Columbia c/o 2015 Applicants (2011-2012 cycle) Forum

[aekea]

I didn't go to a prestigious undergrad. I also submitted in december if that helps anyone.

Didn't you say somewhere that you went to Harvard? I guess that could have been for a graduate program, but if Harvard is no longer considered prestigious, than I'd hate to know what Columbia thought of my UG.

[kwais]

must say that this seems spot on. Everyone and their mom here went to Ivy + Berkeley etc.

That could be self selection - undergrad gunner = LS gunner

If what WG said is true though, I'm screwed

yeah, this. not only are people at prestigious undergrads perhaps more likely to get the grades/LSAT necessary to get into Columbia, they might also be the type to choose Columbia for the name. not all of them obviously, but certainly enough to give this impression.

excellent subtle NYU trolling

[snehpets]

must say that this seems spot on. Everyone and their mom here went to Ivy + Berkeley etc.

That could be self selection - undergrad gunner = LS gunner

If what WG said is true though, I'm screwed

yeah, this. not only are people at prestigious undergrads perhaps more likely to get the grades/LSAT necessary to get into Columbia, they might also be the type to choose Columbia for the name. not all of them obviously, but certainly enough to give this impression.

excellent subtle NYU trolling

it's not NYU trolling, or not intentionally anyway. all those NYU/CLS threads come down to the fact that a major (though not the only) reason to pick CLS is the name recognition, the prestige of it, etc. it seems like a pretty accepted fact that the name is important not only to certain applicants, but to certain people in the legal field. it's just like people tell you that you should pick harvard over stanford for "the name," all else being equal. obviously "name" is an overly-simplistic way of characterizing the differences in prestige, but it's hardly unheard of for people to pick a school based on prestige. It's not unreasonable to suggest that at least some of the people who chose the most prestigious undergrads did so because of the "name" aspect, and that they might do so again when picking a law school. I'm not saying people who go elsewhere are better, perhaps they're dumb for not going to the best school. I'm also not saying that everyone who picks Columbia or an ivy undergrad does so for the name, but surely you wouldn't argue that none of them did?

Tl;dr if I were trolling for nyu I would be more obvious I would also probably be enrolled and not worrying over deciding between the two.

[kwais]

it's not NYU trolling, or not intentionally anyway. all those NYU/CLS threads come down to the fact that a major (though not the only) reason to pick CLS is the name recognition, the prestige of it, etc. it seems like a pretty accepted fact that the name is important not only to certain applicants, but to certain people in the legal field. it's just like people tell you that you should pick harvard over stanford for "the name," all else being equal. obviously "name" is an overly-simplistic way of characterizing the differences in prestige, but it's hardly unheard of for people to pick a school based on prestige. It's not unreasonable to suggest that at least some of the people who chose the most prestigious undergrads did so because of the "name" aspect, and that they might do so again when picking a law school. I'm not saying people who go elsewhere are better, perhaps they're dumb for not going to the best school. I'm also not saying that everyone who picks Columbia or an ivy undergrad does so for the name, but surely you wouldn't argue that none of them did?

just joshin you. I agree with what you are saying. I just think that some people forget how schools acquire prestige. While prestige is not a proxy for quality, the two concepts happen to substantially overlap in this context. I went to a pretty poor undergrad and I have no problem saying that my Ivy-UG classmates appear to have gotten more thorough, rigorous educations than I. Mostly though, I've just heard the "Columbia = prestige-whoring" too many times from people who choose NYU not to point it out. All in good fun

[snehpets]

just joshin you. I agree with what you are saying. I just think that some people forget how schools acquire prestige. While prestige is not a proxy for quality, the two concepts happen to substantially overlap in this context. I went to a pretty poor undergrad and I have no problem saying that my Ivy-UG classmates appear to have gotten more thorough, rigorous educations than I. Mostly though, I've just heard the "Columbia = prestige-whoring" too many times from people who choose NYU not to point it out. All in good fun

Haha no worries here either. I just didn't want my post to be perceived that way by another 0L like myself. All the school-trolling on TLS is somewhat frustrating because I'm relatively uninformed about these schools which makes it difficult to separate fact from fiction. Just didn't want to accidentally contribute to that.

I do agree with you that Columbia is prestigious for a reason and many people pick it for the quality and just get the prestige as a bonus.

[seahawk32]

Waiting.

[vincanity1]

+1 for the waiting group. 173 3.77 Cuban

[danielhay11]

Also waiting with a 3.76/173

[ssteiner]

Hey all, joining this forum kind of late in the game. Sorry if this has been asked before, but does Columbia offer scholarships upon admission? If so, what are the general standards? I've found some posts relating to this but they date back a few years, so I wanted to know if anyone has any information that's more current.

[snehpets]

Hey all, joining this forum kind of late in the game. Sorry if this has been asked before, but does Columbia offer scholarships upon admission? If so, what are the general standards? I've found some posts relating to this but they date back a few years, so I wanted to know if anyone has any information that's more current.

Butler and Hamilton scholarships (which I think are half rides and full rides) come in your acceptance letter. Other merit scholarships come in March(ish) after you fill out the need access form. There are no set standards for who receives them, but you can look at Columbia on LawSchoolNumbers for this year and last year. Some people include their scholarship info there.

[tempur_three]

I didn't go to a prestigious undergrad. I also submitted in december if that helps anyone.

Didn't you say somewhere that you went to Harvard? I guess that could have been for a graduate program, but if Harvard is no longer considered prestigious, than I'd hate to know what Columbia thought of my UG.

Yah sorry it was a bad joke.

[Tiago Splitter]

In with public undergrad HTH

[astaris]

Also waiting with a 3.76/173

That's almost nearly me, and I was accepted last week

Also, like Tiago above, also public UG (though in Honors).

