Award for Most Precise Number Whore of the 2010 cycle?

Share Your Experiences, Read About Other Experiences. Please keep posts organized by school and expected year of graduation.
User avatar
MoS
Posts: 404
Joined: Fri Oct 16, 2009 10:59 pm

Re: Award for Most Precise Number Whore of the 2010 cycle?

Postby MoS » Thu Dec 17, 2009 12:02 am

No rejections yet, but tell me they haven't drawn a line
http://washu.lawschoolnumbers.com/stats

User avatar
bluejayk
Posts: 181
Joined: Tue Jun 17, 2008 3:06 pm

Re: Award for Most Precise Number Whore of the 2010 cycle?

Postby bluejayk » Thu Dec 17, 2009 12:05 am

Nicholasnickynic wrote:Hands down, no contest, most precise numbers whore goes to u. of georgia.

http://georgia.lawschoolnumbers.com/stats


Excellent find, this is the best graph so far, thanks for sharing.

User avatar
Stringer Bell
Posts: 1924
Joined: Wed Oct 21, 2009 9:43 pm

Re: Award for Most Precise Number Whore of the 2010 cycle?

Postby Stringer Bell » Thu Dec 17, 2009 12:17 am

This one from last cycle is not bad.

http://minnesota.lawschoolnumbers.com/stats/0809/

User avatar
D. H2Oman
Posts: 7469
Joined: Tue Feb 24, 2009 5:47 am

Re: Award for Most Precise Number Whore of the 2010 cycle?

Postby D. H2Oman » Thu Dec 17, 2009 12:19 am

Hey guys, My name is Indiana-Bloomington, can I play:

http://indiana.lawschoolnumbers.com/stats/0809/

User avatar
Nicholasnickynic
Posts: 1126
Joined: Sat Oct 17, 2009 3:21 pm

Re: Award for Most Precise Number Whore of the 2010 cycle?

Postby Nicholasnickynic » Thu Dec 17, 2009 2:35 am

Dwaterman86 wrote:Hey guys, My name is Indiana-Bloomington, can I play:

http://indiana.lawschoolnumbers.com/stats/0809/


You certainly can play! Looks like they don't have any admissions staff. Just 1 auto accept and 1 auto reject machine based on lsat scores.

Not that I'm complaining... Mid 160s with low 3... so I love these places. Thinking about applying to george mason now after seeing their love for 164+

Think its too late in the season for a splitter to apply?

oakroom
Posts: 14
Joined: Wed Dec 05, 2007 9:52 am

Re: Award for Most Precise Number Whore of the 2010 cycle?

Postby oakroom » Thu Dec 17, 2009 9:16 am

5ky wrote:If any school is the most number-whoreish, I take back my earlier consideration of Harvard, because it HAS to be Duke. The fact that they selectively choose people for PT from 170-172 with high GPAs (which all but assures admission for these people) based solely on those numbers tells me that the people admitted via PT, of which I was one, are admits solely on numbers alone.


And yet there is no shortage of PT applicants complaining that they were waitlisted despite their numbers, so maybe not.

jerzgrl630
Posts: 178
Joined: Fri Feb 27, 2009 12:51 pm

Re: Award for Most Precise Number Whore of the 2010 cycle?

Postby jerzgrl630 » Thu Dec 17, 2009 9:31 am

Stringer Bell wrote:This one from last cycle is not bad.

http://minnesota.lawschoolnumbers.com/stats/0809/


Oh Minnesota, that stings. Although I think (I hope) they are accepting lower LSATs this year. UGA has been a bit ridiculous this cycle only because they are auto-admitting everyone with a 164+. I think it's great that splitters get a fair shot but COME ON!

User avatar
NayBoer
Posts: 1013
Joined: Wed Mar 04, 2009 3:24 pm

Re: Award for Most Precise Number Whore of the 2010 cycle?

Postby NayBoer » Thu Dec 17, 2009 12:34 pm

Everyone who says 170+ is a guarantee of admission at UVA, GULC or elsewhere, silence yourself.

>170 / <3
reject at UVA
WL at GULC

wired
Posts: 472
Joined: Tue Jun 23, 2009 2:29 pm

Re: Award for Most Precise Number Whore of the 2010 cycle?

