: Sun Jun 03, 2012 8:41 pm

Re: Columbia c/o 2016 Applicants (2012-2013)

Postby abcde12345 » Wed Feb 27, 2013 11:50 pm

grapefruits wrote:First, you left out the "for me" part. So if you are having a hard time seeing how it qualifies, please see where I wrote, "for me." Also, I would count WL as reject, for most purposes. Also, LSN doesn't paint a perfect picture, especially when we consider that people are less likely to report adverse incomes in these types of self-selection databases. Don't get mad bruh, I can sense you're on the verge of getting mad.


Re-read my edited post. Also, you were giving advice to others. This advice depended on (what I consider) your hyperbolical take on "all the time." If your advice depended at all on your claim about rejects "all the time," your definition would presumably have to appeal to others. In other words, it would need to go beyond "for me." Or else why should we accept your argument?

I'll ignore the content of your last sentence. But I will say: this is a forum for people applying to law school--in other words, future professionals. If you want to argue with me, or give advice to others on this forum (which you presumed to do), you might want to think about doing it in a respectful and professional manner. Sure, you can troll if you want. Nobody's stopping you. But I would recommend thinking about if you're the kind of person who is ready for serious responsibility.


sinfiery wrote:To be fair, WL is generally assumed as a denial in LS applicant circles. Couple that with CLS having a higher waitlist to rejection ratio than probably any other school and you can fairly define a WL here as a denial.


But yeah, 10% can be considered a lot to some if you consider CLS has historically had, statistically, the most numbers based approach to admissions out of anyone in the t14.


Right, but does this fit with his original argument, which was that such an above-median applicant is "more than likely, not the kind of person they're looking for"? Is someone on the WL a case of "not the kind of person they're looking for"? I wouldn't say that... To be fair, he said "at least not in a first round pick," which may cover these tracks. But remember, there are only a limited number of seats. How many people get WL'd because of this, above all? Probably a lot.

grapefruits
Posts: 181
Joined: Fri Jan 11, 2013 7:13 pm

Re: Columbia c/o 2016 Applicants (2012-2013)

Postby grapefruits » Thu Feb 28, 2013 12:11 am

abcde12345 wrote:
grapefruits wrote:First, you left out the "for me" part. So if you are having a hard time seeing how it qualifies, please see where I wrote, "for me." Also, I would count WL as reject, for most purposes. Also, LSN doesn't paint a perfect picture, especially when we consider that people are less likely to report adverse incomes in these types of self-selection databases. Don't get mad bruh, I can sense you're on the verge of getting mad.


Re-read my edited post. Also, you were giving advice to others. This advice depended on (what I consider) your hyperbolical take on "all the time." If your advice depended at all on your claim about rejects "all the time," your definition would presumably have to appeal to others. In other words, it would need to go beyond "for me." Or else why should we accept your argument?

I'll ignore the content of your last sentence. But I will say: this is a forum for people applying to law school--in other words, future professionals. If you want to argue with me, or give advice to others on this forum (which you presumed to do), you might want to think about doing it in a respectful and professional manner. Sure, you can troll if you want. Nobody's stopping you. But I would recommend thinking about if you're the kind of person who is ready for serious responsibility.


Let me act super professional on a forum where my name is grapefruits and I'm talking to some guy representing himself as some other guy wearing a powdered wig. My advice was that people need to calm down; you haven't done a good job of proving that my basis for saying it was unfounded, but you have done a good job of outing yourself as an uptight loser. Go outside.

User avatar
sinfiery
Posts: 3308
Joined: Thu Jul 14, 2011 2:55 am

Re: Columbia c/o 2016 Applicants (2012-2013)

Postby sinfiery » Thu Feb 28, 2013 12:15 am

Didn't follow the whole argument, my bad.
"More than likely not" is infinitely harder to defend.

User avatar
abcde12345
Posts: 255
Joined: Sun Jun 03, 2012 8:41 pm

Re: Columbia c/o 2016 Applicants (2012-2013)

Postby abcde12345 » Thu Feb 28, 2013 12:19 am

grapefruits wrote:Let me act super professional on a forum where my name is grapefruits and I'm talking to some guy representing himself as some other guy wearing a powdered wig. My advice was that people need to calm down; you haven't done a good job of proving that my basis for saying it was unfounded, but you have done a good job of outing yourself as an uptight loser. Go outside.


