Columbia c/o 2016 Applicants (2012-2013) Forum

[Lavitz]

So any advice on those of us who have heard nothing since going complete 3+ months ago?

Maybe we'll be unceremoniously reserved in April? http://lawschoolnumbers.com/PhilosophyOrLaw

Lovely.

[letsjustsee]

.

[02889]

So, sorry if this has already been discussed, but I am tired, did not want to read through all the recent pages, and I really just wanted to post this for the benefit of all. For those who were also recently Held or placed on Reserve, and you are interested in submitting a LOCI to Columbia, I found that the admissions Web site actually has a tool/form for doing so:

http://web.law.columbia.edu/admissions/ ... d-interest

Hope this helps some of you out there!

Thanks for linking that!

Clearly this is a school that is accustomed to putting everyone on Reserve and receiving thousands of LOCIs a year.

[Audeamus]

So, sorry if this has already been discussed, but I am tired, did not want to read through all the recent pages, and I really just wanted to post this for the benefit of all. For those who were also recently Held or placed on Reserve, and you are interested in submitting a LOCI to Columbia, I found that the admissions Web site actually has a tool/form for doing so:

http://web.law.columbia.edu/admissions/ ... d-interest

Hope this helps some of you out there!

You are awesome. Thanks for taking the time to post this!

[abcde12345]

We can quibble over what "all the time" means, but this certainly qualifies for me. A statistically significant number of people at or above Columbia's medians, are rejected every year. I.e., it happens every year, and it happens to 10% and 17% respectively, of two groups that met my criteria.

Interesting idea: make sure that you don't disagree over the definition of a term before you start trying to argue substance.

I don't see how 10% of the time "certainly" qualifies as "all the time." In fact, one of my arguments was that you were using hyperbole. This is an argument directly related to your definition, isn't it?

Also, this is counting WL as reject. Very, very few are outright rejected, which was your initial claim (they "deny" people all the time)--3 out of 326 for 173-177, 3.8-4.0 according to mylsn. I wouldn't say that counts as "all the time," but you might just adjust your definition, so I won't press the point.

[Crowing]

So any advice on those of us who have heard nothing since going complete 3+ months ago?

Maybe we'll be unceremoniously reserved in April? http://lawschoolnumbers.com/PhilosophyOrLaw

Lovely.

Well at least that dude decided not to go. Good for him, but probably not too comforting for everybody else.

[grapefruits]

We can quibble over what "all the time" means, but this certainly qualifies for me. A statistically significant number of people at or above Columbia's medians, are rejected every year. I.e., it happens every year, and it happens to 10% and 17% respectively, of two groups that met my criteria.

Interesting idea: make sure that you don't disagree over the definition of a term before you start trying to argue substance.

I don't see how 10% of the time "certainly" qualifies as "all the time." This sounds like an adjustment of definition to cover up hyperbole. Also, this is counting WL as reject. Very, very few are outright rejected, which was your initial claim (they "deny" people all the time)--3 out of 326 for 173-177, 3.8-4.0 according to mylsn. I wouldn't say that counts as "all the time," but you might just adjust your definition, so I won't press the point.

First, you left out the "for me" part. So if you are having a hard time seeing how it qualifies, please see where I wrote, "for me." Also, I would count WL as reject, for most purposes. Also, LSN doesn't paint a perfect picture, especially when we consider that people are less likely to report adverse outcomes in these types of self-selection databases. Don't get mad bruh, I can sense you're on the verge of getting mad.

[bfigsan]

hey filling out information for grant aid, I never received the financial aid questionnaire in the mail does anyone know how I can access this online?

Nope, it's not online. It's included in the spiral notebook of admitted student information that comes after NCE. Two green sheets towards the end of the book. I got it about 4 days after my NCE. If you haven't received it yet, I could call to ask them how to proceed.

It is in fact online, but you have to log into the admitted students web page and go the Financial Aid section.

[sinfiery]

To be fair, WL is generally assumed as a denial in LS applicant circles. Couple that with CLS having a higher waitlist to rejection ratio than probably any other school and you can fairly define a WL here as a denial.


But yeah, 10% can be considered a lot to some if you consider CLS has historically had, statistically, the most numbers based approach to admissions out of anyone in the t14.

