University of Minnesota applicants 2011-12 cycle (c/o 2015) Forum

[DonnaDraper]

REJECTED with a 166 and 3.75ish. Looks like it's Minnesota's way of telling me I should have done one point better on the test. Good luck to you guys

Uh oh...my 166 3.8 now has me worried. I didn't think the 166 vs. 167 would be a big difference.

If you actually have a 3.8 and aren't just rounding up, you have a better chance than a 166/3.75. Minnesota's medians are currently 3.8/167 (i think) and if you are below both medians, even just barely, your chances are not looking good. If you are at one of the medians, there is slightly more hope. Kind of crazy what one/two LSAT question(s) can do for you.

[shredderrrrrr]

REJECTED with a 166 and 3.75ish. Looks like it's Minnesota's way of telling me I should have done one point better on the test. Good luck to you guys

Uh oh...my 166 3.8 now has me worried. I didn't think the 166 vs. 167 would be a big difference.

If you actually have a 3.8 and aren't just rounding up, you have a better chance than a 166/3.75. Minnesota's medians are currently 3.8/167 (i think) and if you are below both medians, even just barely, your chances are not looking good. If you are at one of the medians, there is slightly more hope. Kind of crazy what one/two LSAT question(s) can do for you.

Thankfully I'm not rounding. It is kind of crazy though that answering one or two more questions right on the test would've made this a whole lot easier.

I'm not a numbers guy, but is it true that their median is the same as their 75th percentile? That seems strange to me.

[BKCentral]

REJECTED with a 166 and 3.75ish. Looks like it's Minnesota's way of telling me I should have done one point better on the test. Good luck to you guys

Uh oh...my 166 3.8 now has me worried. I didn't think the 166 vs. 167 would be a big difference.

If you actually have a 3.8 and aren't just rounding up, you have a better chance than a 166/3.75. Minnesota's medians are currently 3.8/167 (i think) and if you are below both medians, even just barely, your chances are not looking good. If you are at one of the medians, there is slightly more hope. Kind of crazy what one/two LSAT question(s) can do for you.

Thankfully I'm not rounding. It is kind of crazy though that answering one or two more questions right on the test would've made this a whole lot easier.

I'm not a numbers guy, but is it true that their median is the same as their 75th percentile? That seems strange to me.

It just means they accept a crap ton of 167/168s, and then some people with much lower LSATs that have much higher GPAs to balance it out (which shows the low 25% LSAT). BC is the same way it seems. Still don't understand the 166/3.75 rejection though.

[tennisking88]

They must be confident they can get ~130 with 167+ and ~130 with 3.8+ to enroll. Either thru throwing more money at these people or lowering the number from 130 each to 100 or 90...

[EMZE]

Well.. non URM/3.4/167 in yesterday, so dont lose too much hope

[tennisking88]

Well.. non URM/3.4/167 in yesterday, so dont lose too much hope

Congrats, and this might sound like I'm picking on you, but it's a larger point. Schools can admit or deny whoever the hell they like but something seems off with an admissions staff that admits 167/3.4 and rejects 166/3.75. Holding a bunch of other stuff constant (major, school, disciplinary stuff, etc) should one point on the LSAT, really one question on the LSAT, really be worth more than .35 gpa points?

[crumpetsandtea]

Well.. non URM/3.4/167 in yesterday, so dont lose too much hope

Congrats, and this might sound like I'm picking on you, but it's a larger point. Schools can admit or deny whoever the hell they like but something seems off with an admissions staff that admits 167/3.4 and rejects 166/3.75. Holding a bunch of other stuff constant (major, school, disciplinary stuff, etc) should one point on the LSAT, really one question on the LSAT, really be worth more than .35 gpa points?

I'm fairly sure EMZE is a veteran, which counts for a lot. (thanks for your service <3 (: )

[EMZE]

Well.. non URM/3.4/167 in yesterday, so dont lose too much hope

Congrats, and this might sound like I'm picking on you, but it's a larger point. Schools can admit or deny whoever the hell they like but something seems off with an admissions staff that admits 167/3.4 and rejects 166/3.75. Holding a bunch of other stuff constant (major, school, disciplinary stuff, etc) should one point on the LSAT, really one question on the LSAT, really be worth more than .35 gpa points?

I'm fairly sure EMZE is a veteran, which counts for a lot. (thanks for your service <3 (: )

Thank you for your support!

