Yale 2010

Share Your Experiences, Read About Other Experiences. Please keep posts organized by school and expected year of graduation.
User avatar
ndirish2010
Posts: 2950
Joined: Mon Dec 14, 2009 4:41 pm

Re: Yale 2010

Postby ndirish2010 » Sat Feb 06, 2010 11:54 am

Veritas2010 wrote:Honestly, I don't think that they even READ a file if they don't like the numbers they see (especially the LSAT score, even if it's a low 160). I don't know how it works for URMs, because my friend was one (she's Indian) and had amazing amazing softs, a 3.97 GPA and a low 160, and had an incredible PS, LORs and got rejected. But then again maybe they don't take all minorities to be URM...


I can't believe I'm posting on the Yale thread...but people from the Indian subcontinent are NOT URMs. If anything, they are overrepresented in all professional fields.

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

Re: Yale 2010

Postby crackberry » Sat Feb 06, 2010 4:56 pm

Gunz353 wrote:Soooo, I'm sure it's been asked a billion times...but has anyone heard of someone getting into Yale with TTT numbers because of their soft factors like the 250? Not including URM's...

What I've heard about Yale is that once you pass a certain numbers threshold - the million dollar question being what this threshold is - your numbers become irrelevant and other factors become paramount because the faculty who review files don't particularly care about numbers. My guess is the threshold is about [168, 3.9+; 170, 3.85+; 172, 3.8+; 175, 3.75+]. That, however, is nothing but pure, unadulterated speculation.

pleasepickme
Posts: 151
Joined: Thu Dec 17, 2009 12:58 am

Re: Yale 2010

Postby pleasepickme » Sat Feb 06, 2010 5:46 pm

So for those of us that (apparently) survived the wave of rejections last week, any ideas on how long it will be til we hear something? Is there a point at which, if we haven't heard, we should just about give up?

User avatar
englawyer
Posts: 1270
Joined: Wed Feb 14, 2007 10:57 pm

Re: Yale 2010

Postby englawyer » Sat Feb 06, 2010 6:04 pm

crackberry wrote:
Gunz353 wrote:Soooo, I'm sure it's been asked a billion times...but has anyone heard of someone getting into Yale with TTT numbers because of their soft factors like the 250? Not including URM's...

What I've heard about Yale is that once you pass a certain numbers threshold - the million dollar question being what this threshold is - your numbers become irrelevant and other factors become paramount because the faculty who review files don't particularly care about numbers. My guess is the threshold is about [168, 3.9+; 170, 3.85+; 172, 3.8+; 175, 3.75+]. That, however, is nothing but pure, unadulterated speculation.


haha, blatant crackberry trolling. you fixed the numbers so you qualify :lol:

i agree with your assessment though, although i think 3.75 is pushing it:

http://yale.lawschoolnumbers.com/applic ... ,8&type=jd

i think they very rarely go under 3.8.

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

Re: Yale 2010

Postby crackberry » Sat Feb 06, 2010 6:06 pm

englawyer wrote:
crackberry wrote:
Gunz353 wrote:Soooo, I'm sure it's been asked a billion times...but has anyone heard of someone getting into Yale with TTT numbers because of their soft factors like the 250? Not including URM's...

What I've heard about Yale is that once you pass a certain numbers threshold - the million dollar question being what this threshold is - your numbers become irrelevant and other factors become paramount because the faculty who review files don't particularly care about numbers. My guess is the threshold is about [168, 3.9+; 170, 3.85+; 172, 3.8+; 175, 3.75+]. That, however, is nothing but pure, unadulterated speculation.


haha, blatant crackberry trolling. you fixed the numbers so you qualify :lol:

i agree with your assessment though, although i think 3.75 is pushing it:

http://yale.lawschoolnumbers.com/applic ... ,8&type=jd

i think they very rarely go under 3.8.

Yeah you caught me, but while they very rarely go under 170, you will see the occasional 168/169, provided the GPA is high enough.

