Why has this cycle been so odd? Forum

[FolliePoll]

I have been reviewing this year's cycle and results because I plan on applying for next cycle. It seems that URM cycles have been very unpredictable (at least more than usual) at top law schools. Next year I'll be a AA female senior with a 170 lsat (might retake) and a roughly 3.5 gpa (currently 3.4X) from a top 20 lac. It seems that most people with my numbers have had unprecedented cycles compared to years past and I'm just a bit confused as to why. I'm hoping for Harvard as I'd like to stay around the Boston area with my family but I'm not sure if that's still likely. I always thought 3.5+/165+ gave URMs a competitive chance at HYSC but I haven't seen many with those numbers get in. What happened? Has competition stiffened (It does seem like there are more people with 170+ lsats this cycle than previously)? Was applying too late the reason? Are schools wait-listing people till the very end? Is the URM bump weakening? Any insight would be great

thank u

[chizzy]

You shouldnt be worried since you dont have a 165-169. you have a 170+ lsat, and there should be data for people with successful cylces with those stats

[FolliePoll]

I suppose you're right but it seemed to me that those with lsats in the mid 160s had significantly higher gpas (3.7-4.0) which gets me a bit concerned.

[Atmosphere]

This freaks me out as well. However, I will say that id rather be entering next cycle with your numbers than mine (AA Male 3.75/165), and I want H as well.

I've only seen one potential AA on LSN be WLed/Dinged at H with >3.5 and 169/170.

[Brettanomyces]

You shouldnt be worried since you dont have a 165-169. you have a 170+ lsat, and there should be data for people with successful cylces with those stats

Errr, apply early.

I've been waitlisted pretty much everywhere and I also have a 170--and a better GPA.

[FolliePoll]

Sorry to hear that Brettanomyces. Is January too late to apply? Im trying to get my gpa around 3.5 by then to have a fighting chance.

[Brettanomyces]

Sorry to hear that Brettanomyces. Is January too late to apply? Im trying to get my gpa around 3.5 by then to have a fighting chance.

I couldn't say, really. I applied to most places in late January/early February. I don't know what difference a couple of weeks would have made.

That said, if it were me, I'd rather apply in September with a 3.4 than January with a 3.5.

[Dr.Zer0]

Sorry to hear that Brettanomyces. Is January too late to apply? Im trying to get my gpa around 3.5 by then to have a fighting chance.

I couldn't say, really. I applied to most places in late January/early February. I don't know what difference a couple of weeks would have made.

That said, if it were me, I'd rather apply in September with a 3.4 than January with a 3.5.

I applied in mid January and I can tell you that applying late did affect me. I met IRL non-URM's with similar stats and backgrounds as mine at some of the ASWs. They were already admitted at CCN while I only had NYU, WL at UofC and still pending at Columbia. The only real difference between us was that they had applied in November.

PM if you need more deets.

[logicspeaks]

I also applied late and was waitlisted at every T10 I applied to. Don't make the same mistake I did and I think you'll be fine.

[teampeeta]

I have been reviewing this year's cycle and results because I plan on applying for next cycle. It seems that URM cycles have been very unpredictable (at least more than usual) at top law schools. Next year I'll be a AA female senior with a 170 lsat (might retake) and a roughly 3.5 gpa (currently 3.4X) from a top 20 lac. It seems that most people with my numbers have had unprecedented cycles compared to years past and I'm just a bit confused as to why. I'm hoping for Harvard as I'd like to stay around the Boston area with my family but I'm not sure if that's still likely. I always thought 3.5+/165+ gave URMs a competitive chance at HYSC but I haven't seen many with those numbers get in. What happened? Has competition stiffened (It does seem like there are more people with 170+ lsats this cycle than previously)? Was applying too late the reason? Are schools wait-listing people till the very end? Is the URM bump weakening? Any insight would be great

