michigan 2010 applicants

Share Your Experiences, Read About Other Experiences. Please keep posts organized by school and expected year of graduation.
User avatar
natalie123
Posts: 109
Joined: Thu Jun 11, 2009 11:45 pm

Re: michigan 2010 applicants

Postby natalie123 » Fri Jan 15, 2010 10:49 pm

Adsum wrote:Just got the call from Dean Zearfoss! Full Darrow!! I am in love with Michigan now.

'YEAHHH!!! What are your stats?

User avatar
Unitas
Posts: 1387
Joined: Wed Sep 02, 2009 7:03 pm

Re: michigan 2010 applicants

Postby Unitas » Fri Jan 15, 2010 10:50 pm

Helmholtz wrote:First of all, don't feel stupid. I think 99% of the people on this website think that yield, separate from the acceptance rate, plays a part in the USNWR rankings. IT DOES NOT!


Yep, you are correct. I messed it all up in my head. Plus the weight given to it is next to none.

User avatar
nixxers
Posts: 393
Joined: Tue Oct 20, 2009 10:47 am

Re: michigan 2010 applicants

Postby nixxers » Fri Jan 15, 2010 10:51 pm

Kakarot wrote:
Helmholtz wrote:First of all, don't feel stupid. I think 99% of the people on this website think that yield, separate from the acceptance rate, plays a part in the USNWR rankings. IT DOES NOT!


Yep, you are correct. I messed it all up in my head. Plus the weight given to it is next to none.


then why do schools YP?

::feels really dense now:: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops:

snickersnicker
Posts: 308
Joined: Tue Jun 09, 2009 1:17 am

Re: michigan 2010 applicants

Postby snickersnicker » Fri Jan 15, 2010 10:54 pm

If someone with a 175+ and 3.8+ or something like that applies to a 14-6 ranked school, they're likely going to get into (and, supposedly, attend) a higher ranked school. As such, some schools will waitlist such candidates to protect their yield (number of attending versus admitted), which is a rankings consideration, or at least something which comes into consideration in regard to prestige.

User avatar
Lmao Zedong
Posts: 381
Joined: Sat Feb 28, 2009 12:10 am

Re: michigan 2010 applicants

Postby Lmao Zedong » Fri Jan 15, 2010 10:55 pm

nixxers wrote:
Kakarot wrote:
Helmholtz wrote:First of all, don't feel stupid. I think 99% of the people on this website think that yield, separate from the acceptance rate, plays a part in the USNWR rankings. IT DOES NOT!


Yep, you are correct. I messed it all up in my head. Plus the weight given to it is next to none.


then why do schools YP?

::feels really dense now:: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops:


because it still means a lower acceptance rate

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

Re: michigan 2010 applicants

Postby Helmholtz » Fri Jan 15, 2010 10:57 pm

nixxers wrote:
Kakarot wrote:
Helmholtz wrote:First of all, don't feel stupid. I think 99% of the people on this website think that yield, separate from the acceptance rate, plays a part in the USNWR rankings. IT DOES NOT!


Yep, you are correct. I messed it all up in my head. Plus the weight given to it is next to none.


then why do schools YP?

::feels really dense now:: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops:


I would argue that claims of YP are often vastly overused. I mean, schools can still play some games when it comes to their acceptance rate. If they don't think you're going to attend, they might not be so quick to "waste" an acceptance on you, but the number accepted as compared to the number who actually matriculate does not factor into the rankings in anyway. To me, personally, the whole "it's all about the numbers" spiel is exaggerated.

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

Re: michigan 2010 applicants

Postby Helmholtz » Fri Jan 15, 2010 10:57 pm

snickersnicker wrote:If someone with a 175+ and 3.8+ or something like that applies to a 14-6 ranked school, they're likely going to get into (and, supposedly, attend) a higher ranked school. As such, some schools will waitlist such candidates to protect their yield (number of attending versus admitted), which is a rankings consideration, or at least something which comes into consideration in regard to prestige.


Dude, the yield rate is not a rankings consideration, that's what we're talking about.

