Harvard 2010! Forum

[DoubleChecks]

Yeah that was aimed at him.. a 173, 3.9 is probably only 70% chance of admittance

I think you're overestimating both chances tbh.

I agree. I put the first guy at ~65-70% and you at ~60%

you arent that much worse off than the 3.85/175 tho

No, if only because I have the luxury of both numbers above the medians.

wait, what are you saying no to? lol

[Kronk]

Already applied this cycle. I think HE is applying next cycle.

Yeah that was aimed at him.. a 173, 3.9 is probably only 70% chance of admittance

I think you're overestimating both chances tbh.

Well just from last cycle 4 out of 5 people with a 173, 3.9 got into Harvard. Adding in the fact that CU Boulder is not a premier UG (though still decent) and the fact that this cycle is more competitive I would say 70% is reasonable (slightly higher than 2 admits out of three apps).

If the 173 is the highest LSAT or there is a lack of softs than the chances would probably be lower.

However, at the 3.88, 175 level with work experience and early app I think chances are quite high. You might be right tho, it seems this year anybody who is < 3.9 has lower chances..

This year it's definitely more like 60% (if that). Just based on the 10 or so people with around my stats I'm following. Shoshana and SolarWind are two of the only people on TLS I know who have got accepted with those numbers.

[Kronk]

wait, what are you saying no to? lol

As in "no, my chances aren't that much worse."

[Na_Swatch]

Hmm, yeah 85% is probably too high for him, I somehow thought he had a 3.88 for some odd reason. A 3.85, 175 is pretty equivalent to a 3.9, 173 for H.

[Na_Swatch]

This year it's definitely more like 60% (if that). Just based on the 10 or so people with around my stats I'm following. Shoshana and SolarWind are two of the only people on TLS I know who have got accepted with those numbers.

I think this might be partly due to the fact that the cycle is not over. Also if you check LSN and look at the 173, 3.9-3.95 range its a sea of green (6~7 admits, no rejections).
People with scores in that range will probably be admitted/waitlisted later with a few rejections mixed in.

And my 4 out of 5 quote was just the rough ratio doublechecks, haha, didn't mean that I was basing it on just 5 people.

[Kronk]

Yeah. We could all get accepted I suppose. Haha.

[APimpNamedSlickback]

Yeah. We could all get accepted I suppose. Haha.

"haha" is right. lol at you getting into a school that is actually worth going to.

[Kronk]

Yeah. We could all get accepted I suppose. Haha.

"haha" is right. lol at you getting into a school that is actually worth going to.

I bet all those LPs are going to taste pretty bad next year.

[APimpNamedSlickback]

Yeah. We could all get accepted I suppose. Haha.

"haha" is right. lol at you getting into a school that is actually worth going to.

I bet all those LPs are going to taste pretty bad next year.

perhaps, but not as badly as having to attend class everyday with objective idiots that have "great softs" at boalttt.

[Kronk]

perhaps, but not as badly as having to attend class everyday with objective idiots that have "great softs" at boalttt.

Oh you sonofabitch, I should've kept my application at CLS and went just to spite you.

[buffalo]

Thanks guys. The "softs" are above median even for Harvard (I've lurked on TLS long enough to know). I'll probably retake to put my mind at ease and inch me up a bit, but I thought this thread would give me a better sense of my chances than anything else out there. I'm thinking if I get that one extra point I should be in a much more comfortable position.

[Sogui]

Man when I first started waiting for my JR1 late January I was under the impression that HLS still had a lot of seats to divvy up (30-40% left to accept, may even more)

Now it's late February and there have only been a few blips on the JR1 radar and virtually no acceptance activity on LSN, but I feel like with no JR1s this past Friday that they must be almost done if they can afford to be silent this late in the game.

[englawyer]

This year it's definitely more like 60% (if that). Just based on the 10 or so people with around my stats I'm following. Shoshana and SolarWind are two of the only people on TLS I know who have got accepted with those numbers.

me too

[englawyer]

Thanks guys. The "softs" are above median even for Harvard (I've lurked on TLS long enough to know). I'll probably retake to put my mind at ease and inch me up a bit, but I thought this thread would give me a better sense of my chances than anything else out there. I'm thinking if I get that one extra point I should be in a much more comfortable position.

this is a crazy choice. you are looking good for H in my opinion and retaking a 175 is a pretty significant risk. You would need at most one wrong from each section (on average) to bump it up, and even if you succeed, the adcomms might roll their eyes at a 175 retake. if you retake and get a lower score (say 172, still 99th percentile) then they will really roll their eyes and might even ding you for it.

[Walfredo47]

Thanks guys. The "softs" are above median even for Harvard (I've lurked on TLS long enough to know). I'll probably retake to put my mind at ease and inch me up a bit, but I thought this thread would give me a better sense of my chances than anything else out there. I'm thinking if I get that one extra point I should be in a much more comfortable position.

this is a crazy choice. you are looking good for H in my opinion and retaking a 175 is a pretty significant risk. You would need at most one wrong from each section (on average) to bump it up, and even if you succeed, the adcomms might roll their eyes at a 175 retake. if you retake and get a lower score (say 172, still 99th percentile) then they will really roll their eyes and might even ding you for it.