User avatar
Veritas2010
Posts: 59
Joined: Sat Jan 23, 2010 3:41 pm

Re: Yale 2010

Postby Veritas2010 » Sat Feb 06, 2010 6:38 pm

ndirish2010 wrote:
Veritas2010 wrote:Honestly, I don't think that they even READ a file if they don't like the numbers they see (especially the LSAT score, even if it's a low 160). I don't know how it works for URMs, because my friend was one (she's Indian) and had amazing amazing softs, a 3.97 GPA and a low 160, and had an incredible PS, LORs and got rejected. But then again maybe they don't take all minorities to be URM...


I can't believe I'm posting on the Yale thread...but people from the Indian subcontinent are NOT URMs. If anything, they are overrepresented in all professional fields.



Hmm ... I'd agree when it comes to medicine, pharmacy, the sciences, and maybe even some fields like Economics and Finance, but I def. didn't think that they're were that many Indian lawyers out there ... or Asians in general. I think their definition might be "historically" URM in the US of A

User avatar
booboo
Posts: 1032
Joined: Tue Oct 20, 2009 10:39 pm

Re: Yale 2010

Postby booboo » Sat Feb 06, 2010 6:45 pm

Veritas2010 wrote:
ndirish2010 wrote:
Veritas2010 wrote:Honestly, I don't think that they even READ a file if they don't like the numbers they see (especially the LSAT score, even if it's a low 160). I don't know how it works for URMs, because my friend was one (she's Indian) and had amazing amazing softs, a 3.97 GPA and a low 160, and had an incredible PS, LORs and got rejected. But then again maybe they don't take all minorities to be URM...


I can't believe I'm posting on the Yale thread...but people from the Indian subcontinent are NOT URMs. If anything, they are overrepresented in all professional fields.



Hmm ... I'd agree when it comes to medicine, pharmacy, the sciences, and maybe even some fields like Economics and Finance, but I def. didn't think that they're were that many Indian lawyers out there ... or Asians in general. I think their definition might be "historically" URM in the US of A


URM = Under represented minority, meaning that in regards to the percentage of the population, is a certain minority adequately represented by a similar percentage in a certain profession. That should clear it up a bit.

:).

User avatar
booboo
Posts: 1032
Joined: Tue Oct 20, 2009 10:39 pm

Re: Yale 2010

Postby booboo » Sat Feb 06, 2010 6:47 pm

crackberry wrote:
Gunz353 wrote:Soooo, I'm sure it's been asked a billion times...but has anyone heard of someone getting into Yale with TTT numbers because of their soft factors like the 250? Not including URM's...

What I've heard about Yale is that once you pass a certain numbers threshold - the million dollar question being what this threshold is - your numbers become irrelevant and other factors become paramount because the faculty who review files don't particularly care about numbers. My guess is the threshold is about [168, 3.9+; 170, 3.85+; 172, 3.8+; 175, 3.75+]. That, however, is nothing but pure, unadulterated speculation.


I wish they had thresholds like that, I wouldn't have laughed so hard when they sent me a packet to apply. (I laughed harder at the Yale Packet then the Cooley postcard, FWIW.)

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

Re: Yale 2010

Postby crackberry » Sat Feb 06, 2010 7:01 pm

booboo wrote:
crackberry wrote:
Gunz353 wrote:Soooo, I'm sure it's been asked a billion times...but has anyone heard of someone getting into Yale with TTT numbers because of their soft factors like the 250? Not including URM's...

What I've heard about Yale is that once you pass a certain numbers threshold - the million dollar question being what this threshold is - your numbers become irrelevant and other factors become paramount because the faculty who review files don't particularly care about numbers. My guess is the threshold is about [168, 3.9+; 170, 3.85+; 172, 3.8+; 175, 3.75+]. That, however, is nothing but pure, unadulterated speculation.


