Do I even bother with HYS? 170/3.8

[drosth]

I'm checking the law school calculators and it shows I have around a 10-15% "chance" of getting in, based on other students before me. People are telling me to go for it and that a 10% chance is worth the money of applying. But I'm pretty sure, based on what I've seen around here, that these people were either exceptionally lucky or had some crazy strong softs. And with such a small sample, the percentage may be skewed pretty badly. Am I right to guess this and skip applying to HYS?

[buddingjd]

the $75 rejection letter will give you a lot of peace of mind for the next 60 years

[Br3v]

the $75 rejection letter will give you a lot of peace of mind for the next 60 years

this X 100.

You have an incredibly thin chance, but whats if you are that special 1 out of a 1000 person with your numbers that gets in? I would say it is worth it considering the work you probably put in for that LSAT and your great GPA.

[drosth]

This is true, it would be nice to put this out of my head for the rest of my life.

[helix23]

I have similar numbers and applied to HS. looks pretty bad for me but "you miss all the shots you don't take." still haven't applied to Y because that is certainly a $121 "no."

[NoodleyOne]

I have a similar debate as to whether to apply to Yale... I think I might.

[Br3v]

I have a similar debate as to whether to apply to Yale... I think I might.

your debate is not smiliar.

[WhiskeynCoke]

Am I right to guess this and skip applying to HYS?

Yes and no. You have a very slim chance at all Y/S (small classes, selectivity beyond the numbers.. which you don't have anyway) but LSAC predicts this cycle to be down even more than last year by around 13%. With its huge class to fill, I think Harvard may be closer than you think.

- I say definitely apply to H, you'll regret it if you dont. Your chances are probably more like 25%+ this cycle.
- Don't waste the money to Y unless you have some KILLER softs (Nobel peace prize, etc.)... or extra money to waste
- Better shot at S than Y, but again.... super slim.

[drosth]

Am I right to guess this and skip applying to HYS?

Yes and no. You have a very slim chance at all Y/S (small classes, selectivity beyond the numbers.. which you don't have anyway) but LSAC predicts this cycle to be down even more than last year by around 13%. With its huge class to fill, I think Harvard may be closer than you think.

- I say definitely apply to H, you'll regret it if you dont. Your chances are probably more like 25%+ this cycle.
- Don't waste the money to Y unless you have some KILLER softs (Nobel peace prize, etc.)... or extra money to waste
- Better shot at S than Y, but again.... super slim.

I'm considering Stanford, though their whole "get your dean to sign off that you didn't fail and mail it in to us" is almost enough for me to drop it and save me the money. Out of curiosity, why is Harvard (ranked higher than Stanford) more likely for me than Stanford? Is it class size only?

[abcde12345]

I'm considering Stanford, though their whole "get your dean to sign off that you didn't fail and mail it in to us" is almost enough for me to drop it and save me the money. Out of curiosity, why is Harvard (ranked higher than Stanford) more likely for me than Stanford? Is it class size only?

Stanford is ranked higher than Harvard. Harvard is highly, highly unlikely, as people have said, because you are below both medians. But it is more likely than Stanford because Stanford is much more selective: Harvard accepts over 800 students, while stanford accepts over 200 (I cant find the number, but I'd guess 260 or so). Stanford is more selective for another reason, too: numbers alone won't get you in. They reject people with great numbers in favor of people who are very interesting + have great softs. Harvard can afford to accept both kinds of people because of their size.

Also, don't fall for that common mistake that just because Stanford doesn't have the Harvard name, it's not worth your time. Stanford is a tremendous school, one that anyone should hope to get into.

Out of curiosity, why don't you retake? If you bump up to a 174, you'd have a good shot at Harvard.

[smaug_]

I have a similar debate as to whether to apply to Yale... I think I might.

your debate is not smiliar.

? They're both burning money. Special snowflakes running rampant ITT.

[NoodleyOne]

I have a similar debate as to whether to apply to Yale... I think I might.

your debate is not smiliar.

? They're both burning money. Special snowflakes running rampant ITT.

LSAC Fee waiver. Thanks though.

[sapien]

Are you in undergrad? If so, I would apply now and see if you can get into SLS. They tend to prefer >3.9s with a 170, but applications are down everywhere this year, so it's possible that you'll get in if you have an interesting background. If you don't get into any school you'd be thrilled about attending, I'd work for a year, retake, and reapply. Your application will be much stronger for HYS and you'll be better off when the time comes to interview for jobs anyway. If you're set on Harvard, then you should probably retake. They are unlikely to take anyone below their LSAT median unless they help them raise their GPA medians. Also, in my opinion, getting into one of HYS is worth the effort of retaking.

For what it's worth, I chose SLS after getting into both S and H last cycle with 2 LSAT scores, the highest of which was a 171 (although I did have a higher GPA). To echo what abcde12345 said, HLS doesn't have a clear superiority over SLS and it certainly isn't ranked higher. If you get to choose between those two, it's just about whether you'd be happier in a small, tight-knit, sunny environment of if you like larger classes, thrive in competition, and are more taken with prestige (and I really don't mean that pejoratively).

