Top Law Schools

freekick wrote:

ssolli wrote:

freekick wrote:

pitter wrote:

freekick wrote:

pitter wrote:I am an US citizen but did my UG in Asia. Would being a citizen count as a positive factor in admission? My lsac gpa is 3.86 so I am pretty confident that I would receive a 'superior'.

It will count for a lot coz you are not an international applicant and wouldn't pose possible immigration issues. You pose no risk to the law school and the government.

I am a little confused. I've heard that what determines international is not citizenship but where you got your ud. By that logic wouldn't instill be counted as an international? I've been warned that admission for those in international status is harder.

Two classic cases of International applicants are:
A non-resident alien with non-US UG
A non-American student with American UG

Citizenship, not residency, is determinative of international status.

What about a US citizen who did UG abroad and then came back to the US? I'm American but my degree is from the UK (hence no LSAC GPA). Would I still count as an "international applicant"?

Nope. Your UG is international but your "applicant" status remains national because of your citizenship. I think there is some confusion about the meaning of 'international' wrt to applicant status. Like I said, the key is citizenship. Where one's UG was is immaterial. That said, absence of a numerical GPA does make a difference even for a national applicant because you are not helping GPA medians. So to that extent you are at a slight disadvantage.

Not trying to place doubt, but this is the first I'm hearing that citizenship is the determining factor as I was using the 509 unreported GPA's as an indicator of the # of international UG applicants accepted to each school. Where did you hear this, and why would U.S. citizens with foreign UG education be at a disadvantage? I figure it would make no difference if international GPAs are treated the same for citizens and aliens. Mainly asking because what you're saying seems to be true as I haven't gotten the results I expected or was told to expect.

pleasesendhelp wrote:

freekick wrote:

ssolli wrote:

freekick wrote:

pitter wrote:

freekick wrote:

pitter wrote:I am an US citizen but did my UG in Asia. Would being a citizen count as a positive factor in admission? My lsac gpa is 3.86 so I am pretty confident that I would receive a 'superior'.

It will count for a lot coz you are not an international applicant and wouldn't pose possible immigration issues. You pose no risk to the law school and the government.

I am a little confused. I've heard that what determines international is not citizenship but where you got your ud. By that logic wouldn't instill be counted as an international? I've been warned that admission for those in international status is harder.

Two classic cases of International applicants are:
A non-resident alien with non-US UG
A non-American student with American UG

Citizenship, not residency, is determinative of international status.

What about a US citizen who did UG abroad and then came back to the US? I'm American but my degree is from the UK (hence no LSAC GPA). Would I still count as an "international applicant"?

Nope. Your UG is international but your "applicant" status remains national because of your citizenship. I think there is some confusion about the meaning of 'international' wrt to applicant status. Like I said, the key is citizenship. Where one's UG was is immaterial. That said, absence of a numerical GPA does make a difference even for a national applicant because you are not helping GPA medians. So to that extent you are at a slight disadvantage.

Not trying to place doubt, but this is the first I'm hearing that citizenship is the determining factor as I was using the 509 unreported GPA's as an indicator of the # of international UG applicants accepted to each school. Where did you hear this, and why would U.S. citizens with foreign UG education be at a disadvantage? I figure it would make no difference if international GPAs are treated the same for citizens and aliens. Mainly asking because what you're saying seems to be true as I haven't gotten the results I expected or was told to expect.

Lack of a reportable GPA is what puts anyone with a non-reportable GPA at a some disadvantage because you don't help medians unlike someone with a reportable GPA. In this analysis, citizenship is immaterial. We are talking pure numbers. It becomes material for things like tie breaking between nearly equal non-reportable GPA candidates in terms of numbers. The competition within a given school's applicant pool also plays a big role.

freekick wrote:
Lack of a reportable GPA is what puts anyone with a non-reportable GPA at a some disadvantage because you don't help medians unlike someone with a reportable GPA. In this analysis, citizenship is immaterial. We are talking pure numbers. It becomes material for things like tie breaking between nearly equal non-reportable GPA candidates in terms of numbers. The competition within a given school's applicant pool also plays a big role.