I wish they had thresholds like that, I wouldn't have laughed so hard when they sent me a packet to apply. (I laughed harder at the Yale Packet then the Cooley postcard, FWIW.)

Honestly I think they do. But Yale has by far the highest "softs" threshold for any school.

User avatar
BioEBear2010
Posts: 745
Joined: Wed Nov 19, 2008 7:05 pm

Re: Yale 2010

Postby BioEBear2010 » Sat Feb 06, 2010 7:07 pm

booboo wrote:
crackberry wrote:
Gunz353 wrote:Soooo, I'm sure it's been asked a billion times...but has anyone heard of someone getting into Yale with TTT numbers because of their soft factors like the 250? Not including URM's...

What I've heard about Yale is that once you pass a certain numbers threshold - the million dollar question being what this threshold is - your numbers become irrelevant and other factors become paramount because the faculty who review files don't particularly care about numbers. My guess is the threshold is about [168, 3.9+; 170, 3.85+; 172, 3.8+; 175, 3.75+]. That, however, is nothing but pure, unadulterated speculation.


I wish they had thresholds like that, I wouldn't have laughed so hard when they sent me a packet to apply. (I laughed harder at the Yale Packet then the Cooley postcard, FWIW.)

I actually wouldn't be surprised if Yale has a threshold of sorts. Seems like after a certain point, acceptances are based on factors other than GPA/LSAT (the holistic process that everyone speaks of). As for the threshold itself, who knows (Crack's estimates seem pretty reasonable).

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

Re: Yale 2010

Postby CardinalRules » Sat Feb 06, 2010 7:22 pm

Gunz353 wrote:Soooo, I'm sure it's been asked a billion times...but has anyone heard of someone getting into Yale with TTT numbers because of their soft factors like the 250? Not including URM's...


In a word: yes. But the soft factors have to be spectacular.

notanumber
Posts: 485
Joined: Wed Feb 03, 2010 4:28 pm

Re: Yale 2010

Postby notanumber » Sat Feb 06, 2010 7:28 pm

BioEBear2010 wrote: I actually wouldn't be surprised if Yale has a threshold of sorts. Seems like after a certain point, acceptances are based on factors other than GPA/LSAT (the holistic process that everyone speaks of). As for the threshold itself, who knows (Crack's estimates seem pretty reasonable).


My entirely baseless suspicion is that they have a "normal threshold" for most applicants but not if the admission dean sees an amazing qualification that catches the eye. These would be things like a bestselling novel, an award winning motion picture actor/director, a statewide or higher elected politician, a general in the army, etc... This sort of thing might enable the dean to pass-through the applicant to the professors (or just decide to admit the candidate with the super-sexy-soft). I also suspect that your usual "amazing soft" like a top-tier Ph.D. or a Peace Corps/TFA stint or a Fulbright or an Olympics appearance probably isn't enough to push you into this pile.

The one thing I do wonder is if the auto-admit process that the dean talks about is primarily aimed at keeping Yale at the top of the numbers game. In other words are the auto-admit folk all [75/median] or [75/75]? Are there even enough people at [178/3.98] for Yale to admit? That would keep the professors from selecting a class that had amazing soft factors but that caused Yale to drop in the (over-emphasized IMHO) rankings.

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

Re: Yale 2010

Postby crackberry » Sat Feb 06, 2010 7:38 pm

notanumber wrote:
BioEBear2010 wrote: I actually wouldn't be surprised if Yale has a threshold of sorts. Seems like after a certain point, acceptances are based on factors other than GPA/LSAT (the holistic process that everyone speaks of). As for the threshold itself, who knows (Crack's estimates seem pretty reasonable).


