URM 2014-2015 Cycle Thread Forum

[cc78]

CC, that's great research. What I wish I knew the floors. I'm truly curious on whether this will drop with the decrease in applicants. Most of these schools cant really make their schools any smaller. Except Harvard I guess. Any insight as to why HLS continues to keep such a large class?

Hey Dini,

This is pretty easy. These are the lowest admit numbers (in isolation, not combination) from the dataset:

GPA:

Yale: 3.6
Harvard: 3.45
Stanford: 3.5
Chicago: 3.09
Columbia: 3.19
NYU: 3.14
Penn: 3.0
UVA: 3.06
Berkeley: 3.0
Michigan: 3.0

LSAT:

Yale: 163
Harvard: 160
Stanford: 161
Chicago: 154
Columbia: 158
NYU: 160
Penn: 155
UVA: 155
Berkeley: 157
Michigan: 158

Harvard's class size is a good question that has at least a couple of explanations in my mind. First, is that the Langdell method of instruction (one teacher teaching in Socratic Method in a lecture), which was invented at Harvard, was designed to facilitate instruction of students in large groups. But why was this necessary? I think it has to do with the fact that at Harvard each constituent unit is required to be economically self-sufficient. It's called ETOB (Every Tub on its own Bottom), meaning that central Harvard U. does not subsidize its schools.

You see this if you look at how differently each of the schools at HU faces the market. HBS and HLS have massive endowments, so they are able to offer aid and loans and all kinds of delightful stuff. HKS and the Ed School don't have that kind of money so their aid and such is greatly restricted. If you have to think like an almost independent entity, you're going to want to generate as much surplus income as possible. This became imminently possible by having a larger class size that did not skew your need for teachers.

It is very interesting because if HLS decided to slash its class size to 200, the whole top of the T14 would shake. First, I'm pretty confident that HLS and YLS could end up in some kind of median nuclear war. But second, SLS and CLS are going to be elated because their yields would be going up up up!

Now, I'm sure if HLS felt pressure on its medians, it could eliminate a section (80 students). But, I generally think that in the T3 they are still okay.

[wsag826]

Well since I am obsessed with this law school stuff and dying a little from a lack of news, I did some LSN research on AA applicants to 10 schools. Here's what I was able to come up with going back 5 cycles in terms of GPA/LSAT 25/50/75ths:

Of course a few caveats:

1. Because it's LSN data, who knows what's true or not.
2. We have a sample size issue of course (we can't know what % of applicants we are talking about here because schools do not release applicant data by race/ethnicity), but just intuitively what happens to around 149 people (the number of people accounted for from Harvard) feels significant. At the same time, the Yale number is suspect because only 7 AAs report a Yale acceptance on LSN in the past five years .

I don't know what else this means or what use it could be, but I am intrigued by the fact it reinforces our conventional wisdom that 165 is an important benchmark in terms of assessing AA/URM chances. I'm curious to see if anyone else out there has any insight.

I think that the AA community is so small at Yale and attention on them is so high that most choose to shield their identities. I also believe that this is the case for many low scorers. The type of vitriol I've seen against low scorers into T14 schools & the negative attention many URMs and AAs face in law school signifies to me that many sub-165 scorers simply choose not to report. Which is fine.

I would argue that 160-162 is a more appropriate benchmark for candidates who otherwise see their chances as very strong. Aka URM/AA candidates with above median GPAs, excellent softs, and/or great letters of recommendation. But 165+ would still be the benchmark for URM/AA candidates who are otherwise not so confident in their chances (e.g., sub-25% GPAs, few softs, poor breadth of coursework, C&F issues).

Either way, with AAs in particular, I think the rationale should be to apply apply apply regardless. I do not think that any score at or north of 152-155 eliminates an AA candidate from contention at any school, so long as the remainder of their application is as strong as it can be. And unfortunately, the situation is so grim in terms of the number of URM applications T14 schools review each year that striking out at T14s do not necessarily prevent a candidate from retaking, re-applying the following year and finding some degree of success.

