Top 25 Schools with a holistic approach Forum

[goosey]

Cornell and UVA.

I am a little dubious on UVA being holistic. When you have a right angle on LSN that traces itself around a 170 LSAT until people start breaking a 3.85 GPA, it tends to demonstrate some serious number working.

LOL @ UVA: http://uva.lawschoolnumbers.com/stats/0910/

This early in the cycle, they're accepting anybody with a 170+ or a 3.85+. I mean people around 160 and around 3.0...

I mean splitter friendliness is definitely TCR though.

I know that they begin the application by reading the Personal statement first and then moving on to numbers. I find that holistic. Oh and I have verrrry crappy numbers and they admitted me.

define crappy.

[rondemarino]

define crappy.

The only way that poster got in this early with both numbers below median is if she/he is a URM.

[bowie8285]

.

[rondemarino]

Michigan and Yale

That's pretty much it.

MICHIGAN for sure (based on personal experience)

Says the user with an LSAT above Michigan's 75th percentile.

[rondemarino]

Back to the whole, non-URMs with both numbers below median.

Berkeley (link, <168, <3.8 ). Not bad.

Michigan (link, <169, <3.70). One LSN user.

UVA (link, <170, <3.8 ). ZERO.

[ruleser]

Cornell. I got deferred this cycle, people with basically identical numbers have gotten dinged.

Maybe not high enough to get credit here, but OSU took me in off the WL last year with numbers that are rather low for them, pro'lly cuz of my PS that was personalized.

[Aeon]

I'd think that to a certain extent, all of the top law schools factor numbers into their review process (they are the most convenient way of directly quantitatively comparing applicants), although it does seem that some are more willing to overlook lower scores in favor of a compelling application than others.

Based on what I've seen and heard anecdotally, Michigan has one of the most holistic review processes. It seems that Michigan thoroughly reviews all applications and is willing to deny applicants who might have high numbers but who have some other characteristics to give the admissions office pause.

[b.j.]

I'd think that to a certain extent, all of the top law schools factor numbers into their review process (they are the most convenient way of directly quantitatively comparing applicants), although it does seem that some are more willing to overlook lower scores in favor of a compelling application than others.

Based on what I've seen and heard anecdotally, Michigan has one of the most holistic review processes. It seems that Michigan thoroughly reviews all applications and is willing to deny applicants who might have high numbers but who have some other characteristics to give the admissions office pause.

But is the opposite true? It sounds like you're describing a situation where the objective factors even out so they use more subjective factors to start knocking people out. That makes a lot of sense.

What happens, though, when they have someone that doesn't meet their numbers (not that they are completely out of line, but say a good enough LSAT score and a crappy GPA, for instance) but has the some sort of hook that might make them stand out? Do the top schools even get to the point where they'd notice something like that, or do they start the process by using numbers and then move on from there? The latter sounds more believable, particularly for the top schools.

[rayiner]

I'd think that to a certain extent, all of the top law schools factor numbers into their review process (they are the most convenient way of directly quantitatively comparing applicants), although it does seem that some are more willing to overlook lower scores in favor of a compelling application than others.

Based on what I've seen and heard anecdotally, Michigan has one of the most holistic review processes. It seems that Michigan thoroughly reviews all applications and is willing to deny applicants who might have high numbers but who have some other characteristics to give the admissions office pause.

But is the opposite true? It sounds like you're describing a situation where the objective factors even out so they use more subjective factors to start knocking people out. That makes a lot of sense.

What happens, though, when they have someone that doesn't meet their numbers (not that they are completely out of line, but say a good enough LSAT score and a crappy GPA, for instance) but has the some sort of hook that might make them stand out? Do the top schools even get to the point where they'd notice something like that, or do they start the process by using numbers and then move on from there? The latter sounds more believable, particularly for the top schools.

If you have a ridiculous LSAT score, schools will at least read your app regardless of GPA.

[monkey85]

I think BU is good about holistic approach. At least they read your PS and then comment on it in your personal statement. Nice touch, BU!

[Anastasia Dee Dualla]

.

[JOThompson]

Minnesota. I'm a reverse splitter and I'm fairly sure my PS made up for my LSAT shortcomings.

[goosey]

I'd think that to a certain extent, all of the top law schools factor numbers into their review process (they are the most convenient way of directly quantitatively comparing applicants), although it does seem that some are more willing to overlook lower scores in favor of a compelling application than others.

Based on what I've seen and heard anecdotally, Michigan has one of the most holistic review processes. It seems that Michigan thoroughly reviews all applications and is willing to deny applicants who might have high numbers but who have some other characteristics to give the admissions office pause.