My entirely baseless suspicion is that they have a "normal threshold" for most applicants but not if the admission dean sees an amazing qualification that catches the eye. These would be things like a bestselling novel, an award winning motion picture actor/director, a statewide or higher elected politician, a general in the army, etc... This sort of thing might enable the dean to pass-through the applicant to the professors (or just decide to admit the candidate with the super-sexy-soft). I also suspect that your usual "amazing soft" like a top-tier Ph.D. or a Peace Corps/TFA stint or a Fulbright or an Olympics appearance probably isn't enough to push you into this pile.

The one thing I do wonder is if the auto-admit process that the dean talks about is primarily aimed at keeping Yale at the top of the numbers game. In other words are the auto-admit folk all [75/median] or [75/75]? Are there even enough people at [178/3.98] for Yale to admit? That would keep the professors from selecting a class that had amazing soft factors but that caused Yale to drop in the (over-emphasized IMHO) rankings.

I dunno, but Yale (and Stanford) rejects a ton of 75/75 kids. Harvard rejects virtually none.

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

Re: Yale 2010

Postby CardinalRules » Sat Feb 06, 2010 7:38 pm

notanumber wrote:
BioEBear2010 wrote: I actually wouldn't be surprised if Yale has a threshold of sorts. Seems like after a certain point, acceptances are based on factors other than GPA/LSAT (the holistic process that everyone speaks of). As for the threshold itself, who knows (Crack's estimates seem pretty reasonable).


My entirely baseless suspicion is that they have a "normal threshold" for most applicants but not if the admission dean sees an amazing qualification that catches the eye. These would be things like a bestselling novel, an award winning motion picture actor/director, a statewide or higher elected politician, a general in the army, etc... This sort of thing might enable the dean to pass-through the applicant to the professors (or just decide to admit the candidate with the super-sexy-soft). I also suspect that your usual "amazing soft" like a top-tier Ph.D. or a Peace Corps/TFA stint or a Fulbright or an Olympics appearance probably isn't enough to push you into this pile.



TITCR. A very accomplished but not widely renowned person in the bolded category once got in with a sub-3.5 GPA.

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

Re: Yale 2010

Postby CardinalRules » Sat Feb 06, 2010 7:40 pm

crackberry wrote:
I dunno, but Yale (and Stanford) rejects a ton of 75/75 kids. Harvard rejects virtually none.


The fact that HLS participates in the official LSAC program of predicting one's chances according to LSAT/GPA shows that they are much more committed to the numbers than YLS and SLS. For example, I could plug in my stats after taking the October LSAT and see that I had an 85-90% chance of acceptance, according to their own opinion.

notanumber
Posts: 485
Joined: Wed Feb 03, 2010 4:28 pm

Re: Yale 2010

Postby notanumber » Sat Feb 06, 2010 7:48 pm

crackberry wrote: I dunno, but Yale (and Stanford) rejects a ton of 75/75 kids. Harvard rejects virtually none.


I believe this, but I do wonder how Yale maintains their "highest LSAT/GPA" status given that professors likely don't care about LSAT/GPA and would probably be much more impressed by a 3.8/170 who was published in a peer-reviewed journal than a 4.0/179 whose biggest activity was 'leader of the chess club.

Perhaps the math of who the deans pass-through to the professors ensures that they "win" at the rankings game. Like the talking barbie of yore, I think that math is hard. Is there anybody here who can run the numbers? Anybody?

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

Re: Yale 2010

Postby CardinalRules » Sat Feb 06, 2010 7:51 pm

notanumber wrote:
crackberry wrote: I dunno, but Yale (and Stanford) rejects a ton of 75/75 kids. Harvard rejects virtually none.


I believe this, but I do wonder how Yale maintains their "highest LSAT/GPA" status given that professors likely don't care about LSAT/GPA and would probably be much more impressed by a 3.8/170 who was published in a peer-reviewed journal than a 4.0/179 whose biggest activity was 'leader of the chess club.

Perhaps the math of who the deans pass-through to the professors ensures that they "win" at the rankings game. Like the talking barbie of yore, I think that math is hard. Is there anybody here who can run the numbers? Anybody?


