Attention HYS admits Forum

[BlueCivic]

Sure. CLS's median LSAT score is higher than stanford's 75th percentile as well. It's pretty clear that SLS values the LSAT less than the other schools in the T6. But that's the point. BlueCivic was implying that HLS was less numbers-based. I think that SLS is a lot less numbers based than HLS. It accepts a lower percentage of its applicants and it's got lower medians.

does it necessarily follow that stanford is less numbers-focused from the fact that their medians aren't as high as their peers?

i can certainly conceive of several other, less flattering explanations for the disparity.

It's certainly not the case that SLS wouldn't be able to raise its LSAT numbers if it cared to. For example SLS' yield is much higher than CLS' despite CLS' better LSAT numbers. SLS values GPA more and it has much higher GPA stats.

HLS' yield is higher than SLS' by a substantial margin and has higher LSAT numbers and equal GPA numbers--so probably its Y > H > S as far as "selectivity" goes. Although i'm not sure how useful the term selectivity is given how many variables there are in the admissions process.

[tomhobbes]

I heard that Yale only admits people below 170/3.8 if they can belly dance.

[APimpNamedSlickback]

I heard that Yale only admits people below 170/3.8 if they can belly dance.

tbf, after reading my file, they insisted that i both compete against and beat famed Japanese hot dog-eating champion Takeru Kobayashi in a hot dog eating contest before they would even render a decision on my file.

i think yale really takes the whole holistic admissions thing to a completely different level.

[adameus]

I heard that Yale only admits people below 170/3.8 if they can belly dance.

tbf, after reading my file, they insisted that i both compete against and beat famed Japanese hot dog-eating champion Takeru Kobayashi in a hot dog eating contest before they would even render a decision on my file.

i think yale really takes the whole holistic admissions thing to a completely different level.

good luck eating even 1/4 of the hot dogs that guy can eat.

[APimpNamedSlickback]

I heard that Yale only admits people below 170/3.8 if they can belly dance.

tbf, after reading my file, they insisted that i both compete against and beat famed Japanese hot dog-eating champion Takeru Kobayashi in a hot dog eating contest before they would even render a decision on my file.

i think yale really takes the whole holistic admissions thing to a completely different level.

good luck eating even 1/4 of the hot dogs that guy can eat.

bro, i am the most epic gunner of all time and there was YALE PREFTIGE on the line. i would have OWNED him, which is why he ultimately declined my challenge and we're gonna be classmates next year.

[sassafraza]

looking for inspiration here. what kinds of softs have people done that overcame below-median #s?

[EijiMiyake]

Apimpnamedslickback - are you TBF on autoadmit?!

[APimpNamedSlickback]

Apimpnamedslickback - are you TBF on autoadmit?!

lmao, no. but saying "tbf" before every post is like crack, and i cant stop doing it.

but good guess i think lol.

[EijiMiyake]

Apimpnamedslickback - are you TBF on autoadmit?!

lmao, no. but saying "tbf" before every post is like crack, and i cant stop doing it.

but good guess i think lol.

watching autoadmit jargon repeated on other websites is pretty hilarious - i especially get a kick out of it when the poAsters are unlikely to know where their diction came from...but yes, i agree that TBF is a great opening line.

[Haribo]

Yeah i was just saying that it seems like its less numbers based than we think based on the anecdotal evidence i've seen.

As to selectivity, i do think that yield is probably the better metric than acceptance rate, given the size disparity between H and S. I don't think it is fair to say that H is the easiest to get into.

Eh, there have been discussions here about Harvard yield vs. Stanford yield in the past, and why directly comparing the yield of the two schools doesn't work very well given the difference in the size of the classes.

Basically, because both Stanford and Harvard tend to accept the kind of people who also get accepted by Yale, but Stanford's class size is much smaller, anyone who chooses Yale makes a much larger impact on Stanford's yield than Harvard.

Example with totally fake numbers:
Harvard accepts 1000 students, of them 200 are accepted by Yale. All 200 decide to attend Yale. Everyone else accepted by Harvard attends Harvard. 80% yield rate.

Stanford accepts 400 students, of whom 200 are accepted by Yale. All 200 also decide to attend Yale (darn Yale yield is too high!) but everyone else accepted by Stanford attends there. 50% yield rate.

But anyway, sorry, just trying to make the point that yield also suffers as a metric when there are large size disparities.

[APimpNamedSlickback]

Yeah i was just saying that it seems like its less numbers based than we think based on the anecdotal evidence i've seen.

As to selectivity, i do think that yield is probably the better metric than acceptance rate, given the size disparity between H and S. I don't think it is fair to say that H is the easiest to get into.