A bit late, but nice to know so I can curb my expectations.

I had been told that having nonreportable GPAs with above median LSATS would be advantageous since we'd be "freebies" to boost their numbers. Maybe we have an advantage over splitters?

pleasesendhelp wrote:

freekick wrote:
Lack of a reportable GPA is what puts anyone with a non-reportable GPA at a some disadvantage because you don't help medians unlike someone with a reportable GPA. In this analysis, citizenship is immaterial. We are talking pure numbers. It becomes material for things like tie breaking between nearly equal non-reportable GPA candidates in terms of numbers. The competition within a given school's applicant pool also plays a big role.

A bit late, but nice to know so I can curb my expectations.

I had been told that having nonreportable GPAs with above median LSATS would be advantageous since we'd be "freebies" to boost their numbers. Maybe we have an advantage over splitters?

Yeah, we don't hurt medians and that could be helpful for a law school struggling maintain them. One would think an AA is a better numerical bet than a low GPA applicant. But the process takes so much else into consideration that it is hard to say who has an advantage.

freekick wrote:

pleasesendhelp wrote:

freekick wrote:
Lack of a reportable GPA is what puts anyone with a non-reportable GPA at a some disadvantage because you don't help medians unlike someone with a reportable GPA. In this analysis, citizenship is immaterial. We are talking pure numbers. It becomes material for things like tie breaking between nearly equal non-reportable GPA candidates in terms of numbers. The competition within a given school's applicant pool also plays a big role.

A bit late, but nice to know so I can curb my expectations.

I had been told that having nonreportable GPAs with above median LSATS would be advantageous since we'd be "freebies" to boost their numbers. Maybe we have an advantage over splitters?

Yeah, we don't hurt medians and that could be helpful for a law school struggling maintain them. One would think an AA is a better numerical bet than a low GPA applicant. But the process takes so much else into consideration that it is hard to say who has an advantage.

i think the category of 'internationals' is a nebulous term that top schools like HYS don't pay much attention to. there is little data and admissions chances don't seem to be as discernible based on numbers alone as they are for regular category candidates.

i was wondering how much of a factor or obstacle having an accent can be during interview at HYSCCN. anyone here with an accent who has had an interview?

appind wrote:i was wondering how much of a factor or obstacle having an accent can be during interview at HYSCCN. anyone here with an accent who has had an interview?

Have an accent but haven't done an HYSCCN interview. I have been given to understand that it is not a problem at all, much less an obstacle, so long as we are 'clear' to our audience and it can understand what we are saying. All the best with your interview.

appind wrote:i was wondering how much of a factor or obstacle having an accent can be during interview at HYSCCN. anyone here with an accent who has had an interview?

YSN don't do interviews for admission, so you're clear. And I have an accent (tho it's minimal, as I grew up for the most part in Canada) and didn't seem to be a problem.

freekick wrote:

appind wrote:i was wondering how much of a factor or obstacle having an accent can be during interview at HYSCCN. anyone here with an accent who has had an interview?

Have an accent but haven't done an HYSCCN interview. I have been given to understand that it is not a problem at all, much less an obstacle, so long as we are 'clear' to our audience and it can understand what we are saying. All the best with your interview.

don't have an int invite yet, but just the thought of intvw is making me nervous. the kind of behavioral qs they ask may need a lot of thinking through, no?
i mean, e.g., how do you go about answering an example of challenging conversation? one can pick some workplace example but it can be hard to do without coming across as disagreeable.

TAD wrote:

appind wrote:i was wondering how much of a factor or obstacle having an accent can be during interview at HYSCCN. anyone here with an accent who has had an interview?