+1. the bump from a 175 to a 178 does not come close to outweighing the costs associatedwith retaking (more prep, chance of lower score, etc.)

[Fevsi]

You don't even know how high is the chance of lower score in his case, so how can you be sure it will outweight a chance of moving from <75% to >75%? I thought this move is one of the most important jumps a candidate can make when applying, but correct me if I am wrong. Chance of lower score being unknown and prep. time being a personal issue, what would be other "cost" associated with retaking?

[cae]

Market yourself well. Write a super-duper, kick-ass PS. Work closely with your LOR writers and make sure that they have a defined "picture" of how you want to come across in your app. Learn as much as you can about Harvard (or your other dream schools) and make sure the adcomm can immediately tell that you'd be a good match. (For example, does Harvard have any clinicals that would help prepare you for exactly the career you want?) Apply early.

Disclaimer: not that I did any of this so perfectly well myself. Hindsight speaking here.

[$1.99]

i find the above post to be right on the money, it is important to paint a consistent, well defined picture of yourself through your app components, i think ppl find this to be underrated

[englawyer]

You don't even know how high is the chance of lower score in his case, so how can you be sure it will outweight a chance of moving from <75% to >75%? I thought this move is one of the most important jumps a candidate can make when applying, but correct me if I am wrong. Chance of lower score being unknown and prep. time being a personal issue, what would be other "cost" associated with retaking?

well that is the main problem: the chance of lower score is unknown. even if the poster regularly gets 177-180, i am sure that an occasional low 170's snuck in there. in fact, of 4 retakers with a 175, the average score was 171.8:

http://members.lsac.org/Public/MainPage ... Page2.aspx

a "pure" 175 is a huge asset, and it would be a shame to taint it with a lower 170's score.

i have no idea about the value of <75% to >75% so I won't speculate.

[JohnnyTrojan08]

I'll weigh in with my two cents for the retake or not... I actually analyzed the retake data from LSAC mentioned above quite a while ago.



Basically, the graph shows the potential gain you could expect versus the potential loss. After you get above 172, there's almost no room above the new average, and more people score lower than not. Once you're in the 99th percentile, the difference in LSAT scores do not mean THAT much to LSAC; that's why they publish your actual score as an "LSAT band."

Even though I had a 172 and a 180, my "band" is still between those two numbers. LSAC is more worried about the statistical validity and reliability of their exam; you can't play their game for a few points--which mean nothing to them--and, quite frankly, don't mean that much to an admissions committee.

I can't imagine that retaking a 175 is ever worth it, unless you can guarantee a 179 or a 180. Since that guarantee is impossible, and the margin for error so unbelievably small, I would never advise one of my clients to retake a 175 unless their LSAT was about to expire and they wanted to show the admissions committees they "still had it."

[Walfredo47]

You don't even know how high is the chance of lower score in his case, so how can you be sure it will outweight a chance of moving from <75% to >75%? I thought this move is one of the most important jumps a candidate can make when applying, but correct me if I am wrong. Chance of lower score being unknown and prep. time being a personal issue, what would be other "cost" associated with retaking?

well that is the main problem: the chance of lower score is unknown. even if the poster regularly gets 177-180, i am sure that an occasional low 170's snuck in there. in fact, of 4 retakers with a 175, the average score was 171.8:

http://members.lsac.org/Public/MainPage ... Page2.aspx

a "pure" 175 is a huge asset, and it would be a shame to taint it with a lower 170's score.

i have no idea about the value of <75% to >75% so I won't speculate.

I agree completely with the "pure" 175 idea. And this is completely my unsubstantiated opinion, so take it for what it's worth, but retaking a 175 has a few costs which could be substantial:

1) potential lower score on test day, which mars the original 175 and diminishes the accomplishment --think testing day irregularities, person with sniffles, proctor who messes up time
2) potential canceled score on test day, which I think would also mar the 175 as well
3) increased expenditure of time and energy on days leading up to test (preparation, test itself, waiting for score)


And all this for what? A marginal increase in your score? Relax, and see where you end up. You already are in the top 1% of test takers in the country. I suspect that there not many Adcomms who would believe that a person who scores a 178 is significantly smarter than a 175. At least no ad comms that have read Malcolm Gladwell's "Outliers" in any event. (see his discussion of the threshold of test-taking: the idea that once you cross a certain threshold, for instance on the ACT it would be about a 32, then there ceases to be any correlation between a one percentage increase in score and a requisite increase in the likelihood that that person will have greater success in college, ceteris paribus (I'm bastardizing this, but take it FWIW)..

My guess is that the threshold for LSAT score is about 174, and perhaps lower.

[lawgod]

You should retake the 175. you can gain 5 points which is a huge difference. Think of the difference between 165 and 170.

[j nyc]

-

[lawgod]

is there anywhere I can see stats on this years accepts and rejects after JR1

[Core]

Would anyone mind critiquing my (second) HLS LOCI? Shoot me a PM, please.