Columbia 2010

Share Your Experiences, Read About Other Experiences. Please keep posts organized by school and expected year of graduation.
User avatar
Lieut Kaffee
Posts: 774
Joined: Wed Nov 11, 2009 2:01 am

Re: Columbia 2010

Postby Lieut Kaffee » Thu Dec 03, 2009 12:27 am

GeePee wrote:Anyone of you Columbia crazies want to give me the idiot's guide to the Columbia Index (aka what it has seemed to indicate in the past, what's what, etc.)


A few pages back, Helmholtz suggested 4.3 was a safe place to be for ED. It has also been suggested that 4.5 was near auto-admit for RD, while 4.4 is probably a pretty safe position.

I'm not a well-researched Columbia crazy, but that's a decent summary of the last several pages of this thread.

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

Re: Columbia 2010

Postby Helmholtz » Thu Dec 03, 2009 12:39 am

m51 (a current CLS student who has been incredibly good about CLS admittance discussion) said this about index:

M51 wrote:Basically, if a school has an index #, use that instead of your GPA/LSAT when trying to figure out your odds.


M51 wrote:Just glanced at CLS graphs... compared to their previous years, they're doing the same amount of YP-ing as they've traditionally done (not much). CCN has always randomly taken and rejected and WL-ed borderline candidates... and whatever you may think... 3.75/170 is NOT even a 4.3 on CLS's index... of which only 50% get admitted w/o first being WL-ed. A 4.2 has only a 25% historical success rate.

These people have a higher chance of being WL-ed/Rejected than of being outright Accepted. That's been true for 3 years running. I don't see what the big confusion is. For a school that uses index #s, your LSAT/GPA is mostly meaningless... take the index #s, which have been steady through the years for CLS. 4.4 = you're in unless we find dirt on you. 4.3 = you have a good shot. 4.2 = you have a shot, but it's not great. 4.1 = you're kindda screwed.


M51 wrote:Just using Columbia as an example because I ED-ed here and did a lot of research. Normal 4.3 index # acceptance rate is somewhere around 50%. ED 4.3 acceptance rate is well over 75%. Normal 4.2 index # acceptance rate is somewhere around 20%. ED rate is well over 33%..

User avatar
Lieut Kaffee
Posts: 774
Joined: Wed Nov 11, 2009 2:01 am

Re: Columbia 2010

Postby Lieut Kaffee » Thu Dec 03, 2009 12:42 am

Does CLS round to the nearest tenth simply to save space, or do they actually round for consideration purposes? I have to assume a 4.32 has a better chance than a 4.26, right?

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

Re: Columbia 2010

Postby Helmholtz » Thu Dec 03, 2009 12:43 am

LieutKaffee wrote:Does CLS round to the nearest tenth simply to save space, or do they actually round for consideration purposes? I have to assume a 4.32 has a better chance than a 4.26, right?


I would assume they look at the more specific number, but obviously, I'm not a part of adcomm, so I can's say w/o doubt.

User avatar
Lieut Kaffee
Posts: 774
Joined: Wed Nov 11, 2009 2:01 am

Re: Columbia 2010

Postby Lieut Kaffee » Thu Dec 03, 2009 12:46 am

Helmholtz wrote:
LieutKaffee wrote:Does CLS round to the nearest tenth simply to save space, or do they actually round for consideration purposes? I have to assume a 4.32 has a better chance than a 4.26, right?


I would assume they look at the more specific number, but obviously, I'm not a part of adcomm, so I can's say w/o doubt.


For my question to even make sense, you have to take pretty seriously the notion that index completely trumps LSAT and/or GPA.

173/3.62 is an index of 4.297

172/3.62 is an index of 4.252

Thus, even if they don't differentiate these two applicants based strictly on index, the top applicant does more for their LSAT numbers.

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

Re: Columbia 2010

Postby SanBun » Thu Dec 03, 2009 12:49 am

LieutKaffee wrote:
Helmholtz wrote:
LieutKaffee wrote:Does CLS round to the nearest tenth simply to save space, or do they actually round for consideration purposes? I have to assume a 4.32 has a better chance than a 4.26, right?


