Stanford Law School 2011 Applicants (Pics) Forum

[The Real Jack McCoy]

If this is stays true to our cycle, and I think it has more or less, there should be more acceptances coming in the next couple of weeks, although not a huge number. And a big waitlist wave haha.

The yellow scares me, but the red scares me A LOT MORE.

In the second week of April, I see 7-8 greens, which should be more than enough to cover the regulars on here (and hopefully before ASW )

If you count the greens for the whole graph, I get 55. Since we know they admit 200, I think we can safely say that 25+ people were admitted in the next few weeks last year.

I had a quick glance at last year''s LSN data. 50 of the acceptances had a reported decision date. 12 of those acceptances have a decision date later than today. So if that is any kind of guide, Stanford leaves a little less than 25% of their acceptances for the second review.

I'm sure some of you will be hearing. Good luck.

Edit: 2009 data was 43 acceptances with a decision date, and 11 of those 43 with a date later than today (they start the 24th). So I think the 25% figure is a good estimate, unless LSN has a strange reporting bias.

[Vuvuzela!!!]

I had a quick glance at last year''s LSN data. 50 of the acceptances had a reported decision date. 12 of those acceptances have a decision date later than today. So if that is any kind of guide, Stanford leaves a little less than 25% of their acceptances for the second review.

I'm sure some of you will be hearing. Good luck.

Edit: 2009 data was 43 acceptances with a decision date, and 11 of those 43 with a date later than today (they start the 24th). So I think the 25% figure is a good estimate, unless LSN has a strange reporting bias.[/quote]

There are 34 acceptances on LSN for this year. Do you think that number fits with your stats?

[bdubs]

I had a quick glance at last year''s LSN data. 50 of the acceptances had a reported decision date. 12 of those acceptances have a decision date later than today. So if that is any kind of guide, Stanford leaves a little less than 25% of their acceptances for the second review.

I'm sure some of you will be hearing. Good luck.

Edit: 2009 data was 43 acceptances with a decision date, and 11 of those 43 with a date later than today (they start the 24th). So I think the 25% figure is a good estimate, unless LSN has a strange reporting bias.

LSN seems to be biased toward applicants with high numbers.

Edit: It's possible for LSN to represent an unbiased cross section of Stanford admits, but it seems unlikely to me.

[d34d9823]

I had a quick glance at last year''s LSN data. 50 of the acceptances had a reported decision date. 12 of those acceptances have a decision date later than today. So if that is any kind of guide, Stanford leaves a little less than 25% of their acceptances for the second review.

I'm sure some of you will be hearing. Good luck.

Edit: 2009 data was 43 acceptances with a decision date, and 11 of those 43 with a date later than today (they start the 24th). So I think the 25% figure is a good estimate, unless LSN has a strange reporting bias.

LSN seems to be biased toward applicants with high numbers. There are too few acceptances below Stanford's medians for it to be an unbiased sample.

People sitting around on their computers tend to have worse softs?

[The Real Jack McCoy]

I had a quick glance at last year''s LSN data. 50 of the acceptances had a reported decision date. 12 of those acceptances have a decision date later than today. So if that is any kind of guide, Stanford leaves a little less than 25% of their acceptances for the second review.

I'm sure some of you will be hearing. Good luck.

Edit: 2009 data was 43 acceptances with a decision date, and 11 of those 43 with a date later than today (they start the 24th). So I think the 25% figure is a good estimate, unless LSN has a strange reporting bias.

LSN seems to be biased toward applicants with high numbers. There are too few acceptances below Stanford's medians for it to be an unbiased sample.

Sure, it is a biased sample in terms of numbers (though a lot of that has to do with the fact that it tracks acceptances and not who matriculates where), but I'm not sure if it is with regards to decision dates. And if there is a bias, I actually think the bias would tend in the other direction. I'd expect the numerically stronger applicants to be accepted earlier in the cycle than later, meaning even more than 25% of the acceptances pre-waitlists were still to be given out.

Take it for what it is worth, I was just curious.

[txl]

I had a quick glance at last year''s LSN data. 50 of the acceptances had a reported decision date. 12 of those acceptances have a decision date later than today. So if that is any kind of guide, Stanford leaves a little less than 25% of their acceptances for the second review.

I'm sure some of you will be hearing. Good luck.

Edit: 2009 data was 43 acceptances with a decision date, and 11 of those 43 with a date later than today (they start the 24th). So I think the 25% figure is a good estimate, unless LSN has a strange reporting bias.

