I'm sure it wouldn't be fully representative, but LS22, in a few months (at the end of the cycle) is it possible to break down the data in your spreadsheet to help determine this kind of stuff? Somebody that gets in could post a link to the spreadsheet in the Facebook group for HLS admits to increase the sample size.lawschool22 wrote:
Yeah I am sure the chances are not 70% across the board. There are certain people with JS1's who have a 99% chance of a JS2 (based on their numbers) and another portion of people who probably have less than 20% chance (based on their numbers), and obviously some who are on the bubble where the interview could make the difference between an admit/WL/deny.
It would be really interesting to get the data on this, but unfortunately that will probably never happen.
Harvard, C/O 2017, Applicants Thread (2013-2014) Forum
- wtrc
- Posts: 2053
- Joined: Mon May 30, 2011 9:37 pm
Re: Harvard, C/O 2017, Applicants Thread (2013-2014)
- lawschool22
- Posts: 3875
- Joined: Thu Jul 25, 2013 5:47 pm
Re: Harvard, C/O 2017, Applicants Thread (2013-2014)
Yeah I was just thinking about that. I definitely think we can learn a few things from that data, such as if you get a JS1, what are the odds of getting a JS2, based on your LSAT/GPA combo. I'll have to think about how exactly to do that.wtrc wrote:I'm sure it wouldn't be fully representative, but LS22, in a few months (at the end of the cycle) is it possible to break down the data in your spreadsheet to help determine this kind of stuff? Somebody that gets in could post a link to the spreadsheet in the Facebook group for HLS admits to increase the sample size.lawschool22 wrote:
Yeah I am sure the chances are not 70% across the board. There are certain people with JS1's who have a 99% chance of a JS2 (based on their numbers) and another portion of people who probably have less than 20% chance (based on their numbers), and obviously some who are on the bubble where the interview could make the difference between an admit/WL/deny.
It would be really interesting to get the data on this, but unfortunately that will probably never happen.
- almondjoy
- Posts: 288
- Joined: Sat Dec 07, 2013 1:35 am
Re: Harvard, C/O 2017, Applicants Thread (2013-2014)
Don't get me wrong, I think all this stuff is great and is a big help but I think this is one of the reasons JS supposedly has a disdain for tls. I don't think adcoms like their process being broken down so much.lawschool22 wrote:Yeah I was just thinking about that. I definitely think we can learn a few things from that data, such as if you get a JS1, what are the odds of getting a JS2, based on your LSAT/GPA combo. I'll have to think about how exactly to do that.wtrc wrote:I'm sure it wouldn't be fully representative, but LS22, in a few months (at the end of the cycle) is it possible to break down the data in your spreadsheet to help determine this kind of stuff? Somebody that gets in could post a link to the spreadsheet in the Facebook group for HLS admits to increase the sample size.lawschool22 wrote:
Yeah I am sure the chances are not 70% across the board. There are certain people with JS1's who have a 99% chance of a JS2 (based on their numbers) and another portion of people who probably have less than 20% chance (based on their numbers), and obviously some who are on the bubble where the interview could make the difference between an admit/WL/deny.
It would be really interesting to get the data on this, but unfortunately that will probably never happen.
- lawschool22
- Posts: 3875
- Joined: Thu Jul 25, 2013 5:47 pm
Re: Harvard, C/O 2017, Applicants Thread (2013-2014)
I'm sure they don't like it, but hey, we're doing it for all the T-14, so she can at least get a better idea of what her competition is doing. There's nothing wrong with us using each individual's voluntarily submitted data to get a better idea of how the process works. It's what any well-informed applicant would do.almondjoy wrote:Don't get me wrong, I think all this stuff is great and is a big help but I think this is one of the reasons JS supposedly has a disdain for tls. I don't think adcoms like their process being broken down so much.lawschool22 wrote:Yeah I was just thinking about that. I definitely think we can learn a few things from that data, such as if you get a JS1, what are the odds of getting a JS2, based on your LSAT/GPA combo. I'll have to think about how exactly to do that.wtrc wrote:I'm sure it wouldn't be fully representative, but LS22, in a few months (at the end of the cycle) is it possible to break down the data in your spreadsheet to help determine this kind of stuff? Somebody that gets in could post a link to the spreadsheet in the Facebook group for HLS admits to increase the sample size.lawschool22 wrote:
Yeah I am sure the chances are not 70% across the board. There are certain people with JS1's who have a 99% chance of a JS2 (based on their numbers) and another portion of people who probably have less than 20% chance (based on their numbers), and obviously some who are on the bubble where the interview could make the difference between an admit/WL/deny.
It would be really interesting to get the data on this, but unfortunately that will probably never happen.
- Gary
- Posts: 338
- Joined: Wed May 22, 2013 8:47 pm
Re: Harvard, C/O 2017, Applicants Thread (2013-2014)
i see what you're saying, but tons of admissions offices also hate when people post employment stats for their schools as well. that shouldn't matter to us, the more knowledge the better.almondjoy wrote:Don't get me wrong, I think all this stuff is great and is a big help but I think this is one of the reasons JS supposedly has a disdain for tls. I don't think adcoms like their process being broken down so much.lawschool22 wrote:Yeah I was just thinking about that. I definitely think we can learn a few things from that data, such as if you get a JS1, what are the odds of getting a JS2, based on your LSAT/GPA combo. I'll have to think about how exactly to do that.wtrc wrote:I'm sure it wouldn't be fully representative, but LS22, in a few months (at the end of the cycle) is it possible to break down the data in your spreadsheet to help determine this kind of stuff? Somebody that gets in could post a link to the spreadsheet in the Facebook group for HLS admits to increase the sample size.lawschool22 wrote:
Yeah I am sure the chances are not 70% across the board. There are certain people with JS1's who have a 99% chance of a JS2 (based on their numbers) and another portion of people who probably have less than 20% chance (based on their numbers), and obviously some who are on the bubble where the interview could make the difference between an admit/WL/deny.
It would be really interesting to get the data on this, but unfortunately that will probably never happen.
Want to continue reading?
Register now to search topics and post comments!
Absolutely FREE!
Already a member? Login
- wtrc
- Posts: 2053
- Joined: Mon May 30, 2011 9:37 pm
Re: Harvard, C/O 2017, Applicants Thread (2013-2014)
I think the problem isn't in the raw data but the interpretation of the data. For example, GULC being known as inferior to the other 13 schools in the top-tier might be inaccurate, since people are not allowing for the fact that a lot of people go to Georgetown not intending to be in big-law. Or when people say schools don't care about softs, which would be an assumption based on numbers alone, and the schools think this is an oversimplification (and it probably is, for the most part). I doubt schools really get upset by the aggregation as much as the interpretation, but this is just a guess, obviously.
- lawschool22
- Posts: 3875
- Joined: Thu Jul 25, 2013 5:47 pm
Re: Harvard, C/O 2017, Applicants Thread (2013-2014)
Yeah that's true. They probably don't like some of those "conventional wisdom" type things that get ingrained into the collective consciousness here. Hopefully the interpretation of the data in the spreadsheet is objective enough to not anger JS, since I want her to call mewtrc wrote:I think the problem isn't in the raw data but the interpretation of the data. For example, GULC being known as inferior to the other 13 schools in the top-tier might be inaccurate, since people are not allowing for the fact that a lot of people go to Georgetown not intending to be in big-law. Or when people say schools don't care about softs, which would be an assumption based on numbers alone, and the schools think this is an oversimplification (and it probably is, for the most part). I doubt schools really get upset by the aggregation as much as the interpretation, but this is just a guess, obviously.