Well, I wasn't trying to make a knockdown argument. I thought my point was pretty clear: 10% being "all the time" is questionable, and thus it is not clear to me that being very surprised is unreasonable (which was your point). That is all. I appreciate your argument, and I think that, by trolling, you brought some good perspective to this thread. Ultimately, I agree with your pessimism about special snowflakes (although your assumption that applications consistently and significantly reflect one's self is absurd; I'm assuming that's why you didn't bring it up for discussion either). If anything, thanks for giving me something to do while waiting for decisions to come back :) Good luck in your cycle (and I see you've had some already). And yes, I mean luck :wink: That's a large part of the process, after all.

grapefruits
Posts: 181
Joined: Fri Jan 11, 2013 7:13 pm

Re: Columbia c/o 2016 Applicants (2012-2013)

Postby grapefruits » Thu Feb 28, 2013 12:35 am

abcde12345 wrote:
grapefruits wrote:Let me act super professional on a forum where my name is grapefruits and I'm talking to some guy representing himself as some other guy wearing a powdered wig. My advice was that people need to calm down; you haven't done a good job of proving that my basis for saying it was unfounded, but you have done a good job of outing yourself as an uptight loser. Go outside.


Well, I wasn't trying to make a knockdown argument. I thought my point was pretty clear: 10% being "all the time" is questionable, and thus it is not clear to me that being very surprised is unreasonable (which was your point). That is all. I appreciate your argument, and I think that, by trolling, you brought some good perspective to this thread. Ultimately, I agree with your pessimism about special snowflakes (although your assumption that applications consistently and significantly reflect one's self is absurd; I'm assuming that's why you didn't bring it up for discussion either). If anything, thanks for giving me something to do while waiting for decisions to come back :) Good luck in your cycle (and I see you've had some already). And yes, I mean luck :wink: That's a large part of the process, after all.


My point was that if something happens 10% of the time to people in situations similar to yourself, and you are just mind-blown that it happened to you, you think you are a special snowflake. Also, I made no assumption that applications "consistently and significantly reflect one's self;" reaching that must have taken a great deal of reading between the lines, and actually is a point that I don't agree with. What I said was something similar to, "you are not the type of person they are looking for at the time." Given the medium in which I published my comment, I didn't expect that it would need a great deal of defense, with a bit of foresight, I should have known otherwise. That particular portion of my comment was referring to all and any of an applicant's characteristics other than his/her LSAT and GPA. I suppose that could include things like personality if they were effectively conveyed, but to think that that comment was anywhere near the claim that you accused me of, is kind of absurd.

Anyhow, I appreciate your matureish response to being called a loser, and hope we can just put this behind us and go about our lives. You can have the kids, and the furniture, I'll just take whatever is left in the fridge.

Jakers3000
Posts: 2
Joined: Thu Feb 14, 2013 12:45 pm

Re: Columbia c/o 2016 Applicants (2012-2013)

Postby Jakers3000 » Thu Feb 28, 2013 1:05 am

Please shut up. You both lose.

User avatar
abcde12345
Posts: 255
Joined: Sun Jun 03, 2012 8:41 pm

Re: Columbia c/o 2016 Applicants (2012-2013)

Postby abcde12345 » Thu Feb 28, 2013 1:08 am

Jakers3000 wrote:Please shut up. You both lose.


Uh, isn't that what we just did? That was a pretty bad second post dude. I've made enough posts that I can afford to go on a posting shitstorm like I just did yet keep my proportion of good/bad posts decent. Considering that your other post was a Stanford status checker post, you're 0 for 2. :P

User avatar
jselson
Posts: 6337
Joined: Sat Jan 05, 2013 3:51 am

Re: Columbia c/o 2016 Applicants (2012-2013)

Postby jselson » Thu Feb 28, 2013 1:54 am

Personally, I like the idea that CLS has given out all their Hammies/Buylers and is YPing HYS-likely folks to see if dat LOCI comes in.

