Columbia 2010

Share Your Experiences, Read About Other Experiences. Please keep posts organized by school and expected year of graduation.
User avatar
violaboy
Posts: 417
Joined: Thu Jun 25, 2009 5:02 pm

Re: Columbia 2010

Postby violaboy » Thu Dec 03, 2009 12:00 pm

With all of the index frenzy, I'm not sure if anyone else posted about this, but your index is right next to your LSAT score on your law school report that LSDAS sends to schools. So, Columbia doesn't have to look very far to see the index.

User avatar
irie
Posts: 325
Joined: Sun May 31, 2009 9:50 pm

Re: Columbia 2010

Postby irie » Thu Dec 03, 2009 12:10 pm

yelldk wrote:Just got an email. IN!


congrats yell, looks like they got started early today-- not even noon yet here in NY

yelldk
Posts: 4
Joined: Tue Jul 07, 2009 8:31 pm

Re: Columbia 2010

Postby yelldk » Thu Dec 03, 2009 12:18 pm

Thanks all

I've been following this thread closely past couple days and was definitely shocked to hear back in the AM. I was getting myself to get nervous at around 2 PM today and was really surprised when I received the e-mail. Good luck to all!!!

User avatar
somewhatwayward
Posts: 1446
Joined: Wed Sep 30, 2009 5:10 pm

Re: Columbia 2010

Postby somewhatwayward » Thu Dec 03, 2009 12:21 pm

Kakarot wrote:So wrong... Just so wrong. Me being poor in high school then going to a cheap school is not an indication of my intelligence or my ability.


no it's not

LSAT on the other hand is the great equator. If you go to IVY league and get below 170 and I go to a state college or below and get above a 175 obviously adcomms can see who is more capable.


likewise, no....if below a 170 means, like, 162 versus 175, then yeah, you are more capable, but if it is 169 or 167 versus 175, i don't think it is so obvious. we all know from our practice exams that scores can vary a lot from test to test. mine varied from 166 to 180, and any of those could have happened on test day, mostly depending on luck and circumstance.

because of the 95% confidence interval of three points in either direction, it is likely that your 175 indicates a true average ability greater than someone with a 170, but would you really say that it is "obvious" you are more capable than that person, based on just that information?

And something tells me if fidesverita wants the name of their UG to be an important admissions factor, they probably weren't complaining in high school about the weight that standardized tests were given in the UG admissions process.


standardized tests are used in a more reaosnable manner in college admissions (at top schools), in my opinion. they are used more as a necessary but not sufficient variable - one has to have a score that indicates an ability to do the work to get a further look, but no one is a shoo-in based on having perfect SAT scores. the higher the SAT, the greater the likelihood that someone will get in (generally) but it is hard to tell whether that is bc people with the highest SATs have more accomplishments, etc or whether it is due to the SAT itself, and we've all heard how many 800s the elite schools turn down....

User avatar
GlobeTrotter
Posts: 84
Joined: Thu Aug 06, 2009 9:45 am

Re: Columbia 2010

Postby GlobeTrotter » Thu Dec 03, 2009 12:29 pm

Helmholtz wrote:
oneforship wrote:
Helmholtz wrote:http://lawschoolnumbers.com/Tofu

5 for today that we know of.


Wow, assuming the #s are accurate, a below median LSAT too.


Assuming the numbers are right, here are the index scores of the admitted so far:

4.302
4.307
4.320
4.330
4.358


I calculated this new one to be 4.3359

congrats!

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

Re: Columbia 2010

Postby Helmholtz » Thu Dec 03, 2009 12:34 pm

Index numbers of those who have gotten in so far:

4.296
4.302
4.331
4.336
4.353
4.358

User avatar
violaboy
Posts: 417
Joined: Thu Jun 25, 2009 5:02 pm

Re: Columbia 2010

Postby violaboy » Thu Dec 03, 2009 12:34 pm

Helmholtz wrote:Index numbers of those who have gotten in so far:

4.296
4.302
4.331
4.336
4.353
4.358
4.454


Wow, I'm definitely in range. Good times.