Of course, there's also a "wild card" factor of sorts that I think is becoming even more tantamount to admission than it has been historically: your interest in a specific school. On TLS, its easy to get the impression that expressing specific interest (e.g., "why X," showing ties, etc.) Is directly related to preventing YP. But I also believe that, as the # of 170+ scorers continue to drop, schools are looking for candidates with demonstrated interest in their institution because those candidates are most enthusiastic about the school. I don't know if any empirical studies have been done, but I can certainly imagine schools thinking that "demonstrated interest" candidates are more likely to take their work seriously, become active proponents of their respective schools, and become impactful and involved alums. Which in the end contributes to these schools' reputations just as much as LSAT medians, IMO. And I wouldn't be surprised if more URMs, based on the sole factor that other potential candidates who look like them are far less likely to apply, write enthusiastically about schools of demonstrated interest and negate whatever sub-median or sub-25% score they might have.

[Oskosh]

If you ask me, it's a shame that low scorers are received with vitriol. If you think about it, the difference between a 170 and a 165 is no more than 6-7 questions... This is why I dislike standardized testing. Now, I'm not saying that the 170 depreciates in merit because of the six question difference, and I know that getting those final 6-7 questions correct is extremely challenging, but I do believe that an application is more than scores. Yale is a good example of this, as they reject many 178s despite the lofty numbers.

I'm hoping that I hear back from some more schools this week. I've only heard from 3, and all are the ones to which I applied first (the others being three days apart)... Really hoping to hear from Harvard or Stanford.

Also, can someone explain to me why GULC gets denigrated the most out of all T14 schools? This is something I've recently noticed. It seems to me that it has a worse rep than strong regional schools, like UT or UCLA. Is it because of their employment numbers?

[03282016]

[ltowns1]

Well since I am obsessed with this law school stuff and dying a little from a lack of news, I did some LSN research on AA applicants to 10 schools. Here's what I was able to come up with going back 5 cycles in terms of GPA/LSAT 25/50/75ths:



Of course a few caveats:

1. Because it's LSN data, who knows what's true or not.
2. We have a sample size issue of course (we can't know what % of applicants we are talking about here because schools do not release applicant data by race/ethnicity), but just intuitively what happens to around 149 people (the number of people accounted for from Harvard) feels significant. At the same time, the Yale number is suspect because only 7 AAs report a Yale acceptance on LSN in the past five years .

I don't know what else this means or what use it could be, but I am intrigued by the fact it reinforces our conventional wisdom that 165 is an important benchmark in terms of assessing AA/URM chances. I'm curious to see if anyone else out there has any insight.

I did the exact same thing on my own, and came up with the exact same numbers.

[DiniMae]

Hey Dini,

This is pretty easy. These are the lowest admit numbers (in isolation, not combination) from the dataset:

GPA:

Yale: 3.6
Harvard: 3.45
Stanford: 3.5
Chicago: 3.09
Columbia: 3.19
NYU: 3.14
Penn: 3.0
UVA: 3.06
Berkeley: 3.0
Michigan: 3.0

LSAT:

Yale: 163
Harvard: 160
Stanford: 161
Chicago: 154
Columbia: 158
NYU: 160
Penn: 155
UVA: 155
Berkeley: 157
Michigan: 158

I think that the AA community is so small at Yale and attention on them is so high that most choose to shield their identities. I also believe that this is the case for many low scorers. The type of vitriol I've seen against low scorers into T14 schools & the negative attention many URMs and AAs face in law school signifies to me that many sub-165 scorers simply choose not to report. Which is fine.

I have to say that I am truly surprised by some of these scores and GPAs. However, I would also agree with wsag that there are people with even lower numbers (or more total people with these scores) who don't want to share. I also find it hard to believe that schools haven't dipped below 3.0 either. Perhaps some users are rounding up...? Hmmmm.....Just answered my own question--when I took off the URM filter, I saw several nonURMs with sub-3.0 GPAs got into schools (including HLS). So it does happen!

*BTW I looked for Mr./Ms. 154 going back to '09 and didn't see him/her. What year? I asked because I looked through a few schools' graphs at the "lowest" green dots and found several of them to have w/e or strongly believed that they had "great" applications and LORs. Interestingly, there is sometimes a giant backlash of LSN/TLSrs commenting on someone's profile calling them a flame in disbelief & you never hear from the poster again.