I would assume they look at the more specific number, but obviously, I'm not a part of adcomm, so I can's say w/o doubt.


For my question to even make sense, you have to take pretty seriously the notion that index completely trumps LSAT and/or GPA.

173/3.62 is an index of 4.297

172/3.62 is an index of 4.252

Thus, even if they don't differentiate these two applicants based strictly on index, the top applicant does more for their LSAT numbers.



Wait, so we're officially accepting the theory that Columbia adcoms are machines w/o a heart and just plug in your # to determine if you're accepted?

If that's true, why do they even ask for a PS/DS anymore? They should just have you send in your # via LSAC and that's it. In fact, why don't they do auto-plug into LSP w/ computers instead of employing humans?

User avatar
Lieut Kaffee
Posts: 774
Joined: Wed Nov 11, 2009 2:01 am

Re: Columbia 2010

Postby Lieut Kaffee » Thu Dec 03, 2009 12:50 am

SanBun wrote:Wait, so we're officially accepting the theory that Columbia adcoms are machines w/o a heart and just plug in your # to determine if you're accepted?

If that's true, why do they even ask for a PS/DS anymore? They should just have you send in your # via LSAC and that's it. In fact, why don't they do auto-plug into LSP w/ computers instead of employing humans?


Well, I didn't know jack about LS admissions before I joined this site and became a part of it. That said, I've come to believe that it's largely a numbers game especially at the high levels. If anything, soft factors are used to break ties.

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

Re: Columbia 2010

Postby SanBun » Thu Dec 03, 2009 12:52 am

LieutKaffee wrote:Well, I didn't know jack about LS admissions before I joined this site and became a part of it. That said, I've come to believe that it's largely a numbers game especially at the high levels. If anything, soft factors are used to break ties.


So have we come to believe that because that's the way adcoms really do it or because people say that's the way adcoms do it?

User avatar
Lieut Kaffee
Posts: 774
Joined: Wed Nov 11, 2009 2:01 am

Re: Columbia 2010

Postby Lieut Kaffee » Thu Dec 03, 2009 12:54 am

SanBun wrote:
LieutKaffee wrote:Well, I didn't know jack about LS admissions before I joined this site and became a part of it. That said, I've come to believe that it's largely a numbers game especially at the high levels. If anything, soft factors are used to break ties.


So have we come to believe that because that's the way adcoms really do it or because people say that's the way adcoms do it?


For me personally, I'd have to say I've relied heavily on the opinions of TLS posters to form my impressions of LS admissions.

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

Re: Columbia 2010

Postby SanBun » Thu Dec 03, 2009 12:55 am

LieutKaffee wrote:For me personally, I'd have to say I've relied heavily on the opinions of TLS posters to form my impressions of LS admissions.


I'd have to say the same thing. At the same time, I try take everything with a (rather large) grain of salt because none of the poster actually is an adcom.
Last edited by SanBun on Thu Dec 03, 2009 12:58 am, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
AngryAvocado
Posts: 776
Joined: Sun Jul 19, 2009 11:22 pm

Re: Columbia 2010

Postby AngryAvocado » Thu Dec 03, 2009 12:58 am

Thanks for digging up the info, Helm. Did you catch any indication as to the success rate of 4.3 indices who apply ED but get deferred?

User avatar
Lieut Kaffee
Posts: 774
Joined: Wed Nov 11, 2009 2:01 am

Re: Columbia 2010

Postby Lieut Kaffee » Thu Dec 03, 2009 1:04 am

SanBun wrote:
LieutKaffee wrote:For me personally, I'd have to say I've relied heavily on the opinions of TLS posters to form my impressions of LS admissions.


I'd have to say the same thing. At the same time, I try take everything with a (rather large) grain of salt because none of the poster actually is an adcom.


Here's what I've come to believe by injecting some of my own common sense into all the rhetoric. Any soft factor would have to really stand out to make a huge difference. Most of us don't have such factors. That said, an LSAT score of 170+ is not as common as hanging out in TLS would lead us to believe; only 2% of people reach that bar.

Having a high LSAT/GPA combo does a decent job already of setting people apart. Therefore, as long as your PS/LOR/softs don't HURT you, you are going to be judged largely on the merit of your numbers. Like I said, the soft factors break ties.

