On the utter insignificance of the Personal Statement. Forum

[IAFG]

also that grid is pretty useless since 3.75 is below Duke's median GPA

[094320]

..

[bk1]

So if "Numbers>All," except for "URM," then of 275 Yale admits, 174 were URMs (or 63% - 101 admits with 3.75/175+), and of 1152 Duke admits, 855 were URMs (or 74% - 297 admits with 3.75+/170+).

Of course. How did I miss this?

For Duke it is more like roughly 200 admits (out of 1152) had NEITHER 3.75+ nor 170+.

[trutherd]

Numbers>All. The end.

URM.

So if "Numbers>All," except for "URM," then of 275 Yale admits, 174 were URMs (or 63% - 101 admits with 3.75/175+), and of 1152 Duke admits, 855 were URMs (or 74% - 297 admits with 3.75+/170+).

Of course. How did I miss this?

I'm glad I got through to you. Take your naive optimism elsewhere now.

Nice dodge. I'll be right here waiting to see if you have the stomach to confront your naive pessimism.

[094320]

..

[whymeohgodno]

I'm glad I got through to you. Take your naive optimism elsewhere now.

Nice dodge. I'll be right here waiting to see if you have the stomach to confront your naivebitter pessimism.

Eh, the admissions cycle will shake out, and all will be decided. Whymeohgodno, are you a BPer?

I don't even know what a BPer means lol.

[094320]

..

[123xalady]

I don't think the consensus is that the PS doesn't matter. I think the consensus is that it won't get you anywhere your numbers wouldn't. In other words, a terrible PS can hurt your app, but a great PS can only really help you when you're borderline. For everyone else, an average PS suffices.

I just can't see how you glean the above from the deans' comments.

Okay, well, let's break it down.

Chicago says: I review the PS first and don't look at the applicants number's until afterwards.
(This doesn't say anything about admission - just that this is how their process works)

Michigan says: The PS is my favorite part. Sometimes there are such terrible PS'es that I don't understand why someone would send it to us and expect to be admitted.
(I imagine that the PS would be the favorite, as fun as staring at numbers can be. The rest is in line with what I said.)

Stanford says: Even with good numbers, a bad PS hurts you if you don't have any serious writing courses.
(Again, in line with what I said.)

Texas says: If your numbers are competitive but not great (re: borderline), a personal statement can tip the scales in your favor. A bad PS is a big mistake.
(Mostly completely supports what I said: a good one helps borderline candidates, a bad one is bad regardless.)

Yes correct, none of the above quotes have anything to do with the actual weight of the PS relative to numbers. You're not gleaning "I think the consensus is that it won't get you anywhere your numbers wouldn't" from the dean's quotes. You're gleaning it from anecdotal data you've cobbled together from message boards and published medians meeeedians -meaning half the class is above or below - and yet refuse to acknowledge what actual deans are telling you. This argument is ridiculous.

[LawLucy]

I worked for a month on my statement. After reading this I have torn it up and just scanned a doodle of a puppy that I made when I was drunk and submitted it to them.

+100

[existenz]

if you could write your way into law school, existenz would be at a reach. if your PS mattered, DF would not be at NU.

Exactly.

We're trying to give you guys good news. If PS mattered, then 95% of you would be in big trouble based on what I'm reading in the Personal Statements forum.

[existenz]

Most of you are bad writers and your personal stories aren't original or interesting, sorry.

Lucky for you, it doesn't really matter.

[czelede]

Yes correct, none of the above quotes have anything to do with the actual weight of the PS relative to numbers. You're not gleaning "I think the consensus is that it won't get you anywhere your numbers wouldn't" from the dean's quotes. You're gleaning it from anecdotal data you've cobbled together from message boards and published medians meeeedians -meaning half the class is above or below - and yet refuse to acknowledge what actual deans are telling you. This argument is ridiculous.

What? Since when did I purport to know anything about the consensus of the deans? I was saying that this is the general consensus of TLS, seeing as how the OP was attacking the TLS masses for believing that PS'es don't matter in any way. I do think, however, that the deans comments don't contradict this consensus in any way - if anything, they support it. So what am I refusing to acknowledge?

Consider this:

1. No dean at a T14 school has publicly commented that the PS will get you somewhere your numbers wouldn't (or that your numbers wouldn't make you competitive for).
2. Anecdotal evidence and published medians suggest the same.

Where are YOU getting the idea that the PS will take you where numbers wouldn't from?

[trutherd]

Yale is the only one who can afford to care. Using a Yale as an example is a poor example. Try NYU instead.

Yale and Duke are the only T10's that publish the applicant profile.

also that grid is pretty useless since 3.75 is below Duke's median GPA

Also this.

For Duke it is more like roughly 200 admits (out of 1152) had NEITHER 3.75+ nor 170+.

Duke rejected 367/664 with 3.75+/170+

Yale rejected 113/214 with 3.75+/175+

Are there other factors at play? Sure. But "Numbers>All, except URM" is the naive perspective in this argument.

[IAFG]

also, our dean of admissions told me LORs are totally, utterly worthless, for both JD and MBA admissions. just FYI.

[whymeohgodno]

Yale is the only one who can afford to care. Using a Yale as an example is a poor example. Try NYU instead.

Yale and Duke are the only T10's that publish the applicant profile.

also that grid is pretty useless since 3.75 is below Duke's median GPA

Also this.

For Duke it is more like roughly 200 admits (out of 1152) had NEITHER 3.75+ nor 170+.

Duke rejected 367/664 with 3.75+/170+

Yale rejected 113/214 with 3.75+/175+

Are there other factors at play? Sure. But "Numbers>All, except URM" is the naive perspective in this argument.

Are you telling me Personal statement >/= numbers and/or URM?

And you're calling others naive?