[abcde12345]

First, you left out the "for me" part. So if you are having a hard time seeing how it qualifies, please see where I wrote, "for me." Also, I would count WL as reject, for most purposes. Also, LSN doesn't paint a perfect picture, especially when we consider that people are less likely to report adverse incomes in these types of self-selection databases. Don't get mad bruh, I can sense you're on the verge of getting mad.

Re-read my edited post. Also, you were giving advice to others. This advice depended on (what I consider) your hyperbolical take on "all the time." If your advice depended at all on your claim about rejects "all the time," your definition would presumably have to appeal to others. In other words, it would need to go beyond "for me." Or else why should we accept your argument?

I'll ignore the content of your last sentence. But I will say: this is a forum for people applying to law school--in other words, future professionals. If you want to argue with me, or give advice to others on this forum (which you presumed to do), you might want to think about doing it in a respectful and professional manner. Sure, you can troll if you want. Nobody's stopping you. But I would recommend thinking about if you're the kind of person who is ready for serious responsibility.

To be fair, WL is generally assumed as a denial in LS applicant circles. Couple that with CLS having a higher waitlist to rejection ratio than probably any other school and you can fairly define a WL here as a denial.


But yeah, 10% can be considered a lot to some if you consider CLS has historically had, statistically, the most numbers based approach to admissions out of anyone in the t14.

Right, but does this fit with his original argument, which was that such an above-median applicant is "more than likely, not the kind of person they're looking for"? Is someone on the WL a case of "not the kind of person they're looking for"? I wouldn't say that... To be fair, he said "at least not in a first round pick," which may cover these tracks. But remember, there are only a limited number of seats. How many people get WL'd because of this, above all? Probably a lot.

[grapefruits]

First, you left out the "for me" part. So if you are having a hard time seeing how it qualifies, please see where I wrote, "for me." Also, I would count WL as reject, for most purposes. Also, LSN doesn't paint a perfect picture, especially when we consider that people are less likely to report adverse incomes in these types of self-selection databases. Don't get mad bruh, I can sense you're on the verge of getting mad.

Re-read my edited post. Also, you were giving advice to others. This advice depended on (what I consider) your hyperbolical take on "all the time." If your advice depended at all on your claim about rejects "all the time," your definition would presumably have to appeal to others. In other words, it would need to go beyond "for me." Or else why should we accept your argument?

I'll ignore the content of your last sentence. But I will say: this is a forum for people applying to law school--in other words, future professionals. If you want to argue with me, or give advice to others on this forum (which you presumed to do), you might want to think about doing it in a respectful and professional manner. Sure, you can troll if you want. Nobody's stopping you. But I would recommend thinking about if you're the kind of person who is ready for serious responsibility.

Let me act super professional on a forum where my name is grapefruits and I'm talking to some guy representing himself as some other guy wearing a powdered wig. My advice was that people need to calm down; you haven't done a good job of proving that my basis for saying it was unfounded, but you have done a good job of outing yourself as an uptight loser. Go outside.

[sinfiery]

Didn't follow the whole argument, my bad.
"More than likely not" is infinitely harder to defend.

[abcde12345]

Let me act super professional on a forum where my name is grapefruits and I'm talking to some guy representing himself as some other guy wearing a powdered wig. My advice was that people need to calm down; you haven't done a good job of proving that my basis for saying it was unfounded, but you have done a good job of outing yourself as an uptight loser. Go outside.

Well, I wasn't trying to make a knockdown argument. I thought my point was pretty clear: 10% being "all the time" is questionable, and thus it is not clear to me that being very surprised is unreasonable (which was your point). That is all. I appreciate your argument, and I think that, by trolling, you brought some good perspective to this thread. Ultimately, I agree with your pessimism about special snowflakes (although your assumption that applications consistently and significantly reflect one's self is absurd; I'm assuming that's why you didn't bring it up for discussion either). If anything, thanks for giving me something to do while waiting for decisions to come back Good luck in your cycle (and I see you've had some already). And yes, I mean luck That's a large part of the process, after all.

