Fordham c/o 2016/17 (2012-2013 Cycle) Forum

[dingbat]

I met Kathryn Espiritu at the NY LSAC forum yesterday and she remembered my application from last year. Hopefully that's a good sign...

what was the verdict last year?

[yoruichi]

I met Kathryn Espiritu at the NY LSAC forum yesterday and she remembered my application from last year. Hopefully that's a good sign...

what was the verdict last year?

WL/Reject

[dingbat]

I met Kathryn Espiritu at the NY LSAC forum yesterday and she remembered my application from last year. Hopefully that's a good sign...

what was the verdict last year?

WL/Reject

did you retake?

[yoruichi]

I met Kathryn Espiritu at the NY LSAC forum yesterday and she remembered my application from last year. Hopefully that's a good sign...

what was the verdict last year?

WL/Reject

did you retake?

Yes, 160 to 167. The Columbia rep remembered me as well but I assume that's because my shitty numbers gave her a good laugh.

[dingbat]

Yes, 160 to 167. The Columbia rep remembered me as well but I assume that's because my shitty numbers gave her a good laugh.

That's a real improvement. Hopefully that'll be enough to welcome you on campus next year

[Lookingforanswers]

Submitted my app yesterday, just in time to hear by December 15th, lets hope its good news! Good Luck to everyone!

[ajax]

Yes, 160 to 167. The Columbia rep remembered me as well but I assume that's because my shitty numbers gave her a good laugh.

That's a real improvement. Hopefully that'll be enough to welcome you on campus next year

167 is certainly more than enough to gain admission to Fordham this cycle. 166 is their new and downgraded 75%, and will likely be even lower this cycle if applications continue to decline. If I were you I'd be setting my sights on Georgetown/Cornell, and further on up the list depending on your GPA.

[dip_spLitter]

Yes, 160 to 167. The Columbia rep remembered me as well but I assume that's because my shitty numbers gave her a good laugh.

That's a real improvement. Hopefully that'll be enough to welcome you on campus next year

167 is certainly more than enough to gain admission to Fordham this cycle. 166 is their new and downgraded 75%, and will likely be even lower this cycle if applications continue to decline. If I were you I'd be setting my sights on Georgetown/Cornell, and further on up the list depending on your GPA.

Really? With what GPA do you think a 167 is going to have a >50% shot at Cornell/Georgetown this year? (no sarcasm, actually wondering)

Also checking in. 3.4/165. Any shot?

edit: still waiting 2nd score results

[ajax]

Yes, 160 to 167. The Columbia rep remembered me as well but I assume that's because my shitty numbers gave her a good laugh.

That's a real improvement. Hopefully that'll be enough to welcome you on campus next year

167 is certainly more than enough to gain admission to Fordham this cycle. 166 is their new and downgraded 75%, and will likely be even lower this cycle if applications continue to decline. If I were you I'd be setting my sights on Georgetown/Cornell, and further on up the list depending on your GPA.

Really? With what GPA do you think a 167 is going to have a >50% shot at Cornell/Georgetown this year? (no sarcasm, actually wondering)

Also checking in. 3.4/165. Any shot?

First of all this thread needs to be updated with the new stats, which are lower than last years.:

http://law.fordham.edu/admissions/614.htm

Answering whether or not you have a shot: Yes, you will be admitted.

[dingbat]

Answering whether or not you have a shot: Yesmaybe, you will be admitted.

Folks, there are no guarantees. Having a median LSAT and a slightly below median GPA means you'll probably get in, if there's nothing wrong with the rest of your app, but, don't assume it's a given.

Edit: with a 167 there's a decent chance of getting some scholarship money at Fordham
2nd edit: I've updated the stats on the first page. These weren't available at time of posting.

Also, Ajax is known for trolling Fordham pretty badly. (although, his recommendation about trying for some other schools as well is good advice)

[vanwinkle]

167 is certainly more than enough to gain admission to Fordham this cycle. 166 is their new and downgraded 75%, and will likely be even lower this cycle if applications continue to decline. If I were you I'd be setting my sights on Georgetown/Cornell, and further on up the list depending on your GPA.

This is not the forum for this. http://www.top-law-schools.com/forums/v ... 7&t=146613

You've been warned about this before, so you get a tempban. Hopefully everyone else can let it go (if he comes back, hit the report button and we'll handle it).

