Columbia 2011! Forum

[r6_philly]

Idk I think her main point still stands: the number of people who update to "admitted" with numbers below 25ths is lower than it should be if the sample were representative, so it might lead us to be overly pessimistic.

Edit to add: I fully expect to eventually be rejected at Harvard, this is not me trying to find hope!

It is only accurate/valid for early admits. But if Columbia index and make decisions on stronger numbers first, then her theory doesn't stand because the lack of lower number admits are most likely due to timing rather than a far fetched idea that lower numbers have better softs.

[arism87]

I don't mean to discourage or encourage anyone, but I have met enough people over the years who were below median on LSAT and/or GPA who made it to Harvard and Columbia to think that LSN is overly pessimistic. (And that it is a self-selecting sample of people...)

Yale and Stanford, not so much (unless URM).

@CastleRock OK, excise the first sentence from my comment. Maybe people with the best softs are passionate and do post on these websites? I don't know that. But I still believe that enough of them must not because I don't see nearly enough admits in the bottom half/lower quartile on these graphs.

I have to say that I was playing with the idea of LS for a long time, finally found the right reasons, and didn't bother registering until very recently.

Actually, I kinda think the opposite. This is a TINY sample, but last year on LSN 2 people with my numbers were admitted to Yale and Stanford- only 1 to Harvard (despite the fact that Harvard admits way more people).

People without the numbers have a SLIM shot at any of the T3, but a hail mary is better at Y and S, I think.

[ahduth]

]
Lol, I still think you have a great shot, but that post was baseless and outright bullshit.

Oy. I think it's pretty clear that a lot of the non-numbers focused applicants do not post on or even care about LSN. We know from the school itself that 25% of the admits were at 169/170 or below (depending on cycle as the 25th percentile was 169 until 2009), and yet only 10% of the green dots on LSN are at those LSATs or below. Exactly what part of this (very simple) idea do you not understand?

You fail to account for the 20-25% people stuck at "pending".

I don't think it matters, does it? I'm only counting 131 accept/non-withdraws for 2009-2010 in LSN, which is like a third of their class right? LSN basically doesn't tell you.... very much at all I'm thinking.

I'm pretty warm to akikaze's angle that LSN leans towards stat-heavy/no-softs applicants.

I'd also love to hear CastleRock's rejoinder however, since they seem to know a lot about the topic. ("baseless and outright bullshit" was the quote I believe.)

[r6_philly]

I don't mean to discourage or encourage anyone, but I have met enough people over the years who were below median on LSAT and/or GPA who made it to Harvard and Columbia to think that LSN is overly pessimistic. (And that it is a self-selecting sample of people...)

Yale and Stanford, not so much (unless URM).

@CastleRock OK, excise the first sentence from my comment. Maybe people with the best softs are passionate and do post on these websites? I don't know that. But I still believe that enough of them must not because I don't see nearly enough admits in the bottom half/lower quartile on these graphs.

I have to say that I was playing with the idea of LS for a long time, finally found the right reasons, and didn't bother registering until very recently.

then why did you post anything? You were being condescending toward 1. everyone on LSN, and 2. everyone who doesn't agree with you.

To say something is "simple" when you don't really understand it is just ... well I think castlerock already told you.

[r6_philly]

Besides, Stats 101. LSN is not a good sample pool because it is self-selected, not random.

[ahduth]

Does someone have 2009-2010 25/50/75ths for Columbia handy? I'm about to give you LSN's.

[akikaze]

I don't mean to discourage or encourage anyone, but I have met enough people over the years who were below median on LSAT and/or GPA who made it to Harvard and Columbia to think that LSN is overly pessimistic. (And that it is a self-selecting sample of people...)

Yale and Stanford, not so much (unless URM).

@CastleRock OK, excise the first sentence from my comment. Maybe people with the best softs are passionate and do post on these websites? I don't know that. But I still believe that enough of them must not because I don't see nearly enough admits in the bottom half/lower quartile on these graphs.

I have to say that I was playing with the idea of LS for a long time, finally found the right reasons, and didn't bother registering until very recently.

then why did you post anything? You were being condescending toward 1. everyone on LSN, and 2. everyone who doesn't agree with you.

To say something is "simple" when you don't really understand it is just ... well I think castlerock already told you.

I am extremely sorry to everyone if anything I've said has sounded condescending -- I just felt a bit upset about having vulgarities slung at me with such alacrity. Everyone here is really smart and I've never tried to offend anyone. I only meant that there is a dissymmetry between the numbers Columbia puts out and the sample that we see on LSN.

I like your pic =]

[arism87]

Does someone have 2009-2010 25/50/75ths for Columbia handy? I'm about to give you LSN's.

170/172/175
3.61/3.72/3.82

[4102011]

--ImageRemoved--

The past few pages have not helped my head stop hurting :/

[whathojeeves]

--ImageRemoved--

The past few pages have not helped my head stop hurting :/

I hear whiskey is good for both the flu and TLS.

[WestOfTheRest]

I don't think it matters, does it? I'm only counting 131 accept/non-withdraws for 2009-2010 in LSN, which is like a third of their class right? LSN basically doesn't tell you.... very much at all I'm thinking.

I'm pretty warm to akikaze's angle that LSN leans towards stat-heavy/no-softs applicants.

I'd also love to hear CastleRock's rejoinder however, since they seem to know a lot about the topic. ("baseless and outright bullshit" was the quote I believe.)

I don't even know what you are trying to argue. I'm on a phone so I'm not going to continue this forever.

[justhoping]

to lighten up the mood here, how come so many (future) lawyers are cat-people? I would think there'd be more dog-people. or specifically TLSers are just lolcat-people?