YSN don't do interviews for admission, so you're clear. And I have an accent (tho it's minimal, as I grew up for the most part in Canada) and didn't seem to be a problem.

i guess canada is similar to US and doesn't exactly count, unless you're french canadian with french as first language.

appind wrote:

TAD wrote:

appind wrote:i was wondering how much of a factor or obstacle having an accent can be during interview at HYSCCN. anyone here with an accent who has had an interview?

YSN don't do interviews for admission, so you're clear. And I have an accent (tho it's minimal, as I grew up for the most part in Canada) and didn't seem to be a problem.

i guess canada is similar to US and doesn't exactly count, unless you're french canadian with french as first language.

My bad, I wasn't clear. I'm actually not from North America at all, so I have an accent. However, having spent the majority of my life in Canada, I would argue that my accent is not as strong anymore - although, it is still there.

appind wrote:

freekick wrote:

appind wrote:i was wondering how much of a factor or obstacle having an accent can be during interview at HYSCCN. anyone here with an accent who has had an interview?

Have an accent but haven't done an HYSCCN interview. I have been given to understand that it is not a problem at all, much less an obstacle, so long as we are 'clear' to our audience and it can understand what we are saying. All the best with your interview.

don't have an int invite yet, but just the thought of intvw is making me nervous. the kind of behavioral qs they ask may need a lot of thinking through, no?
i mean, e.g., how do you go about answering an example of challenging conversation? one can pick some workplace example but it can be hard to do without coming across as disagreeable.

If you get invited, you could do several mocks beforehand. That should calm nerves to an extent and being calm itself is a major help.

I'm sure this has been discussed to death, but is there any consensus on how schools see AA / Superior? I.e. would they see them as the equivalent of 3.5 / 4.0? Feels like I'm stumbling blind in terms of how schools see my application...

CA1993 wrote:I'm sure this has been discussed to death, but is there any consensus on how schools see AA / Superior? I.e. would they see them as the equivalent of 3.5 / 4.0? Feels like I'm stumbling blind in terms of how schools see my application...

No consensus as to numerical equivalene and I think it doesn't work that way. But some consensus as to evaluation and notional median treatment. For example, Superior = at (or above median but below 75th?), AA = below median (but not 25th either?). However, a post earlier in the thread says Superior = above 75th. One largely agreed fact about Superior is that it doesn't make your app anywhether, but its absence surely breaks it at HYSChi. Don't know how helpful this is to you but hope you got some idea.

freekick wrote:

CA1993 wrote:I'm sure this has been discussed to death, but is there any consensus on how schools see AA / Superior? I.e. would they see them as the equivalent of 3.5 / 4.0? Feels like I'm stumbling blind in terms of how schools see my application...

No consensus as to numerical equivalene and I think it doesn't work that way. But some consensus as to evaluation and notional median treatment. For example, Superior = at (or above median but below 75th?), AA = below median (but not 25th either?). However, a post earlier in the thread says Superior = above 75th. One largely agreed fact about Superior is that it doesn't make your app anywhether, but its absence surely breaks it at HYSChi. Don't know how helpful this is to you but hope you got some idea.

Ah I saw on MyLSN and this years Harvard spreadsheets that an AA was accepted, should I be abandoning the dream and assuming that it's the major outlier? WES for Canadian schools translated by GPA as a 3.7 but I still have an AA... I guess they're seen differently in the US then

CA1993 wrote:

freekick wrote:

CA1993 wrote:I'm sure this has been discussed to death, but is there any consensus on how schools see AA / Superior? I.e. would they see them as the equivalent of 3.5 / 4.0? Feels like I'm stumbling blind in terms of how schools see my application...

No consensus as to numerical equivalene and I think it doesn't work that way. But some consensus as to evaluation and notional median treatment. For example, Superior = at (or above median but below 75th?), AA = below median (but not 25th either?). However, a post earlier in the thread says Superior = above 75th. One largely agreed fact about Superior is that it doesn't make your app anywhether, but its absence surely breaks it at HYSChi. Don't know how helpful this is to you but hope you got some idea.