[wsag826]

If you ask me, it's a shame that low scorers are received with vitriol. If you think about it, the difference between a 170 and a 165 is no more than 6-7 questions... This is why I dislike standardized testing. Now, I'm not saying that the 170 depreciates in merit because of the six question difference, and I know that getting those final 6-7 questions correct is extremely challenging, but I do believe that an application is more than scores. Yale is a good example of this, as they reject many 178s despite the lofty numbers.

I'm hoping that I hear back from some more schools this week. I've only heard from 3, and all are the ones to which I applied first (the others being three days apart)... Really hoping to hear from Harvard or Stanford.

Also, can someone explain to me why GULC gets denigrated the most out of all T14 schools? This is something I've recently noticed. It seems to me that it has a worse rep than strong regional schools, like UT or UCLA. Is it because of their employment numbers?

As a 'low scorer' myself, I definitely agree. I don't think anyone can or should be ridiculed for scoring below a school's "median" on the LSAT and getting in. I think it ultimately just boils down to jealousy and envy on part of others. But it's a real thing and I think that low scorers of all backgrounds are more hesitant to post their numbers on LSN as a result.

Lofty numbers do not mean someone will be capable enough to be an active and engaging member of a law school community. I think law schools recognize this...it's only a select few who don't.

As for GULC, employment numbers don't lie but GULC makes up for what it lacks in employment (which i largely think has to do with class size and feeding into a very tough market more than anything else) with prestige. Georgetown has incredible prestige and a great reputation and is an awesome school in an awesome city.

I feel a lot more sympathy for UT, UCLA, and Vanderbilt, who I think do not have high enough reputations by sole virtue that they exist outside of the T14. Although I find it laughable that anyone would consider either of the three to be more regional than national. Yeah, maybe less people in Seattle know what and where Vanderbilt is but are you going to tell me they also know that UVA is #8 and Michigan is #10??

But at the end of the day, I think reputation and prestige are inherently artificial considerations and thus reap artificial judgments. So long as we all continue to attest to the meaning of T14 and YHSCCN and TTT etc. we merely continue the cycle. But with employment prospects and cost being what they are, I'm not so sure that we, the consumers, have any other options...

[DiniMae]

Of course, there's also a "wild card" factor of sorts that I think is becoming even more tantamount to admission than it has been historically: your interest in a specific school. On TLS, its easy to get the impression that expressing specific interest (e.g., "why X," showing ties, etc.) Is directly related to preventing YP. But I also believe that, as the # of 170+ scorers continue to drop, schools are looking for candidates with demonstrated interest in their institution because those candidates are most enthusiastic about the school. I don't know if any empirical studies have been done, but I can certainly imagine schools thinking that "demonstrated interest" candidates are more likely to take their work seriously, become active proponents of their respective schools, and become impactful and involved alums. Which in the end contributes to these schools' reputations just as much as LSAT medians, IMO. And I wouldn't be surprised if more URMs, based on the sole factor that other potential candidates who look like them are far less likely to apply, write enthusiastically about schools of demonstrated interest and negate whatever sub-median or sub-25% score they might have.

I whole-heartedly agree. I am below every T14 LSAT 25% mark (I believe). Not saying that others didn't take the time to tailor apps, but I know I did, I got into some places that I only hoped for.

I also think for URMs below the 25% in LSAT or GPA (not both), may be seen as more thankful (for lack of a better word) if accepted by a school and therefore splitters or reverse splitters will do well. No money though, but accepted.

[DiniMae]

If you ask me, it's a shame that low scorers are received with vitriol. If you think about it, the difference between a 170 and a 165 is no more than 6-7 questions... This is why I dislike standardized testing. Now, I'm not saying that the 170 depreciates in merit because of the six question difference, and I know that getting those final 6-7 questions correct is extremely challenging, but I do believe that an application is more than scores. Yale is a good example of this, as they reject many 178s despite the lofty numbers.

I'm hoping that I hear back from some more schools this week. I've only heard from 3, and all are the ones to which I applied first (the others being three days apart)... Really hoping to hear from Harvard or Stanford.

