NYU Class of 2015 Applicants Forum

[cactuarX3]

Does NYU reject people ED? Or is everyone deferred to RD?
If the former, has this happened to anyone yet?

there's at least one ED rejection (from LSN) so probably there are some people who are out; not sure if the majority are rejects or if 95% are deferred and only people with auto-reject numbers get dinged though

i'm going to spend the weekend trying to write the LOCI to end all LOCIs and get another professional recommendation to send; good luck to everyone who got rolled!

[sumner]

I never had much hope of getting in but if my status has been UR since 10/14 does that pretty much mean my app is sitting in the reject pile?

[cactuarX3]

I never had much hope of getting in but if my status has been UR since 10/14 does that pretty much mean my app is sitting in the reject pile?

hope not, that would suck

1) there was an applicant with 3.8/170 that got in
2) I'm 3.8/169 = deferred
3) if your 3.8/168 = reject then that means luck is pretty much the determining factor

[birdlaw117]

I never had much hope of getting in but if my status has been UR since 10/14 does that pretty much mean my app is sitting in the reject pile?

hope not, that would suck

1) there was an applicant with 3.8/170 that got in
2) I'm 3.8/169 = deferred
3) if your 3.8/168 = reject then that means luck is pretty much the determining factor

Not be an asshole, but it could also mean that the LSAT matters... That's a pretty solid trend right there.

Don't get me wrong, I hope you guys get in. But we all know that a question or two on the LSAT really does make a world of difference (as crazy as that is)

[cactuarX3]

birdlaw117, i totally agree that LSAT matters, but i think that when it comes down to 1-2 points, it's basically luck (guessed one more 50/50 question right, etc.)

it seems that law school admissions would agree since generally they don't care about 1-2 point increases in the LSAT since that seems not to indicate any real improvement

however, you're probably right in that 1-2 questions makes a world of difference (which sucks super hard)

[birdlaw117]

birdlaw117, i totally agree that LSAT matters, but i think that when it comes down to 1-2 points, it's basically luck (guessed one more 50/50 question right, etc.)

it seems that law school admissions would agree since generally they don't care about 1-2 point increases in the LSAT since that seems not to indicate any real improvement

however, you're probably right in that 1-2 questions makes a world of difference (which sucks super hard)

Yeah, I'm not saying it should matter. Just that it does.

[thelawschoolproject]

I have to disagree with the above poster. Although the number of questions answered correctly on the LSAT may not be significantly different between the scaled score of 169 or 170, there is still a big difference in applicants with 169 vs. 170. By this I mean that the 170 carries much more weight than the 169. In fact, many schools begin accepting applicants by using the 170 as an LSAT floor until they see what other applicants they have.

[luxxe]

I have to disagree with the above poster. Although the number of questions answered correctly on the LSAT may not be significantly different between the scaled score of 169 or 170, there is still a big difference in applicants with 169 vs. 170. By this I mean that the 170 carries much more weight than the 169. In fact, many schools begin accepting applicants by using the 170 as an LSAT floor until they see what other applicants they have.

Yeah, and NYU seems to demand >3.8 for sub-170 applicants.

[cactuarX3]

I have to disagree with the above poster. Although the number of questions answered correctly on the LSAT may not be significantly different between the scaled score of 169 or 170, there is still a big difference in applicants with 169 vs. 170. By this I mean that the 170 carries much more weight than the 169. In fact, many schools begin accepting applicants by using the 170 as an LSAT floor until they see what other applicants they have.

i would kill myself if every t14 school dinged me for that one point

[birdlaw117]

I have to disagree with the above poster. Although the number of questions answered correctly on the LSAT may not be significantly different between the scaled score of 169 or 170, there is still a big difference in applicants with 169 vs. 170. By this I mean that the 170 carries much more weight than the 169. In fact, many schools begin accepting applicants by using the 170 as an LSAT floor until they see what other applicants they have.

i would kill myself if every t14 school dinged me for that one point

You'll be fine. If you don't get NYU, you'll get another great school.

[thelawschoolproject]

I have to disagree with the above poster. Although the number of questions answered correctly on the LSAT may not be significantly different between the scaled score of 169 or 170, there is still a big difference in applicants with 169 vs. 170. By this I mean that the 170 carries much more weight than the 169. In fact, many schools begin accepting applicants by using the 170 as an LSAT floor until they see what other applicants they have.

i would kill myself if every t14 school dinged me for that one point

I'm not trying to suggest that no T14 dips below 170, because that's not the case at all...just saying that early on 170+ is much more likely to get you in the door than a 169-168. Although, if you have a strong GPA + softs with a 168, then you'll probably make it in to a few T14s anyway.