Ah I saw on MyLSN and this years Harvard spreadsheets that an AA was accepted, should I be abandoning the dream and assuming that it's the major outlier? WES for Canadian schools translated by GPA as a 3.7 but I still have an AA... I guess they're seen differently in the US then

Well that instance fits into 'largely agreed'. Haha. Also, H has a pretty big class so that gives a 175+/AA some chance I guess. But like you have indicated, I wouldn't count on it (but still submit an app) and hope for the best.

freekick wrote:

CA1993 wrote:

freekick wrote:

CA1993 wrote:I'm sure this has been discussed to death, but is there any consensus on how schools see AA / Superior? I.e. would they see them as the equivalent of 3.5 / 4.0? Feels like I'm stumbling blind in terms of how schools see my application...

No consensus as to numerical equivalene and I think it doesn't work that way. But some consensus as to evaluation and notional median treatment. For example, Superior = at (or above median but below 75th?), AA = below median (but not 25th either?). However, a post earlier in the thread says Superior = above 75th. One largely agreed fact about Superior is that it doesn't make your app anywhether, but its absence surely breaks it at HYSChi. Don't know how helpful this is to you but hope you got some idea.

Ah I saw on MyLSN and this years Harvard spreadsheets that an AA was accepted, should I be abandoning the dream and assuming that it's the major outlier? WES for Canadian schools translated by GPA as a 3.7 but I still have an AA... I guess they're seen differently in the US then

Well that instance fits into 'largely agreed'. Haha. Also, H has a pretty big class so that gives a 175+/AA some chance I guess. But like you have indicated, I wouldn't count on it (but still submit an app) and hope for the best.

Awesome thanks. I guess I'll just have to hope all their high LSAT scorers are super splitters and give me a sliver of a chance...

freekick wrote:

CA1993 wrote:

freekick wrote:

CA1993 wrote:I'm sure this has been discussed to death, but is there any consensus on how schools see AA / Superior? I.e. would they see them as the equivalent of 3.5 / 4.0? Feels like I'm stumbling blind in terms of how schools see my application...

No consensus as to numerical equivalene and I think it doesn't work that way. But some consensus as to evaluation and notional median treatment. For example, Superior = at (or above median but below 75th?), AA = below median (but not 25th either?). However, a post earlier in the thread says Superior = above 75th. One largely agreed fact about Superior is that it doesn't make your app anywhether, but its absence surely breaks it at HYSChi. Don't know how helpful this is to you but hope you got some idea.

Ah I saw on MyLSN and this years Harvard spreadsheets that an AA was accepted, should I be abandoning the dream and assuming that it's the major outlier? WES for Canadian schools translated by GPA as a 3.7 but I still have an AA... I guess they're seen differently in the US then

Well that instance fits into 'largely agreed'. Haha. Also, H has a pretty big class so that gives a 175+/AA some chance I guess. But like you have indicated, I wouldn't count on it (but still submit an app) and hope for the best.

FYI, last year H admitted one 172/AA and one 170/AA (with 5+ WE), there was also a 179/AA

galeatus wrote:

freekick wrote:

CA1993 wrote:

freekick wrote:

CA1993 wrote:I'm sure this has been discussed to death, but is there any consensus on how schools see AA / Superior? I.e. would they see them as the equivalent of 3.5 / 4.0? Feels like I'm stumbling blind in terms of how schools see my application...

No consensus as to numerical equivalene and I think it doesn't work that way. But some consensus as to evaluation and notional median treatment. For example, Superior = at (or above median but below 75th?), AA = below median (but not 25th either?). However, a post earlier in the thread says Superior = above 75th. One largely agreed fact about Superior is that it doesn't make your app anywhether, but its absence surely breaks it at HYSChi. Don't know how helpful this is to you but hope you got some idea.