Eh, there have been discussions here about Harvard yield vs. Stanford yield in the past, and why directly comparing the yield of the two schools doesn't work very well given the difference in the size of the classes.

Basically, because both Stanford and Harvard tend to accept the kind of people who also get accepted by Yale, but Stanford's class size is much smaller, anyone who chooses Yale makes a much larger impact on Stanford's yield than Harvard.

Example with totally fake numbers:
Harvard accepts 1000 students, of them 200 are accepted by Yale. All 200 decide to attend Yale. Everyone else accepted by Harvard attends Harvard. 80% yield rate.

Stanford accepts 400 students, of whom 200 are accepted by Yale. All 200 also decide to attend Yale (darn Yale yield is too high!) but everyone else accepted by Stanford attends there. 50% yield rate.

But anyway, sorry, just trying to make the point that yield also suffers as a metric when there are large size disparities.

true, although it is also worth bearing in mind that disparity in their respective sizes when considering the schools' medians and acceptance rates.

moreover, that example suggests far more overlap between the three schools' applicant pools than i suspect actually exists.

[MichelledeMontaigne]

For Harvard to boast an average LSAT higher than schools half its size, like Stanford and Chicago, requires Harvard to recruit two to three times as many students as other top schools with those outstanding credentials. That speaks both to Harvard’s attractiveness, and to the existence at Harvard of an enormous pool of highly credentialed students, a fact, needless to say, that prospective employers register.

(http://www.leiterrankings.com/students/ ... lity.shtml)

[AngryAvocado]

For Harvard to boast an average LSAT higher than schools half its size, like Stanford and Chicago, requires Harvard to recruit two to three times as many students as other top schools with those outstanding credentials. That speaks both to Harvard’s attractiveness, and to the existence at Harvard of an enormous pool of highly credentialed students, a fact, needless to say, that prospective employers register.

(http://www.leiterrankings.com/students/ ... lity.shtml)

I like Leiter for the most part, but that ranking and his reasoning are both pretty silly. I don't buy the underlying logic as I'm certain Stanford (for example) could boost it's LSAT and it's class size simultaneously if it wanted to--but really, what's the point? It probably won't be surpassing HLS any time soon, and isn't likely to be passed by CLS, so why bother making such an uncharacteristic change and perhaps tarnishing the allure of the school? That argument is probably more persuasive the lower one goes in the rankings where schools have a tougher time attracting talent and boosting numbers, but less so for the cream of the crop who regularly turn away people with numbers at/above medians.

[BioEBear2010]

looking for inspiration here. what kinds of softs have people done that overcame below-median #s?

A word of advice: don't go hunting for softs for the sake of getting more softs. Just do things that you are interested in. I spent my undergrad years doing engineering stuff because it interested me. Keep yourself busy and have fun.

Also, I wish I could belly dance.

[Dignan]

For Harvard to boast an average LSAT higher than schools half its size, like Stanford and Chicago, requires Harvard to recruit two to three times as many students as other top schools with those outstanding credentials. That speaks both to Harvard’s attractiveness, and to the existence at Harvard of an enormous pool of highly credentialed students, a fact, needless to say, that prospective employers register.

(http://www.leiterrankings.com/students/ ... lity.shtml)

I like Leiter for the most part, but that ranking and his reasoning are both pretty silly. I don't buy the underlying logic as I'm certain Stanford (for example) could boost it's LSAT and it's class size simultaneously if it wanted to--but really, what's the point? It probably won't be surpassing HLS any time soon, and isn't likely to be passed by CLS, so why bother making such an uncharacteristic change and perhaps tarnishing the allure of the school?

I'm not so sure about that. Just two years ago, SLS was ranked 2nd and HLS 3rd. Over the last 20 years, HLS and SLS have shifted back and forth between 2nd and 3rd in the USWNR rankings, with SLS being ahead of HLS more often than not. I wouldn't be surprised to see them flip again this year or next.

In any case, I agree that SLS does not seem concerned with boosting its LSAT median.

[OneKnight]

On the 203 blog, Dean Asha says that:
"You might think of ours as a Rawlsian-inspired admissions process, in that it offers the most advantage to numerically weaker applicants, since we do a holistic review of every application."
What do you guys think are some qualities that people with weaker numbers have that make them compelling enough to get in? There are probably a few of such admits every year.

Rhodes/Marshall/Truman Scholarships for those with high GPAs and low LSATs (I've seen a few of these do very well despite a "low" LSAT - relatively speaking)
URMs
Graduate Degrees (though this is admittedly a small factor depending on the degree - e.g. a Ph.D. in a science field from a top school can make someone competitive if interested in IP law)

I think it's probably much harder to get into HYS with a low GPA than a low LSAT, though this is all a matter of degree...