User avatar
beesknees
Posts: 458
Joined: Wed Nov 11, 2009 10:46 am

Re: michigan 2010 applicants

Postby beesknees » Fri Jan 15, 2010 11:03 pm

.
Last edited by beesknees on Sun Dec 05, 2010 1:06 am, edited 1 time in total.

snickersnicker
Posts: 308
Joined: Tue Jun 09, 2009 1:17 am

Re: michigan 2010 applicants

Postby snickersnicker » Fri Jan 15, 2010 11:13 pm

Helmholtz wrote:
snickersnicker wrote:If someone with a 175+ and 3.8+ or something like that applies to a 14-6 ranked school, they're likely going to get into (and, supposedly, attend) a higher ranked school. As such, some schools will waitlist such candidates to protect their yield (number of attending versus admitted), which is a rankings consideration, or at least something which comes into consideration in regard to prestige.


Dude, the yield rate is not a rankings consideration, that's what we're talking about.


Hence why I said "or at least something which comes into consideration in regard to prestige." It's plain that a school with a 75% yield is going to hold more prestige than a similarly ranked school with a 38% yield. I also agree that YP claims are overblown, for what it's worth.

User avatar
beesknees
Posts: 458
Joined: Wed Nov 11, 2009 10:46 am

Re: michigan 2010 applicants

Postby beesknees » Fri Jan 15, 2010 11:21 pm

.
Last edited by beesknees on Sun Dec 05, 2010 1:06 am, edited 1 time in total.

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

Re: michigan 2010 applicants

Postby Helmholtz » Fri Jan 15, 2010 11:23 pm

I have a hard time believing that any applicant in the history of law school admissions ever compared schools' yield rates and somehow based a level of prestige off of those rates when trying to decide where to attend.

snickersnicker
Posts: 308
Joined: Tue Jun 09, 2009 1:17 am

Re: michigan 2010 applicants

Postby snickersnicker » Fri Jan 15, 2010 11:31 pm

Helmholtz wrote:I have a hard time believing that any applicant in the history of law school admissions ever compared schools' yield rates and somehow based a level of prestige off of those rates when trying to decide where to attend.


You must not know many law school applicants, Helm. Have you read some of the painfully nit-picky rankings factor posts on this forum?

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

Re: michigan 2010 applicants

Postby Helmholtz » Fri Jan 15, 2010 11:35 pm

snickersnicker wrote:
Helmholtz wrote:I have a hard time believing that any applicant in the history of law school admissions ever compared schools' yield rates and somehow based a level of prestige off of those rates when trying to decide where to attend.


You must not know many law school applicants, Helm. Have you read some of the painfully nit-picky rankings factor posts on this forum?


Yes, but that typically has to do with LSAT/GPA and assessment scores. People are nit-picky about NLJ250 placement and Article III clerkships, and these type of things have played on people's decisions, but I am apparently missing all the talk about which yield rates are better and somebody giving that as a reason to attend one school over another. I truly think that applicants don't care and the only way yield rates would come into consideration is if they were actually a part of the USNWR methodology (which they are not).

BenJ
Posts: 1353
Joined: Mon Dec 28, 2009 12:58 pm

Re: michigan 2010 applicants

Postby BenJ » Fri Jan 15, 2010 11:41 pm

Helmholtz wrote:I have a hard time believing that any applicant in the history of law school admissions ever compared schools' yield rates and somehow based a level of prestige off of those rates when trying to decide where to attend.


Indeed. YP is about being able to control the size of your incoming class. The behavior of an admitted students pool with a lot of people with auto-admit numbers is much harder to forecast than the behavior of an admitted students pool with a lot of people with borderline numbers. The borderline applicants will always attend at around 70%, maybe more (comparable to Yale's yield), which makes it easier for adcomms to figure out how many students they need to admit to get their target class size. Auto-admits attend at much lower rates, but can do so unpredictably, which makes the adcomm dependent on other adcomms as well as current economic circumstances, etc. for the yield, which can result in substantial overenrollment if the adcomm predicts the students' behaviors incorrectly.

