University of Washington c/o 2016 Forum

[Lookingforanswers]

For anyone applying to the University of Washington, didn't see a forum, so I decided to create one!

Submitted my App on 10/18 and I'm ready for review.

[turnercr]

Ready for Review as of 10/9. Best of luck!

[defdef]

Applying but ive heard they are very splitter unfriendly so i dont like my chances much.

[Archangel]

http://m.youtube.com/watch?feature=plpp&v=ZNPhgwr9EjA

http://www.nalp.org/buying_power_index_class_of_2010

[FortunaGubernans]

Hey, friends. I'm in this boat, too. Checking in!

[nickb285]

.

[nolabreeze]

checking in. I don't have very good numbers, but I want to get into the PNW area. I did the optional essay "What life events or experiences have had the greatest influence in shaping your character and why?"

[dproduct]

I'm applying too. Good luck to everyone!

[Lookingforanswers]

When do you think they will start reviewing apps? anyone in review yet?

[gate08]

When do you think they will start reviewing apps? anyone in review yet?

I'm in review as of 10/31

[jamesbrf]

I'm in review as of 10/31

Me too. I am not sure if this means they are actually reviewing our applications as we speak or if it just means that we have been assigned to a review committee that will start reviewing our apps in a few weeks. I am hoping it means the former. In either case good luck everyone!

[BlazersTime]

Complete! 3.65, 162. I love the northwest and hope I have a shot with my numbers

[kingsfield69]

Been complete since 10/31. Anxiously awaiting a decision....we want to settle down in Seattle and this is easily my #1 target school.

164/3.89 with very strong softs...but I'm an out-of-state guy.

I wrote the optional statement that asked about my ideal non-profit.

[rhcp47]

Applying but ive heard they are very splitter unfriendly so i dont like my chances much.

Another splitter checking in, it's worth a shot right?

[dproduct]

I applied today.

I'm actually really enticed about living/working in Seattle, I hope they don't WL me and think I"m just trolling for admissions.

We'll see. Good luck everyone!

[Granfalloon12]

Is it true that they average your LSAT scores? Anyone know?

[dproduct]

Is it true that they average your LSAT scores? Anyone know?

IMO, with the drop in test takers and all, I highly doubt they will use the average LSAT score for admissions.

Sure, maybe some who straight up got a 167 versus a 155-167 taker would get the edge in a tiebreaker... But I just can't believe they won't look at the highest since that is what they will be reporting for rankings.

[Granfalloon12]

Is it true that they average your LSAT scores? Anyone know?

IMO, with the drop in test takers and all, I highly doubt they will use the average LSAT score for admissions.

Sure, maybe some who straight up got a 167 versus a 155-167 taker would get the edge in a tiebreaker... But I just can't believe they won't look at the highest since that is what they will be reporting for rankings.

Yeah, I just noticed that somebody mentioned that they average them... my June score was 160 and my October a 168 so I was wondering if that would hurt me, but it looks like it won't be too big of a detriment if any at all.

[kingsfield69]

Is it true that they average your LSAT scores? Anyone know?

According to the school's Admissions FAQ:

"Multiple LSAT scores are averaged."

[postard]

Checking in. 3.98, 168, did UW for undergrad.

[WhiskeynCoke]

According to the school's Admissions FAQ:

"Multiple LSAT scores are averaged."

What a blatant lie. DO NOT BELIEVE THIS! Admissions folks, especially in the range of schools that UW is in, cannot afford to "average" scores because only the highest score is reported to US News for rankings/medians calculations and their jobs depend on maintaining those medians/rankings (or improving them, if possible). The difficulty/stakes of this are raised even higher when applications plummet like they have been (3rd year in a row... research it).

Who do you think would do better?:

3.6/162 (one score) vs. 3.6/170/150 ( 2 scores = 160 average)

You better believe its the guy with the 170 but lower "average" (162 vs 160). The difference between the two applicants is that the applicant with the 170 helps UW's LSAT median/rank and the guy with the 162 hurts UW's LSAT median/rank.

UW cares a lot about their rank. It's all they've got with employment stats like these:
http://www.lstscorereports.com/?school=washington

"Top 20 law school in the country" and you've got a coin-flip's chance of landing ANY lawyer job.

They take your highest LSAT. So does everyone else despite what is "claimed."

[kingsfield69]

According to the school's Admissions FAQ:

"Multiple LSAT scores are averaged."

What a blatant lie. DO NOT BELIEVE THIS! Admissions folks, especially in the range of schools that UW is in, cannot afford to "average" scores because only the highest score is reported to US News for rankings/medians calculations and their jobs depend on maintaining those medians/rankings (or improving them, if possible). The difficulty/stakes of this are raised even higher when applications plummet like they have been (3rd year in a row... research it).