[APimpNamedSlickback]

For Harvard to boast an average LSAT higher than schools half its size, like Stanford and Chicago, requires Harvard to recruit two to three times as many students as other top schools with those outstanding credentials. That speaks both to Harvard’s attractiveness, and to the existence at Harvard of an enormous pool of highly credentialed students, a fact, needless to say, that prospective employers register.

(http://www.leiterrankings.com/students/ ... lity.shtml)

I like Leiter for the most part, but that ranking and his reasoning are both pretty silly. I don't buy the underlying logic as I'm certain Stanford (for example) could boost it's LSAT and it's class size simultaneously if it wanted to--but really, what's the point? It probably won't be surpassing HLS any time soon, and isn't likely to be passed by CLS, so why bother making such an uncharacteristic change and perhaps tarnishing the allure of the school?

I'm not so sure about that. Just two years ago, SLS was ranked 2nd and HLS 3rd. Over the last 20 years, HLS and SLS have shifted back and forth between 2nd and 3rd in the USWNR rankings, with SLS being ahead of HLS more often than not. I wouldn't be surprised to see them flip again this year or next.

In any case, I agree that SLS does not seem concerned with boosting its LSAT median.

i'm just conjecturing here, but i'd imagine that sls surpassing hls had much more to do with the toxic atmosphere at harvard than any fundamental difference in the two schools. during the 90s and parts of this decade, harvard lost out on lots of faculty hires and perspective students because of a poor reputation for divisiveness, cut-throat competitiveness and discord.

given the work that dean kagan did while in cambridge, however, such movement within the top 3 is probably less likely than it was in the past.

[CardinalRules]

I got in because I'm just that amazing.

Seriously, though, you can PM me for softs if you want. I'm happy to help.

[Dignan]

I'm not so sure about that. Just two years ago, SLS was ranked 2nd and HLS 3rd. Over the last 20 years, HLS and SLS have shifted back and forth between 2nd and 3rd in the USWNR rankings, with SLS being ahead of HLS more often than not. I wouldn't be surprised to see them flip again this year or next.

In any case, I agree that SLS does not seem concerned with boosting its LSAT median.

i'm just conjecturing here, but i'd imagine that sls surpassing hls had much more to do with the toxic atmosphere at harvard than any fundamental difference in the two schools. during the 90s and parts of this decade, harvard lost out on lots of faculty hires and perspective students because of a poor reputation for divisiveness, cut-throat competitiveness and discord.

given the work that dean kagan did while in cambridge, however, such movement within the top 3 is probably less likely than it was in the past.

Maybe. Dean Kagan definitely improved things at Harvard. On the other hand, SLS and HLS kept swapping spots during her tenure, with SLS rising to 2nd (and HLS dropping to third) during Kagan's third and fourth years there. Anyway, all this stuff is trivial. I don't think anyone should judge or choose a school based on a one-spot difference in a magazine's ranking system.

[ConMan345]

I got in because I'm just that amazing.

Seriously, though, you can PM me for softs if you want. I'm happy to help.

Here, ladies and gentlemen, is an example of how "joking" lets one say what one truly believes without the social consequences of being held accountable for it.

[im_blue]

On the 203 blog, Dean Asha says that:
"You might think of ours as a Rawlsian-inspired admissions process, in that it offers the most advantage to numerically weaker applicants, since we do a holistic review of every application."
What do you guys think are some qualities that people with weaker numbers have that make them compelling enough to get in? There are probably a few of such admits every year.

Rhodes/Marshall/Truman Scholarships for those with high GPAs and low LSATs (I've seen a few of these do very well despite a "low" LSAT - relatively speaking)
URMs
Graduate Degrees (though this is admittedly a small factor depending on the degree - e.g. a Ph.D. in a science field from a top school can make someone competitive if interested in IP law)

I think it's probably much harder to get into HYS with a low GPA than a low LSAT, though this is all a matter of degree...

HYPS UGs also get a boost, as Harvard tends to accept several that are just below both medians, around 3.80-3.85/172. Stanford loves graduate degrees, especially in science/engineering.

[MichelledeMontaigne]

I'm not so sure about that. Just two years ago, SLS was ranked 2nd and HLS 3rd. Over the last 20 years, HLS and SLS have shifted back and forth between 2nd and 3rd in the USWNR rankings, with SLS being ahead of HLS more often than not. I wouldn't be surprised to see them flip again this year or next.

