Top Law Schools

Jacques wrote:

rondemarino wrote:

deem wrote:When dealing with ED, is there usually a point where you should start losing hope? haha...like if I haven't been called by mid-dec, is that a decent sign that I'm not getting a call or is their selection process a little more random than that?

If you have a 168, or higher, I wouldn't worry too much.

Ronde, what makes you so confident about this? Certainly, there are going to be some people with 168s and GPAs down below the 25%...are you suggesting that on the strength of supporting the median LSAT score and being ED alone, they're going to get an offer of admission?

For the sake of this debate, let's assume a standing LSAT score of 168. There must be a GPA floor somewhere, right? -- the question is, where is it? 168/3.0? 168/3.3? 168/3.57?

Mostly. Think about it this way....

What are the median LSAT and GPA of these groups?

164/3.98, 168/3.77, 168/3.73 ---> 168 and 3.77
164/3.98, 168/3.77, 168/2.00 ---> 168 and 3.77
164/3.98, 168/3.77, 180/2.98 ---> 168 and 3.77

Its early in the game, and if a school is ever going to reach on a crappy GPA, its now, when the candidate is a sure bet to enroll. Obviously, there are exceptions. However, if you look at ED outcomes on LSN it'll be clear that ED is 99.99% numbers driven.

Take a look for yourself. Type this in your URL (http://michigan.lawschoolnumbers.com/ap ... =3&type=jd)

In that link, change the school name and lsat1 value to reflect a school's median. Let me know how many cases you find of candidates with median or higher LSAT scores being rejected.

Sounds like a solid argument, from both of you. In the end, it's always fun to crunch the numbers and predict trends -- but, I have to say, I still believe that there truly is a holistic view to this process.

No matter what, it'll be interesting to see how it all shakes out! Here's wishing good luck to all.

Should I be confident of getting in with my low gpa?

happy monday everybody! lets hope a few more people get some phone calls today

Jacques wrote:Sounds like a solid argument, from both of you. In the end, it's always fun to crunch the numbers and predict trends -- but, I have to say, I still believe that there truly is a holistic view to this process.

No matter what, it'll be interesting to see how it all shakes out! Here's wishing good luck to all.

FYI, the tooth fairy doesn't exist. I'm sure adcomms like to tell themselves they are accepting people and not numbers and, to some extent, there is a "holistic review," which I'd imagine occur when we're talking about extreme outliers (180/2.2, 155/4.33).

rondemarino wrote:

Jacques wrote:Sounds like a solid argument, from both of you. In the end, it's always fun to crunch the numbers and predict trends -- but, I have to say, I still believe that there truly is a holistic view to this process.

No matter what, it'll be interesting to see how it all shakes out! Here's wishing good luck to all.

FYI, the tooth fairy doesn't exist. I'm sure adcomms like to tell themselves they are accepting people and not numbers and, to some extent, there is a "holistic review," which I'd imagine occur when we're talking about extreme outliers (180/2.2, 155/4.33).

I don't know -- have you been to the Cornell forum lately?

Jacques wrote:

rondemarino wrote:

Jacques wrote:Sounds like a solid argument, from both of you. In the end, it's always fun to crunch the numbers and predict trends -- but, I have to say, I still believe that there truly is a holistic view to this process.

No matter what, it'll be interesting to see how it all shakes out! Here's wishing good luck to all.

FYI, the tooth fairy doesn't exist. I'm sure adcomms like to tell themselves they are accepting people and not numbers and, to some extent, there is a "holistic review," which I'd imagine occur when we're talking about extreme outliers (180/2.2, 155/4.33).

I don't know -- have you been to the Cornell forum lately?

No. Cliff notes breakdown....

rondemarino wrote:

Jacques wrote:

rondemarino wrote:

Jacques wrote:Sounds like a solid argument, from both of you. In the end, it's always fun to crunch the numbers and predict trends -- but, I have to say, I still believe that there truly is a holistic view to this process.

No matter what, it'll be interesting to see how it all shakes out! Here's wishing good luck to all.

FYI, the tooth fairy doesn't exist. I'm sure adcomms like to tell themselves they are accepting people and not numbers and, to some extent, there is a "holistic review," which I'd imagine occur when we're talking about extreme outliers (180/2.2, 155/4.33).

I don't know -- have you been to the Cornell forum lately?