Also, can someone explain to me why GULC gets denigrated the most out of all T14 schools? This is something I've recently noticed. It seems to me that it has a worse rep than strong regional schools, like UT or UCLA. Is it because of their employment numbers?

As a 'low scorer' myself, I definitely agree. I don't think anyone can or should be ridiculed for scoring below a school's "median" on the LSAT and getting in. I think it ultimately just boils down to jealousy and envy on part of others. But it's a real thing and I think that low scorers of all backgrounds are more hesitant to post their numbers on LSN as a result.

Lofty numbers do not mean someone will be capable enough to be an active and engaging member of a law school community. I think law schools recognize this...it's only a select few who don't.

As for GULC, employment numbers don't lie but GULC makes up for what it lacks in employment (which i largely think has to do with class size and feeding into a very tough market more than anything else) with prestige. Georgetown has incredible prestige and a great reputation and is an awesome school in an awesome city.

I feel a lot more sympathy for UT, UCLA, and Vanderbilt, who I think do not have high enough reputations by sole virtue that they exist outside of the T14. Although I find it laughable that anyone would consider either of the three to be more regional than national. Yeah, maybe less people in Seattle know what and where Vanderbilt is but are you going to tell me they also know that UVA is #8 and Michigan is #10??

But at the end of the day, I think reputation and prestige are inherently artificial considerations and thus reap artificial judgments. So long as we all continue to attest to the meaning of T14 and YHSCCN and TTT etc. we merely continue the cycle. But with employment prospects and cost being what they are, I'm not so sure that we, the consumers, have any other options...

So......GULC.......First, TLSrs don't seem to like large entering or transfer classes (HLS gets its fair share of hate too). Outside of TLS, which I'm 99.9% positive that my LS friends are NOT on here, they don't mention class size when I asked about their decision-making. I know 3 at GULC with higher T14 offers who intentionally came here for the networking. You have professors in high levels on the Hill and at DOJ/DOS/etc who are adjuncts or center directors. If you want that life post-JD, why would you go to say, Mich, over GULC (no hate no UM)? I think GULC will and should stay in the T14 if for no other reason than its proximity to political & fedgov power. Also, that name sells overseas (likely because of the UG SFS). Go to Portugal and say HYSBG, and they've heard of them. Say UVa and you get blank stares (again, not picking on UVA). I lived in the ME for 2 years and half of my family spent 10-20 years in Europe/No Africa, so I can this with some certainty. But if you don't want any of this (which I'm sure most TLSrs don't), then GULC is not the school for you. Likewise, if you want a firm, why would you go to GULC? You wouldn't. And shouldn't.

[DiniMae]

I feel a lot more sympathy for UT, UCLA, and Vanderbilt, who I think do not have high enough reputations by sole virtue that they exist outside of the T14. Although I find it laughable that anyone would consider either of the three to be more regional than national. Yeah, maybe less people in Seattle know what and where Vanderbilt is but are you going to tell me they also know that UVA is #8 and Michigan is #10??

I think everyone can agree that outside of people who care about the T14/T1/TTT, other people don't care and several of these T14 schools are seen as "regional". There's the prestige within the internal legal community and then there's the prestige of the lay person.

Lay people:
My NYC friends were ecstatic and oh-so-impressed that I got into Columbia. My DE/MD/PA friends thought Penn was everything in life. My OH/IN friends said NU "hands down....and get that Kellogg MBA while you're up there."

My LS/lawyer friends:
They said I had "excellent" options and I can't go wrong.

Perceived prestige is a tricky thing. I can't base my decisions on it unless I knew where I wanted to be post-JD and whether I need lay prestige (politics, xfer to non-legal job, etc). And since I don't, I won't.

[DiniMae]

If you ask me, it's a shame that low scorers are received with vitriol. If you think about it, the difference between a 170 and a 165 is no more than 6-7 questions... This is why I dislike standardized testing. Now, I'm not saying that the 170 depreciates in merit because of the six question difference, and I know that getting those final 6-7 questions correct is extremely challenging, but I do believe that an application is more than scores. Yale is a good example of this, as they reject many 178s despite the lofty numbers.