Who do you think would do better?:

3.6/162 (one score) vs. 3.6/170/150 ( 2 scores = 160 average)

You better believe its the guy with the 170 but lower "average" (162 vs 160). The difference between the two applicants is that the applicant with the 170 helps UW's LSAT median/rank and the guy with the 162 hurts UW's LSAT median/rank.

UW cares a lot about their rank. It's all they've got with employment stats like these:
http://www.lstscorereports.com/?school=washington

"Top 20 law school in the country" and you've got a coin-flip's chance of landing ANY lawyer job.

They take your highest LSAT. So does everyone else despite what is "claimed."

Your impassioned claim is noteworthy, but ultimately unsupported. While UW obviously "cares about" its ranking, it must also care about maintaining appropriate ethical standards in a process that gets scrutinized by dozens of internal and external stakeholders. Saying one thing and doing another would leave the school vulnerable to charges of unethical behavior, which would do much more harm to its reputation than occasionally accepting someone with lower LSAT average. You should take UW at its word that scores are averaged. Certainly, the higher of scores will be reported for the US News rankings.

UW is a regional school. It cares about producing lawyers for the Seattle/PNW market and maintaining its reputation of regional preeminence. This is a comparatively modest objective that does not require the tactics of those schools fighting to establish or maintain a national reputation.

[WhiskeynCoke]

Saying one thing and doing another would leave the school vulnerable to charges of unethical behavior, which would do much more harm to its reputation than occasionally accepting someone with lower LSAT average.

I see what you're getting at, but you must consider this: law schools consider a "multitude of factors" in acceptance. What this enables them to do, is point at some "other" factor as the reason why someone was accepted while another was denied. It would be nearly impossible to prove that the school was not averaging LSAT scores, but taking the higher one, and that this would constitute a breach of ethics in any way. Every applicant has so many different aspects of their application that could be pointed at (resume, PS, GPA, LOR's, addendum, residency, URM, etc...), how could you possibly hope to "charge" the school with unethical behavior? Besides, it's an incredibly common practice among law schools since 2006 to claim to "average" while taking the higher score.

Your impassioned claim is noteworthy, but ultimately unsupported.

Years of LSN data support it, as well as TLS conventional wisdom. I think some research may be in order. There is no way they "average." You MAY be able to make the case that other scores are "considered," perhaps in the case of a tie-break if every single other aspect of 2 applications were identical, but this would obviously be a unlikely case. People are different.

To "average" is a very specific definition. The total sum of all scores is taken and divided by the number of scores (duh). Let me give you an example to illustrate why they can't possibly "average."

These two applicants are competing for the "last spot" in the class. Assume they have identical GPA's and similar softs.
Applicant A: LSAT scores (1): 162 (average = 162)
Applicant B: LSAT scores (3): 150, 152, 172 (average = 158)

you should take UW at its word that scores are averaged.

According to your argument, UW would always choose applicant A over applicant B, because of their "average" LSAT scores. UW would turn down the 172 for the 162 because they "average?" In order for you to stand by your suggestion to "take UW at its word" you must also be making the above assertion. History, evidence, conventional wisdom, and basic reason disagree with you.

http://washington.lawschoolnumbers.com/ ... order=desc

Those are highest scores, not averages. How many people with 170+ scores were rejected? I guarantee you that a lot of them had much lower averages than that.

[Archangel]

http://www.top-law-schools.com/forums/v ... 1&t=189370

http://opb.washington.edu/sites/default ... etMemo.pdf

[kingsfield69]

you should take UW at its word that scores are averaged.

According to your argument, UW would always choose applicant A over applicant B, because of their "average" LSAT scores. UW would turn down the 172 for the 162 because they "average?" In order for you to stand by your suggestion to "take UW at its word" you must also be making the above assertion. History, evidence, conventional wisdom, and basic reason disagree with you.

http://washington.lawschoolnumbers.com/ ... order=desc

Those are highest scores, not averages. How many people with 170+ scores were rejected? I guarantee you that a lot of them had much lower averages than that.

Point taken. But let's keep in mind that the average improvement on a re-take for someone with a 163 LSAT is about 1.6 points. Very few individuals are going to make the 10-point improvement you're citing in the example above. Given the tiny numbers of those who do and the even smaller number who make such an improvement and apply to UW, the school's rankings are not going to be skewed by its practice of averaging. I'll admit I could be wrong...I would just hate for any applicant out there to assume the higher score will be used when the school is saying something different. I took the test one time and scored exactly at last year's UW median. With any luck, the school will start issuing decisions soon and we can compare actual outcomes rather than speculating.