-
- Posts: 1695
- Joined: Mon Feb 09, 2009 2:42 am
- almondjoy
- Posts: 288
- Joined: Sat Dec 07, 2013 1:35 am
Re: Harvard, C/O 2017, Applicants Thread (2013-2014)
+1lawschool22 wrote: Yeah that's true. They probably don't like some of those "conventional wisdom" type things that get ingrained into the collective consciousness here. Hopefully the interpretation of the data in the spreadsheet is objective enough to not anger JS, since I want her to call me
- lawschool22
- Posts: 3875
- Joined: Thu Jul 25, 2013 5:47 pm
Re: Harvard, C/O 2017, Applicants Thread (2013-2014)
Not much - just lots of anxious people ITTohpobrecito wrote:sup nerds
-
- Posts: 3971
- Joined: Fri Mar 16, 2012 7:01 pm
Re: Harvard, C/O 2017, Applicants Thread (2013-2014)
i love your tar so muchohpobrecito wrote:sup nerds
- everett2014
- Posts: 64
- Joined: Thu Jan 10, 2013 8:10 pm
Re: Harvard, C/O 2017, Applicants Thread (2013-2014)
I'm just going to pretend that you're *actually* Tom Daley coming to comfort me in these times of unending anxiety.ohpobrecito wrote:sup nerds
*swoon*
-
- Posts: 1695
- Joined: Mon Feb 09, 2009 2:42 am
Re: Harvard, C/O 2017, Applicants Thread (2013-2014)
I just might be...everett2014 wrote:I'm just going to pretend that you're *actually* Tom Daley coming to comfort me in these times of unending anxiety.ohpobrecito wrote:sup nerds
*swoon*

Register now!
Resources to assist law school applicants, students & graduates.
It's still FREE!
Already a member? Login
- wtrc
- Posts: 2053
- Joined: Mon May 30, 2011 9:37 pm
Re: Harvard, C/O 2017, Applicants Thread (2013-2014)
Plurality consensus on the poll is getting close to being proven untrue. Not giving up yet for today though.