Postby wired » Thu Dec 17, 2009 5:25 pm

I don't think over a 170 is a guarantee so much < 170 / < 3.85 is a guarantee you will not get in. You could be a Fulbright Scholar with 169 and a 3.7 with internationally published research, and they would still reject you.

User avatar
MoS
Posts: 404
Joined: Fri Oct 16, 2009 10:59 pm

Re: Award for Most Precise Number Whore of the 2010 cycle?

Postby MoS » Tue Dec 22, 2009 9:33 am


acstas87
Posts: 19
Joined: Fri Feb 12, 2010 7:41 pm

Re: Award for Most Precise Number Whore of the 2010 cycle?

Postby acstas87 » Fri Feb 12, 2010 8:45 pm

PoorOrpheus wrote:
Nicholasnickynic wrote:You are all wrong.

Hands down, no contest, most precise numbers whore goes to u. of georgia.

http://georgia.lawschoolnumbers.com/stats


:shock: ... :lol:
It's so beautiful.



Yea I'd say UGA takes the cake. It's weird to see that because I'm an undergrad here and they take anyone and just fail gobs of people out instead of setting a baseline for admission.

User avatar
jawsthegreat
Posts: 792
Joined: Wed Dec 03, 2008 10:51 pm

Re: Award for Most Precise Number Whore of the 2010 cycle?

Postby jawsthegreat » Fri Feb 12, 2010 8:58 pm

Hmm, I wonder if all the 3.5+/170 WL people still think UVA is the #1 numbers whore.

User avatar
rx3r
Posts: 226
Joined: Mon Jun 15, 2009 9:35 pm

Re: Award for Most Precise Number Whore of the 2010 cycle?

Postby rx3r » Fri Feb 12, 2010 9:09 pm


hiro86
Posts: 137
Joined: Sat Mar 07, 2009 6:10 pm

Re: Award for Most Precise Number Whore of the 2010 cycle?

Postby hiro86 » Fri Feb 12, 2010 9:39 pm

showNprove wrote:This is not "numbers whoring," although it is far from holistic. If it was whoring, they would accept nearly everyone at or above the numbers they set.

Last cycle, everyone complained that UVA "yield protected" by waitlisting so many people with high numbers. Now people are complaining that they're "whoring" people with high numbers by accepting them all. By definition, it is impossible to do both simultaneously: you can't both accept everyone and yield protect everyone at the same time.

UVA appears to set a minimum GPA cutoff and a minimum LSAT cutoff. If you meet either threshold, you will be considered carefully. Just because you meet the threshold, that doesn't mean you'll get in--and just because you'll probably get into Harvard or Yale doesn't mean that you won't get in.

The process is semi-objective, semi-subjective. If you meet the threshold (objective), you'll be carefully considered under personal review (subjective).

That's a hell of a lot better than Georgetown, where a 170+ is a practical guarantee of admission. You all should be happy that you are not limited by a single test score or single computation of your undergraduate performance. Stop bitching.

This cycle is no different from the last. UVA and Penn are both doing a ton of YP. Just admit that you guys YP and get over it. You know that you can't compete with the top schools... nothing wrong with that.

User avatar
jawsthegreat
Posts: 792
Joined: Wed Dec 03, 2008 10:51 pm

Re: Award for Most Precise Number Whore of the 2010 cycle?

Postby jawsthegreat » Fri Feb 12, 2010 9:41 pm

hiro86 wrote:
showNprove wrote:This is not "numbers whoring," although it is far from holistic. If it was whoring, they would accept nearly everyone at or above the numbers they set.

Last cycle, everyone complained that UVA "yield protected" by waitlisting so many people with high numbers. Now people are complaining that they're "whoring" people with high numbers by accepting them all. By definition, it is impossible to do both simultaneously: you can't both accept everyone and yield protect everyone at the same time.

UVA appears to set a minimum GPA cutoff and a minimum LSAT cutoff. If you meet either threshold, you will be considered carefully. Just because you meet the threshold, that doesn't mean you'll get in--and just because you'll probably get into Harvard or Yale doesn't mean that you won't get in.

The process is semi-objective, semi-subjective. If you meet the threshold (objective), you'll be carefully considered under personal review (subjective).

