Columbia 2010

Share Your Experiences, Read About Other Experiences. Please keep posts organized by school and expected year of graduation.
User avatar
kittenmittons
Posts: 1453
Joined: Sun Nov 15, 2009 1:24 pm

Re: Columbia 2010

Postby kittenmittons » Sat Dec 12, 2009 2:40 pm

SanBun wrote:
kittenmittons wrote:
SanBun wrote:yeah, I hate how law schools are pretending to be holistic- I mean really, I'm guessing that 95% of the time they look at your # and if they don't like 'em, they just gloss over the app and toss it out unless you cured cancer or something, which then may get you a WL. Columbia in particular seems very # focused yet makes such a big deal of telling people of how holistic they are (the dean came to my school and said the same thing). Funny, seeing how in the past year virtually no non-URM with LSAT below 171 was admitted. I guess they're only holistic once you're 171+


Why is this a problem?


because that's not what I understand as "holistic"


Specifically, what's wrong with a minimum # standard, then a more holistic approach? Does Columbia have time to read through 7800 applications to see who is interesting/has compelling softs? It makes perfect sense to set a floor and then evaluate people above that.

Also (I'm not trying to be a dbag here, I'm also biased because I haven't done anything interesting in my life), why do interesting people/cool life stories make better lawyers?

User avatar
puppleberry finn
Posts: 1036
Joined: Mon Feb 23, 2009 7:03 pm

Re: Columbia 2010

Postby puppleberry finn » Sat Dec 12, 2009 2:43 pm

On the other hand, holistic doesn't preclude needing good numbers. How many people get 171+? 3,000? If we are excluding URMs, that means CLS only has to fill what, 90% of it's class size? There are enough people to require both numbers and something else. Not saying that CLS does but...

User avatar
SanBun
Posts: 560
Joined: Sun May 31, 2009 10:19 pm

Re: Columbia 2010

Postby SanBun » Sat Dec 12, 2009 3:04 pm

kittenmittons wrote:
SanBun wrote:
kittenmittons wrote:
SanBun wrote:yeah, I hate how law schools are pretending to be holistic- I mean really, I'm guessing that 95% of the time they look at your # and if they don't like 'em, they just gloss over the app and toss it out unless you cured cancer or something, which then may get you a WL. Columbia in particular seems very # focused yet makes such a big deal of telling people of how holistic they are (the dean came to my school and said the same thing). Funny, seeing how in the past year virtually no non-URM with LSAT below 171 was admitted. I guess they're only holistic once you're 171+


Why is this a problem?


because that's not what I understand as "holistic"


Specifically, what's wrong with a minimum # standard, then a more holistic approach? Does Columbia have time to read through 7800 applications to see who is interesting/has compelling softs? It makes perfect sense to set a floor and then evaluate people above that.


There's nothing wrong with a minimum # standard, but I'm a firm believer in honesty, and when a school has some sort of cut-off, it should state or at least suggest it in some way. Dropping almost $100 on an app is rather burdensome financially for many students, and an honest statement with regards to # minimums would greatly help in a) reducing the # of apps to those more qualified so the admissions people don't have to deal with 7800 of apps but a more reasonable number and b) allowing prospective applicants to make a more informed decision about whether to spend the time and money involved in an app. I understand that all schools want to encourage applications, often simply to drive their admissions rate down, but that's kind of where the insincerity comes in that makes me so uncomfortable

User avatar
kittenmittons
Posts: 1453
Joined: Sun Nov 15, 2009 1:24 pm

Re: Columbia 2010

Postby kittenmittons » Sat Dec 12, 2009 3:13 pm

SanBun wrote:There's nothing wrong with a minimum # standard, but I'm a firm believer in honesty, and when a school has some sort of cut-off, it should state or at least suggest it in some way. Dropping almost $100 on an app is rather burdensome financially for many students, and an honest statement with regards to # minimums would greatly help in a) reducing the # of apps to those more qualified so the admissions people don't have to deal with 7800 of apps but a more reasonable number and b) allowing prospective applicants to make a more informed decision about whether to spend the time and money involved in an app. I understand that all schools want to encourage applications, often simply to drive their admissions rate down, but that's kind of where the insincerity comes in that makes me so uncomfortable


Publishing 25/50/75%ile GPA/LSAT is, to me, a form of suggestion to potential applicants.

dgb87
Posts: 59
Joined: Tue Oct 20, 2009 11:27 pm

Re: Columbia 2010

Postby dgb87 » Sat Dec 12, 2009 3:57 pm

Why would they want to reduce the number of apps? The more apps they get in each year, the more selective they can appear and the school gets more money from all of those paid application fees.

Even though it would be much nicer for us to know there is a numbers cut-off, I don't think Columbia would be that dumb as to ostracize those candidates with lower numbers.