Ahem. You're treading on uncannily sensitive ground.

donald
Posts: 4
Joined: Tue Feb 02, 2010 2:13 am

Re: Yale 2010

Postby donald » Sat Feb 06, 2010 7:52 pm

crackberry wrote: I dunno, but Yale (and Stanford) rejects a ton of 75/75 kids. Harvard rejects virtually none.


Congratulations Crackberry you discovered that Harvard has 550 students, and Yale and Stanford have closer to 200!!! Why would you expect anything less when you have to fill such a large class?

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

Re: Yale 2010

Postby crackberry » Sat Feb 06, 2010 7:53 pm

To be fair, and I think he will agree with me, managamy is living proof that someone with astronomical numbers (and a prestigious UG degree) can get into Yale with no softs to speak of.

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

Re: Yale 2010

Postby crackberry » Sat Feb 06, 2010 7:53 pm

donald wrote:
crackberry wrote: I dunno, but Yale (and Stanford) rejects a ton of 75/75 kids. Harvard rejects virtually none.


Congratulations Crackberry you discovered that Harvard has 550 students, and Yale and Stanford have closer to 200!!! Why would you expect anything less when you have to fill such a large class?

It's not a knock on Harvard, more a difference between YS and H.

notanumber
Posts: 485
Joined: Wed Feb 03, 2010 4:28 pm

Re: Yale 2010

Postby notanumber » Sat Feb 06, 2010 7:55 pm

managamy wrote:
notanumber wrote:
crackberry wrote: I dunno, but Yale (and Stanford) rejects a ton of 75/75 kids. Harvard rejects virtually none.


I believe this, but I do wonder how Yale maintains their "highest LSAT/GPA" status given that professors likely don't care about LSAT/GPA and would probably be much more impressed by a 3.8/170 who was published in a peer-reviewed journal than a 4.0/179 whose biggest activity was 'leader of the chess club.

Perhaps the math of who the deans pass-through to the professors ensures that they "win" at the rankings game. Like the talking barbie of yore, I think that math is hard. Is there anybody here who can run the numbers? Anybody?


Ahem. You're treading on uncannily sensitive ground.


HA! Sorry if I offended ;). Were you leader of the chess club? But didn't you get into Yale? Thus disproving my argument.

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

Re: Yale 2010

Postby CardinalRules » Sat Feb 06, 2010 7:58 pm

crackberry wrote:To be fair, and I think he will agree with me, managamy is living proof that someone with astronomical numbers (and a prestigious UG degree) can get into Yale with no softs to speak of.


This statement is completely credited. I didn't expect to get into Yale for the very reason that I lack the great softs with which one always associates its applicants. In fact, I had virtually no softs that would attract their attention, as crackberry says.

I'm not the leader of any club, including the chess club, but it's one of the main activities in my free time. There have been whole weekends on vacations that I have spent playing a game against myself.

User avatar
dudester
Posts: 344
Joined: Thu Nov 05, 2009 7:23 pm

Re: Yale 2010

Postby dudester » Sat Feb 06, 2010 8:05 pm

managamy wrote:
crackberry wrote:To be fair, and I think he will agree with me, managamy is living proof that someone with astronomical numbers (and a prestigious UG degree) can get into Yale with no softs to speak of.


This statement is completely credited. I didn't expect to get into Yale for the very reason that I lack the great softs with which one always associates its applicants. In fact, I had virtually no softs that would attract their attention, as crackberry says.

I'm not the leader of any club, including the chess club, but it's one of the main activities in my free time. [strike]There have been whole weekends on vacations that I have spent playing a game against myself.[/strike]


In light of your reformed ways, we'll just pretend we never read that.

User avatar
englawyer
Posts: 1270
Joined: Wed Feb 14, 2007 10:57 pm

Re: Yale 2010

Postby englawyer » Sat Feb 06, 2010 8:10 pm

notanumber wrote:
crackberry wrote: I dunno, but Yale (and Stanford) rejects a ton of 75/75 kids. Harvard rejects virtually none.