thank u

I think this might've just been a very competitive cycle numbers-wise for URMs. I don't remember seeing so many 170+ scorers ever. That said, I think your analysis is a bit reductive. I think you have a shot at all of HYSCCN as a 3.5+, 165+ URM, but it's not a guarantee. YS especially care a lot about GPA, so while there are people around 3.5 who are accepted, I think your chances are significantly better there if your grades are higher. Harvard has made some strange choices this cycle- like, I don't really understand, regardless of when they apply, why a 3.5/167 and a 3.45/169 are accepted while a 3.8/170 and a 4.0/169 are on the WL. That tells you that JS has made certain factors other than GPA and LSAT important in her evaluation of some URMs. I have a 3.5+/172+ and got dinged and I know there were others with strong numbers who were also rejected. One TLSer had a 3.5/179 and was also unlucky, which I think is absurd. Maybe it's just sour grapes.

Also, as logicspeaks and brett mentioned, applying late seems to really have messed up people's cycles at HCCN this year. It usually doesn't, so I don't know what the deal is with that either.

I think if you apply early next year, you should be okay at the T6. It's hard to make predictions beyond that because your odds at HYS will prob depend on the idiosyncracies of your app and how they are received by the admissions committees.

[BankruptMe]

Apply early, for the love of God

[August Wilson]

I have been reviewing this year's cycle and results because I plan on applying for next cycle. It seems that URM cycles have been very unpredictable (at least more than usual) at top law schools. Next year I'll be a AA female senior with a 170 lsat (might retake) and a roughly 3.5 gpa (currently 3.4X) from a top 20 lac. It seems that most people with my numbers have had unprecedented cycles compared to years past and I'm just a bit confused as to why. I'm hoping for Harvard as I'd like to stay around the Boston area with my family but I'm not sure if that's still likely. I always thought 3.5+/165+ gave URMs a competitive chance at HYSC but I haven't seen many with those numbers get in. What happened? Has competition stiffened (It does seem like there are more people with 170+ lsats this cycle than previously)? Was applying too late the reason? Are schools wait-listing people till the very end? Is the URM bump weakening? Any insight would be great

thank u

I think this might've just been a very competitive cycle numbers-wise for URMs. I don't remember seeing so many 170+ scorers ever. That said, I think your analysis is a bit reductive. I think you have a shot at all of HYSCCN as a 3.5+, 165+ URM, but it's not a guarantee. YS especially care a lot about GPA, so while there are people around 3.5 who are accepted, I think your chances are significantly better there if your grades are higher. Harvard has made some strange choices this cycle- like, I don't really understand, regardless of when they apply, why a 3.5/167 and a 3.45/169 are accepted while a 3.8/170 and a 4.0/169 are on the WL. That tells you that JS has made certain factors other than GPA and LSAT important in her evaluation of some URMs. I have a 3.5+/172+ and got dinged and I know there were others with strong numbers who were also rejected. One TLSer had a 3.5/179 and was also unlucky, which I think is absurd. Maybe it's just sour grapes.

Also, as logicspeaks and brett mentioned, applying late seems to really have messed up people's cycles at HCCN this year. It usually doesn't, so I don't know what the deal is with that either.

I think if you apply early next year, you should be okay at the T6. It's hard to make predictions beyond that because your odds at HYS will prob depend on the idiosyncracies of your app and how they are received by the admissions committees.

But applying early is often what separates the 3.5/167 from the 3.5/179. IIRC, the last admit wave for H before the first admitted students weekend (which was in early march) was 2/20. By then a substantial portion, if not most, of the class is already set, and it probably means they've hit their desired numbers for median and 25/75 GPA/LSAT which means they don't need the 179 URM anymore. It's rolling admissions. If they take a 3.4/169 before the 3.5/179 has even applied how is that absurd? They have no idea what your numbers are before you apply, and they don't get all the applications in one place and then make a decision. You have to play the game the way it's set up. I totally understand that sometimes it's unavoidable to apply in February (retakes and whatnot), but that's why you can reapply in September and often return with better outcomes.