[grapefruits]

Let me act super professional on a forum where my name is grapefruits and I'm talking to some guy representing himself as some other guy wearing a powdered wig. My advice was that people need to calm down; you haven't done a good job of proving that my basis for saying it was unfounded, but you have done a good job of outing yourself as an uptight loser. Go outside.

Well, I wasn't trying to make a knockdown argument. I thought my point was pretty clear: 10% being "all the time" is questionable, and thus it is not clear to me that being very surprised is unreasonable (which was your point). That is all. I appreciate your argument, and I think that, by trolling, you brought some good perspective to this thread. Ultimately, I agree with your pessimism about special snowflakes (although your assumption that applications consistently and significantly reflect one's self is absurd; I'm assuming that's why you didn't bring it up for discussion either). If anything, thanks for giving me something to do while waiting for decisions to come back Good luck in your cycle (and I see you've had some already). And yes, I mean luck That's a large part of the process, after all.

My point was that if something happens 10% of the time to people in situations similar to yourself, and you are just mind-blown that it happened to you, you think you are a special snowflake. Also, I made no assumption that applications "consistently and significantly reflect one's self;" reaching that must have taken a great deal of reading between the lines, and actually is a point that I don't agree with. What I said was something similar to, "you are not the type of person they are looking for at the time." Given the medium in which I published my comment, I didn't expect that it would need a great deal of defense, with a bit of foresight, I should have known otherwise. That particular portion of my comment was referring to all and any of an applicant's characteristics other than his/her LSAT and GPA. I suppose that could include things like personality if they were effectively conveyed, but to think that that comment was anywhere near the claim that you accused me of, is kind of absurd.

Anyhow, I appreciate your matureish response to being called a loser, and hope we can just put this behind us and go about our lives. You can have the kids, and the furniture, I'll just take whatever is left in the fridge.

[Jakers3000]

Please shut up. You both lose.

[abcde12345]

Please shut up. You both lose.

Uh, isn't that what we just did? That was a pretty bad second post dude. I've made enough posts that I can afford to go on a posting shitstorm like I just did yet keep my proportion of good/bad posts decent. Considering that your other post was a Stanford status checker post, you're 0 for 2.

[jselson]

Personally, I like the idea that CLS has given out all their Hammies/Buylers and is YPing HYS-likely folks to see if dat LOCI comes in.

[TripTrip]

Personally, I like the idea that CLS has given out all their Hammies/Buylers and is YPing HYS-likely folks to see if dat LOCI comes in.

Or is waiting to recycle the scholarships on the holds. Let's go with that.

[jselson]

Personally, I like the idea that CLS has given out all their Hammies/Buylers and is YPing HYS-likely folks to see if dat LOCI comes in.

Or is waiting to recycle the scholarships on the holds. Let's go with that.

I was thinking holds as part of the YP, so yeah, def.

[wisteria]

So any advice on those of us who have heard nothing since going complete 3+ months ago?

+1

+2

[ph5354a]

I havnt been held or anything but I never wrote a why Columbia. Should I send one in now?

I'm guessing if you weren't held, then they already know what they're going to do with you (and I doubt it's a rejection), because if they didn't, then they would've held you ...right? Though logic may not play as much of a role in this as I assume. Either way, I don't think a Why Columbia would hurt, I would just make sure to save something for a LOCI in case you need it, which seems unlikely.

[you'rethemannowdawg]

I was part of the Heldfest a few days ago. I currently work full time, so I don't have any big accomplishments like promotions, grades, LSAT, etc. Should I write a LOCI that simply reiterates my interest in Columbia? I didn't submit any supplemental essays with the application.

[HawkeyeGirl]

I was part of the Heldfest a few days ago. I currently work full time, so I don't have any big accomplishments like promotions, grades, LSAT, etc. Should I write a LOCI that simply reiterates my interest in Columbia? I didn't submit any supplemental essays with the application.

In the same boat, that's what I was going to do this weekend.

[MacB]

Please shut up. You both lose.

Uh, isn't that what we just did? That was a pretty bad second post dude. I've made enough posts that I can afford to go on a posting shitstorm like I just did yet keep my proportion of good/bad posts decent. Considering that your other post was a Stanford status checker post, you're 0 for 2.

...I liked dat.

[sd1234]

are we expected a new round of NCEs soon, or not for a while?