FWIW, my GPA is also from a service academy which has a mean of about a 2.9 (I believe) and, so my GPA put me around the top 15% of my class. That schools might be giving some consideration to that fact gives me hope. With reference to the veteran thing, my resume is a bit more unique than just being a war vet with regards to leadership and valor awards, to go in to specifics would out me even more immediately, but I believe that it helped. My application is more or less a perfect storm of soft factors, with the only constant for the sake of consideration being my LSAT. I am actually probably one of the few out there hoping that schools do check up on social networking sites / googling applicants names.

Best of luck to all!

[tennisking88]

Thank you for your support!

FWIW, my GPA is also from a service academy which has a mean of about a 2.9 (I believe) and, so my GPA put me around the top 15% of my class. That schools might be giving some consideration to that fact gives me hope. With reference to the veteran thing, my resume is a bit more unique than just being a war vet with regards to leadership and valor awards, to go in to specifics would out me even more immediately, but I believe that it helped. My application is more or less a perfect storm of soft factors, with the only constant for the sake of consideration being my LSAT. I am actually probably one of the few out there hoping that schools do check up on social networking sites / googling applicants names.

Best of luck to all!

EMZE, thank you for your service. In no way was my comment about you personally, just a comment on how big (too big, if you ask me) a difference one LSAT point makes.

[crumpetsandtea]

EMZE, thank you for your service. In no way was my comment about you personally, just a comment on how big (too big, if you ask me) a difference one LSAT point makes.

Agreed--just look at WUSTL for a perfect example of this >_>!

[PersuasiveCharm]

Was anyone else updated with a date change yesterday but nothing else?

[shredderrrrrr]

Thank you for your support!

FWIW, my GPA is also from a service academy which has a mean of about a 2.9 (I believe) and, so my GPA put me around the top 15% of my class. That schools might be giving some consideration to that fact gives me hope. With reference to the veteran thing, my resume is a bit more unique than just being a war vet with regards to leadership and valor awards, to go in to specifics would out me even more immediately, but I believe that it helped. My application is more or less a perfect storm of soft factors, with the only constant for the sake of consideration being my LSAT. I am actually probably one of the few out there hoping that schools do check up on social networking sites / googling applicants names.

Best of luck to all!

EMZE, thank you for your service. In no way was my comment about you personally, just a comment on how big (too big, if you ask me) a difference one LSAT point makes.

+1. And I would also stress that reverse-splitters get screwed. I would think a GPA would matter more than LSAT (considering it's 4 years of work vs. one test), but schools seem to value the latter much more.

[MidwestJosh]

It just means they accept a crap ton of 167/168s, and then some people with much lower LSATs that have much higher GPAs to balance it out (which shows the low 25% LSAT). BC is the same way it seems. Still don't understand the 166/3.75 rejection though.

Both numbers are below the median... You seem to understand the numbers pretty well, why are you confused?

[tennisking88]

It just means they accept a crap ton of 167/168s, and then some people with much lower LSATs that have much higher GPAs to balance it out (which shows the low 25% LSAT). BC is the same way it seems. Still don't understand the 166/3.75 rejection though.

Both numbers are below the median... You seem to understand the numbers pretty well, why are you confused?

Because the rankings incentivize schools to make the decision that splitters (bad gpa/good lsat) are worth more than people like the dude above who's .05/1lsat point below the median. It's their decision, they do whatever they want, it's just sad. The guy's practically PBK and one question gets him rejected. Something's off about that. The system doesn't work when schools are incentivized to take that action.

[MidwestJosh]

It just means they accept a crap ton of 167/168s, and then some people with much lower LSATs that have much higher GPAs to balance it out (which shows the low 25% LSAT). BC is the same way it seems. Still don't understand the 166/3.75 rejection though.

Both numbers are below the median... You seem to understand the numbers pretty well, why are you confused?

Because the rankings incentivize schools to make the decision that splitters (bad gpa/good lsat) are worth more than people like the dude above who's .05/1lsat point below the median. It's their decision, they do whatever they want, it's just sad. The guy's practically PBK and one question gets him rejected. Something's off about that. The system doesn't work when schools are incentivized to take that action.

That's an entirely fair critique. Just making sure you understand the reason.