But is the opposite true? It sounds like you're describing a situation where the objective factors even out so they use more subjective factors to start knocking people out. That makes a lot of sense.

What happens, though, when they have someone that doesn't meet their numbers (not that they are completely out of line, but say a good enough LSAT score and a crappy GPA, for instance) but has the some sort of hook that might make them stand out? Do the top schools even get to the point where they'd notice something like that, or do they start the process by using numbers and then move on from there? The latter sounds more believable, particularly for the top schools.

It may too early to say, but I am pleasantly surprised by the holistic approach I have seen thus far from the schools I have heard from. When my cycle ends, I will post here. But I am a person with a low-end respectable lsat (low 160s) and a pretty bad gpa (< 3) but I have a good story and an upward trend. Of the three schools I have heard from in one form or the other (either official decision or one-on-one with adcomm) only one has outright rejected me, though my numbers alone would expect an auto-ding from all 3. I believe they do read entire applications. Its not like I had an lsat that smacks a person in their face and makes them want to read the app to see what happened with the gpa. I think they do try to admit *people* not just numbers, but at times they need to just do what needs to get done for rankings as well

[DoctorNick189]

Vandy.

[rondemarino]

I'd think that to a certain extent, all of the top law schools factor numbers into their review process (they are the most convenient way of directly quantitatively comparing applicants), although it does seem that some are more willing to overlook lower scores in favor of a compelling application than others.

Based on what I've seen and heard anecdotally, Michigan has one of the most holistic review processes. It seems that Michigan thoroughly reviews all applications and is willing to deny applicants who might have high numbers but who have some other characteristics to give the admissions office pause.

"other characteristics" = no Why Michigan essay.

This is a very cute explanation of YP.

[b.j.]

I'd think that to a certain extent, all of the top law schools factor numbers into their review process (they are the most convenient way of directly quantitatively comparing applicants), although it does seem that some are more willing to overlook lower scores in favor of a compelling application than others.

Based on what I've seen and heard anecdotally, Michigan has one of the most holistic review processes. It seems that Michigan thoroughly reviews all applications and is willing to deny applicants who might have high numbers but who have some other characteristics to give the admissions office pause.

But is the opposite true? It sounds like you're describing a situation where the objective factors even out so they use more subjective factors to start knocking people out. That makes a lot of sense.

What happens, though, when they have someone that doesn't meet their numbers (not that they are completely out of line, but say a good enough LSAT score and a crappy GPA, for instance) but has the some sort of hook that might make them stand out? Do the top schools even get to the point where they'd notice something like that, or do they start the process by using numbers and then move on from there? The latter sounds more believable, particularly for the top schools.

If you have a ridiculous LSAT score, schools will at least read your app regardless of GPA.

I don't mean to seem dense, but define "ridiculous." Obviously, a 179 would probably mean automatic admission at most schools that aren't at the very top, but if you have a score that is, say, three points above the 75th for a school in the middle of the Top 100 (a 167 versus a 164, for instance), does mean you've got a good shot regardless of what else your application looks like? What if you're lacking in some other areas, like GPA?

I know some schools are bigger stat whores than others, but all schools are to a large extent, it seems. But, what, exactly is the point where you are in because of your LSAT score regardless of what your application looks like, assuming you're not a sex offender?

[b.j.]

I'd think that to a certain extent, all of the top law schools factor numbers into their review process (they are the most convenient way of directly quantitatively comparing applicants), although it does seem that some are more willing to overlook lower scores in favor of a compelling application than others.

Based on what I've seen and heard anecdotally, Michigan has one of the most holistic review processes. It seems that Michigan thoroughly reviews all applications and is willing to deny applicants who might have high numbers but who have some other characteristics to give the admissions office pause.

But is the opposite true? It sounds like you're describing a situation where the objective factors even out so they use more subjective factors to start knocking people out. That makes a lot of sense.

What happens, though, when they have someone that doesn't meet their numbers (not that they are completely out of line, but say a good enough LSAT score and a crappy GPA, for instance) but has the some sort of hook that might make them stand out? Do the top schools even get to the point where they'd notice something like that, or do they start the process by using numbers and then move on from there? The latter sounds more believable, particularly for the top schools.

