Top Law Schools

TLS often says its all about the numbers, I am just curious who thinks they have underperformed theirs. I d be curious what schools you expected, what schools you got and reasons why you think it worked out that way. Any horror stories?

oregon000 wrote:TLS often says its all about the numbers, I am just curious who thinks they have underperformed theirs. I d be curious what schools you expected, what schools you got and reasons why you think it worked out that way. Any horror stories?

169/ 3.75

WL at Cornell, Vandy, UCLA, USC, BU, Duke, Michigan. Duke and Michigan probably aren't anomalies, however.

I don't really have decent "softs" and got a minor in consumption during UG. That's about all I can think of.

I came across this person while browsing LSN last night:

http://lawschoolnumbers.com/Hercules14/jd

I hope it's okay to post the link here - information on LSN is hardly private. With 177 / 3.82, you would have thought he was auto admit almost everywhere, but I guess there must be something else going on.

AntipodeanPhil wrote:I came across this person while browsing LSN last night:

http://lawschoolnumbers.com/Hercules14/jd

I hope it's okay to post the link here - information on LSN is hardly private. With 177 / 3.82, you would have thought he was auto admit almost everywhere, but I guess there must be something else going on.

Not too surprising. Yale and Harvard are almost always toss-ups and the other schools were probably engaging in some form of YP knowing Hercules would end up with much better offers.

AntipodeanPhil wrote:I came across this person while browsing LSN last night:

http://lawschoolnumbers.com/Hercules14/jd

I hope it's okay to post the link here - information on LSN is hardly private. With 177 / 3.82, you would have thought he was auto admit almost everywhere, but I guess there must be something else going on.

HY rejected for GPA, I buy that.

UPenn, UVA WL for no targetted essay probably

Berk ding because it's Berk.

The guy got into Columbia and NYU, and also received sizable schollies in the 15-25 range. Seems like a standard cycle to me

that is brutal. Maybe he didn't do anything after undergrad. It looks like the lower schools could have been YP, but the top schools didn't cooperate. Columbia with money is nothing to scoff at though...

I hope Bhan is right. It would make me very anxious if he was rejected by top 10 places for yield protect. If you look at the Harvard decision graph on LSN, he stands out as by far the best number-qualified rejection.

Another theory: I feel that it might be tempting to rely on your numbers when applying ( i.e. 177 LSAT). Perhaps he didn't put as much time and thought into his apps as he would have with a 170.

TheOcho wrote:

oregon000 wrote:TLS often says its all about the numbers, I am just curious who thinks they have underperformed theirs. I d be curious what schools you expected, what schools you got and reasons why you think it worked out that way. Any horror stories?

169/ 3.75

WL at Cornell, Vandy, UCLA, USC, BU, Duke, Michigan. Duke and Michigan probably aren't anomalies, however.

I don't really have decent "softs" and got a minor in consumption during UG. That's about all I can think of.

That is a bad cycle. How late did you apply? I'd reapply with more targeted essays at Cornell and the rest. And, if you didn't mind paying sticker, i'd ED to Mich because you are at both medians.

171, 3.86

Waitlisted: Duke, UChicago, USC, Cornel, UVA, UCLA, Columbia, UWash
Highest ranked school I was accepted to was Georgetown (with no money)

I am not the most interesting person and I went to an undergrad with no history of anyone having applied to law school after graduating. Multiple LSAT- previous scores 157, 159- so that was hopefully the reason and not that I am just a terrible person/essay writer Or maybe I just really screwed something up.

AntipodeanPhil wrote:I hope Bhan is right. It would make me very anxious if he was rejected by top 10 places for yield protect. If you look at the Harvard decision graph on LSN, he stands out as by far the best number-qualified rejection.

Yeah I'm not buying this. 177 / 3.82 at H?

Maybe Rubenstein started playing rookie ball up there. But... I kinda doubt it.

leapincamelleopard wrote:171, 3.86

Waitlisted: Duke, UChicago, USC, Cornel, UVA, UCLA, Columbia, UWash
Highest ranked school I was accepted to was Georgetown (with no money)

I am not the most interesting person and I went to an undergrad with no history of anyone having applied to law school after graduating. Multiple LSAT- previous scores 157, 159- so that was hopefully the reason and not that I am just a terrible person/essay writer Or maybe I just really screwed something up.