User avatar
puppleberry finn
Posts: 1036
Joined: Mon Feb 23, 2009 7:03 pm

Re: Columbia 2010

Postby puppleberry finn » Sat Dec 12, 2009 4:01 pm

dgb87 wrote:Why would they want to reduce the number of apps? The more apps they get in each year, the more selective they can appear and the school gets more money from all of those paid application fees.

Even though it would be much nicer for us to know there is a numbers cut-off, I don't think Columbia would be that dumb as to ostracize those candidates with lower numbers.


Agreed. And there are probably some very small fraction of applicants that are accepted with surprisingly low numbers because of unique and impressive softs.

User avatar
crackberry
Posts: 3252
Joined: Thu Sep 17, 2009 3:23 pm

Re: Columbia 2010

Postby crackberry » Sat Dec 12, 2009 4:04 pm

SanBun wrote:yeah, I hate how law schools are pretending to be holistic- I mean really, I'm guessing that 95% of the time they look at your # and if they don't like 'em, they just gloss over the app and toss it out unless you cured cancer or something, which then may get you a WL. Columbia in particular seems very # focused yet makes such a big deal of telling people of how holistic they are (the dean came to my school and said the same thing). Funny, seeing how in the past year virtually no non-URM with LSAT below 171 was admitted. I guess they're only holistic once you're 171+

While I think CLS (and NYU) may be the most numbers-driven school(s) and I don't expect to be accepted because of it, I believe that my cycle (so far) proves that numbers aren't the be-all-and-end-all that some on TLS make them out to be.

User avatar
bluejayk
Posts: 181
Joined: Tue Jun 17, 2008 3:06 pm

Re: Columbia 2010

Postby bluejayk » Sat Dec 12, 2009 4:13 pm

crackberry wrote:While I think CLS (and NYU) may be the most numbers-driven school(s) and I don't expect to be accepted because of it, I believe that my cycle (so far) proves that numbers aren't the be-all-and-end-all that some on TLS make them out to be.


Huh?? Congratulations on your awesome cycle so far, but I don't see how this indicates that schools aren't number driven. You're 170/3.9, that's better than 99% of the applicants out there.

User avatar
SanBun
Posts: 560
Joined: Sun May 31, 2009 10:19 pm

Re: Columbia 2010

Postby SanBun » Sat Dec 12, 2009 4:18 pm

bluejayk wrote:
crackberry wrote:While I think CLS (and NYU) may be the most numbers-driven school(s) and I don't expect to be accepted because of it, I believe that my cycle (so far) proves that numbers aren't the be-all-and-end-all that some on TLS make them out to be.


Huh?? Congratulations on your awesome cycle so far, but I don't see how this indicates that schools aren't number driven. You're 170/3.9, that's better than 99% of the applicants out there.


Crackberry I was wondering the same thing

User avatar
crackberry
Posts: 3252
Joined: Thu Sep 17, 2009 3:23 pm

Re: Columbia 2010

Postby crackberry » Sat Dec 12, 2009 4:19 pm

bluejayk wrote:
crackberry wrote:While I think CLS (and NYU) may be the most numbers-driven school(s) and I don't expect to be accepted because of it, I believe that my cycle (so far) proves that numbers aren't the be-all-and-end-all that some on TLS make them out to be.


Huh?? Congratulations on your awesome cycle so far, but I don't see how this indicates that schools aren't number driven. You're 170/3.9, that's better than 99% of the applicants out there.

I was referring specifically to the fact that I was accepted to Stanford so early and got a JR1 at Harvard with my numbers, which are definitely on the low side for both schools.

User avatar
puppleberry finn
Posts: 1036
Joined: Mon Feb 23, 2009 7:03 pm

Re: Columbia 2010

Postby puppleberry finn » Sat Dec 12, 2009 4:21 pm

crackberry wrote:
bluejayk wrote:
crackberry wrote:While I think CLS (and NYU) may be the most numbers-driven school(s) and I don't expect to be accepted because of it, I believe that my cycle (so far) proves that numbers aren't the be-all-and-end-all that some on TLS make them out to be.


Huh?? Congratulations on your awesome cycle so far, but I don't see how this indicates that schools aren't number driven. You're 170/3.9, that's better than 99% of the applicants out there.

I was referring specifically to the fact that I was accepted to Stanford so early and got a JR1 at Harvard with my numbers, which are definitely on the low side for both schools.


A ton of people got JR1s with 3.9s and reasonable LSATs. Not that you're not awesome, crackberry, because you are. I am just saying.