I'm hoping that I hear back from some more schools this week. I've only heard from 3, and all are the ones to which I applied first (the others being three days apart)... Really hoping to hear from Harvard or Stanford.

Also, can someone explain to me why GULC gets denigrated the most out of all T14 schools? This is something I've recently noticed. It seems to me that it has a worse rep than strong regional schools, like UT or UCLA. Is it because of their employment numbers?

Employment numbers + notoriously weird cycles + apparently stingy with $$. Tons of search results across the forums for this discussion.

This could explain why vets LOOOOVVVEEEEEE GULC so much. I mean <3 <3 <3 by the tons! We don't pay (much) tuition and are looking at fedgov or policy-related jobs. Truly, my vet friends don't know why I'm looking anywhere else other than HLS. Seriously, they don't. And I'm sure most people on TLS aren't vets.

[ltowns1]

If you ask me, it's a shame that low scorers are received with vitriol. If you think about it, the difference between a 170 and a 165 is no more than 6-7 questions... This is why I dislike standardized testing. Now, I'm not saying that the 170 depreciates in merit because of the six question difference, and I know that getting those final 6-7 questions correct is extremely challenging, but I do believe that an application is more than scores. Yale is a good example of this, as they reject many 178s despite the lofty numbers.

I'm hoping that I hear back from some more schools this week. I've only heard from 3, and all are the ones to which I applied first (the others being three days apart)... Really hoping to hear from Harvard or Stanford.

Also, can someone explain to me why GULC gets denigrated the most out of all T14 schools? This is something I've recently noticed. It seems to me that it has a worse rep than strong regional schools, like UT or UCLA. Is it because of their employment numbers?

As a 'low scorer' myself, I definitely agree. I don't think anyone can or should be ridiculed for scoring below a school's "median" on the LSAT and getting in. I think it ultimately just boils down to jealousy and envy on part of others. But it's a real thing and I think that low scorers of all backgrounds are more hesitant to post their numbers on LSN as a result.

Lofty numbers do not mean someone will be capable enough to be an active and engaging member of a law school community. I think law schools recognize this...it's only a select few who don't.

As for GULC, employment numbers don't lie but GULC makes up for what it lacks in employment (which i largely think has to do with class size and feeding into a very tough market more than anything else) with prestige. Georgetown has incredible prestige and a great reputation and is an awesome school in an awesome city.

I feel a lot more sympathy for UT, UCLA, and Vanderbilt, who I think do not have high enough reputations by sole virtue that they exist outside of the T14. Although I find it laughable that anyone would consider either of the three to be more regional than national. Yeah, maybe less people in Seattle know what and where Vanderbilt is but are you going to tell me they also know that UVA is #8 and Michigan is #10??

But at the end of the day, I think reputation and prestige are inherently artificial considerations and thus reap artificial judgments. So long as we all continue to attest to the meaning of T14 and YHSCCN and TTT etc. we merely continue the cycle. But with employment prospects and cost being what they are, I'm not so sure that we, the consumers, have any other options...

That's my attitude exactly...and those who don't like the "edge" that minorities and specifically African Americans get can kick rocks. I am a African American male, but I don't go into thinking I want the low score compared to our white, or Asian counterparts. I wan't to get the highest score possible period. I do realize that the bar at which I have to reach for me to be competitive is lower because of who I am, but that does not indicate my effort, determination, or study habits, etc.
Futhermore, folks seem to act like scoring in the 165 range is easy...it's the the 90 percentile!!!! Secondly, minority groups are competing with other minorites, just as other white males, are competing against other white males, and Asian females are competing against other Asian females. All these backgrounds in terms of color are necessary factor (in my opinion) in a truely healthy educational environment.

[FairchildFLT]

When I start law school I become a 180 4.0

[MadwomanintheAttic]

When I start law school I become a 180 4.0

You and me both

[Dream_weaver32]

When I start law school I become a 180 4.0

If it weren't for US News rankings, numbers wouldn't matter anyway. If you get in a school, there is a reason. This low number argument is absolutely absurd. Everyone that starts on day 1 is equal, LSAT score no longer means a thing.

