Page 145 of 306

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

Posted: Tue Jan 29, 2013 2:44 am
by ManOfTheMinute
elterrible78 wrote:
ManOfTheMinute wrote:And I thought the 860% increase over at YLS for URM was a lot.
Told you it wasn't that much. Although, to be honest, beyond a certain point, I think it's kind of meaningless. What it really says is "There is a numbers-level below which non-URMs aren't getting in, but URMs can." What it definitely doesn't say is "the average URM is 8.6 or 48.6 or 480.6 times more likely to get in than the average non-URM.
Yeah thats what's happening. No real way for numbers to express that. To quantify the URM boost we should be looking at people whose non-URM numbers history yield a 25-75% acceptance rate... or something along those lines. Although, the relative magnitude between schools indicates that harvard cares more than yale (which I think I have seen in other analyses)

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

Posted: Tue Jan 29, 2013 2:50 am
by John_rizzy_rawls
elterrible78 wrote:Not a typo, but if you check out my last post, I think that pretty much explains my interpretation of it. Parsing it by URM type would be nearly impossible for a couple reasons. The first is that you'd have to depend on the person indicating in the "other" section of their LSN profile what type of URM (s)he happens to be, and I think we'd end up with so few observations that any analysis would be meaningless. The other, more immediate problem is...I don't want to dig through all those profiles! :D
Makes sense, thanks!

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

Posted: Tue Jan 29, 2013 2:52 am
by elterrible78
ManOfTheMinute wrote:
elterrible78 wrote:
ManOfTheMinute wrote:And I thought the 860% increase over at YLS for URM was a lot.
Told you it wasn't that much. Although, to be honest, beyond a certain point, I think it's kind of meaningless. What it really says is "There is a numbers-level below which non-URMs aren't getting in, but URMs can." What it definitely doesn't say is "the average URM is 8.6 or 48.6 or 480.6 times more likely to get in than the average non-URM.
Yeah thats what's happening. No real way for numbers to express that. To quantify the URM boost we should be looking at people whose non-URM numbers history yield a 25-75% acceptance rate... or something along those lines. Although, the relative magnitude between schools indicates that harvard cares more than yale (which I think I have seen in other analyses)
From everything I've looked at, Harvard cares about more than anyone in the T14 by a pretty wide margin, actually.

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

Posted: Tue Jan 29, 2013 10:18 am
by Mr. Elshal
Wormfather wrote:
Also, Yale only really needs a few URMs to match the population percentage. So for example, only about 12 AAs break 170 each year, Yale can take 10 of them and be within their 25%-75% for LSAT, thus it only seems like a smaller boost.

Case and point: One would imagine that an AA with a 170/3.7 would at least be at least WL at YLS given the information above...not so much.
I've been trying to understand...based on this information, are there not many AAs at top law schools? Like, taking your hypothetical above, is it feasible to go to H or Y and see only 10 or fewer AAs? That seems pretty weird. Also, I imagine this would be more pronounced at H where the student body is huge.

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

Posted: Tue Jan 29, 2013 11:27 am
by clouded.memory
Mr. Elshal wrote:
Wormfather wrote:
Also, Yale only really needs a few URMs to match the population percentage. So for example, only about 12 AAs break 170 each year, Yale can take 10 of them and be within their 25%-75% for LSAT, thus it only seems like a smaller boost.

Case and point: One would imagine that an AA with a 170/3.7 would at least be at least WL at YLS given the information above...not so much.
I've been trying to understand...based on this information, are there not many AAs at top law schools? Like, taking your hypothetical above, is it feasible to go to H or Y and see only 10 or fewer AAs? That seems pretty weird. Also, I imagine this would be more pronounced at H where the student body is huge.
I think this link answers your question pretty nicely: http://www.top-law-schools.com/forums/v ... 4&t=195443

According to this, all-in-all, there's only about 331 (give or take) AAs in the T-14.

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

Posted: Tue Jan 29, 2013 12:29 pm
by Mr. Elshal
clouded.memory wrote:
Mr. Elshal wrote:
Wormfather wrote:
Also, Yale only really needs a few URMs to match the population percentage. So for example, only about 12 AAs break 170 each year, Yale can take 10 of them and be within their 25%-75% for LSAT, thus it only seems like a smaller boost.

Case and point: One would imagine that an AA with a 170/3.7 would at least be at least WL at YLS given the information above...not so much.
I've been trying to understand...based on this information, are there not many AAs at top law schools? Like, taking your hypothetical above, is it feasible to go to H or Y and see only 10 or fewer AAs? That seems pretty weird. Also, I imagine this would be more pronounced at H where the student body is huge.
I think this link answers your question pretty nicely: http://www.top-law-schools.com/forums/v ... 4&t=195443

According to this, all-in-all, there's only about 331 (give or take) AAs in the T-14.
I guess that's not as bad as I imagined it, although still low enough to be interesting.
Now I'm curious about whether URMs who get a boost are generally able to keep up with their fellow students who may have needed a higher GPA/LSAT to get in without any boost. I'll save that for another time though, because I don't want people to see too many new posts and think JS1s are out :P

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

Posted: Tue Jan 29, 2013 12:36 pm
by Yukos
Mr. Elshal wrote:
clouded.memory wrote:
Mr. Elshal wrote:
Wormfather wrote:
Also, Yale only really needs a few URMs to match the population percentage. So for example, only about 12 AAs break 170 each year, Yale can take 10 of them and be within their 25%-75% for LSAT, thus it only seems like a smaller boost.