[Mr. Elshal]

Like a few other people have already said, you simply don't know if you're going to be the one that happens to get in. It's worth a shot and, while it cost a few hundred dollars more, I thought it was worth it and applied to all three. My numbers are different (175 and 3.73) but I could not lose out on that chance for what amounts to just over a week's pay. If you can get the money, apply. If you can't, then you don't have a choice anyway.

Also, feel free to skip the Yale application. If it comes down to saving money on the app fees, Yale is just way too risky.

[Br3v]

I have a similar debate as to whether to apply to Yale... I think I might.

your debate is not smiliar.

? They're both burning money. Special snowflakes running rampant ITT.

LSAC Fee waiver. Thanks though.

What are you talking about burning money? Noodle in essence has a perfect score and an average gpa.

[bernaldiaz]

I'm considering Stanford, though their whole "get your dean to sign off that you didn't fail and mail it in to us" is almost enough for me to drop it and save me the money. Out of curiosity, why is Harvard (ranked higher than Stanford) more likely for me than Stanford? Is it class size only?

Stanford is ranked higher than Harvard. Harvard is highly, highly unlikely, as people have said, because you are below both medians. But it is more likely than Stanford because Stanford is much more selective: Harvard accepts over 800 students, while stanford accepts over 200 (I cant find the number, but I'd guess 260 or so). Stanford is more selective for another reason, too: numbers alone won't get you in. They reject people with great numbers in favor of people who are very interesting + have great softs. Harvard can afford to accept both kinds of people because of their size.

Also, don't fall for that common mistake that just because Stanford doesn't have the Harvard name, it's not worth your time. Stanford is a tremendous school, one that anyone should hope to get into.

Out of curiosity, why don't you retake? If you bump up to a 174, you'd have a good shot at Harvard.

Yeah actually Stanford's yield rate is below 50% so they accept more like 400 than 260. I also think you're being a little hyperbolic by saying Stanford is "much more selective." Yeah they reject a few more high number people but their medians are far lower and their yield rate is crushed by Y&H.

[justonemoregame]

It's a couple of hundred bucks - you're about to sign a mortgage. Just do it - especially H

[abcde12345]

Yeah actually Stanford's yield rate is below 50% so they accept more like 400 than 260. I also think you're being a little hyperbolic by saying Stanford is "much more selective." Yeah they reject a few more high number people but their medians are far lower and their yield rate is crushed by Y&H.

Do you have links to that data? I believe you, I just couldn't find it. And perhaps "MUCH" more selective wasn't the right phrase. I simply meant that S obviously (as their medians show) don't accept people just based on numbers (not that H accepts people JUST based on numbers, but there is doubtlessly a higher correlation between numbers and acceptance at H than at S). Further, while Stanford's yield rate is lower, what is H's yield rate? Also, what is H's acceptance rate compared to S's? (Please give exact statistical values for both.) Finally, what is the number of applicants to both schools (because Harvard accepts double). Remember, for selectivity, yield rate isn't the key factor (though it's a large contributing factor)--plain old acceptance rate is. So I don't see how you're supposed to mount an attack on what I said by citing yield rates...

[bernaldiaz]

Yeah actually Stanford's yield rate is below 50% so they accept more like 400 than 260. I also think you're being a little hyperbolic by saying Stanford is "much more selective." Yeah they reject a few more high number people but their medians are far lower and their yield rate is crushed by Y&H.

Do you have links to that data? I believe you, I just couldn't find it. And perhaps more selective wasn't the right phrase. I simply meant that S obviously (as their medians show) don't accept people just based on numbers (not that H accepts people JUST based on numbers, but there is doubtlessly a higher correlation between numbers and acceptance at H than at S). Further, while Stanford's yield rate is lower, what is H's yield rate? Also, what is H's acceptance rate compared to S's? (Please give exact statistical values for both.) Finally, what is the number of applicants to both schools (because Harvard accepts double). Remember, for selectivity, yield rate isn't the key factor (though it's a large contributing factor)--plain old acceptance rate is.

If my memory serves me, Y is like 82%, Harvard is about 65 and S is like 48. Ill look for more exact figures. Yield rate may be more important than you're thinking, though. Stanford's low yield could be accounted for by losing such a high number of cross admits to HY and not being able to get those high numbers (not saying this is actually the case, but it's possible). I'm on my phone now I'll look for more exact figures later.

[abcde12345]

If my memory serves me, Y is like 82%, Harvard is about 65 and S is like 48. Ill look for more exact figures. Yield rate may be more important than you're thinking, though. Stanford's low yield could be accounted for by losing such a high number of cross admits to HY and not being able to get those high numbers (not saying this is actually the case, but it's possible). I'm on my phone now I'll look for more exact figures later.