Thinking optimistically here:

If LSN skews towards higher numbers, which perhaps have a skew towards *earlier* acceptance dates than the acceptance pool as a whole, then perhaps *more* than the proportionate share (25% or whatever) of acceptances could be coming in the next couple of weeks?

Also not sure this makes sense. Hmm...

Ninja edit: looks like the guy above me beat me to the punch...

[Vuvuzela!!!]

I had a quick glance at last year''s LSN data. 50 of the acceptances had a reported decision date. 12 of those acceptances have a decision date later than today. So if that is any kind of guide, Stanford leaves a little less than 25% of their acceptances for the second review.

I'm sure some of you will be hearing. Good luck.

Edit: 2009 data was 43 acceptances with a decision date, and 11 of those 43 with a date later than today (they start the 24th). So I think the 25% figure is a good estimate, unless LSN has a strange reporting bias.

Thinking optimistically here:

If LSN skews towards higher numbers, which perhaps have a skew towards *earlier* acceptance dates than the acceptance pool as a whole, then perhaps *more* than the proportionate share (25% or whatever) of acceptances could be coming in the next couple of weeks?

Also not sure this makes sense. Hmm...

Ninja edit: looks like the guy above me beat me to the punch...

According to the ABA data on the LSAC website, SLS made 373 offers to 4,082 applicants last year. Right now 34 out of 375 applicants on LSN have been admitted. Clearly LSN skews to the more qualified applicants, because I really doubt SLS has made 340+ offers...

[forward]

I had a quick glance at last year''s LSN data. 50 of the acceptances had a reported decision date. 12 of those acceptances have a decision date later than today. So if that is any kind of guide, Stanford leaves a little less than 25% of their acceptances for the second review.

I'm sure some of you will be hearing. Good luck.

Edit: 2009 data was 43 acceptances with a decision date, and 11 of those 43 with a date later than today (they start the 24th). So I think the 25% figure is a good estimate, unless LSN has a strange reporting bias.

Thinking optimistically here:

If LSN skews towards higher numbers, which perhaps have a skew towards *earlier* acceptance dates than the acceptance pool as a whole, then perhaps *more* than the proportionate share (25% or whatever) of acceptances could be coming in the next couple of weeks?

Also not sure this makes sense. Hmm...

Ninja edit: looks like the guy above me beat me to the punch...

According to the ABA data on the LSAC website, SLS made 373 offers to 4,082 applicants last year. Right now 34 out of 375 applicants on LSN have been admitted. Clearly LSN skews to the more qualified applicants, because I really doubt SLS has made 340+ offers...

Not to be nit-picky, but at SLS, having higher numbers doesn't make one more qualified. It simply makes one a candidate with higher numbers. It isn't Harvard. A 180 means nothing if softs are terrible.

[Vuvuzela!!!]

I had a quick glance at last year''s LSN data. 50 of the acceptances had a reported decision date. 12 of those acceptances have a decision date later than today. So if that is any kind of guide, Stanford leaves a little less than 25% of their acceptances for the second review.

I'm sure some of you will be hearing. Good luck.

Edit: 2009 data was 43 acceptances with a decision date, and 11 of those 43 with a date later than today (they start the 24th). So I think the 25% figure is a good estimate, unless LSN has a strange reporting bias.

Thinking optimistically here:

If LSN skews towards higher numbers, which perhaps have a skew towards *earlier* acceptance dates than the acceptance pool as a whole, then perhaps *more* than the proportionate share (25% or whatever) of acceptances could be coming in the next couple of weeks?

Also not sure this makes sense. Hmm...

Ninja edit: looks like the guy above me beat me to the punch...

According to the ABA data on the LSAC website, SLS made 373 offers to 4,082 applicants last year. Right now 34 out of 375 applicants on LSN have been admitted. Clearly LSN skews to the more qualified applicants, because I really doubt SLS has made 340+ offers...

Not to be nit-picky, but at SLS, having higher numbers doesn't make one more qualified. It simply makes one a candidate with higher numbers. It isn't Harvard. A 180 means nothing if softs are terrible.

That's why I said "more qualified" and not "higher numbers"

[The Real Jack McCoy]

I had a quick glance at last year''s LSN data. 50 of the acceptances had a reported decision date. 12 of those acceptances have a decision date later than today. So if that is any kind of guide, Stanford leaves a little less than 25% of their acceptances for the second review.

