sharthree wrote: 0L Hoping for 1 wrote:
Jacques wrote:Went complete earlier than these folks, but no DR. Numbers are a bit higher than theirs, but far from an auto-admit.
I think we might be seeing the first real decisions of the year here -- the initial mass deferral may have taken place because Cornell wanted to get an idea of the applicant pool before opening their gates. Now, having reviewed 800 or so applications to date, they have an idea of the market.
I hate to say this, but those folks who applied EA in early September may end up getting the short end of the stick -- and they'll get it because they were too early.
How does this make any sense?
Agreed...how can something be too early? We know that they review on a semi-linear pattern. First come, first serve etc.
It's just a theory that I've heard bandied around (and not one that I subscribe to, by the way).
For what it's worth, here goes. The theory dictates that it's explained by the mass deferral. Let's say you're Cornell. You want to protect your ranking, maybe move up. At the least, bump a median or two. With your small class size, this is certainly a possibility.
Reports come into the school that this is one of the largest LSAT administrations in 10 years. Now yes, everyone knows that that doesn't necessarily translate to "quality" LSAT scores. That being said, a more flexible LSAT retake policy (as we've seen in recent years), and, in general, larger numbers of test takers do, generally, point to a glut of higher scores. If you're going to have your pick of the litter, this is the year to do it.
It becomes time to start receiving applications. As always, you have your EA program. You've always followed the same patterns, always had a nice mix of acceptances/WL/rejections. You have to get answers back by December 31st. But, does your hunch play out? Will there be a higher proportion of higher numbers? To be safe, you defer the first 500-800 or so applications that you see (which is exactly what happened). After having done so, you have a good sample, a good idea of the market, of how the numbers will shake out.
From here, you can make actual decisions on the rest of the EA folks. If you were in that first batch, that early EA batch, you have been, in fact, too
Of course, I think all this number theorizing is absurd -- with a class size as small as Cornell's, there's no way that they can go purely on numbers. If they really wanted a class full of 173s or 174s, they could have it. That's clearly not their goal. They, more than anyone else, seem to take a truly holistic view of things, and thank goodness for that. Why the mass deferral, then? Who knows. We'll all get decisions, eventually -- and we should be happy with that.