In general, if you're an AA applicant with a GPA> 3.5 and a 170+ LSAT who applied to H in Jan/Feb and you don't get in, you have to either blame it on the timing or the there's some other glaring problem with your application. It's not simply because H is acting "weird".

[teampeeta]

I have been reviewing this year's cycle and results because I plan on applying for next cycle. It seems that URM cycles have been very unpredictable (at least more than usual) at top law schools. Next year I'll be a AA female senior with a 170 lsat (might retake) and a roughly 3.5 gpa (currently 3.4X) from a top 20 lac. It seems that most people with my numbers have had unprecedented cycles compared to years past and I'm just a bit confused as to why. I'm hoping for Harvard as I'd like to stay around the Boston area with my family but I'm not sure if that's still likely. I always thought 3.5+/165+ gave URMs a competitive chance at HYSC but I haven't seen many with those numbers get in. What happened? Has competition stiffened (It does seem like there are more people with 170+ lsats this cycle than previously)? Was applying too late the reason? Are schools wait-listing people till the very end? Is the URM bump weakening? Any insight would be great

thank u

I think this might've just been a very competitive cycle numbers-wise for URMs. I don't remember seeing so many 170+ scorers ever. That said, I think your analysis is a bit reductive. I think you have a shot at all of HYSCCN as a 3.5+, 165+ URM, but it's not a guarantee. YS especially care a lot about GPA, so while there are people around 3.5 who are accepted, I think your chances are significantly better there if your grades are higher. Harvard has made some strange choices this cycle- like, I don't really understand, regardless of when they apply, why a 3.5/167 and a 3.45/169 are accepted while a 3.8/170 and a 4.0/169 are on the WL. That tells you that JS has made certain factors other than GPA and LSAT important in her evaluation of some URMs. I have a 3.5+/172+ and got dinged and I know there were others with strong numbers who were also rejected. One TLSer had a 3.5/179 and was also unlucky, which I think is absurd. Maybe it's just sour grapes.

Also, as logicspeaks and brett mentioned, applying late seems to really have messed up people's cycles at HCCN this year. It usually doesn't, so I don't know what the deal is with that either.

I think if you apply early next year, you should be okay at the T6. It's hard to make predictions beyond that because your odds at HYS will prob depend on the idiosyncracies of your app and how they are received by the admissions committees.

But applying early is often what separates the 3.5/167 from the 3.5/179. IIRC, the last admit wave for H before the first admitted students weekend (which was in early march) was 2/20. By then a substantial portion, if not most, of the class is already set, and it probably means they've hit their desired numbers for median and 25/75 GPA/LSAT which means they don't need the 179 URM anymore. It's rolling admissions. If they take a 3.4/169 before the 3.5/179 has even applied how is that absurd? They have no idea what your numbers are before you apply, and they don't get all the applications in one place and then make a decision. You have to play the game the way it's set up. I totally understand that sometimes it's unavoidable to apply in February (retakes and whatnot), but that's why you can reapply in September and often return with better outcomes.

In general, if you're an AA applicant with a GPA> 3.5 and a 170+ LSAT who applied to H in Jan/Feb and you don't get in, you have to either blame it on the timing or the there's some other glaring problem with your application. It's not simply because H is acting "weird".

The absurd part, at least to me, is that historically Harvard holds a lot of applications for URMs who are below both 25ths to see who else applies and thereby avoid the very scenario you're suggesting (i.e. filling the class before they get a sense of the entire pool). JS didn't do that this year it seems. Your point about the class mostly being filled by Feb is one of the weird parts of this admissions cycle I alluded to. If you look at the data for past cycles, there is usually a rather significant admit wave between the first and second admit weekends and even after the second admit weekend. The class usually isn't filled (and the WL doesn't generally come out) until mid-April. That's not what happened this year.