[TheRedMamba]

I was in ED from a non UC public school in CA

[Bronck]

I honestly doubt that CLS cares about where you went to UG.

[PigBodine]

I honestly doubt that CLS cares about where you went to UG.

I'd be surprised too. The LSAT correlates strongly with the SAT, and your SAT score correlates with the strength of the undergraduate school you went to. The median LSAT at Columbia is 172, and those kind of people are disproportionately likely to have had 1550+ SATs, and to have gone to top undergrad schools. There's a thread that lists various undergrads' average LSAT scores, and it tracks really closely to the way they're ranked (Harvard has the highest average, Yale is in second, etc.). I think that's where the 'effect' comes from.

[snehpets]

I honestly doubt that CLS cares about where you went to UG.

I'd be surprised too. The LSAT correlates strongly with the SAT, and your SAT score correlates with the strength of the undergraduate school you went to. The median LSAT at Columbia is 172, and those kind of people are disproportionately likely to have had 1550+ SATs. There's a thread that lists various undergrads' average LSAT scores, and it tracks really closely to the way they're ranked (Harvard has the highest average, Yale is in second, etc.)

lol at my SAT being anywhere near 1550.

you're probably right, of course.

[catwomangirl]

Don't you think they're used to gauge different things?

Like LSAT= thinking on your feet, and GPA = work ethic over a period of time?
So would the same GPA from Stanford and University of Vermont be viewed equally?

[JamMasterJ]

Don't you think they're used to gauge different things?

Like LSAT= thinking on your feet, and GPA = work ethic over a period of time?
So would the same GPA from Stanford and University of Vermont be viewed equally?

gpa's are so hard to gauge.

[PigBodine]

I honestly doubt that CLS cares about where you went to UG.

I'd be surprised too. The LSAT correlates strongly with the SAT, and your SAT score correlates with the strength of the undergraduate school you went to. The median LSAT at Columbia is 172, and those kind of people are disproportionately likely to have had 1550+ SATs. There's a thread that lists various undergrads' average LSAT scores, and it tracks really closely to the way they're ranked (Harvard has the highest average, Yale is in second, etc.)

lol at my SAT being anywhere near 1550.

you're probably right, of course.

People really like to complain about the rankings screwing everything up with regard to reducing the importance of softs, being a 'well-rounded' applicant, etc., but there's definitely something to be said for being able to make up for a weak undergrad GPA with a good showing a 'strong' test like the LSAT, compared to something like the GRE, which is just sort of like a really low hurdle that's used to weed out the first big round of cuts. There aren't really any splitter-friendly undergrads that I know of. I mean, I had a perfect SAT, and I don't think I was competitive for any really elite schools on account of a couple of courses that I couldn't stand. I probably would have gone to UTexas anyways, but it's still pretty ridiculous, IMO.

Don't you think they're used to gauge different things?

Like LSAT= thinking on your feet, and GPA = work ethic over a period of time?
So would the same GPA from Stanford and University of Vermont be viewed equally?

By and large, I think pretty much every school is trying to get the class with the highest medians they can manage without throwing anyone in water they think is too deep (i.e., it might slightly more optimal to hide a contingent of huge splitters in the 25% freebie zone, but they're afraid that 3.97/146 types aren't going to be able to hang with the 3.5/172 people, and won't admit them -- either because they feel it would be exploitative, or because they don't understand how medians works).

[FryBreadPower]

Also still waiting.
Early November submit date.

[Zelda]

Still waiting. 172+/3.95+.

[amc987]

Don't you think they're used to gauge different things?

Like LSAT= thinking on your feet, and GPA = work ethic over a period of time?
So would the same GPA from Stanford and University of Vermont be viewed equally?

I mean, I guess it would depend on the relative difficulty of the two students' majors. An Engineering major at Vermont might be viewed more favorably by an adcomm than a Communications major at Stanford or something, assuming the 2 applicants have similar GPAs. But otherwise probably not. The Stanford person's GPA would carry more weight in most cases.

Also, re: all these comments about the correlation between the LSAT and the SAT, I don't buy that the LSAT measures much more than your ability to follow directions, to adhere to a very specific style of reasoning, and to do all of that while not getting too frazzled by test day pressure. There are plenty of exceptionally smart people who have a lot of trouble thinking the way the LSAT requires you to think. There are also plenty of less brilliant people who just inherently understand the LSAT and don't have to do a lot of work to get ridiculously high scores. And there are obviously extremely smart people who do very well and less capable people who don't do as well. I think that most of the correlation between the SAT and LSAT scores is that test taking is a skill like anything else. Most people who are good enough test takers to get around 1550 on the SAT (which I believe is in the 99.5th percentile) don't just lose their facility with test taking when it comes time to take another standardized test. Their competence with standardized tests is likely to stand them in good stead on the LSAT as well.

[chasgoose]

Also, re: all these comments about the correlation between the LSAT and the SAT, I don't buy that the LSAT measures much more than your ability to follow directions, to adhere to a very specific style of reasoning, and to do all of that while not getting too frazzled by test day pressure. There are plenty of exceptionally smart people who have a lot of trouble thinking the way the LSAT requires you to think. There are also plenty of less brilliant people who just inherently understand the LSAT and don't have to do a lot of work to get ridiculously high scores. And there are obviously extremely smart people who do very well and less capable people who don't do as well. I think that most of the correlation between the SAT and LSAT scores is that test taking is a skill like anything else. Most people who are good enough test takers to get around 1550 on the SAT (which I believe is in the 99.5th percentile) don't just lose their facility with test taking when it comes time to take another standardized test. Their competence with standardized tests is likely to stand them in good stead on the LSAT as well.

So essentially the skills you need to succeed as an associate at a biglaw firm...

[seanPtheB]

Still waiting. 172+/3.95+.