User avatar
TripTrip
Posts: 2740
Joined: Fri Sep 07, 2012 9:52 am

Re: Columbia c/o 2016 Applicants (2012-2013)

Postby TripTrip » Thu Feb 28, 2013 1:59 am

jselson wrote:Personally, I like the idea that CLS has given out all their Hammies/Buylers and is YPing HYS-likely folks to see if dat LOCI comes in.

Or is waiting to recycle the scholarships on the holds. Let's go with that.

User avatar
jselson
Posts: 6337
Joined: Sat Jan 05, 2013 3:51 am

Re: Columbia c/o 2016 Applicants (2012-2013)

Postby jselson » Thu Feb 28, 2013 2:28 am

TripTrip wrote:
jselson wrote:Personally, I like the idea that CLS has given out all their Hammies/Buylers and is YPing HYS-likely folks to see if dat LOCI comes in.

Or is waiting to recycle the scholarships on the holds. Let's go with that.


I was thinking holds as part of the YP, so yeah, def.

wisteria
Posts: 285
Joined: Fri Nov 02, 2012 4:43 am

Re: Columbia c/o 2016 Applicants (2012-2013)

Postby wisteria » Thu Feb 28, 2013 2:51 am

joiedevivre18 wrote:
sinfiery wrote:So any advice on those of us who have heard nothing since going complete 3+ months ago?


+1


+2

User avatar
ph5354a
Posts: 1599
Joined: Thu Nov 01, 2012 7:40 pm

Re: Columbia c/o 2016 Applicants (2012-2013)

Postby ph5354a » Thu Feb 28, 2013 8:33 am

Wormfather wrote:I havnt been held or anything but I never wrote a why Columbia. Should I send one in now?


I'm guessing if you weren't held, then they already know what they're going to do with you (and I doubt it's a rejection), because if they didn't, then they would've held you ...right? Though logic may not play as much of a role in this as I assume. Either way, I don't think a Why Columbia would hurt, I would just make sure to save something for a LOCI in case you need it, which seems unlikely.

User avatar
you'rethemannowdawg
Posts: 211
Joined: Thu Jan 03, 2013 1:36 pm

Re: Columbia c/o 2016 Applicants (2012-2013)

Postby you'rethemannowdawg » Thu Feb 28, 2013 11:24 am

I was part of the Heldfest a few days ago. I currently work full time, so I don't have any big accomplishments like promotions, grades, LSAT, etc. Should I write a LOCI that simply reiterates my interest in Columbia? I didn't submit any supplemental essays with the application.

User avatar
HawkeyeGirl
Posts: 459
Joined: Sun May 06, 2012 9:13 pm

Re: Columbia c/o 2016 Applicants (2012-2013)

Postby HawkeyeGirl » Thu Feb 28, 2013 3:34 pm

you'rethemannowdawg wrote:I was part of the Heldfest a few days ago. I currently work full time, so I don't have any big accomplishments like promotions, grades, LSAT, etc. Should I write a LOCI that simply reiterates my interest in Columbia? I didn't submit any supplemental essays with the application.


In the same boat, that's what I was going to do this weekend.

MacB
Posts: 341
Joined: Fri Feb 15, 2013 12:26 pm

Re: Columbia c/o 2016 Applicants (2012-2013)

Postby MacB » Thu Feb 28, 2013 3:50 pm

abcde12345 wrote:
Jakers3000 wrote:Please shut up. You both lose.


Uh, isn't that what we just did? That was a pretty bad second post dude. I've made enough posts that I can afford to go on a posting shitstorm like I just did yet keep my proportion of good/bad posts decent. Considering that your other post was a Stanford status checker post, you're 0 for 2. :P



...I liked dat. :P

sd1234
Posts: 106
Joined: Fri Dec 28, 2012 6:20 pm

Re: Columbia c/o 2016 Applicants (2012-2013)

Postby sd1234 » Thu Feb 28, 2013 5:31 pm

are we expected a new round of NCEs soon, or not for a while?




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