I'm not making distinctions based on soft factors (because I can't), nor am I suggesting that people who were accepted with lower numbers didn't deserve their acceptances. It's not for anyone but the admissions office to decide that and, clearly, they admitted people they deemed worthy. I'm just saying that the common wisdom that Harvard is a) very numbers driven often to the exclusion of other factors and b) therefore is almost a slam dunk for URMs above 3.5 and 165, doesn't hold up based on some of the decisions at H this year.

And, FWIW, the 3.5/179 I mentioned is definitely not me and the person applied in mid-December.

[applelover]

I have been reviewing this year's cycle and results because I plan on applying for next cycle. It seems that URM cycles have been very unpredictable (at least more than usual) at top law schools. Next year I'll be a AA female senior with a 170 lsat (might retake) and a roughly 3.5 gpa (currently 3.4X) from a top 20 lac. It seems that most people with my numbers have had unprecedented cycles compared to years past and I'm just a bit confused as to why. I'm hoping for Harvard as I'd like to stay around the Boston area with my family but I'm not sure if that's still likely. I always thought 3.5+/165+ gave URMs a competitive chance at HYSC but I haven't seen many with those numbers get in. What happened? Has competition stiffened (It does seem like there are more people with 170+ lsats this cycle than previously)? Was applying too late the reason? Are schools wait-listing people till the very end? Is the URM bump weakening? Any insight would be great

thank u

I think this might've just been a very competitive cycle numbers-wise for URMs. I don't remember seeing so many 170+ scorers ever. That said, I think your analysis is a bit reductive. I think you have a shot at all of HYSCCN as a 3.5+, 165+ URM, but it's not a guarantee. YS especially care a lot about GPA, so while there are people around 3.5 who are accepted, I think your chances are significantly better there if your grades are higher. Harvard has made some strange choices this cycle- like, I don't really understand, regardless of when they apply, why a 3.5/167 and a 3.45/169 are accepted while a 3.8/170 and a 4.0/169 are on the WL. That tells you that JS has made certain factors other than GPA and LSAT important in her evaluation of some URMs. I have a 3.5+/172+ and got dinged and I know there were others with strong numbers who were also rejected. One TLSer had a 3.5/179 and was also unlucky, which I think is absurd. Maybe it's just sour grapes.

Also, as logicspeaks and brett mentioned, applying late seems to really have messed up people's cycles at HCCN this year. It usually doesn't, so I don't know what the deal is with that either.

I think if you apply early next year, you should be okay at the T6. It's hard to make predictions beyond that because your odds at HYS will prob depend on the idiosyncracies of your app and how they are received by the admissions committees.

But applying early is often what separates the 3.5/167 from the 3.5/179. IIRC, the last admit wave for H before the first admitted students weekend (which was in early march) was 2/20. By then a substantial portion, if not most, of the class is already set, and it probably means they've hit their desired numbers for median and 25/75 GPA/LSAT which means they don't need the 179 URM anymore. It's rolling admissions. If they take a 3.4/169 before the 3.5/179 has even applied how is that absurd? They have no idea what your numbers are before you apply, and they don't get all the applications in one place and then make a decision. You have to play the game the way it's set up. I totally understand that sometimes it's unavoidable to apply in February (retakes and whatnot), but that's why you can reapply in September and often return with better outcomes.

In general, if you're an AA applicant with a GPA> 3.5 and a 170+ LSAT who applied to H in Jan/Feb and you don't get in, you have to either blame it on the timing or the there's some other glaring problem with your application. It's not simply because H is acting "weird".

I agree with this!
Apply early. Seriously. I've had an extremely successful cycle and I think that part of the reason why is because of how early I applied. Also, if a school like CLS is worried about your grades that much and you've applied early, then the admissions office will just ask you to submit your fall grades before it gives you a decision.