The most unfortunate aspect of the rankings game, imo, is that schools' obsession with medians prevents certain candidates from even being considered.

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

Re: Columbia 2010

Postby Helmholtz » Thu Dec 03, 2009 1:05 am

SanBun wrote:
LieutKaffee wrote:Well, I didn't know jack about LS admissions before I joined this site and became a part of it. That said, I've come to believe that it's largely a numbers game especially at the high levels. If anything, soft factors are used to break ties.


So have we come to believe that because that's the way adcoms really do it or because people say that's the way adcoms do it?


I think the adcomm definitely looks at softs, but there is a reason people at an index of 4.1 or below hardly if ever get in and 4.4's get in fairly easily, when it comes to ED admissions. Your numbers can get you in the door if you're borderline (4.2 or so), and softs can make up the difference, and likewise, a weak application can earn a 4.3 a WL/deferral.

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

Re: Columbia 2010

Postby Helmholtz » Thu Dec 03, 2009 1:07 am

SanBun wrote:
LieutKaffee wrote:For me personally, I'd have to say I've relied heavily on the opinions of TLS posters to form my impressions of LS admissions.


I'd have to say the same thing. At the same time, I try take everything with a (rather large) grain of salt because none of the poster actually is an adcom.


I agree. That being said, I think some of the best advice is given by those who have already made it through the process, e.g. I trust M51, a CLS 2L, more than about anybody else on here when it comes to CLS admissions.

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

Re: Columbia 2010

Postby SanBun » Thu Dec 03, 2009 1:11 am

LieutKaffee wrote:
Here's what I've come to believe by injecting some of my own common sense into all the rhetoric. Any soft factor would have to really stand out to make a huge difference. Most of us don't have such factors. That said, an LSAT score of 170+ is not as common as hanging out in TLS would lead us to believe; only 2% of people reach that bar.

Having a high LSAT/GPA combo does a decent job already of setting people apart. Therefore, as long as your PS/LOR/softs don't HURT you, you are going to be judged largely on the merit of your numbers. Like I said, the soft factors break ties.

The most unfortunate aspect of the rankings game, imo, is that schools' obsession with medians prevents certain candidates from even being considered.


mk, I can live with that. Well i'll just hope that my soft factors make me stand out enough for at least one good school to give me a chance.
You guys here are just better # wise than I am so I'm sure your chances are accordingly better. Columbia is a long shot for me and I really just applied because it's been a childhood dream for me and because I never imagined I would be where I am today... Oh well, good luck to the rest of you :)

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

Re: Columbia 2010

Postby Helmholtz » Thu Dec 03, 2009 1:23 am

AngryAvocado wrote:Thanks for digging up the info, Helm. Did you catch any indication as to the success rate of 4.3 indices who apply ED but get deferred?


I have never heard of anybody being deferred ED and then being accepted RD, which sort of makes sense. Not saying there isn't a first time......

Tofu
Posts: 249
Joined: Sat Oct 17, 2009 4:18 pm

Re: Columbia 2010

Postby Tofu » Thu Dec 03, 2009 1:26 am

.
Last edited by Tofu on Fri May 07, 2010 5:32 am, edited 1 time in total.

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

Re: Columbia 2010

Postby Helmholtz » Thu Dec 03, 2009 1:28 am

Tofu wrote:
LieutKaffee wrote:That said, an LSAT score of 170+ is not as common as hanging out in TLS would lead us to believe


i always feel so inadequate with a 171 when i'm on this site haha :(

makes me wish i took my lsat studying more seriously


Yeah, but you always have that CLS acceptance, most people would take that over a 171 any day. :)

And your GPA makes me feel inadequate. :wink:

alex1243
Posts: 12
Joined: Sun Nov 29, 2009 3:15 pm

Re: Columbia 2010

Postby alex1243 » Thu Dec 03, 2009 1:29 am

I have a 4.3 index (low LSAT at 171; high GPA at 3.82) and applied ED. Got an e-mail today asking for grades from when I studied abroad in the spring. I wonder if that's a good thing... Anyone have a clue?