Also, I could die for how one stupid answer on the LSAT can change your scaled score and your entire cycle. FML.

[sumner]

Also, I could die for how one stupid answer on the LSAT can change your scaled score and your entire cycle. FML.

yeah it sucks but i don't blame them, they have to differentiate applicants somehow. ill probably be thinking about how i bombed the reading comp for the rest of my life.

[cactuarX3]

Also, I could die for how one stupid answer on the LSAT can change your scaled score and your entire cycle. FML.

yeah it sucks but i don't blame them, they have to differentiate applicants somehow. ill probably be thinking about how i bombed the reading comp for the rest of my life.

Yes, I know how you feel, totally put down a retarded answer for one of the LR questions that was ridiculously obvious to me looking at it later. If NYU is a ding, I'm going to have nightmares about that question for at least a few years.

[PigBodine]

birdlaw117, i totally agree that LSAT matters, but i think that when it comes down to 1-2 points, it's basically luck (guessed one more 50/50 question right, etc.)

it seems that law school admissions would agree since generally they don't care about 1-2 point increases in the LSAT since that seems not to indicate any real improvement

however, you're probably right in that 1-2 questions makes a world of difference (which sucks super hard)

Not much consolation to you now, but understand that the LSAT is an aggregate measure that's being used to make judgments in individual cases. In other words, there's a statistically significant difference in the law school performance and bar passage rates of a class of 170s when compared to a class of 169s, even though an individual who scored 169 might be more intelligent, better equipped as a lawyer, or even have a higher 'true' LSAT score than any of the individual 170s. In individual cases, there's not a big difference between scores in a 3 point range, but that 3 point swing can make the difference between T6 with money and getting shut out of the T14. That's absolutely brutal. That kind of difference is only robust on an aggregate level.

[cactuarX3]

birdlaw117, i totally agree that LSAT matters, but i think that when it comes down to 1-2 points, it's basically luck (guessed one more 50/50 question right, etc.)

it seems that law school admissions would agree since generally they don't care about 1-2 point increases in the LSAT since that seems not to indicate any real improvement

however, you're probably right in that 1-2 questions makes a world of difference (which sucks super hard)

Not much consolation to you now, but understand that the LSAT is an aggregate measure that's being used to make judgments in individual cases. In other words, there's a statistically significant difference in the law school performance and bar passage rates of a class of 170s when compared to a class of 169s, even though an individual who scored 169 might be more intelligent, better equipped as a lawyer, or even have a higher 'true' LSAT score than any of the individual 170s. In individual cases, there's not a big difference between scores in a 3 point range, but that 3 point swing can make the difference between T6 with money and getting shut out of the T14. That's absolutely brutal. That kind of difference is only robust on an aggregate level.

and i think that's the word of the day

[larsoner]

birdlaw117, i totally agree that LSAT matters, but i think that when it comes down to 1-2 points, it's basically luck (guessed one more 50/50 question right, etc.)

it seems that law school admissions would agree since generally they don't care about 1-2 point increases in the LSAT since that seems not to indicate any real improvement

however, you're probably right in that 1-2 questions makes a world of difference (which sucks super hard)

Not much consolation to you now, but understand that the LSAT is an aggregate measure that's being used to make judgments in individual cases. In other words, there's a statistically significant difference in the law school performance and bar passage rates of a class of 170s when compared to a class of 169s, even though an individual who scored 169 might be more intelligent, better equipped as a lawyer, or even have a higher 'true' LSAT score than any of the individual 170s. In individual cases, there's not a big difference between scores in a 3 point range, but that 3 point swing can make the difference between T6 with money and getting shut out of the T14. That's absolutely brutal. That kind of difference is only robust on an aggregate level.

Is there really a statistically significant difference between a class of 170s and a class of 169s? I buy the general point that LSAT is correlated with you know, good stuff, but one point doesn't mean anything either on the individual, or I would say the aggregate level.

In fact there was a thread on this in 2007: http://www.top-law-schools.com/archives ... =2&t=18640. The studies they cite to support the point that lsat is correlated with a good stuff (like half way down the first page) are a little old but neither support the idea that one point makes a real difference. The LSA one says: "small score differences are unimportant."