Sweetheart, you've got great numbers. Wait out the wait list, and you'll get in somewhere good.

ahduth wrote:
Sweetheart, you've got great numbers. Wait out the wait list, and you'll get in somewhere good.

Aw thanks! thats what I'm hoping for.

h

Patriot1208 wrote:

TheOcho wrote:

oregon000 wrote:TLS often says its all about the numbers, I am just curious who thinks they have underperformed theirs. I d be curious what schools you expected, what schools you got and reasons why you think it worked out that way. Any horror stories?

169/ 3.75

WL at Cornell, Vandy, UCLA, USC, BU, Duke, Michigan. Duke and Michigan probably aren't anomalies, however.

I don't really have decent "softs" and got a minor in consumption during UG. That's about all I can think of.

That is a bad cycle. How late did you apply? I'd reapply with more targeted essays at Cornell and the rest. And, if you didn't mind paying sticker, i'd ED to Mich because you are at both medians.

I agree it's a horrible cycle. Did he interview at Vandy? Write a why MICH?

I've heard that Why Cornell doesn't matter.

I'm curious about the question but if a different way. Whether somebody has been above both medians and done very poorly (bottom half of their class) in law school.

TheOcho wrote:

oregon000 wrote:TLS often says its all about the numbers, I am just curious who thinks they have underperformed theirs. I d be curious what schools you expected, what schools you got and reasons why you think it worked out that way. Any horror stories?

169/ 3.75

WL at Cornell, Vandy, UCLA, USC, BU, Duke, Michigan. Duke and Michigan probably aren't anomalies, however.

I don't really have decent "softs" and got a minor in consumption during UG. That's about all I can think of.

I feel like a consumption minor would be a positive soft if you were interested in environmental law

oregon000 wrote:I feel like a consumption minor would be a positive soft if you were interested in environmental law

+1

LOL. I read it the same way the first time. I started thinking about what sort of material the subject would cover.

<---This guy

Highest ranked school I got into is WUSTL (with significant money), WLed everywhere from Columbia on down. Except Texas.

Hannibal wrote:<---This guy

Highest ranked school I got into is WUSTL (with significant money), WLed everywhere from Columbia on down. Except Texas.

Ouch! 174 is high for WUSTL. But I guess you're a splitter. Is that an exceptionally bad result, by splitter standards?

AntipodeanPhil wrote:

Hannibal wrote:<---This guy

Highest ranked school I got into is WUSTL (with significant money), WLed everywhere from Columbia on down. Except Texas.

Ouch! 174 is high for WUSTL. But I guess you're a splitter. Is that an exceptionally bad result, by splitter standards?

Nah, splitters with my numbers have been WL pwned pretty often this cycle.

So I guess I didn't underperform my numbers so much as "my combination of numbers did worse than you'd expect this year."

deltasigbn wrote:I'm curious about the question but if a different way. Whether somebody has been above both medians and done very poorly (bottom half of their class) in law school.

Yes.

169/3.5. I applied in September, The only T20 I got into was GW, and at sticker. WL at Mich, Vandy, and BU. Rejected at BC, Cornell, GULC (part time) USC.

I'm a 4 time test taker though, so who knows. Maybe about standard.

I didn't think I underperformed until I saw all the people I was following as #s twins get into Chicago RD.

FiveSermon wrote:

Patriot1208 wrote:

TheOcho wrote:

oregon000 wrote:TLS often says its all about the numbers, I am just curious who thinks they have underperformed theirs. I d be curious what schools you expected, what schools you got and reasons why you think it worked out that way. Any horror stories?

169/ 3.75

WL at Cornell, Vandy, UCLA, USC, BU, Duke, Michigan. Duke and Michigan probably aren't anomalies, however.

I don't really have decent "softs" and got a minor in consumption during UG. That's about all I can think of.

That is a bad cycle. How late did you apply? I'd reapply with more targeted essays at Cornell and the rest. And, if you didn't mind paying sticker, i'd ED to Mich because you are at both medians.

I agree it's a horrible cycle. Did he interview at Vandy? Write a why MICH?

I've heard that Why Cornell doesn't matter.

I wrote "Why" essays for UVA (rejected), Duke, and Michigan. I did not interview at Vandy. I applied early, before Thanksgiving.