Ah I saw on MyLSN and this years Harvard spreadsheets that an AA was accepted, should I be abandoning the dream and assuming that it's the major outlier? WES for Canadian schools translated by GPA as a 3.7 but I still have an AA... I guess they're seen differently in the US then

Well that instance fits into 'largely agreed'. Haha. Also, H has a pretty big class so that gives a 175+/AA some chance I guess. But like you have indicated, I wouldn't count on it (but still submit an app) and hope for the best.

FYI, last year H admitted one 172/AA and one 170/AA (with 5+ WE), there was also a 179/AA

That's more hope for OP and AAs.

freekick wrote:

galeatus wrote:

freekick wrote:

CA1993 wrote:

freekick wrote:

CA1993 wrote:I'm sure this has been discussed to death, but is there any consensus on how schools see AA / Superior? I.e. would they see them as the equivalent of 3.5 / 4.0? Feels like I'm stumbling blind in terms of how schools see my application...

No consensus as to numerical equivalene and I think it doesn't work that way. But some consensus as to evaluation and notional median treatment. For example, Superior = at (or above median but below 75th?), AA = below median (but not 25th either?). However, a post earlier in the thread says Superior = above 75th. One largely agreed fact about Superior is that it doesn't make your app anywhether, but its absence surely breaks it at HYSChi. Don't know how helpful this is to you but hope you got some idea.

Ah I saw on MyLSN and this years Harvard spreadsheets that an AA was accepted, should I be abandoning the dream and assuming that it's the major outlier? WES for Canadian schools translated by GPA as a 3.7 but I still have an AA... I guess they're seen differently in the US then

Well that instance fits into 'largely agreed'. Haha. Also, H has a pretty big class so that gives a 175+/AA some chance I guess. But like you have indicated, I wouldn't count on it (but still submit an app) and hope for the best.

FYI, last year H admitted one 172/AA and one 170/AA (with 5+ WE), there was also a 179/AA

That's more hope for OP and AAs.

Thanks guys - this was a great combination of tapering expectations but keeping the dream alive.

appind wrote:i was wondering how much of a factor or obstacle having an accent can be during interview at HYSCCN. anyone here with an accent who has had an interview?

I have a noticeable accent and did the 3 interviews, they all went pretty well

freekick wrote:

pleasesendhelp wrote:

freekick wrote:
Lack of a reportable GPA is what puts anyone with a non-reportable GPA at a some disadvantage because you don't help medians unlike someone with a reportable GPA. In this analysis, citizenship is immaterial. We are talking pure numbers. It becomes material for things like tie breaking between nearly equal non-reportable GPA candidates in terms of numbers. The competition within a given school's applicant pool also plays a big role.

A bit late, but nice to know so I can curb my expectations.

I had been told that having nonreportable GPAs with above median LSATS would be advantageous since we'd be "freebies" to boost their numbers. Maybe we have an advantage over splitters?

Yeah, we don't hurt medians and that could be helpful for a law school struggling maintain them. One would think an AA is a better numerical bet than a low GPA applicant. But the process takes so much else into consideration that it is hard to say who has an advantage.

> 175/AA applicant here, I don't think my AA evaluation is doing me any favors this cycle, out of the T-14s I have heard back from I was waitlisted at Chicago, Penn, Duke, Northwestern, Cornell and rejected at Stanford and Michigan. Actually came into this cycle thinking that AA > low GPA but now I'm not so sure

potatocowpower wrote:

freekick wrote:

pleasesendhelp wrote:

freekick wrote:
Lack of a reportable GPA is what puts anyone with a non-reportable GPA at a some disadvantage because you don't help medians unlike someone with a reportable GPA. In this analysis, citizenship is immaterial. We are talking pure numbers. It becomes material for things like tie breaking between nearly equal non-reportable GPA candidates in terms of numbers. The competition within a given school's applicant pool also plays a big role.

A bit late, but nice to know so I can curb my expectations.

I had been told that having nonreportable GPAs with above median LSATS would be advantageous since we'd be "freebies" to boost their numbers. Maybe we have an advantage over splitters?