[applelover]

I have been reviewing this year's cycle and results because I plan on applying for next cycle. It seems that URM cycles have been very unpredictable (at least more than usual) at top law schools. Next year I'll be a AA female senior with a 170 lsat (might retake) and a roughly 3.5 gpa (currently 3.4X) from a top 20 lac. It seems that most people with my numbers have had unprecedented cycles compared to years past and I'm just a bit confused as to why. I'm hoping for Harvard as I'd like to stay around the Boston area with my family but I'm not sure if that's still likely. I always thought 3.5+/165+ gave URMs a competitive chance at HYSC but I haven't seen many with those numbers get in. What happened? Has competition stiffened (It does seem like there are more people with 170+ lsats this cycle than previously)? Was applying too late the reason? Are schools wait-listing people till the very end? Is the URM bump weakening? Any insight would be great

thank u

I think this might've just been a very competitive cycle numbers-wise for URMs. I don't remember seeing so many 170+ scorers ever. That said, I think your analysis is a bit reductive. I think you have a shot at all of HYSCCN as a 3.5+, 165+ URM, but it's not a guarantee. YS especially care a lot about GPA, so while there are people around 3.5 who are accepted, I think your chances are significantly better there if your grades are higher. Harvard has made some strange choices this cycle- like, I don't really understand, regardless of when they apply, why a 3.5/167 and a 3.45/169 are accepted while a 3.8/170 and a 4.0/169 are on the WL. That tells you that JS has made certain factors other than GPA and LSAT important in her evaluation of some URMs. I have a 3.5+/172+ and got dinged and I know there were others with strong numbers who were also rejected. One TLSer had a 3.5/179 and was also unlucky, which I think is absurd. Maybe it's just sour grapes.

Also, as logicspeaks and brett mentioned, applying late seems to really have messed up people's cycles at HCCN this year. It usually doesn't, so I don't know what the deal is with that either.

I think if you apply early next year, you should be okay at the T6. It's hard to make predictions beyond that because your odds at HYS will prob depend on the idiosyncracies of your app and how they are received by the admissions committees.

But applying early is often what separates the 3.5/167 from the 3.5/179. IIRC, the last admit wave for H before the first admitted students weekend (which was in early march) was 2/20. By then a substantial portion, if not most, of the class is already set, and it probably means they've hit their desired numbers for median and 25/75 GPA/LSAT which means they don't need the 179 URM anymore. It's rolling admissions. If they take a 3.4/169 before the 3.5/179 has even applied how is that absurd? They have no idea what your numbers are before you apply, and they don't get all the applications in one place and then make a decision. You have to play the game the way it's set up. I totally understand that sometimes it's unavoidable to apply in February (retakes and whatnot), but that's why you can reapply in September and often return with better outcomes.

In general, if you're an AA applicant with a GPA> 3.5 and a 170+ LSAT who applied to H in Jan/Feb and you don't get in, you have to either blame it on the timing or the there's some other glaring problem with your application. It's not simply because H is acting "weird".

The absurd part, at least to me, is that historically Harvard holds a lot of applications for URMs who are below both 25ths to see who else applies and thereby avoid the very scenario you're suggesting (i.e. filling the class before they get a sense of the entire pool). JS didn't do that this year it seems. Your point about the class mostly being filled by Feb is one of the weird parts of this admissions cycle I alluded to. If you look at the data for past cycles, there is usually a rather significant admit wave between the first and second admit weekends and even after the second admit weekend. The class usually isn't filled (and the WL doesn't generally come out) until mid-April. That's not what happened this year.

I'm not making distinctions based on soft factors (because I can't), nor am I suggesting that people who were accepted with lower numbers didn't deserve their acceptances. It's not for anyone but the admissions office to decide that and, clearly, they admitted people they deemed worthy. I'm just saying that the common wisdom that Harvard is a) very numbers driven often to the exclusion of other factors and b) therefore is almost a slam dunk for URMs above 3.5 and 165, doesn't hold up based on some of the decisions at H this year.

And, FWIW, the 3.5/179 I mentioned is definitely not me and the person applied in mid-December.