I believe this, but I do wonder how Yale maintains their "highest LSAT/GPA" status given that professors likely don't care about LSAT/GPA and would probably be much more impressed by a 3.8/170 who was published in a peer-reviewed journal than a 4.0/179 whose biggest activity was 'leader of the chess club.

Perhaps the math of who the deans pass-through to the professors ensures that they "win" at the rankings game. Like the talking barbie of yore, I think that math is hard. Is there anybody here who can run the numbers? Anybody?


facts:

#1. yale is the best law school, and most people will go there over any other law school
#2. they have a class size of less than 200
#3. there are 700 lsat takers that score 175+ each year

we can assume half of the applicants over 175 got over a 3.8, because they are pretty damn smart to begin with. so that is a group of 350 with the numerical stats of 3.8+ / 175+.

if Yale really wanted to, I bet they could have 25th/75th LSAT of 175-177 or something like that.

notanumber
Posts: 485
Joined: Wed Feb 03, 2010 4:28 pm

Re: Yale 2010

Postby notanumber » Sat Feb 06, 2010 8:54 pm

englawyer wrote:
notanumber wrote:
crackberry wrote: I dunno, but Yale (and Stanford) rejects a ton of 75/75 kids. Harvard rejects virtually none.


I believe this, but I do wonder how Yale maintains their "highest LSAT/GPA" status given that professors likely don't care about LSAT/GPA and would probably be much more impressed by a 3.8/170 who was published in a peer-reviewed journal than a 4.0/179 whose biggest activity was 'leader of the chess club.

Perhaps the math of who the deans pass-through to the professors ensures that they "win" at the rankings game. Like the talking barbie of yore, I think that math is hard. Is there anybody here who can run the numbers? Anybody?


facts:

#1. yale is the best law school, and most people will go there over any other law school
#2. they have a class size of less than 200
#3. there are 700 lsat takers that score 175+ each year

we can assume half of the applicants over 175 got over a 3.8, because they are pretty damn smart to begin with. so that is a group of 350 with the numerical stats of 3.8+ / 175+.

if Yale really wanted to, I bet they could have 25th/75th LSAT of 175-177 or something like that.


Like I said, math is hard. So this is probably all wrong. And the numbers are certainly guesstimates:

It's not the 173 median that I wonder about, it's the 75%.

That means they need about 50 people with a 178+ LSAT.

I have no idea how many people have that kind of LSAT in a given year but a quick in-the-head calculation makes me think that it's not much more than 300. Let's generously say that about half of those applied to Yale and had the GPA or "softs" needed to make it to the professor's committee. That means that Yale gets ~150 qualified applicants of which ~50 much be chosen in order for their LSAT 75% to remain so absurdly high. That's a 33% success rate overall.

The Yale blog says that about 1,000 files get sent to the professors for the ~150 or so remaining spots. That's an overall success rate of 15%. That seems like mighty risky odds if they really want their 75% to remain at 177.

Of course, this assumes that 178+ applicants are passed through to the committee at the same rate as lower LSAT folk. Auto-admitting 30 or so of these 178+ admits would be a great hedge against losing the 75%, no? Because if Yale accepted, say, 30 then you would only need 10% of the applicants in that "pool" of 120 individuals to be chosen by the Profs in order for Yale to maintain its 75% LSAT victory. They would also have the advantage of rejecting several [75/qualified] candidates which throws everybody trying to predict admissions for a loop.

I presume that the GPA is an easier target to find?

Who really knows though. Like most everything else on this discussion forum it is all idle speculation from the uninformed. I also pulled most of the numbers out of my arse.

Also, if you're reading this: Hi Yale law admissions dean(s)! I think your process is fascinating.




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

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Automotomayor, brinicolec, christinaxcarrie, lillawyer2, reydingo, Yahoo [Bot] and 18 guests