I'm sure some of you will be hearing. Good luck.

Edit: 2009 data was 43 acceptances with a decision date, and 11 of those 43 with a date later than today (they start the 24th). So I think the 25% figure is a good estimate, unless LSN has a strange reporting bias.

Thinking optimistically here:

If LSN skews towards higher numbers, which perhaps have a skew towards *earlier* acceptance dates than the acceptance pool as a whole, then perhaps *more* than the proportionate share (25% or whatever) of acceptances could be coming in the next couple of weeks?

Also not sure this makes sense. Hmm...

Ninja edit: looks like the guy above me beat me to the punch...

According to the ABA data on the LSAC website, SLS made 373 offers to 4,082 applicants last year. Right now 34 out of 375 applicants on LSN have been admitted. Clearly LSN skews to the more qualified applicants, because I really doubt SLS has made 340+ offers...

Yes, it does skew to accepted applicants (I know a few people who don't disclose the schools that don't accept them), but it isn't as bad as it looks if you expand the discussion to previous cycles. A lot of people don't disclose their info until after the cycle is over, and these later additions tend to add more waitlists/rejections (proportionally) than acceptances. And it was the previous cycle data I was looking at.

In any event, my main point wasn't to come up with an exact percentage but to show there was a substantial chunk of the class yet to fill. For that not to be the case we'd have to have a reason to suggest that LSN greatly overreports those who are admitted post-March 22nd. I can't think of a plausible reason why that would be the case.

[bdubs]

I had a quick glance at last year''s LSN data. 50 of the acceptances had a reported decision date. 12 of those acceptances have a decision date later than today. So if that is any kind of guide, Stanford leaves a little less than 25% of their acceptances for the second review.

I'm sure some of you will be hearing. Good luck.

Edit: 2009 data was 43 acceptances with a decision date, and 11 of those 43 with a date later than today (they start the 24th). So I think the 25% figure is a good estimate, unless LSN has a strange reporting bias.

LSN seems to be biased toward applicants with high numbers. There are too few acceptances below Stanford's medians for it to be an unbiased sample.

Sure, it is a biased sample in terms of numbers (though a lot of that has to do with the fact that it tracks acceptances and not who matriculates where), but I'm not sure if it is with regards to decision dates. And if there is a bias, I actually think the bias would tend in the other direction. I'd expect the numerically stronger applicants to be accepted earlier in the cycle than later, meaning even more than 25% of the acceptances pre-waitlists were still to be given out.

Take it for what it is worth, I was just curious.

Yeah, I was suggesting that the number of acceptances yet to be delivered is higher than 25%. I think LSN skews more toward straight out of undergrad, "traditional" applicants. That is my hypothesis as to why Stanford seems to be biased towards higher numbers on LSN.

[Vuvuzela!!!]

I had a quick glance at last year''s LSN data. 50 of the acceptances had a reported decision date. 12 of those acceptances have a decision date later than today. So if that is any kind of guide, Stanford leaves a little less than 25% of their acceptances for the second review.

I'm sure some of you will be hearing. Good luck.

Edit: 2009 data was 43 acceptances with a decision date, and 11 of those 43 with a date later than today (they start the 24th). So I think the 25% figure is a good estimate, unless LSN has a strange reporting bias.

LSN seems to be biased toward applicants with high numbers. There are too few acceptances below Stanford's medians for it to be an unbiased sample.

Sure, it is a biased sample in terms of numbers (though a lot of that has to do with the fact that it tracks acceptances and not who matriculates where), but I'm not sure if it is with regards to decision dates. And if there is a bias, I actually think the bias would tend in the other direction. I'd expect the numerically stronger applicants to be accepted earlier in the cycle than later, meaning even more than 25% of the acceptances pre-waitlists were still to be given out.

Take it for what it is worth, I was just curious.

Yeah, I was suggesting that the number of acceptances yet to be delivered is higher than 25%. I think LSN skews more toward straight out of undergrad, "traditional" applicants. That is my hypothesis as to why Stanford seems to be biased towards higher numbers on LSN.

I'm with you that there are more than 90 acceptances left. Look at the 25-50-75 percentiles that SLS reported last year, then look at who has been accepted on LSN. The accepted folks all have incredible numbers. SLS has to get the bottom half of their class from somewhere...