It may too early to say, but I am pleasantly surprised by the holistic approach I have seen thus far from the schools I have heard from. When my cycle ends, I will post here. But I am a person with a low-end respectable lsat (low 160s) and a pretty bad gpa (< 3) but I have a good story and an upward trend. Of the three schools I have heard from in one form or the other (either official decision or one-on-one with adcomm) only one has outright rejected me, though my numbers alone would expect an auto-ding from all 3. I believe they do read entire applications. Its not like I had an lsat that smacks a person in their face and makes them want to read the app to see what happened with the gpa. I think they do try to admit *people* not just numbers, but at times they need to just do what needs to get done for rankings as well

That sounds very hopeful. It's not like I expect a score that is going to have them showering money on me, although I'd love to be surprised and actually get one as everyone would be, but I hope to get one that doesn't make me an automatic reject. I figure that with the right score and some good targeting, I can write a good enough personal statement to give me a fighting chance. After all, if I apply to enough schools, the law of numbers says at least one has to accept me, right?

[Aeon]

I'd think that to a certain extent, all of the top law schools factor numbers into their review process (they are the most convenient way of directly quantitatively comparing applicants), although it does seem that some are more willing to overlook lower scores in favor of a compelling application than others.

Based on what I've seen and heard anecdotally, Michigan has one of the most holistic review processes. It seems that Michigan thoroughly reviews all applications and is willing to deny applicants who might have high numbers but who have some other characteristics to give the admissions office pause.

"other characteristics" = no Why Michigan essay.

This is a very cute explanation of YP.

Not necessarily, Ronde. If a person with very high scores comes across as arrogant and rude in their personal statement, I imagine that Michigan would have serious reservations about admitting them. Not submitting a "Why Michigan" essay does not immediately disqualify someone from admission, either, according to Michigan's admissions FAQ:

These essays are truly optional, and many people are admitted without submitting additional essays beyond the personal statement.

More generally, Dean Zearfoss's discussion of "leapfroggers" in her article "Admissions of a Director" is also worth taking a look at.

[rayiner]

If you're well above the 75th LSAT, a pretty bad GPA won't keep you out of most schools, even good ones. The floor seems to be:

3.6-3.7 for YHS+B.
3.5 for CCN.
3.1-3.2 for Duke, Michigan, Cornell.
3.0 for V/P.
G/N will take sub-3.0 on occasion.

[CE2JD]

Cornell and UVA.

No. UVA is 100% numbers-driven.

[Burger in a can]

I know it's not top 25, but Fordham waitlisted me and rejected others with better numbers. That's proof of holism right there, isn't it?

EDIT: I am not an underrepresented minority applicant.

[Burger in a can]

Cornell and UVA.

No. UVA is 100% numbers-driven.

Then why did they bother waitlisting these people?
http://uva.lawschoolnumbers.com/applica ... ,7&type=jd

I would think that an institution that is "100% numbers-driven" wouldn't bother putting anyone with both numbers below their median on the waitlist.

[worldtraveler]

Cornell and UVA.

No. UVA is 100% numbers-driven.

Then why did they bother waitlisting these people?
http://uva.lawschoolnumbers.com/applica ... ,7&type=jd

I would think that an institution that is "100% numbers-driven" wouldn't bother putting anyone with both numbers below their median on the waitlist.

Except no one gets in from the UVA waitlist. It's essentially a rejection, just meant to make you feel better.

[rondemarino]

Not necessarily, Ronde. If a person with very high scores comes across as arrogant and rude in their personal statement, I imagine that Michigan would have serious reservations about admitting them. Not submitting a "Why Michigan" essay does not immediately disqualify someone from admission, either, according to Michigan's admissions FAQ:

More generally, Dean Zearfoss's discussion of "leapfroggers" in her article "Admissions of a Director" is also worth taking a look at.

Because other schools love admitting candidates who lack the basic professional sense to not sound like douchetards in a candidacy statement. Its cool that you used your imagination to come up with a scenario to explain Michigan's admissions decisions.

Why do I think YP is a more credible explanation?

(1) The vast majority of the people with 170+/3.3+ who aren't admitted right away are WL'ed, not rejected. If Michigan truly has "serious reservations" about these people, why not outright ding them, unlike the poor saps who happen to below both medians?

(2) If Michigan's admissions policy is so "holistic," where are the amazingly special snowflakes with numbers below both medians? (link) Or can truly amazing people only be found in the piles of 170+s or 3.7+s?

EDIT: fixing quotes

[Burger in a can]

Cornell and UVA.

No. UVA is 100% numbers-driven.

Then why did they bother waitlisting these people?
http://uva.lawschoolnumbers.com/applica ... ,7&type=jd

I would think that an institution that is "100% numbers-driven" wouldn't bother putting anyone with both numbers below their median on the waitlist.

Except no one gets in from the UVA waitlist. It's essentially a rejection, just meant to make you feel better.

But what about the people who were outright rejected with the same numbers? Why is there a difference between two candidates with the same numbers at a school that is 100% numbers-driven?