In any case, I agree that SLS does not seem concerned with boosting its LSAT median.

i'm just conjecturing here, but i'd imagine that sls surpassing hls had much more to do with the toxic atmosphere at harvard than any fundamental difference in the two schools. during the 90s and parts of this decade, harvard lost out on lots of faculty hires and perspective students because of a poor reputation for divisiveness, cut-throat competitiveness and discord.

given the work that dean kagan did while in cambridge, however, such movement within the top 3 is probably less likely than it was in the past.

Maybe. Dean Kagan definitely improved things at Harvard. On the other hand, SLS and HLS kept swapping spots during her tenure, with SLS rising to 2nd (and HLS dropping to third) during Kagan's third and fourth years there. Anyway, all this stuff is trivial. I don't think anyone should judge or choose a school based on a one-spot difference in a magazine's ranking system.

Actually the reason Stanford can come close to Harvard is that the USNWR rankings are heavily skewed in favor of small schools. Just take a look Leiter's opinion in http://www.leiterrankings.com/usnews/guide.shtml.

"9.75% of the overall score is average per capita expenditures for this year and the prior year for instruction, library, and supporting services. Highly Manipulable. This is the figure that is adjusted for differences in cost of living. Once again, schools self-report the data. This criterion, along with (3) and (5), gives a huge boost to small schools, since per capita measures penalize for economies of scale. This explains how, in many years (including 2003), Harvard can have higher reputation scores than Yale, yet Yale will come out 1st and Harvard 3rd. Harvard is three times the size, and that makes all the difference."

"it would have been too obvious how this irrelevant expenditures category had skewed the rankings. (Of course, it still skews them, in favor of small schools like Yale and against large schools like Harvard, but more on that shortly.)"

"12.5% of the overall score is based on the median LSAT score. Highly Manipulable. This criterion is one of many that favors small schools. Consider: a school that enrolls 180 students each year, only needs to recruit 90 with an LSAT of, say, at least 164 in order to have a strong median LSAT. A school that enrolls 450 each year, by contrast, will need to recruit 225 students (more than twice as many) with that LSAT to report the very same median."

But Dignan I think you are right. There can be good rankings with regards to groups, but it is not so clear-cut within those groups how the schools compare. So YHS, then CCN...etc. Either way, Top 10 is great.

[APimpNamedSlickback]

I'm not so sure about that. Just two years ago, SLS was ranked 2nd and HLS 3rd. Over the last 20 years, HLS and SLS have shifted back and forth between 2nd and 3rd in the USWNR rankings, with SLS being ahead of HLS more often than not. I wouldn't be surprised to see them flip again this year or next.

In any case, I agree that SLS does not seem concerned with boosting its LSAT median.

i'm just conjecturing here, but i'd imagine that sls surpassing hls had much more to do with the toxic atmosphere at harvard than any fundamental difference in the two schools. during the 90s and parts of this decade, harvard lost out on lots of faculty hires and perspective students because of a poor reputation for divisiveness, cut-throat competitiveness and discord.

given the work that dean kagan did while in cambridge, however, such movement within the top 3 is probably less likely than it was in the past.

Maybe. Dean Kagan definitely improved things at Harvard. On the other hand, SLS and HLS kept swapping spots during her tenure, with SLS rising to 2nd (and HLS dropping to third) during Kagan's third and fourth years there. Anyway, all this stuff is trivial. I don't think anyone should judge or choose a school based on a one-spot difference in a magazine's ranking system.

i agree completely.

[DoubleChecks]

I got in because I'm just that amazing.

Seriously, though, you can PM me for softs if you want. I'm happy to help.

Here, ladies and gentlemen, is an example of how "joking" lets one say what one truly believes without the social consequences of being held accountable for it.

if you got into HYS and dont think yourself "amazing" on some level (maybe subconsciously), then you prob lack the confidence to succeed in law

haha "just kidding" -- im being facetious, but not really

[APimpNamedSlickback]

I got in because I'm just that amazing.

Seriously, though, you can PM me for softs if you want. I'm happy to help.

Here, ladies and gentlemen, is an example of how "joking" lets one say what one truly believes without the social consequences of being held accountable for it.

if you got into HYS and dont think yourself "amazing" on some level (maybe subconsciously), then you prob lack the confidence to succeed in law

haha "just kidding" -- im being facetious, but not really

those of you guys that have hung out with me here probably recognize that i lack confidence in general, and especially as it relates to getting into HYS. my modesty is my achilles heel.

so i'm not really sure how i'm going to make it in law. i can only hope that managamy will take me under his wings at some point and impart crucial life lessons before 1L starts.