That's a hell of a lot better than Georgetown, where a 170+ is a practical guarantee of admission. You all should be happy that you are not limited by a single test score or single computation of your undergraduate performance. Stop bitching.

This cycle is no different from the last. UVA and Penn are both doing a ton of YP. Just admit that you guys YP and get over it. You know that you can't compete with the top schools... nothing wrong with that.


They YP because if they accepted everyone with one number above median their class would have 600 students. What else are they supposed to do?

User avatar
Holly Golightly
Posts: 4618
Joined: Wed Jan 13, 2010 10:30 am

Re: Award for Most Precise Number Whore of the 2010 cycle?

Postby Holly Golightly » Tue Feb 16, 2010 7:28 am

The UVA trolling on this board is so entertaining. :D

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

Re: Award for Most Precise Number Whore of the 2010 cycle?

Postby booboo » Tue Feb 16, 2010 8:16 am

Holly Golightly wrote:The UVA trolling on this board is so entertaining. :D


Hey Holly! +1.

User avatar
adameus
Posts: 719
Joined: Fri Aug 14, 2009 2:07 am

Re: Award for Most Precise Number Whore of the 2010 cycle?

Postby adameus » Tue Feb 16, 2010 3:16 pm

jawsthegreat wrote:
hiro86 wrote:
showNprove wrote:This is not "numbers whoring," although it is far from holistic. If it was whoring, they would accept nearly everyone at or above the numbers they set.

Last cycle, everyone complained that UVA "yield protected" by waitlisting so many people with high numbers. Now people are complaining that they're "whoring" people with high numbers by accepting them all. By definition, it is impossible to do both simultaneously: you can't both accept everyone and yield protect everyone at the same time.

UVA appears to set a minimum GPA cutoff and a minimum LSAT cutoff. If you meet either threshold, you will be considered carefully. Just because you meet the threshold, that doesn't mean you'll get in--and just because you'll probably get into Harvard or Yale doesn't mean that you won't get in.

The process is semi-objective, semi-subjective. If you meet the threshold (objective), you'll be carefully considered under personal review (subjective).

That's a hell of a lot better than Georgetown, where a 170+ is a practical guarantee of admission. You all should be happy that you are not limited by a single test score or single computation of your undergraduate performance. Stop bitching.

This cycle is no different from the last. UVA and Penn are both doing a ton of YP. Just admit that you guys YP and get over it. You know that you can't compete with the top schools... nothing wrong with that.


They YP because if they accepted everyone with one number above median their class would have 600 students. What else are they supposed to do?


No, I'm pretty sure they yield protect in order to.... get this.... protect their yield. They limit the number of acceptances they hand out in order to make sure they don't have a class of 600 students.

User avatar
stratocophic
Posts: 2207
Joined: Tue Dec 22, 2009 6:24 pm

Re: Award for Most Precise Number Whore of the 2010 cycle?

Postby stratocophic » Tue Feb 16, 2010 3:27 pm

wired wrote:I don't think over a 170 is a guarantee so much < 170 / < 3.85 is a guarantee you will not get in. You could be a Fulbright Scholar with 169 and a 3.7 with internationally published research, and they would still reject you.


QFT. At least they're straightforward about it. You want in? Have >170 and >3.84. You are essentially guaranteed acceptance if you do. If one of those two numbers is on the wrong side of the > at this point in the cycle, you're late to the party and the bouncers are just getting warmed up. It's not YP if one of your numbers is below median, it's MP. Just because Columbia wants your 175/3.7 doesn't mean UVa (and their crazy high GPA median) does. Don't hate the player, hate the gaming :lol:

User avatar
Compaq1984
Posts: 180
Joined: Fri Oct 16, 2009 12:23 pm

Re: Award for Most Precise Number Whore of the 2010 cycle?

Postby Compaq1984 » Tue Feb 16, 2010 4:17 pm

this is def. not a comparable school to harvard, UVA, etc.. but PSU/DICKinson is def turning into a number whore... WL people above both medians (157/3.3) despite being a regional school with no real job market to dominate.... http://pennstate.lawschoolnumbers.com/stats




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

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Dondraper88, Houzy, jstans, mdu, proteinshake, Rich Uncle Skeleton and 10 guests