Keep in mind though that Harvard is the only LS that had an increase in applications based on application statistics released in the fall. I'm obviously not JS, but that could of have been how the class was filled so early.

[aboutmydaylight]

Apply early. I don't know if my cycle was odd or if it was to be expected. The problem with URM cycles is there's basically not enough data to figure out if you're significantly deviating from the expected outcome. Also, the number of 170+ test takers actually went up this year, not sure if the same is true for URMs. If you look at LSN, there seems to be significantly more URMs that have great numbers than their was last cycle.

Also, what may not get pushed enough here is that there's likely a pretty significant difference between URM races. The 165/3.5 numbers come from this report that shows that for 2009-2010 only 63 AAs had those numbers or better. Numerically, this is good enough for HYS as they take roughly 80 AAs a year. This doesn't tell you anything about other URMs, and my hunch is that an MA for example is probably not getting HYS with those numbers on average.

Also, URMs seem to be more likely to fall into the category of other "unpredictable" applicant types. Splitters, reverse splitters, non-trad, odd/special softs, etc. That's why everyone says apply broadly, because even when you have "predictable" numbers, schools still don't really seem to know what to do with your application sometimes.

With a 170, you're already in elite territory for a URM so I don't think that part of your app will make or break anything.

[Dr.Zer0]

Apply early. I don't know if my cycle was odd or if it was to be expected. The problem with URM cycles is there's basically not enough data to figure out if you're significantly deviating from the expected outcome. Also, the number of 170+ test takers actually went up this year, not sure if the same is true for URMs. If you look at LSN, there seems to be significantly more URMs that have great numbers than their was last cycle.

Also, what may not get pushed enough here is that there's likely a pretty significant difference between URM races. The 165/3.5 numbers come from this report that shows that for 2009-2010 only 63 AAs had those numbers or better. Numerically, this is good enough for HYS as they take roughly 80 AAs a year. This doesn't tell you anything about other URMs, and my hunch is that an MA for example is probably not getting HYS with those numbers on average.

Also, URMs seem to be more likely to fall into the category of other "unpredictable" applicant types. Splitters, reverse splitters, non-trad, odd/special softs, etc. That's why everyone says apply broadly, because even when you have "predictable" numbers, schools still don't really seem to know what to do with your application sometimes.

With a 170, you're already in elite territory for a URM so I don't think that part of your app will make or break anything.

I agree with this. The MA/PR boost is not as strong as the AA boost.

From my experience this cycle it seems like the MA/PR boost is just blurring into a Hispanic URM boost.

[fransan42]

I have been reviewing this year's cycle and results because I plan on applying for next cycle. It seems that URM cycles have been very unpredictable (at least more than usual) at top law schools. Next year I'll be a AA female senior with a 170 lsat (might retake) and a roughly 3.5 gpa (currently 3.4X) from a top 20 lac. It seems that most people with my numbers have had unprecedented cycles compared to years past and I'm just a bit confused as to why. I'm hoping for Harvard as I'd like to stay around the Boston area with my family but I'm not sure if that's still likely. I always thought 3.5+/165+ gave URMs a competitive chance at HYSC but I haven't seen many with those numbers get in. What happened? Has competition stiffened (It does seem like there are more people with 170+ lsats this cycle than previously)? Was applying too late the reason? Are schools wait-listing people till the very end? Is the URM bump weakening? Any insight would be great

thank u

In general, if you're an AA applicant with a GPA> 3.5 and a 170+ LSAT who applied to H in Jan/Feb and you don't get in, you have to either blame it on the timing or the there's some other glaring problem with your application. It's not simply because H is acting "weird".

This makes me extremely worried, I'm a 3.6 AA and am delaying graduation for a year so that I can take a bunch of easy 100 level classes to get a 3.7 lsac gpa. Sigh/ I wonder if Harvard adcoms will look down at my obvious GPA padding

[Wiggly]

...