[akikaze]

I don't think it matters, does it? I'm only counting 131 accept/non-withdraws for 2009-2010 in LSN, which is like a third of their class right? LSN basically doesn't tell you.... very much at all I'm thinking.

I'm pretty warm to akikaze's angle that LSN leans towards stat-heavy/no-softs applicants.

I'd also love to hear CastleRock's rejoinder however, since they seem to know a lot about the topic. ("baseless and outright bullshit" was the quote I believe.)

I don't even know what you are trying to argue. I'm on a phone so I'm not going to continue this forever.

Essentially this: that a website called lawschoolnumbers.com would attract a disproportionately numbers-strong sample from the total applicant pool. I retract any comments about the softs.

I'm heading out kids, but have a good evening! Best of luck and I'm sure everything will work out great for everyone!

[4102011]

to lighten up the mood here, how come so many (future) lawyers are cat-people? I would think there'd be more dog-people. or specifically TLSers are just lolcat-people?

I like kitties, but I'm allergic. Love lolcats because they're adorable. & have three dogs which are amazing

--ImageRemoved--

[ahduth]

Does someone have 2009-2010 25/50/75ths for Columbia handy? I'm about to give you LSN's.

170/172/175
3.61/3.72/3.82

Yay for spreadsheets!

172/173/176
3.67/3.8/3.82

So.... LSN looks to have systematically higher numbers than Columbia's actual attending class. I had to delete 5 people because they actually hadn't provide LSAT and/or GPAs, so that's 126 people from LSN 2009-2010.

What were we arguing about again?

Edit: oh god, I'm... rather allergic to cats. I stop breathing, bad scene.

[r6_philly]

I am extremely sorry to everyone if anything I've said has sounded condescending -- I just felt a bit upset about having vulgarities slung at me with such alacrity. Everyone here is really smart and I've never tried to offend anyone. I only meant that there is a dissymmetry between the numbers Columbia puts out and the sample that we see on LSN.

I like your pic =]

Well your comments made my son cry!!!



It's ok, we all like to argue right?

All you can prove is that the sample of LSN is not representative, but that's a given anyway because it's not a good sample. You can't prove one way or the other what the reason is. Saying most high numbers lack soft is a bit much (and I don't even have high numbers).

[r6_philly]

Stop trying to compare LSN to the 25/50/75, it is mathematically pointless.

[glitched]

to lighten up the mood here, how come so many (future) lawyers are cat-people? I would think there'd be more dog-people. or specifically TLSers are just lolcat-people?

I like kitties, but I'm allergic. Love lolcats because they're adorable. & have three dogs which are amazing

--ImageRemoved--

You're allergic to kittens.......?? oh life is ironic sometimes. I want a pet for LS.... but I don't think I'll have time to take care of it.

[WestOfTheRest]

I don't think it matters, does it? I'm only counting 131 accept/non-withdraws for 2009-2010 in LSN, which is like a third of their class right? LSN basically doesn't tell you.... very much at all I'm thinking.

I'm pretty warm to akikaze's angle that LSN leans towards stat-heavy/no-softs applicants.

I'd also love to hear CastleRock's rejoinder however, since they seem to know a lot about the topic. ("baseless and outright bullshit" was the quote I believe.)

I don't even know what you are trying to argue. I'm on a phone so I'm not going to continue this forever.

Essentially this: that a website called lawschoolnumbers.com would attract a disproportionately numbers-strong sample from the total applicant pool. I retract any comments about the softs.

I'm heading out kids, but have a good evening! Best of luck and I'm sure everything will work out great for everyone!

Lol, that cmoment wasn't directed to you. I appreciate that you recognize that you maybe stepped over a boundary. I'm sorry I was so direct to you, but there is a ton of nonesense on this site and every now and then it sets me off.

[r6_philly]

but there is a ton of nonesense on this site and every now and then it sets me off.

And me, for some strange reason.

[justhoping]

to lighten up the mood here, how come so many (future) lawyers are cat-people? I would think there'd be more dog-people. or specifically TLSers are just lolcat-people?

I like kitties, but I'm allergic. Love lolcats because they're adorable. & have three dogs which are amazing

--ImageRemoved--

these are your dogs? they are really cute!

[WestOfTheRest]

Does someone have 2009-2010 25/50/75ths for Columbia handy? I'm about to give you LSN's.

170/172/175
3.61/3.72/3.82

Yay for spreadsheets!

172/173/176
3.67/3.8/3.82

So.... LSN looks to have systematically higher numbers than Columbia's actual attending class. I had to delete 5 people because they actually hadn't provide LSAT and/or GPAs, so that's 126 people from LSN 2009-2010.

What were we arguing about again?

Edit: oh god, I'm... rather allergic to cats. I stop breathing, bad scene.

Of course it has higher numbers. You can reasonably assume that people with higher numbers are more likely to self-report simply because they are prouder of and more confident in their numbers. Other than that, you have provided no evidence to make any further claims.

[4102011]

That was them two years ago, being crazies they're pretty old now, though

[kazu]

Yay for spreadsheets!

172/173/176
3.67/3.8/3.82

So.... LSN looks to have systematically higher numbers than Columbia's actual attending class. I had to delete 5 people because they actually hadn't provide LSAT and/or GPAs, so that's 126 people from LSN 2009-2010.

What were we arguing about again?

Edit: oh god, I'm... rather allergic to cats. I stop breathing, bad scene.

I have no idea what the overall argument is about, but we should remember that acceptance =/= attendance. Of course the stats for the acceptances are going to be higher than that for the people who actually decide to enroll at that school - the higher #s probably ended up somewhere else (H, Y, S for CLS).

[vertex]

Just talked to my brother, no VCE here in the Bay Area, and I was admitted ED.... so that probably means they're just not all out to everyone yet.