User avatar
gahthelaw
Posts: 728
Joined: Sun May 17, 2009 11:30 pm

Re: Columbia 2010

Postby gahthelaw » Thu Dec 03, 2009 12:37 pm

Helmholtz wrote:Index numbers of those who have gotten in so far:

4.296
4.302
4.331
4.336
4.353
4.358
4.454


oof. in range, but only with my higher LSAT score... pleeeeeease let me stay in the city CLS. the market for what i do is here. everything i do is here. plus, i just got a way nicer apartment.

User avatar
GlobeTrotter
Posts: 84
Joined: Thu Aug 06, 2009 9:45 am

Re: Columbia 2010

Postby GlobeTrotter » Thu Dec 03, 2009 12:37 pm

Helmholtz wrote:Index numbers of those who have gotten in so far:

4.296
4.302
4.331
4.336
4.353
4.358
4.454


Is that last one this guy? http://lawschoolnumbers.com/daninreallife
He has CLS down for RD

sm515
Posts: 5
Joined: Mon Apr 13, 2009 12:17 pm

Re: Columbia 2010

Postby sm515 » Thu Dec 03, 2009 12:38 pm

same...i'm in the range, but only with my higher score. come on CLS!

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

Re: Columbia 2010

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

GlobeTrotter wrote:
Helmholtz wrote:Index numbers of those who have gotten in so far:

4.296
4.302
4.331
4.336
4.353
4.358
4.454


Is that last one this guy? http://lawschoolnumbers.com/daninreallife
He has CLS down for RD


I'll take him off the list. If he's been accepted, it's ED, but I don't fully trust the profile yet.

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

Re: Columbia 2010

Postby oneforship » Thu Dec 03, 2009 12:41 pm

Helmholtz wrote:
GlobeTrotter wrote:
Helmholtz wrote:Index numbers of those who have gotten in so far:

4.296
4.302
4.331
4.336
4.353
4.358
4.454


Is that last one this guy? http://lawschoolnumbers.com/daninreallife
He has CLS down for RD


I'll take him off the list. If he's been accepted, it's ED, but I don't fully trust the profile yet.


He says he's been rejected from Yale already, in November. Has Yale even sent any decisions yet?

User avatar
violaboy
Posts: 417
Joined: Thu Jun 25, 2009 5:02 pm

Re: Columbia 2010

Postby violaboy » Thu Dec 03, 2009 12:44 pm

oneforship wrote:
Helmholtz wrote:
GlobeTrotter wrote:
Helmholtz wrote:Index numbers of those who have gotten in so far:

4.296
4.302
4.331
4.336
4.353
4.358
4.454


Is that last one this guy? http://lawschoolnumbers.com/daninreallife
He has CLS down for RD


I'll take him off the list. If he's been accepted, it's ED, but I don't fully trust the profile yet.


He says he's been rejected from Yale already, in November. Has Yale even sent any decisions yet?


Looks like a flame.

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

Re: Columbia 2010

Postby Helmholtz » Thu Dec 03, 2009 12:46 pm

violaboy wrote:Looks like a flame.


Flaming Columbia acceptances? C'mon. Is nothing sacred?

User avatar
gahthelaw
Posts: 728
Joined: Sun May 17, 2009 11:30 pm

Re: Columbia 2010

Postby gahthelaw » Thu Dec 03, 2009 12:48 pm

Helmholtz wrote:
violaboy wrote:Looks like a flame.


Flaming Columbia acceptances? C'mon. Is nothing sacred?


nope, absolutely nothing, especially not for NYC T-14s. (not that i am still shaking from the upset on the NYU thread or anything)

User avatar
violaboy
Posts: 417
Joined: Thu Jun 25, 2009 5:02 pm

Re: Columbia 2010

Postby violaboy » Thu Dec 03, 2009 12:48 pm

Helmholtz wrote:
violaboy wrote:Looks like a flame.