User avatar
crackberry
Posts: 3252
Joined: Thu Sep 17, 2009 3:23 pm

Re: Columbia 2010

Postby crackberry » Sat Dec 12, 2009 4:23 pm

puppins wrote:A ton of people got JR1s with 3.9s and reasonable LSATs. Not that you're not awesome, crackberry, because you are. I am just saying.

I suppose it's possible that the reason I said that is because TLS inflated my expectations so much and led me to believe a ~170 score was "low." Of course I understand 170 is 98th percentile but when we're talking about HYS, 98th percentile is not that special.

User avatar
Helmholtz
Posts: 4394
Joined: Wed Sep 17, 2008 1:48 pm

Re: Columbia 2010

Postby Helmholtz » Sat Dec 12, 2009 4:29 pm

Any more deferrals/rejections in the mail today for ED applicants?

User avatar
puppleberry finn
Posts: 1036
Joined: Mon Feb 23, 2009 7:03 pm

Re: Columbia 2010

Postby puppleberry finn » Sat Dec 12, 2009 4:31 pm

crackberry wrote:
puppins wrote:A ton of people got JR1s with 3.9s and reasonable LSATs. Not that you're not awesome, crackberry, because you are. I am just saying.

I suppose it's possible that the reason I said that is because TLS inflated my expectations so much and led me to believe a ~170 score was "low." Of course I understand 170 is 98th percentile but when we're talking about HYS, 98th percentile is not that special.


You are at or above both medians at SLS so... no need to sell yourself short!

User avatar
CardinalRules
Posts: 2332
Joined: Wed Nov 18, 2009 5:20 pm

Re: Columbia 2010

Postby CardinalRules » Sat Dec 12, 2009 6:58 pm

puppins wrote:
crackberry wrote:
puppins wrote:A ton of people got JR1s with 3.9s and reasonable LSATs. Not that you're not awesome, crackberry, because you are. I am just saying.

I suppose it's possible that the reason I said that is because TLS inflated my expectations so much and led me to believe a ~170 score was "low." Of course I understand 170 is 98th percentile but when we're talking about HYS, 98th percentile is not that special.


You are at or above both medians at SLS so... no need to sell yourself short!


+a lot. The SLS LSAT range is much more reasonable than its two main competitors. Also, I don't want to say that you're not special, because you are, but your early notification probably had a lot to do with your extra-early completion date. I'm not trying to take anything away from the quality of your credentials, though.

OMG, I just said +a lot to a puppins comment. :shock:

User avatar
Kronk
Posts: 27949
Joined: Sat Dec 27, 2008 9:18 pm

Re: Columbia 2010

Postby Kronk » Sat Dec 12, 2009 7:07 pm

SLS' median is 171, for starters. So crackberry is a couple points off it. However, I think there is something to be said for people who get into HYS without the numbers for it. In my opinion, those people are far more impressive. Would you rather have started a non-profit or missed 2-3 less questions on a 101 question test? I know what I'd pick.

User avatar
CardinalRules
Posts: 2332
Joined: Wed Nov 18, 2009 5:20 pm

Re: Columbia 2010

Postby CardinalRules » Sat Dec 12, 2009 7:13 pm

VoidSix wrote:SLS' median is 171, for starters. So crackberry is a couple points off it. However, I think there is something to be said for people who get into HYS without the numbers for it. In my opinion, those people are far more impressive. Would you rather have started a non-profit or missed 2-3 less questions on a 101 question test? I know what I'd pick.


So do I, but I'm keeping my pick to myself. :wink:

Crackberry is one point off the median, which seems a negligible difference to me.

User avatar
fidesverita
Posts: 274
Joined: Mon Aug 10, 2009 9:04 pm

Re: Columbia 2010

Postby fidesverita » Sat Dec 12, 2009 8:29 pm

kittenmittons wrote:
SanBun wrote:
kittenmittons wrote:
SanBun wrote:yeah, I hate how law schools are pretending to be holistic- I mean really, I'm guessing that 95% of the time they look at your # and if they don't like 'em, they just gloss over the app and toss it out unless you cured cancer or something, which then may get you a WL. Columbia in particular seems very # focused yet makes such a big deal of telling people of how holistic they are (the dean came to my school and said the same thing). Funny, seeing how in the past year virtually no non-URM with LSAT below 171 was admitted. I guess they're only holistic once you're 171+


Why is this a problem?


because that's not what I understand as "holistic"


Specifically, what's wrong with a minimum # standard, then a more holistic approach? Does Columbia have time to read through 7800 applications to see who is interesting/has compelling softs? It makes perfect sense to set a floor and then evaluate people above that.

Also (I'm not trying to be a dbag here, I'm also biased because I haven't done anything interesting in my life), why do interesting people/cool life stories make better lawyers?