[d34d9823]

I'm with you that there are more than 90 acceptances left. Look at the 25-50-75 percentiles that SLS reported last year, then look at who has been accepted on LSN. The accepted folks all have incredible numbers. SLS has to get the bottom half of their class from somewhere...

Yeah, but 30% of the class is URM and a large portion of the URM candidates fall in the lower numbers areas.

[juliachild-ish]

I was feeling really down about my chances at Stanford this late...until today's discussion! I love that the Stanford thread is such a beacon of [statistics-reinforced] optimism.

[Vuvuzela!!!]

I'm with you that there are more than 90 acceptances left. Look at the 25-50-75 percentiles that SLS reported last year, then look at who has been accepted on LSN. The accepted folks all have incredible numbers. SLS has to get the bottom half of their class from somewhere...

Yeah, but 30% of the class is URM and a large portion of the URM candidates fall in the lower numbers areas.

The ABA data says 33%--or 59--entering students were minorities, but 8 were Asian Americans, since we're stereotyping...

[fish52]

I'm with you that there are more than 90 acceptances left. Look at the 25-50-75 percentiles that SLS reported last year, then look at who has been accepted on LSN. The accepted folks all have incredible numbers. SLS has to get the bottom half of their class from somewhere...

Yeah, but 30% of the class is URM and a large portion of the URM candidates fall in the lower numbers areas.

The ABA data says 33%--or 59--entering students were minorities, but 8 were Asian Americans, since we're stereotyping...

I don't think d34dluk3 was stereotyping... the URM applicant/admitted pool has lower numbers... that's a fact. And the comment helps to explain where most of the sub-median admits come from. No reason to give false hope to non-URMs with sub-median numbers (incl myself)... admission is still a possibility, but I think it is an incorrect inference to look at the lack of low # admits on LSN and say that there is still a lot of room for us. In other words, if you are white you need to have high numbers, the lower 50% of the class (numbers-wise) is mostly made up of URMs. I think that is in keeping with existing LSAC data on the race gap.

[JeremyPaul]

well, here's my delusional fantasy for the day: i'm choosing to believe that stanford under-admitted in its earlier reviews because they expected more applications to come, but when the overall cycle proved to have apps down at 2001 levels, they've been left with fewer applicants per admit slot than usual. hopefully this cancels out any disadvantage of being a january lsat taker. sure stanford always gets more quality applicants than there are admission slots, but that doesn't mean there isn't a more favorable ratio this year.

makes perfect self-serving sense, yes?

[Knock]

well, here's my delusional fantasy for the day: i'm choosing to believe that stanford under-admitted in its earlier reviews because they expected more applications to come, but when the overall cycle proved to have apps down at 2001 levels, they've been left with fewer applicants per admit slot than usual. hopefully this cancels out any disadvantage of being a january lsat taker. sure stanford always gets more quality applicants than there are admission slots, but that doesn't mean there isn't a more favorable ratio this year.

makes perfect self-serving sense, yes?

You should write a book.

[aesis]

This could be helpful. Spreadsheet for folks who haven't received the dreaded DLS.

Form: https://spreadsheets.google.com/viewfor ... cFBGeGc6MQ

Responses: https://spreadsheets0.google.com/ccc?ke ... PFxg#gid=0

Bump

Bump

[txl]

This could be helpful. Spreadsheet for folks who haven't received the dreaded DLS.

Form: https://spreadsheets.google.com/viewfor ... cFBGeGc6MQ

Responses: https://spreadsheets0.google.com/ccc?ke ... PFxg#gid=0

Bump

Bump

Are people (and the creator of this form) averse to putting lsat/gpa #'s on this spreadsheet? I'd be interested...

[ew4877a]

DSL'd today. Huge reach for me so I'm not too bummed. However, my data is still in the spreadsheet of people who are still alive at Stanford. Is there a way to remove it?

[r6_philly]

People sitting around on their computers tend to have worse softs?

You lucky I wasn't around to argue this.

[Knock]

People sitting around on their computers tend to have worse softs?

You lucky I wasn't around to argue this.

Too busy having amazing softs I guess .

[fish52]

I really do wish that it would email us with our DLS.... it's so cruel and unusual to make us constantly refresh our status checker. I'm knocking years off my life with this nonsense!

[cardinals1989]

People sitting around on their computers tend to have worse softs?

You lucky I wasn't around to argue this.

Too busy having amazing softs I guess .