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

Re: Columbia 2010

Postby Helmholtz » Thu Dec 03, 2009 1:30 am

alex1243 wrote:I have a 4.3 index (low LSAT at 171; high GPA at 3.82) and applied ED. Got an e-mail today asking for grades from when I studied abroad in the spring. I wonder if that's a good thing... Anyone have a clue?


Do you mean they said they're going to push back their decision until a transcript update or is this just them trying to fill in some gaps on your app?

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

Re: Columbia 2010

Postby CardinalRules » Thu Dec 03, 2009 1:31 am

alex1243 wrote:I have a 4.3 index (low LSAT at 171; high GPA at 3.82) and applied ED. Got an e-mail today asking for grades from when I studied abroad in the spring. I wonder if that's a good thing... Anyone have a clue?


I'd consider it a positive. It means that they're seriously considering you and are willing to devote further time to your file.

User avatar
MeTalkPrettyOneDay
Posts: 196
Joined: Mon Mar 09, 2009 6:42 pm

Re: Columbia 2010

Postby MeTalkPrettyOneDay » Thu Dec 03, 2009 1:33 am

Helmholtz wrote:
alex1243 wrote:I have a 4.3 index (low LSAT at 171; high GPA at 3.82) and applied ED. Got an e-mail today asking for grades from when I studied abroad in the spring. I wonder if that's a good thing... Anyone have a clue?


Do you mean they said they're going to push back their decision until a transcript update or is this just them trying to fill in some gaps on your app?
Edit: reading comp fail on my part. Sorry!
Last edited by MeTalkPrettyOneDay on Thu Dec 03, 2009 1:37 am, edited 1 time in total.

alex1243
Posts: 12
Joined: Sun Nov 29, 2009 3:15 pm

Re: Columbia 2010

Postby alex1243 » Thu Dec 03, 2009 1:35 am

Helmholtz wrote:
alex1243 wrote:I have a 4.3 index (low LSAT at 171; high GPA at 3.82) and applied ED. Got an e-mail today asking for grades from when I studied abroad in the spring. I wonder if that's a good thing... Anyone have a clue?


Do you mean they said they're going to push back their decision until a transcript update or is this just them trying to fill in some gaps on your app?


I think they're trying to fill a gap... when I applied in October, my school hadn't processed my grades from study abroad in the spring (long process; syllabi had to be approved by departments, etc. etc.), so I sent a sentence-long addendum explaining why my transcript was incomplete. I got the grades processed in mid-November, and I got an e-mail asking for those grades (the study abroad grades from the spring, not my fall grades for this semester) yesterday.


As far as I know, they're still reviewing my file for ED because the e-mail didn't say otherwise. My GPA abroad was roughly the same as my GPA at school, so I would assume it wouldn't change much... any insights?

User avatar
AngryAvocado
Posts: 776
Joined: Sun Jul 19, 2009 11:22 pm

Re: Columbia 2010

Postby AngryAvocado » Thu Dec 03, 2009 1:46 am

Helmholtz wrote:
AngryAvocado wrote:Thanks for digging up the info, Helm. Did you catch any indication as to the success rate of 4.3 indices who apply ED but get deferred?


I have never heard of anybody being deferred ED and then being accepted RD, which sort of makes sense. Not saying there isn't a first time......


Wow, didn't realize deferral was that big of a death sentence. Good to know.

Excuse me while I go piss my pants.

Which thread is that stuff from M51 from? I didn't see it in the Columbia 2012 one.

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

Re: Columbia 2010

Postby crackberry » Thu Dec 03, 2009 2:05 am

Helmholtz wrote:m51 (a current CLS student who has been incredibly good about CLS admittance discussion) said this about index:

M51 wrote:Basically, if a school has an index #, use that instead of your GPA/LSAT when trying to figure out your odds.

Thanks for the info, Helm. Did he say anything about Stanford's use of indexes or just CLS? (Sorry to hijack the thread. PM me if you want.)




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

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Baby Gaga, Bing [Bot], chili_davis, danid83, godinacup, hangold, Keilz, lawdude31, stratton_oakmont, Thelaw23, Torres1893, TudoBem and 33 guests