No. Cliff notes breakdown....

HYSCCN numbers are getting deferrals.

Helmholtz wrote:HYSCCN numbers are getting deferrals.

YP?

rondemarino wrote:

Jacques wrote:

rondemarino wrote:

Jacques wrote:Sounds like a solid argument, from both of you. In the end, it's always fun to crunch the numbers and predict trends -- but, I have to say, I still believe that there truly is a holistic view to this process.

No matter what, it'll be interesting to see how it all shakes out! Here's wishing good luck to all.

FYI, the tooth fairy doesn't exist. I'm sure adcomms like to tell themselves they are accepting people and not numbers and, to some extent, there is a "holistic review," which I'd imagine occur when we're talking about extreme outliers (180/2.2, 155/4.33).

I don't know -- have you been to the Cornell forum lately?

No. Cliff notes breakdown....

Cornell sent out a massive mailing of deferrals to EA applicants (to people within their range, above their range, waaay above their range, etc.). 40 pages of widespread chaos/panic ensued.

LOL. May its time Cornell changed EA to ED.

rondemarino wrote:

Helmholtz wrote:HYSCCN numbers are getting deferrals.

YP?

Cornell doesn't typically do YP like this. I think there was a URM with both numbers over median who was deferred. And a couple HYS numbers in there too.

Helmholtz wrote:

rondemarino wrote:

Helmholtz wrote:HYSCCN numbers are getting deferrals.

YP?

Cornell doesn't typically do YP like this. I think there was a URM with both numbers over median who was deferred. And a couple HYS numbers in there too.

Any idea on what is causing this? It sounds like YP. Either that, or the Cornell as adcomms are on some awesome drugs.

rondemarino wrote: Any idea on what is causing this? It sounds like YP. Either that, or the Cornell as adcomms are on some awesome drugs.

Not much else to do in Ithaca in late November.

crackberry wrote:

rondemarino wrote: Any idea on what is causing this? It sounds like YP. Either that, or the Cornell as adcomms are on some awesome drugs.

Not much else to do in Ithaca in late November.

It would be pretty sweet if a shift to more YP resulted in backlash the following cycle.

rondemarino wrote:

crackberry wrote:

rondemarino wrote: Any idea on what is causing this? It sounds like YP. Either that, or the Cornell as adcomms are on some awesome drugs.

Not much else to do in Ithaca in late November.

It would be pretty sweet if a shift to more YP resulted in backlash the following cycle.

I'm glad this drama is taking over 2 threads. This takes my mind off UCLA calls too.

Just got my call. In with 60k!

submit 11/09
complete 11/20
RD

Edit: to include dates

coollegemex wrote:Just got my call. In with 60k!

Congrats. Great numbers!

What date did you go complete? Were you ED?

Edit: Thanks!

Jacques wrote:

coollegemex wrote:Just got my call. In with 60k!

Congrats. Great numbers!

What date did you go complete? Were you ED?

bump.

etlien wrote:

Jacques wrote:

coollegemex wrote:Just got my call. In with 60k!

Congrats. Great numbers!

What date did you go complete? Were you ED?

bump.

you guys should seriously just paste screen name into LSN...it works 90% of the time...he went complete 11/20...seems they call URM's quite quickly after going complete. everybody else has to wait...

edit: URM's who they really want. obviously if you don't have the stats then it's a waiting game w/ everybody else. i remember a while ago one user said they went complete and got call same day...

Accepted this morning via phone call from the admissions office! RD, applied 10/31, complete 11/09.

spiffypyro wrote:Accepted this morning via phone call from the admissions office! RD, applied 10/31, complete 11/09.

Congrats!

Really, UCLA? I've been complete for a month now. This is getting obnoxious.

hopefulundergrad wrote:Really, UCLA? I've been complete for a month now. This is getting obnoxious.

LSN will tell you that there are plenty of folks ahead of you in the queue. Besides, didn't you say that you have a particularly inscrutable application? Patience, and all shall be well.

Jacques wrote:

hopefulundergrad wrote:Really, UCLA? I've been complete for a month now. This is getting obnoxious.

LSN will tell you that there are plenty of folks ahead of you in the queue. Besides, didn't you say that you have a particularly inscrutable application? Patience, and all shall be well.

It's just annoying to see people who went complete 10 days ago getting accepted and I've been "under review" since before Halloween.