-
- Posts: 1695
- Joined: Mon Feb 09, 2009 2:42 am
Re: Harvard, C/O 2017, Applicants Thread (2013-2014)
I love you so muchscoobers wrote:i love your tar so muchohpobrecito wrote:sup nerds

-
- Posts: 3971
- Joined: Fri Mar 16, 2012 7:01 pm
Re: Harvard, C/O 2017, Applicants Thread (2013-2014)
<3ohpobrecito wrote:I love you so muchscoobers wrote:i love your tar so muchohpobrecito wrote:sup nerds
-
- Posts: 1695
- Joined: Mon Feb 09, 2009 2:42 am
Re: Harvard, C/O 2017, Applicants Thread (2013-2014)
People are so sad in the Columbia thread right now, but it's not looking much better here.
Tis the season.

Tis the season.
Get unlimited access to all forums and topics
Register now!
I'm pretty sure I told you it's FREE...
Already a member? Login
- lawschool22
- Posts: 3875
- Joined: Thu Jul 25, 2013 5:47 pm
Re: Harvard, C/O 2017, Applicants Thread (2013-2014)
The problem is the plurality in the poll is always to choose the nearest optionwtrc wrote:Plurality consensus on the poll is getting close to being proven untrue. Not giving up yet for today though.

-
- Posts: 3971
- Joined: Fri Mar 16, 2012 7:01 pm
Re: Harvard, C/O 2017, Applicants Thread (2013-2014)
ohpobrecito wrote:People are so sad in the Columbia thread right now, but it's not looking much better here.![]()
Tis the season.

well, we are approaching the long dark of Christmas to New Years

and my predetermined "start thinking about a retake" moment
- lawschool22
- Posts: 3875
- Joined: Thu Jul 25, 2013 5:47 pm
Re: Harvard, C/O 2017, Applicants Thread (2013-2014)
There HAS to be a wave of JS2's before then...scoobers wrote:
well, we are approaching the long dark of Christmas to New Years
and my predetermined "start thinking about a retake" moment
- wtrc
- Posts: 2053
- Joined: Mon May 30, 2011 9:37 pm
Re: Harvard, C/O 2017, Applicants Thread (2013-2014)
No, this plurality was more disciplined- only chose the SECOND to nearest option!lawschool22 wrote:The problem is the plurality in the poll is always to choose the nearest optionwtrc wrote:Plurality consensus on the poll is getting close to being proven untrue. Not giving up yet for today though.

Communicate now with those who not only know what a legal education is, but can offer you worthy advice and commentary as you complete the three most educational, yet challenging years of your law related post graduate life.
Register now, it's still FREE!
Already a member? Login
-
- Posts: 3971
- Joined: Fri Mar 16, 2012 7:01 pm
Re: Harvard, C/O 2017, Applicants Thread (2013-2014)
wtrc get acknowledged in survivor i'm tired of blocking you already
- CitrusFruit
- Posts: 153
- Joined: Fri Oct 18, 2013 3:21 pm
Re: Harvard, C/O 2017, Applicants Thread (2013-2014)
I have a theory that the calls will come when lawschool22 stops posting.
- lawschool22
- Posts: 3875
- Joined: Thu Jul 25, 2013 5:47 pm
Re: Harvard, C/O 2017, Applicants Thread (2013-2014)
My ability to detect internet sarcasm vs. seriousness vs. humor right now is not working, so I'm not sure how to read this...CitrusFruit wrote:I have a theory that the calls will come when lawschool22 stops posting.
-
- Posts: 1695
- Joined: Mon Feb 09, 2009 2:42 am
Re: Harvard, C/O 2017, Applicants Thread (2013-2014)
Sounds to me like CitrusFruit wants to throw down.lawschool22 wrote:My ability to detect internet sarcasm vs. seriousness vs. humor right now is not working, so I'm not sure how to read this...CitrusFruit wrote:I have a theory that the calls will come when lawschool22 stops posting.
Seriously? What are you waiting for?
Now there's a charge.
Just kidding ... it's still FREE!
Already a member? Login