Top Law Schools

Why do some people who've applied later than others go under review more quickly? Is there some truth to the claim that schools will generally review those with lower numbers first to get their applications out of the way (assuming the group of applicants theyre looking at applied generally around the same time)?

djwjddl wrote:Why do some people who've applied later than others go under review more quickly? Is there some truth to the claim that schools will generally review those with lower numbers first to get their applications out of the way (assuming the group of applicants theyre looking at applied generally around the same time)?

An Adcom has stated that the opposite is true: they review the high scores first to try and nav the good candidates and firm up their medians as quickly as possible.

This also held true through my cycle: schools where I was above the 75% responded right away. Schools where I was around thè 25% mark kept me hanging until thè end

dingbat wrote:

djwjddl wrote:Why do some people who've applied later than others go under review more quickly? Is there some truth to the claim that schools will generally review those with lower numbers first to get their applications out of the way (assuming the group of applicants theyre looking at applied generally around the same time)?

An Adcom has stated that the opposite is true: they review the high scores first to try and nav the good candidates and firm up their medians as quickly as possible.

This also held true through my cycle: schools where I was above the 75% responded right away. Schools where I was around thè 25% mark kept me hanging until thè end

Is there a typical treatment for applicants at the median? Or does it depend on school / dynamics of the cycle?

dingbat wrote:

djwjddl wrote:Why do some people who've applied later than others go under review more quickly? Is there some truth to the claim that schools will generally review those with lower numbers first to get their applications out of the way (assuming the group of applicants theyre looking at applied generally around the same time)?

An Adcom has stated that the opposite is true: they review the high scores first to try and nav the good candidates and firm up their medians as quickly as possible.

This also held true through my cycle: schools where I was above the 75% responded right away. Schools where I was around thè 25% mark kept me hanging until thè end

I don't thinks is necessarily true. Below medians at Columbia and I went "complete" there first.

djwjddl wrote:

dingbat wrote:

djwjddl wrote:Why do some people who've applied later than others go under review more quickly? Is there some truth to the claim that schools will generally review those with lower numbers first to get their applications out of the way (assuming the group of applicants theyre looking at applied generally around the same time)?

An Adcom has stated that the opposite is true: they review the high scores first to try and nav the good candidates and firm up their medians as quickly as possible.

This also held true through my cycle: schools where I was above the 75% responded right away. Schools where I was around thè 25% mark kept me hanging until thè end

I don't thinks is necessarily true. Below medians at Columbia and I went "complete" there first.

Complete ≠ Under Review.

djwjddl wrote:

Complete ≠ Under Review.

for places like columbia and umichigan they do

The data overwhelmingly show that both of those schools almost exclusively render acceptances until January/February. That supports the idea that they're trying to catch the good students first and build a more complete picture of their medians before looking at borderline/below-median candidates.

Timelines for 2010-2012 cycles

thanks!

If schools look to firm up medians before looking at borderline candidates, then is it even helpful for borderline applicants to apply early? It sounds like they'd be waiting to review borderline candidates until later in the cycle anyway.

IgosduIkana wrote:If schools look to firm up medians before looking at borderline candidates, then is it even helpful for borderline applicants to apply early? It sounds like they'd be waiting to review borderline candidates until later in the cycle anyway.

They prbly employ a first come first serve basis for those borderline candidates.

Dr.Zer0 wrote:

IgosduIkana wrote:If schools look to firm up medians before looking at borderline candidates, then is it even helpful for borderline applicants to apply early? It sounds like they'd be waiting to review borderline candidates until later in the cycle anyway.

They prbly employ a first come first serve basis for those borderline candidates.

sooo they don't actually look to firm up their medians before looking at borderline candidates? Because they're still giving spots for borderline candidates first come first serve...

I know you didn't state they did, but others did. I also know this is a lot speculating but I remain curious.

IgosduIkana wrote:

Dr.Zer0 wrote:

IgosduIkana wrote:If schools look to firm up medians before looking at borderline candidates, then is it even helpful for borderline applicants to apply early? It sounds like they'd be waiting to review borderline candidates until later in the cycle anyway.

They prbly employ a first come first serve basis for those borderline candidates.

sooo they don't actually look to firm up their medians before looking at borderline candidates? Because they're still giving spots for borderline candidates first come first serve...

I know you didn't state they did, but others did. I also know this is a lot speculating but I remain curious.

Very good numbers first = easy decisions/see where medians could be. Then borderline people whose softs have a larger impact (ie harder decisions) come after on a first-come, first-serve basis.

aaah well if that's accurate, then I understand. Applying early with borderline numbers makes sense again.