Case and point: One would imagine that an AA with a 170/3.7 would at least be at least WL at YLS given the information above...not so much.
I've been trying to understand...based on this information, are there not many AAs at top law schools? Like, taking your hypothetical above, is it feasible to go to H or Y and see only 10 or fewer AAs? That seems pretty weird. Also, I imagine this would be more pronounced at H where the student body is huge.
I think this link answers your question pretty nicely: http://www.top-law-schools.com/forums/v ... 4&t=195443

According to this, all-in-all, there's only about 331 (give or take) AAs in the T-14.
I guess that's not as bad as I imagined it, although still low enough to be interesting.
Now I'm curious about whether URMs who get a boost are generally able to keep up with their fellow students who may have needed a higher GPA/LSAT to get in without any boost. I'll save that for another time though, because I don't want people to see too many new posts and think JS1s are out :P
Yeah and this thread might not be the right place for that, considering that's one of the most controversial aspects of AA...

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

Posted: Tue Jan 29, 2013 12:50 pm
by elterrible78
John_rizzy_rawls wrote: Is that URM% a typo? It looks more like a DBZ power level than a URM bump. Not complaining but just... wow. If you don't mind explaining, how did you come to that % exactly?

ETA: is there anyway to further parse that % by URM type?
You know, this was starting to bother me. It's not that the number is inaccurate, it's just that at first glance it seems insane. Maybe a better way to look at a URM bump is like this:

In terms of your chances at getting in at Harvard, being a URM is worth 8.8 points on your LSAT and 0.42 on your GPA. I think that's a little easier to digest, probably.

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

Posted: Tue Jan 29, 2013 12:50 pm
by clouded.memory
Yukos wrote:Yeah and this thread might not be the right place for that, considering that's one of the most controversial aspects of AA...
+1

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

Posted: Tue Jan 29, 2013 1:23 pm
by Yukos
I decided to make a chart since that's what all the cool kids are doing. This graph represents the relative importance of the GPA increase, LSAT increase and URM boosts.

Image

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

Posted: Tue Jan 29, 2013 1:25 pm
by az21833
Yukos wrote:I decided to make a chart since that's what all the cool kids are doing. This graph represents the relative importance of the GPA increase, LSAT increase and URM boosts.

Image
LOL

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

Posted: Tue Jan 29, 2013 1:26 pm
by sabanist
elterrible78 wrote: In terms of your chances at getting in at Harvard, being a URM is worth 8.8 points on your LSAT and 0.42 on your GPA. I think that's a little easier to digest, probably.
As a person who can't math, this makes a lot more sense. Thanks for the info!

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

Posted: Tue Jan 29, 2013 1:31 pm
by housebro13
JS2!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

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

Posted: Tue Jan 29, 2013 1:33 pm
by spyke123
housebro13 wrote:JS2!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
congrats!!!!!

when was your JS1?

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

Posted: Tue Jan 29, 2013 1:33 pm
by elterrible78
housebro13 wrote:JS2!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Congrats!!

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

Posted: Tue Jan 29, 2013 1:34 pm
by housebro13
spyke123 wrote:
housebro13 wrote:JS2!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
congrats!!!!!

when was your JS1?
Invite 1/3 and interview date 1/8.

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

Posted: Tue Jan 29, 2013 1:36 pm
by GeneralMuffin
housebro13 wrote:JS2!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Congrats!

I can't decide whether I should anxiously hover over my phone or whether I should try and stay away so I don't get my hopes up every time the stupid thing buzzes.

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

Posted: Tue Jan 29, 2013 1:36 pm
by Mr. Elshal
housebro13 wrote:JS2!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Congratulations!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

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

Posted: Tue Jan 29, 2013 1:37 pm
by wtrc
housebro13 wrote:
spyke123 wrote:
housebro13 wrote:JS2!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
congrats!!!!!

when was your JS1?
Invite 1/3 and interview date 1/8.
Congrats! Mind sharing what your LSAT score was?

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

Posted: Tue Jan 29, 2013 1:44 pm
by chickpea
Congrats Housebro!!!!

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

Posted: Tue Jan 29, 2013 1:46 pm
by clouded.memory
housebro13 wrote:JS2!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Congratulations!!!

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

Posted: Tue Jan 29, 2013 1:48 pm
by sitwaitwish
housebro13 wrote:JS2!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

This is awesome! Congrats 'bro!!

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

Posted: Tue Jan 29, 2013 1:52 pm
by twinkletoes16
If JS2s....no JS1s today?


congrats housebro!!!

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

Posted: Tue Jan 29, 2013 1:57 pm
by mommalee
housebro13 wrote:JS2!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Congratulations! !!!!!

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

Posted: Tue Jan 29, 2013 2:08 pm
by mm3456
JS2!!!!