I'm sure that's the case, at least in part, for Stanford's yield rate. But I also think that Stanford gears its admissions in a more holistic way, such that their admissions practices are also largely responsible for their medians. Still, we are talking about selectivity. So for this discussion, it seems to me that the only relevance of yield is how it affects acceptance rates.

Thanks for doing the stats, I'm just too lazy right now.

[bernaldiaz]

If my memory serves me, Y is like 82%, Harvard is about 65 and S is like 48. Ill look for more exact figures. Yield rate may be more important than you're thinking, though. Stanford's low yield could be accounted for by losing such a high number of cross admits to HY and not being able to get those high numbers (not saying this is actually the case, but it's possible). I'm on my phone now I'll look for more exact figures later.

I'm sure that's the case, at least in part, for Stanford's yield rate. But I also think that Stanford gears its admissions in a more holistic way, such that their admissions practices are also largely responsible for their medians. Still, we are talking about selectivity. So for this discussion, it seems to me that the only relevance of yield is how it affects acceptance rates.

Thanks for doing the stats, I'm just too lazy right now.

http://www.usnews.com/education/best-gr ... w-schools-

Really lucky to have found that link haha I've never seen it all condensed in the past.

Yale- 81.3
Harvard- 66.4
Stanford- 48.4

[abcde12345]

http://www.usnews.com/education/best-gr ... w-schools-

Really lucky to have found that link haha I've never seen it all condensed in the past.

Haha quite lucky, and very convenient, thanks. I'm somewhat surprised the yield rate for S is that low. How did S jump H in the rankings if its yield rate is so much lower? From a few sites it seems that the acceptance rate of S is around 9% and H is around 12%, so I assume this factors into it heavily. Also, the "real" acceptance rate for H is probably much higher; I get the sense many people apply to H for the hell of it (this definitely happens with Harvard College). But I doubt many people who don't expect to get into HYS even apply to S.

Edit: Not that rankings of +/- 1-3 count for much. Just debating this for fun.

[sapien]

http://www.usnews.com/education/best-gr ... w-schools-

Really lucky to have found that link haha I've never seen it all condensed in the past.

Haha quite lucky, and very convenient, thanks. I'm somewhat surprised the yield rate for S is that low. How did S jump H in the rankings if its yield rate is so much lower? From a few sites it seems that the acceptance rate of S is around 9% and H is around 12%, so I assume this factors into it heavily. Also, the "real" acceptance rate for H is probably much higher; I get the sense many people apply to H for the hell of it (this definitely happens with Harvard College). But I doubt many people who don't expect to get into HYS even apply to S.

Edit: Not that rankings of +/- 1-3 count for much. Just debating this for fun.

Rankings are not nearly that rigorous and Stanford likely didn't "jump H" because of any real change in inputs. The #2 ranking changes year to year because USNews needs to keep things interesting to sell magazines. If you look at historic rankings, you'll see that S and H trade spots every once in a while and are often just tied for second.

[abcde12345]

Rankings are not nearly that rigorous and Stanford likely didn't "jump H" because of any real change in inputs. The #2 ranking changes year to year because USNews needs to keep things interesting to sell magazines. If you look at historic rankings, you'll see that S and H trade spots every once in a while and are often just tied for second.

Hah, and here I thought they actually used a method. On that note, S and H probably should be tied for second. I don't see how anyone could reasonably put one over the other, except if they have a personal preference (like those you described above).

[bernaldiaz]

http://www.usnews.com/education/best-gr ... w-schools-

Really lucky to have found that link haha I've never seen it all condensed in the past.

Haha quite lucky, and very convenient, thanks. I'm somewhat surprised the yield rate for S is that low. How did S jump H in the rankings if its yield rate is so much lower? From a few sites it seems that the acceptance rate of S is around 9% and H is around 12%, so I assume this factors into it heavily. Also, the "real" acceptance rate for H is probably much higher; I get the sense many people apply to H for the hell of it (this definitely happens with Harvard College). But I doubt many people who don't expect to get into HYS even apply to S.

Edit: Not that rankings of +/- 1-3 count for much. Just debating this for fun.

Really Stanford's yield is pretty understandable. Lets make some assumptions just to simplify this mini economy:

-Yale and Stanford have 200 seats, Harvard has 600
-Anyone who gets into Yale attends (not all that far from reality)
-Anyone who gets into Yale also gets into Harvard and Stanford. Anyone who gets into Stanford also gets into Harvard
-The next 200 people all choose Stanford over Harvard. This leaves Stanford with a 50% yield.
-No one who gets into HYS turns it down for a non HYS school.
-This means that the next 600 people Harvard admits all attend, leaving it with a 60% yield rate.

So even though in this scenario Harvard loses every cross admit to Stanford, it still ends up with a higher yield. Again, the assumptions are obviously huge and not meant to entirely reflect reality (although I think most of them at least partially reflect what actually happens), just to show that once you start breaking it down the yield rates sort of make sense.