User avatar
Space_Cowboy
Posts: 197
Joined: Wed Jun 24, 2009 12:52 am

Re: michigan 2010 applicants

Postby Space_Cowboy » Fri Jan 15, 2010 11:57 pm

snickersnicker wrote:
Helmholtz wrote:
snickersnicker wrote:If someone with a 175+ and 3.8+ or something like that applies to a 14-6 ranked school, they're likely going to get into (and, supposedly, attend) a higher ranked school. As such, some schools will waitlist such candidates to protect their yield (number of attending versus admitted), which is a rankings consideration, or at least something which comes into consideration in regard to prestige.


Dude, the yield rate is not a rankings consideration, that's what we're talking about.


Hence why I said "or at least something which comes into consideration in regard to prestige." It's plain that a school with a 75% yield is going to hold more prestige than a similarly ranked school with a 38% yield. I also agree that YP claims are overblown, for what it's worth.


::facepalm::

Torvon
Posts: 352
Joined: Tue Sep 01, 2009 6:09 pm

Re: michigan 2010 applicants

Postby Torvon » Sat Jan 16, 2010 2:40 am

Helmholtz wrote:
snickersnicker wrote:
Helmholtz wrote:I have a hard time believing that any applicant in the history of law school admissions ever compared schools' yield rates and somehow based a level of prestige off of those rates when trying to decide where to attend.


You must not know many law school applicants, Helm. Have you read some of the painfully nit-picky rankings factor posts on this forum?


Yes, but that typically has to do with LSAT/GPA and assessment scores. People are nit-picky about NLJ250 placement and Article III clerkships, and these type of things have played on people's decisions, but I am apparently missing all the talk about which yield rates are better and somebody giving that as a reason to attend one school over another. I truly think that applicants don't care and the only way yield rates would come into consideration is if they were actually a part of the USNWR methodology (which they are not).


Maybe I missed it, but what is your theory on Michigan rejecting so many people with great numbers Helm?

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

Re: michigan 2010 applicants

Postby Helmholtz » Sat Jan 16, 2010 2:46 am

Torvon wrote:
Helmholtz wrote:
snickersnicker wrote:
Helmholtz wrote:I have a hard time believing that any applicant in the history of law school admissions ever compared schools' yield rates and somehow based a level of prestige off of those rates when trying to decide where to attend.


You must not know many law school applicants, Helm. Have you read some of the painfully nit-picky rankings factor posts on this forum?


Yes, but that typically has to do with LSAT/GPA and assessment scores. People are nit-picky about NLJ250 placement and Article III clerkships, and these type of things have played on people's decisions, but I am apparently missing all the talk about which yield rates are better and somebody giving that as a reason to attend one school over another. I truly think that applicants don't care and the only way yield rates would come into consideration is if they were actually a part of the USNWR methodology (which they are not).


Maybe I missed it, but what is your theory on Michigan rejecting so many people with great numbers Helm?


Maybe it has to do with them trying to maintain a good acceptance rate, maybe they just didn't find enough to like about the candidate or didn't think they'd make a good fit, I don't know. But I do know they've already admitted some people with damn impressive numbers, and using some method, they differentiated the people with fantastic numbers who got an acceptance and people with fantastic numbers who were rejected.

02082010
Posts: 2034
Joined: Sat Feb 07, 2009 5:10 pm

Re: michigan 2010 applicants

Postby 02082010 » Sat Jan 16, 2010 2:47 am

Helmholtz wrote:Maybe it has to do with them trying to maintain a good acceptance rate, maybe they just didn't find enough to like about the candidate or didn't think they'd make a good fit, I don't know. But I do know they've already admitted some people with damn impressive numbers, and using some method, they differentiated the people with fantastic numbers who got an acceptance and people with fantastic numbers who were rejected.


Already trolling for Michigan? That didn't take long.