Flaming Columbia acceptances? C'mon. Is nothing sacred?


Apparently not. Just seems like a very dubious profile.

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

Re: Columbia 2010

Postby kittenmittons » Thu Dec 03, 2009 12:49 pm

gahthelaw wrote:
Helmholtz wrote:
violaboy wrote:Looks like a flame.


Flaming Columbia acceptances? C'mon. Is nothing sacred?


nope, absolutely nothing, especially not for NYC T-14s. (not that i am still shaking from the upset on the NYU thread or anything)


+1

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

Re: Columbia 2010

Postby Helmholtz » Thu Dec 03, 2009 1:03 pm

Helmholtz wrote:Index numbers of those who have gotten in so far:

4.296
4.302
4.313
4.331
4.336
4.353
4.358

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

Re: Columbia 2010

Postby kittenmittons » Thu Dec 03, 2009 1:09 pm

Helmholtz wrote:
Helmholtz wrote:Index numbers of those who have gotten in so far:

4.296
4.302
4.313
4.331
4.336
4.353
4.358


Inc shameless reassurance trolling:

Based on the indexes of admitted ED applicants, should I feel good about my RD 4.358?

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

Re: Columbia 2010

Postby Helmholtz » Thu Dec 03, 2009 1:10 pm

kittenmittons wrote:
Helmholtz wrote:
Helmholtz wrote:Index numbers of those who have gotten in so far:

4.296
4.302
4.313
4.331
4.336
4.353
4.358


Inc shameless reassurance trolling:

Based on the indexes of admitted ED applicants, should I feel good about my RD 4.358?


ED and RD are two very different animals, I'd say you have about a 50/50 shot.

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

Re: Columbia 2010

Postby kittenmittons » Thu Dec 03, 2009 1:13 pm

Helmholtz wrote:ED and RD are two very different animals, I'd say you have about a 50/50 shot.


That's what I expected. Thanks, helm.

a.shoshana
Posts: 101
Joined: Fri Jun 26, 2009 1:43 am

Re: Columbia 2010

Postby a.shoshana » Thu Dec 03, 2009 1:14 pm

Helmholtz wrote:
kittenmittons wrote:
Helmholtz wrote:
Helmholtz wrote:Index numbers of those who have gotten in so far:

4.296
4.302
4.313
4.331
4.336
4.353
4.358


Inc shameless reassurance trolling:

Based on the indexes of admitted ED applicants, should I feel good about my RD 4.358?


ED and RD are two very different animals, I'd say you have about a 50/50 shot.


I thought our general consensus was that Columbia likes to make a big deal about how they DON'T give ED applicants a significant boost?

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

Re: Columbia 2010

Postby oneforship » Thu Dec 03, 2009 1:15 pm

a.shoshana wrote:I thought our general consensus was that Columbia likes to make a big deal about how they DON'T give ED applicants a significant boost?


What they say v. What they do.

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

Re: Columbia 2010

Postby Helmholtz » Thu Dec 03, 2009 1:18 pm

a.shoshana wrote:I thought our general consensus was that Columbia likes to make a big deal about how they DON'T give ED applicants a significant boost?


How schools act /=/ what they say.

And in a way, it really isn't a significant boost, relatively speaking. No 168/3.7 or 171/3.0 or 169/3.5 is going to be getting into Columbia just because he/she decided to apply ED. I think pretty much everybody who gets in ED has at least a shot at RD, albeit not always a great one, but it's not out of the question.

hopefullaw27
Posts: 176
Joined: Wed Aug 26, 2009 8:50 pm

Re: Columbia 2010

Postby hopefullaw27 » Thu Dec 03, 2009 1:26 pm

think columbia's done for the day? i never thought i'd dislike seeing more green dots on a LSN graph...




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

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: bloomsday, Christinabruin, jjcorvino, RictusErectus, spursforever and 12 guests