[crumpetsandtea]

+1. And I would also stress that reverse-splitters get screwed. I would think a GPA would matter more than LSAT (considering it's 4 years of work vs. one test), but schools seem to value the latter much more.

Well, FWIW there are far more 4.0 candidates than there are 180 candidates. In general, a high GPA is easier to find than a high LSAT.

[shredderrrrrr]

+1. And I would also stress that reverse-splitters get screwed. I would think a GPA would matter more than LSAT (considering it's 4 years of work vs. one test), but schools seem to value the latter much more.

Well, FWIW there are far more 4.0 candidates than there are 180 candidates. In general, a high GPA is easier to find than a high LSAT.

That is a good point. I was just stating my personal opinion though. I feel like GPA better exemplifies your work effort while LSAT better determines your thinking/intelligence. It makes sense why law schools would want the latter, but like a previous poster said, you would think a combination of the two would be best. In my eyes, a near average GPA + a near average LSAT > far below average GPA + far above average LSAT. This is probably why, however, I am not on an admissions committee lol.

[DonnaDraper]

I feel like GPA better exemplifies your work effort

Not necessarily. Because of people's overall obsession with perfection/excellence/being at the top, many people are discouraged by challenging classes, especially ones that often deal with math or science. I would not be surprised if many people shy away from these classes with the main reason that it would be a GPA kill. If people can't get As in a class, often their solution is to skip that class entirely and go for the class that WILL get them an A regardless of said class's intrinsic learning value. Standardized tests don't just reward intelligence, but reward people who step out of their comfort zone and are not afraid of a challenge.

[stillwater]

Not necessarily. Because of people's overall obsession with perfection/excellence/being at the top, many people are discouraged by challenging classes, especially ones that often deal with math or science. I would not be surprised if many people shy away from these classes with the main reason that it would be a GPA kill. If people can't get As in a class, often their solution is to skip that class entirely and go for the class that WILL get them an A regardless of said class's intrinsic learning value. Standardized tests don't just reward intelligence, but reward people who step out of their comfort zone and are not afraid of a challenge.

Well put.

[username08]

172/3.8 and was put on the waitlist via email literally 30 seconds after I sent an email that I was withdrawing my application.

I guess the feeling was mutual, lol.

[Ernert]

Got my first WL of the cycle... was also going to withdraw.

[Jerwinf1]

Just got a waitlist e-mail... 173 3.95 from a top 3 liberal arts college. What I thought were strong softs...

[hurricane12345]

Also waitlisted via email, my first one as well

[tennisking88]

I feel like GPA better exemplifies your work effort

Not necessarily. Because of people's overall obsession with perfection/excellence/being at the top, many people are discouraged by challenging classes, especially ones that often deal with math or science. I would not be surprised if many people shy away from these classes with the main reason that it would be a GPA kill. If people can't get As in a class, often their solution is to skip that class entirely and go for the class that WILL get them an A regardless of said class's intrinsic learning value. Standardized tests don't just reward intelligence, but reward people who step out of their comfort zone and are not afraid of a challenge.

I don't know about this. I put in a ton of work for the LSAT, and for the life of me, I just couldn't improve RC. RC was always my achilles heel and no matter what strategy I tried, I just couldn't get less than -5 in almost every section I did, as where LG I understood almost instantly, and never got more than -1 wrong (including -0 on the actual test). My friend is the complete opposite. Killed RC and hated LG. Some parts of standardized testing just work better for some people, but I did worse than my friend just beacuse there are 4-5 more RC questions on the test than LG. Did he study harder than me? No. In fact, I think I put in a lot more work than he did, over a longer period of time. Perhaps he's a quicker thinker or reader or whatever, but that's not exactly "effort", it's a skill that he has more of than me (perhaps throughout his development as a child or teenager or whatever? I don't know). Not bitching about it, that's life. Some people are just naturally better at things. But if effort is to be truly measured, I don't think the LSAT (or standardized testing in general really) is the be-all end-all. I mean, there has to be a way to standardize, because then people will just take basket-weaving or whatever, but my experience tells me the LSAT is most certainly not directly correlated with effort. There was definitely a ceiling to my performance, and the fact that some people can take a diagnostic test and score 170+ tells me something outside of "stepping outside of your comfort zone and not being afraid of a challenge" is at play.

[ahnhub]

Waitlisted. 170/3.88 (vet too--I think they just sniffed out that I wasn't that interested). Will be withdrawing.