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

Re: michigan 2010 applicants

Postby Helmholtz » Sat Jan 16, 2010 2:50 am

hopefulundergrad wrote:
Helmholtz wrote:Maybe it has to do with them trying to maintain a good acceptance rate, maybe they just didn't find enough to like about the candidate or didn't think they'd make a good fit, I don't know. But I do know they've already admitted some people with damn impressive numbers, and using some method, they differentiated the people with fantastic numbers who got an acceptance and people with fantastic numbers who were rejected.


Already trolling for Michigan? That didn't take long.


To be fair, I have always been a big fan of any of the HYSM schools.

02082010
Posts: 2034
Joined: Sat Feb 07, 2009 5:10 pm

Re: michigan 2010 applicants

Postby 02082010 » Sat Jan 16, 2010 2:51 am

Helmholtz wrote:
hopefulundergrad wrote:
Helmholtz wrote:Maybe it has to do with them trying to maintain a good acceptance rate, maybe they just didn't find enough to like about the candidate or didn't think they'd make a good fit, I don't know. But I do know they've already admitted some people with damn impressive numbers, and using some method, they differentiated the people with fantastic numbers who got an acceptance and people with fantastic numbers who were rejected.


Already trolling for Michigan? That didn't take long.


To be fair, I have always been a big fan of any of the HYSM schools.


HYSCCM, right?

Torvon
Posts: 352
Joined: Tue Sep 01, 2009 6:09 pm

Re: michigan 2010 applicants

Postby Torvon » Sat Jan 16, 2010 2:52 am

Helmholtz wrote:
Maybe it has to do with them trying to maintain a good acceptance rate, maybe they just didn't find enough to like about the candidate or didn't think they'd make a good fit, I don't know. But I do know they've already admitted some people with damn impressive numbers, and using some method, they differentiated the people with fantastic numbers who got an acceptance and people with fantastic numbers who were rejected.


Just all seems so crazy. Also my question wasn't meant to be sarcastic at all, hope you didn't take it that way...up until about 10 minutes ago I thought YP was a strategy to protect rankings :| .

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

Re: michigan 2010 applicants

Postby Helmholtz » Sat Jan 16, 2010 2:52 am

hopefulundergrad wrote:
Helmholtz wrote:
hopefulundergrad wrote:
Helmholtz wrote:Maybe it has to do with them trying to maintain a good acceptance rate, maybe they just didn't find enough to like about the candidate or didn't think they'd make a good fit, I don't know. But I do know they've already admitted some people with damn impressive numbers, and using some method, they differentiated the people with fantastic numbers who got an acceptance and people with fantastic numbers who were rejected.


Already trolling for Michigan? That didn't take long.


To be fair, I have always been a big fan of any of the HYSM schools.


HYSCCM, right?


YM if we're being picky.

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

Re: michigan 2010 applicants

Postby Helmholtz » Sat Jan 16, 2010 2:54 am

Torvon wrote:
Helmholtz wrote:
Maybe it has to do with them trying to maintain a good acceptance rate, maybe they just didn't find enough to like about the candidate or didn't think they'd make a good fit, I don't know. But I do know they've already admitted some people with damn impressive numbers, and using some method, they differentiated the people with fantastic numbers who got an acceptance and people with fantastic numbers who were rejected.


Just all seems so crazy. Also my question wasn't meant to be sarcastic at all, hope you didn't take it that way...up until about 10 minutes ago I thought YP was a strategy to protect rankings :| .


YP = practically nonexistent
ARP (acceptance rate protection) = possibly there, and I wouldn't be surprised if it plays a part in some decisions

02082010
Posts: 2034
Joined: Sat Feb 07, 2009 5:10 pm

Re: michigan 2010 applicants

Postby 02082010 » Sat Jan 16, 2010 2:55 am

Helmholtz wrote:YM if we're being picky.


Schools that are worth sticker? YM.

/thread.

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

Re: michigan 2010 applicants

Postby Helmholtz » Sat Jan 16, 2010 2:56 am

Now if we're talking UVA, after my waitlist, I feel like they clearly YP the hell out of just about everybody.




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

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: bleakchimera2, Christinabruin, Leliana, Long shot hero and 12 guests