Uh, you could start a huge debate as to why interesting people make better lawyers. I'll play devil's advocate. In the extreme, would you want to hire a lawyer to represent you who went to Harvard undergrad and Yale law school with perfect grades from both but who never saw daylight and clearly had no friends in real life?

Obviously an exaggeration. But I wouldn't trust someone who's never looked past a textbook in their life to suddenly do a great job with a career that requires strong people skills, analysis, and thinking outside the box.

That's why I hope law schools take both kinds of people (book smart... and people smart). They make different kinds of people and an interesting class.

User avatar
fidesverita
Posts: 274
Joined: Mon Aug 10, 2009 9:04 pm

Re: Columbia 2010

Postby fidesverita » Sat Dec 12, 2009 8:32 pm

VoidSix wrote:SLS' median is 171, for starters. So crackberry is a couple points off it. However, I think there is something to be said for people who get into HYS without the numbers for it. In my opinion, those people are far more impressive. Would you rather have started a non-profit or missed 2-3 less questions on a 101 question test? I know what I'd pick.


+1000

User avatar
CardinalRules
Posts: 2332
Joined: Wed Nov 18, 2009 5:20 pm

Re: Columbia 2010

Postby CardinalRules » Sat Dec 12, 2009 8:34 pm

fidesverita wrote:
Uh, you could start a huge debate as to why interesting people make better lawyers. I'll play devil's advocate. In the extreme, would you want to hire a lawyer to represent you who went to Harvard undergrad and Yale law school with perfect grades from both but who never saw daylight and clearly had no friends in real life?

Obviously an exaggeration. But I wouldn't trust someone who's never looked past a textbook in their life to suddenly do a great job with a career that requires strong people skills, analysis, and thinking outside the box.

That's why I hope law schools take both kinds of people (book smart... and people smart). They make different kinds of people and an interesting class.


Yes. He could talk erudite circles around the opposition and make them look ignorant. Also, if there were any loophole at all that you could exploit, his inside-out knowledge would surely find it.

User avatar
fidesverita
Posts: 274
Joined: Mon Aug 10, 2009 9:04 pm

Re: Columbia 2010

Postby fidesverita » Sat Dec 12, 2009 8:41 pm

managamy wrote:
fidesverita wrote:
Uh, you could start a huge debate as to why interesting people make better lawyers. I'll play devil's advocate. In the extreme, would you want to hire a lawyer to represent you who went to Harvard undergrad and Yale law school with perfect grades from both but who never saw daylight and clearly had no friends in real life?

Obviously an exaggeration. But I wouldn't trust someone who's never looked past a textbook in their life to suddenly do a great job with a career that requires strong people skills, analysis, and thinking outside the box.

That's why I hope law schools take both kinds of people (book smart... and people smart). They make different kinds of people and an interesting class.


Yes. He could talk erudite circles around the opposition and make them look ignorant. Also, if there were any loophole at all that you could exploit, his inside-out knowledge would surely find it.


That's assuming s/he's capable of public speaking in court... Or that s/he can think on his/her feet for cases rather than just recite whatever s/he's memorized in a textbook.

I kid I kid. You could argue this forever. Obviously the best applicants for the top schools are a good combo of being smart and having leadership qualities. No extreme is good for law.

User avatar
CardinalRules
Posts: 2332
Joined: Wed Nov 18, 2009 5:20 pm

Re: Columbia 2010

Postby CardinalRules » Sat Dec 12, 2009 8:46 pm

Also, there are so many different types of jobs for which JDs are qualified that almost any personality or set of preferences could find something that suits both their abilities and their inclinations. One of the most attractive elements of a legal career to me is its flexibility.

alabamabound
Posts: 140
Joined: Mon Oct 26, 2009 11:31 pm

Re: Columbia 2010

Postby alabamabound » Sat Dec 12, 2009 9:02 pm

Helmholtz wrote:Any more deferrals/rejections in the mail today for ED applicants?


Yes. Got my deferral in the mail today.

oneforship
Posts: 1004
Joined: Sat Oct 25, 2008 5:17 pm

Re: Columbia 2010

Postby oneforship » Sat Dec 12, 2009 9:26 pm

alabamabound wrote:
Helmholtz wrote:Any more deferrals/rejections in the mail today for ED applicants?


Yes. Got my deferral in the mail today.


Mine didn't come yet.

User avatar
Helmholtz
Posts: 4394
Joined: Wed Sep 17, 2008 1:48 pm

Re: Columbia 2010

Postby Helmholtz » Sat Dec 12, 2009 10:07 pm

oneforship wrote:
alabamabound wrote:
Helmholtz wrote:Any more deferrals/rejections in the mail today for ED applicants?


Yes. Got my deferral in the mail today.


Mine didn't come yet.


Same here. Monday probably.




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

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: AZnative, iluvlawschool, ramp_999 and 11 guests