[IAFG]

Duke rejected 367/664 with 3.75+/170+

Yale rejected 113/214 with 3.75+/175+

Are there other factors at play? Sure. But "Numbers>All, except URM" is the naive perspective in this argument.

yale and duke rejected people below their GPA median with median-or-close LSATs? NOT A SHOCK

[edgarfigaro]

There's also the implied hubris that a person that doesn't have the numbers can "out-write" people with better numbers. Maybe you can, maybe you can't...but going into the application process with the notion that you can make your numbers disappear due to a brilliant personal statement is a recipe for failure. Unless you've already got a Pulitzer, chances are you don't have the writing chops to get in somewhere where your numbers are on the low end.

[123xalady]

Yes correct, none of the above quotes have anything to do with the actual weight of the PS relative to numbers. You're not gleaning "I think the consensus is that it won't get you anywhere your numbers wouldn't" from the dean's quotes. You're gleaning it from anecdotal data you've cobbled together from message boards and published medians meeeedians -meaning half the class is above or below - and yet refuse to acknowledge what actual deans are telling you. This argument is ridiculous.

What? Since when did I purport to know anything about the consensus of the deans? I was saying that this is the general consensus of TLS, seeing as how the OP was attacking the TLS masses for believing that PS'es don't matter in any way. I do think, however, that the deans comments don't contradict this consensus in any way - if anything, they support it. So what am I refusing to acknowledge?

Consider this:

1. No dean at a T14 school has publicly commented that the PS will get you somewhere your numbers wouldn't (or that your numbers wouldn't make you competitive for).
2. Anecdotal evidence and published medians suggest the same.

Where are YOU getting the idea that the PS will take you where numbers wouldn't from?

Not my idea.

I never in fact stated a specific opinion on the matter. Here it is: I basically take the deans' statements at face value. It's a holistic process. They're building a class of people, not numbers. The PS factors in varying degrees for different applicants for different schools.

[123xalady]

There's also the implied hubris that a person that doesn't have the numbers can "out-write" people with better numbers. Maybe you can, maybe you can't...but going into the application process with the notion that you can make your numbers disappear due to a brilliant personal statement is a recipe for failure. Unless you've already got a Pulitzer, chances are you don't have the writing chops to get in somewhere where your numbers are on the low end.

I don't think anyone is arguing this.

[czelede]

Yes correct, none of the above quotes have anything to do with the actual weight of the PS relative to numbers. You're not gleaning "I think the consensus is that it won't get you anywhere your numbers wouldn't" from the dean's quotes. You're gleaning it from anecdotal data you've cobbled together from message boards and published medians meeeedians -meaning half the class is above or below - and yet refuse to acknowledge what actual deans are telling you. This argument is ridiculous.

What? Since when did I purport to know anything about the consensus of the deans? I was saying that this is the general consensus of TLS, seeing as how the OP was attacking the TLS masses for believing that PS'es don't matter in any way. I do think, however, that the deans comments don't contradict this consensus in any way - if anything, they support it. So what am I refusing to acknowledge?

Consider this:

1. No dean at a T14 school has publicly commented that the PS will get you somewhere your numbers wouldn't (or that your numbers wouldn't make you competitive for).
2. Anecdotal evidence and published medians suggest the same.

Where are YOU getting the idea that the PS will take you where numbers wouldn't from?

Not my idea.

I never in fact stated a specific opinion on the matter. Here it is: I basically take the deans' statements at face value. It's a holistic process. They're building a class of people, not numbers. The PS factors in varying degrees for different applicants for different schools.

Right, and I never claimed that PS doesn't matter at all (in fact that the consensus WASN'T that it didn't matter). But as far is the PS taking you beyond your numbers, I don't really see your support for saying that it's a "ridiculous argument." Nor do I see how I've been "refusing to acknowledge what the deans are telling me."

[trutherd]

Duke rejected 367/664 with 3.75+/170+

Yale rejected 113/214 with 3.75+/175+

Are there other factors at play? Sure. But "Numbers>All, except URM" is the naive perspective in this argument.

Are you telling me Personal statement >/= numbers and/or URM?

And you're calling others naive?

No. I'm not even hinting at this. Just that the unequivocal "Numbers>All, except URM" is clearly wrong because of
(a) the multitude of people with the highest numbers who are rejected while many are accepted with lower numbers, and
(b) far too many are accepted with lower numbers to be explained by the single exception of URMs.

[bk1]

Duke rejected 367/664 with 3.75+/170+

Yale rejected 113/214 with 3.75+/175+

Are there other factors at play? Sure. But "Numbers>All, except URM" is the naive perspective in this argument.

My god you are stupid, you didn't even try to mask the shift in your argument. Just because a PS/softs can't really help doesn't mean that it cannot definitely hurt you. Also the fact that you are using Yale to justify this is el oh el.

[bk1]

(b) far too many are accepted with lower numbers to be explained by the single exception of URMs.

Do you understand how medians work?

[WhatSarahSaid]

Strange argument. Why not just try to get the best numbers you can and try to write the best PS you can?

[whymeohgodno]

Duke rejected 367/664 with 3.75+/170+

Yale rejected 113/214 with 3.75+/175+

Are there other factors at play? Sure. But "Numbers>All, except URM" is the naive perspective in this argument.

Are you telling me Personal statement >/= numbers and/or URM?

And you're calling others naive?

No. I'm not even hinting at this. Just that the unequivocal "Numbers>All, except URM" is clearly wrong because of
(a) the multitude of people with the highest numbers who are rejected while many are accepted with lower numbers, and
(b) far too many are accepted with lower numbers to be explained by the single exception of URMs.

If Personal statement is not equal to or greater than numbers/urm status then what is? If you can't really name something other than insane legacy then how can you even argue with numbers>all?