[30-Something]

I was just on campus this morning picking up a Fordham sweatshirt since it's finally hoodie weather.

For the new applicants, I was accepted off of the waitlist in July and had to defer my enrollment until fall 2013 for personal reasons. I'm happy to answer any waitlist related questions should that become an issue for any of you.

Looking forward to meeting some of you at the first ASD.

[JCFindley]

I was just on campus this morning picking up a Fordham sweatshirt since it's finally hoodie weather.

For the new applicants, I was accepted off of the waitlist in July and had to defer my enrollment until fall 2013 for personal reasons. I'm happy to answer any waitlist related questions should that become an issue for any of you.

Looking forward to meeting some of you at the first ASD.

Cool 30, look forward to meeting you....

LOL at the troll showing up for yet another year of fun.

The 165/3.4 should be good with the caveats DB mentioned....

[30-Something]

I was just on campus this morning picking up a Fordham sweatshirt since it's finally hoodie weather.

For the new applicants, I was accepted off of the waitlist in July and had to defer my enrollment until fall 2013 for personal reasons. I'm happy to answer any waitlist related questions should that become an issue for any of you.

Looking forward to meeting some of you at the first ASD.

Cool 30, look forward to meeting you....

LOL at the troll showing up for yet another year of fun.

The 165/3.4 should be good with the caveats DB mentioned....

Thanks JD! How are you liking the evening section?

[JCFindley]

Thanks JD! How are you liking the evening section?

Technically, it is the flex schedule as the evening folks are on a four year program.

I love EVERYTHING about the flex schedule, except Tuesday when I am at school from 2:00->10:00 PM.... But we have Fridays off and as a morning person, I prefer to get up at 0700 and do my work BEFORE school v. after.....

[ajax]

Yes, 160 to 167. The Columbia rep remembered me as well but I assume that's because my shitty numbers gave her a good laugh.

That's a real improvement. Hopefully that'll be enough to welcome you on campus next year

167 is certainly more than enough to gain admission to Fordham this cycle. 166 is their new and downgraded 75%, and will likely be even lower this cycle if applications continue to decline. If I were you I'd be setting my sights on Georgetown/Cornell, and further on up the list depending on your GPA.

Really? With what GPA do you think a 167 is going to have a >50% shot at Cornell/Georgetown this year? (no sarcasm, actually wondering)

Also checking in. 3.4/165. Any shot?

edit: still waiting 2nd score results

Check out this spreadsheet. I would say one would have a decent chance at Cornell with 167 and 3.6.

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc ... nUnc#gid=0

[skri65]

Answering whether or not you have a shot: Yesmaybe, you will be admitted.

Folks, there are no guarantees. Having a median LSAT and a slightly below median GPA means you'll probably get in, if there's nothing wrong with the rest of your app, but, don't assume it's a given

I've seen this reasoning a lot and I don't quite understand it. If an applicant is at median for one stat and slightly below median for the other stat, why are they "likely" to get in. I always figured the only people (besides splitters) that are "likely" to get in are people above both medians. Please explain this to me.

Thanks.

[ajax]

Answering whether or not you have a shot: Yesmaybe, you will be admitted.

Folks, there are no guarantees. Having a median LSAT and a slightly below median GPA means you'll probably get in, if there's nothing wrong with the rest of your app, but, don't assume it's a given

I've seen this reasoning a lot and I don't quite understand it. If an applicant is at median for one stat and slightly below median for the other stat, why are they "likely" to get in. I always figured the only people (besides splitters) that are "likely" to get in are people above both medians. Please explain this to me.

Thanks.

Assuming applications continue decline. Basically the same thing that happened last year, people who had a 167 were at the previous 75%, but when the new numbers came out, they were in fact above the 75% LSAT. This is why if you are at median, and applications continue to decline, you will likely be admitted, unless the school decides that it is going to drastically lower class size to keep its numbers.

This applies to any school, not just Fordham. Therefore for all you genius mods out there I am not trolling. Just answering a question. Cheers.

[dingbat]

Assuming the rest of the app is bland (neither good nor bad) someone above both 75%s should get in and someone below both 25%s should get rejected. In between is a grey area, but suffice to say that medians are just that - medians. People with numbers below the median get in, and people above the medians get in. The median is then the average of everyone who got in. Being more or less at the medians makes you average (compared to the student body) so you are likely to be accepted (doesn't mean you'll attend),but it still isn't a given.
Remember, very few people are exactly at median, and not everyone who gets accepted attends.