[03282016]

[cc78]

It's nice to see this level of discussion going on in the forum. I just want to make sure we are all careful about avoiding debating the merits of Affirmative Action, lest we attract the ire of the Mods.

Dini, the 154 @ Chicago has hidden her profile. He/she gets captured by mylsn, but doesn't show up on LSN anymore. I did try to throw out profiles that looked ridiculous, so there is a small degree of judgment/discretion at work in the stuff I put up.

I love the attitude of being a 4.0/180 the day law school starts. The one thing I know no one is asking you about when it comes time to get a job is what was your LSAT score. If you have the grades, you have the grades.

I wanted to put the data out there because I've seen several URMs asking for advice in other threads who will present as a 3.5+/165 and the immediate advice from the hivemind is RETAKE! This data and all of our experience tells us that is simply not true. I'd hope folks can look at the data and say, "ohh, ok, I am above median for LSAT and GPA for the applicants that I am most likely going to be compared to." The LSAT is awful. It adds zero value to your life. It should work for you, not the other way around.

[Tr3]

It's nice to see this level of discussion going on in the forum. I just want to make sure we are all careful about avoiding debating the merits of Affirmative Action, lest we attract the ire of the Mods.

Dini, the 154 @ Chicago has hidden her profile. He/she gets captured by mylsn, but doesn't show up on LSN anymore. I did try to throw out profiles that looked ridiculous, so there is a small degree of judgment/discretion at work in the stuff I put up.

I love the attitude of being a 4.0/180 the day law school starts. The one thing I know no one is asking you about when it comes time to get a job is what was your LSAT score. If you have the grades, you have the grades.

I wanted to put the data out there because I've seen several URMs asking for advice in other threads who will present as a 3.5+/165 and the immediate advice from the hivemind is RETAKE! This data and all of our experience tells us that is simply not true. I'd hope folks can look at the data and say, "ohh, ok, I am above median for LSAT and GPA for the applicants that I am most likely going to be compared to." The LSAT is awful. It adds zero value to your life. It should work for you, not the other way around.

I don't think retake is necessary for admissions (obvi, I'm like right at these stats) but I still think a retake would help HYS access and $$ from T14. So it's not bad advice, it's just not necessary. (but to those who scream retake, they are usually T14+full tuition or bust, or so it seems)

[Tr3]

DW I hope your WUSTL interview went well!

[Dream_weaver32]

DW I hope your WUSTL interview went well!

Thanks for checking on me! Interview was great, then checked my status at Iowa and was accepted. Monday started off pretty solid!

[Tr3]

DW I hope your WUSTL interview went well!

Thanks for checking on me! Interview was great, then checked my status at Iowa and was accepted. Monday started off pretty solid!

Woohoo!! Congratulations!




-----
Also, after bad luck with the cat-tar, I'm back to being Adore Delano. lol

[Apsara]

I think that the AA community is so small at Yale and attention on them is so high that most choose to shield their identities. I also believe that this is the case for many low scorers. The type of vitriol I've seen against low scorers into T14 schools & the negative attention many URMs and AAs face in law school signifies to me that many sub-165 scorers simply choose not to report. Which is fine.

This is generally true. There was an AA male a few years back that reported a 157 LSAT score with a Yale acceptance. Needless to say, he left TLS after receiving the hate that he did and I believe he removed his LSN profile.

There are, however, many of us that do report back and keep our LSN profiles up for future reference. I know I still do and apparently my profile has been a target of vitriol as well. That doesn't dissuade me from keeping it up for future URM applicants such as yourself.

Welcome to the profession, ladies and gents. It gets worse in law school and in the real world but by then you'll grow enough thick skin to not pay it any mind.

[cc78]

Welcome to the profession, ladies and gents. It gets worse in law school and in the real world but by then you'll grow enough thick skin to not pay it any mind.

Thank you for keeping your stats up! And, all I can say about the above is...haters gonna hate.

F them...

[90convoy]

Just for reference, Yales lowest LSAT score admitted last cycle was a 152

[90convoy]

Just an interesting fact haha....means nothing