Yeah, we don't hurt medians and that could be helpful for a law school struggling maintain them. One would think an AA is a better numerical bet than a low GPA applicant. But the process takes so much else into consideration that it is hard to say who has an advantage.

> 175/AA applicant here, I don't think my AA evaluation is doing me any favors this cycle, out of the T-14s I have heard back from I was waitlisted at Chicago, Penn, Duke, Northwestern, Cornell and rejected at Stanford and Michigan. Actually came into this cycle thinking that AA > low GPA but now I'm not so sure

what's your numerical gpa that got AA rating and from where if you can share? did you apply to H and col? with a 175 you shouldn't have been WLed at these colleges. i think AA shouldn't have kept you out anywhere except at may be hys. really don't see what is about an 'international' that makes schools follow some admissions criteria that seems un-understandable.

appind wrote:

potatocowpower wrote:

freekick wrote:

pleasesendhelp wrote:

freekick wrote:
Lack of a reportable GPA is what puts anyone with a non-reportable GPA at a some disadvantage because you don't help medians unlike someone with a reportable GPA. In this analysis, citizenship is immaterial. We are talking pure numbers. It becomes material for things like tie breaking between nearly equal non-reportable GPA candidates in terms of numbers. The competition within a given school's applicant pool also plays a big role.

A bit late, but nice to know so I can curb my expectations.

I had been told that having nonreportable GPAs with above median LSATS would be advantageous since we'd be "freebies" to boost their numbers. Maybe we have an advantage over splitters?

Yeah, we don't hurt medians and that could be helpful for a law school struggling maintain them. One would think an AA is a better numerical bet than a low GPA applicant. But the process takes so much else into consideration that it is hard to say who has an advantage.

> 175/AA applicant here, I don't think my AA evaluation is doing me any favors this cycle, out of the T-14s I have heard back from I was waitlisted at Chicago, Penn, Duke, Northwestern, Cornell and rejected at Stanford and Michigan. Actually came into this cycle thinking that AA > low GPA but now I'm not so sure

what's your numerical gpa that got AA rating and from where if you can share? did you apply to H and col? with a 175 you shouldn't have been WLed at these colleges. i think AA shouldn't have kept you out anywhere except at may be hys. really don't see what is about an 'international' that makes schools follow some admissions criteria that seems un-understandable.

Numerical GPA sounds bad due to the curve at my school but I guess LSAC recognized it as being above median there, hence the AA rating. Top 3 School in South Korea.No news of a JS1, applied in November but did have a Columbia Interview.

potatocowpower wrote:

freekick wrote:

pleasesendhelp wrote:

freekick wrote:
Lack of a reportable GPA is what puts anyone with a non-reportable GPA at a some disadvantage because you don't help medians unlike someone with a reportable GPA. In this analysis, citizenship is immaterial. We are talking pure numbers. It becomes material for things like tie breaking between nearly equal non-reportable GPA candidates in terms of numbers. The competition within a given school's applicant pool also plays a big role.

A bit late, but nice to know so I can curb my expectations.

I had been told that having nonreportable GPAs with above median LSATS would be advantageous since we'd be "freebies" to boost their numbers. Maybe we have an advantage over splitters?

Yeah, we don't hurt medians and that could be helpful for a law school struggling maintain them. One would think an AA is a better numerical bet than a low GPA applicant. But the process takes so much else into consideration that it is hard to say who has an advantage.

> 175/AA applicant here, I don't think my AA evaluation is doing me any favors this cycle, out of the T-14s I have heard back from I was waitlisted at Chicago, Penn, Duke, Northwestern, Cornell and rejected at Stanford and Michigan. Actually came into this cycle thinking that AA > low GPA but now I'm not so sure

Some more data: A couple AAs with 170 and 172 respectively have been dinged/Wled at Cornell. I m forgetting their TLS names. I got WL at NU with 171/Superior though not doing the interview may have (speculatively) played a role too. Hard to tell what's going on.