(note that I'm purposefully not discussing splitters or people with unusual apps)

[dingbat]

This applies to any school, not just Fordham. Therefore for all you genius mods out there I am not trolling. Just answering a question. Cheers.

That wasn't the reason for your warning. I'm not speaking on behalf of the mods, but I'm fairly certain the issue is that this is not the place to tell people that theyre applying to the wrong school (there are separate boards for that) and nobody wants a repeat of last year's "debate" in this thread.

Talking about criteria for getting in is fine. Telling someone to go to a different school is not

[JCFindley]

(note that I'm purposefully not discussing splitters or people with unusual apps)

Unusual apps are quite welcomed by the Adcomm here BTW, so if you have something interesting to offer beyond the numbers don't necessarily think it is a waste of time to apply.

[skri65]

Assuming the rest of the app is bland (neither good nor bad) someone above both 75%s should get in and someone below both 25%s should get rejected. In between is a grey area, but suffice to say that medians are just that - medians. People with numbers below the median get in, and people above the medians get in. The median is then the average of everyone who got in. Being more or less at the medians makes you average (compared to the student body) so you are likely to be accepted (doesn't mean you'll attend),but it still isn't a given.
Remember, very few people are exactly at median, and not everyone who gets accepted attends.

(note that I'm purposefully not discussing splitters or people with unusual apps)

Sorry I must be having a brain fart here. Bear with me here.

I understand that people around the medians have around a 50% shot of getting in. But I do not understand why someone with a median LSAT and slightly below median GPA has a >50% (likely) shot of getting in. This makes sense to me if the assumption is that admit numbers will be lower next year...but that doesn't seem to be the key reasoning behind dingbats response.

Someone explain this to me.

[dingbat]

There's no such thing as a 50% chance of getting in. If your numbers are at median, 50% of the student body have a better score. If you're at median, I think you have a much more than 50% chance of getting accepted, because half the student body has worse scores, and a number of people who got accepted chose not to attend.

However, short of talking to the admissions committee and getting hard data, predictions will remain general.

Again, note that this assumes that everyone's application is identically bland, which is not the case. there are no guarantees, just "best guess". With both scores approximating median, you have a decent shot at getting in, but until you apply and get accepted (or rejected) you just don't know

[skri65]

There's no such thing as a 50% chance of getting in. If your numbers are at median, 50% of the student body have a better score. If you're at median, I think you have a much more than 50% chance of getting accepted, because half the student body has worse scores, and a number of people who got accepted chose not to attend.

However, short of talking to the admissions committee and getting hard data, predictions will remain general.

Again, note that this assumes that everyone's application is identically bland, which is not the case. there are no guarantees, just "best guess". With both scores approximating median, you have a decent shot at getting in, but until you apply and get accepted (or rejected) you just don't know

How does the people who got in but didn't attend affect the median and thus people's likelihood of getting in. If we are comparing applicants scores to the scores of the student body, why do the people who got accepted but didn't attend affect anything when it comes to comparing ones own scores and the class medians (and thus using this comparison to make predictions).

I'm still at a loss how we can say that someone that isn't at or above both medians is "likely" to get in, all softs being equal and ignoring splitters.

[JCFindley]

Keep in mind, I was a math major in undergrad.

Statistically speaking being slightly above mean is NO different than being slightly below as it really just isn't that cut and dry.

Read the below link..... Basically what it says, if you are within the standard deviation then you basically ARE at mean, so someone slightly above and someone slightly below have virtually identical chances. For applicants in this range of numbers your admit or ding will likely be based more on "other things," AKA 'softs. When people say softs generally only matter among candidates with the same numbers they are actually being a little too specific. What they should say is that softs will matter within a given range of numbers so it rarely a tie breaker between a 3.6/165 v. a 3.6/165 but more likely a 3.6/165 v. 3.5-3.7/164-166. I do not have the data to compute an accurate curve for Fordham but will postulate that it is pretty standard and if it is, lets say the vast majority of applicants in that middle 50% will be very close. Many will have one number above and one below median. It is not as simple as saying, the top 50% have BOTH numbers above.



http://www.robertniles.com/stats/stdev.shtml