Again not disputing the general point, but I think we shouldn't lose sight of the fact that these distinctions between a 170 and a 169 or a 3.88 and a 3.9 are basically arbitrary. The schools have to pick us somehow, but we shouldn't pretend admissions decisions can be boiled down to mathematics.

[NervousNelly]

I got into NYU on Tuesday while I was banned from tls. Woohoo!

Good luck to the rest of you. I'm sure your cycles will turn out great.

[djkrish]

Went under review today!

My file was complete 11/30 and I'd been processing since then.

Anyone think there's a chance I'll hear back before Christmas? I think I'm close to their medians (3.7, 173) with lots of work experience but no real "softs" besides work and volunteering (since I've been out of school for 7 years).

Congrats to everyone who's in so far... hoping to see some of you next fall!

Amanda

we've got the same stats, god i hope they take us lol.

[MAP629]

I never had much hope of getting in but if my status has been UR since 10/14 does that pretty much mean my app is sitting in the reject pile?

hope not, that would suck

1) there was an applicant with 3.8/170 that got in
2) I'm 3.8/169 = deferred
3) if your 3.8/168 = reject then that means luck is pretty much the determining factor

Hi everyone -- I'm new to TLS so apologies if I have some kind of dumb posting mishap...

Just wanted to offer some encouragement and say that I was admitted (ED) with a 169. Don't lose hope! I was freaking out over the 1 point difference as well but it's def in the ball park.

[snehpets]

Went under review today!

My file was complete 11/30 and I'd been processing since then.

Anyone think there's a chance I'll hear back before Christmas? I think I'm close to their medians (3.7, 173) with lots of work experience but no real "softs" besides work and volunteering (since I've been out of school for 7 years).

Congrats to everyone who's in so far... hoping to see some of you next fall!

Amanda

we've got the same stats, god i hope they take us lol.

I'd be pretty shocked if they didn't. people with GPAs and LSATs way below that got in.

[lawschool899]

Hopefully some more movement today! Only 4 1/2 hours...

[Nobody]

birdlaw117, i totally agree that LSAT matters, but i think that when it comes down to 1-2 points, it's basically luck (guessed one more 50/50 question right, etc.)

it seems that law school admissions would agree since generally they don't care about 1-2 point increases in the LSAT since that seems not to indicate any real improvement

however, you're probably right in that 1-2 questions makes a world of difference (which sucks super hard)

The way I see it is that the schools still have to draw a line somewhere. Yes, a person who scored a 168 might have scored one or two points lower or higher, but that works both ways. If you're an adcomm looking at a 168, you could be looking at an unlucky 170 or a lucky 165. When you're looking at a 175, though, it's a much safer bet that the applicant didn't just luck into that range.

I guess what I'm saying is that a 170 floor is likelier a result of the fact that they are taking into account the margin of error, and don't want to auto reject someone who was just an unlucky 172.

[hotspur]

birdlaw117, i totally agree that LSAT matters, but i think that when it comes down to 1-2 points, it's basically luck (guessed one more 50/50 question right, etc.)

it seems that law school admissions would agree since generally they don't care about 1-2 point increases in the LSAT since that seems not to indicate any real improvement

however, you're probably right in that 1-2 questions makes a world of difference (which sucks super hard)

The way I see it is that the schools still have to draw a line somewhere. Yes, a person who scored a 168 might have scored one or two points lower or higher, but that works both ways. If you're an adcomm looking at a 168, you could be looking at an unlucky 170 or a lucky 165. When you're looking at a 175, though, it's a much safer bet that the applicant didn't just luck into that range.

I guess what I'm saying is that a 170 floor is likelier a result of the fact that they are taking into account the margin of error, and don't want to auto reject someone who was just an unlucky 172.

There is no way an LSAT floor exists in order to protect people who could have scored higher on the LSAT. That is totally counter-intuitive. I'm sure at least one person who scored a 168 who is applying to NYU could have scored a 172. If anything, the margin of error is taken into account when a 168 retakes and scores a 172.

[Nobody]

I probably just phrased that poorly. My point is that a 170 floor takes into account that some of those people are lucky 168s and unlucky 172s. There will always be a margin of error in lsat scores, but schools still have to draw the line somewhere. If the lsat floor was 168 then there would be people with 166s saying that it was arbitrary that 168 was the cutoff. When they set an lsat floor, it's because they want people who are significantly above it; letting in people at the margin is just a consequence of that.

[Strange]

So are we feeling good for RD decisions today? Been awhile...