Columbia 2011! Forum

[forward]

Haha looking at the LSN graph, they reserved a bunch of 170's. I wonder why then are a bunch of 168/169's held? I don't understand CLS's tactics.

Many - with you as a notable exception - are sub 3.8. Perhaps the 168/169 holds are compelling and high GPA? There's some speculation CLS may desire to up its GPA median, possibly to combat any effects of the Ruby's at UChi.

[law_monkey]

Haha looking at the LSN graph, they reserved a bunch of 170's. I wonder why then are a bunch of 168/169's held? I don't understand CLS's tactics.

I don't think they have tactics this cycle. They're just drawing names out of hats and assigning people with decisions. I can't even begin to guess what to expect anymore since the URMs with better numbers than me got held. The ones with lower numbers than me got held/waitlisted/a couple acceptances (and actually the only URM acceptances on LSN have been splitters). And a few of us with mediocre numbers are just forgotten. I think we can all just kind of give up trying to predict what's going on here.

[WestOfTheRest]

I'm still forgotten. Mail should be here this week (hopefully) for anything sent during the first wave.

[math101]

Haha looking at the LSN graph, they reserved a bunch of 170's. I wonder why then are a bunch of 168/169's held? I don't understand CLS's tactics.

Good question. I am in the 169 held batch (3.7x GPA). My numbers are nowhere near their medians, so I assume I'm headed for a ding.

[kazu]

Haha looking at the LSN graph, they reserved a bunch of 170's. I wonder why then are a bunch of 168/169's held? I don't understand CLS's tactics.

Good question. I am in the 169 held batch (3.7x GPA). My numbers are nowhere near their medians, so I assume I'm headed for a ding.

IS THAT A SAILOR MERCURY TAR???

[math101]

IS THAT A SAILOR MERCURY TAR???

Haha, yes it is! Favorite cartoon growing up.

[kazu]

IS THAT A SAILOR MERCURY TAR???

Haha, yes it is! Favorite cartoon growing up.

Me too!!!!

That is def. going to be my next tar. Do you mind if I copy you? I promise to go w/ a different Sailor though!

[Ikki]

I went complete in late November and haven't heard anything yet, should I be worried? URM 3.5 167

[law_monkey]

I went complete in late November and haven't heard anything yet, should I be worried? URM 3.5 167

There are several of us who applied earlier than that and haven't heard anything. Speculation is that we're either getting an acceptance or rejection in the mail soon since if we were held/WL we would've got the email already. But that's not for certain.

[plurilingue]

.

[jrose5]

Haha looking at the LSN graph, they reserved a bunch of 170's. I wonder why then are a bunch of 168/169's held? I don't understand CLS's tactics.

I mean, it's a bit presumptuous to assume that everyone with a 168/169 is an auto-reject based on a sub-25th LSAT -- and not just because a lot of those candidates had extremely high GPAs. And I've already communicated with two people on TLS who have 166/167 scores and were admitted (not URM) because they had stellar applications otherwise. (An excellent PS or good softs can be compelling for the admissions committee.)

So in other words, those 170s might have had comparatively lacking applications...

+1
These forums have led me to believe that TLSers believe in numbers a little too much.

[Ikki]

I went complete in late November and haven't heard anything yet, should I be worried? URM 3.5 167

There are several of us who applied earlier than that and haven't heard anything. Speculation is that we're either getting an acceptance or rejection in the mail soon since if we were held/WL we would've got the email already. But that's not for certain.

So a definitely maybe

[Ikki]

And I've already communicated with two people on TLS who have 166/167 scores and were admitted (not URM) because they had stellar applications otherwise. (An excellent PS or good softs can be compelling for the admissions committee.)

Wow, what were their GPAs?

[plurilingue]

.

[jrose5]

These forums have led me to believe that TLSers believe in numbers a little too much.

Absolutely. With pretty much every school -- but Stanford and Columbia most -- there are a LOT of people who get in with sub-170 scores (by definition almost 25% of matriculants at Columbia and almost 50% at Stanford) and yet LSN/TLS show virtually none of them. We're only getting part of the picture here.

Also, since schools only publish the 25/50/75 numbers, you really don't know exactly how low the sub-25th LSAT admits go -- I personally know one girl who had some exceptional circumstances, an unusually interesting life story, etc. and was admitted to Columbia with a 15X score last cycle.

The way I see it is (and this is pure speculation), the vast majority of applicants don't have the extracurricular credentials or work experience to exempt them from a sub median LSAT/GPA... despite the fact that a lot of TLSers like to claim that they have "super softs," the fact is, tons of other people have been highly active individuals throughout college. Even being president of a club, for example, is probably not a game-changer (unless it was SGA president, then maybe). Hence, adcomms focus on numbers for the vast majority of applicants... but don't mistakenly believe from that, that they are focused exclusively on numbers.

[glitched]

The way I see it is (and this is pure speculation), the vast majority of applicants don't have the extracurricular credentials or work experience to exempt them from a sub median LSAT/GPA... despite the fact that a lot of TLSers like to claim that they have "super softs," the fact is, tons of other people have been highly active individuals throughout college. Even being president of a club, for example, is probably not a game-changer (unless it was SGA president, then maybe). Hence, adcomms focus on numbers for the vast majority of applicants... but don't mistakenly believe from that, that they are focused exclusively on numbers.

Most TLS users actually claim they have average softs (because if you've been here long enough, someone will tell you that everything you do is average until you get a 173+). From just what I've seen, the only people that claim to have "great softs, LoRs, and PS" are people with below median numbers.

In my opinion, the only great softs are anything that will provide diversity or a proven track record of success. that's just me though.

[Confused7]

Sometimes a high GPA isn't enough to offput a "mediocre" LSAT either. Who knows how adcomms really do their job? For the record, my GPA is 4.04 and have been lacking CLS love.

[jrose5]

The way I see it is (and this is pure speculation), the vast majority of applicants don't have the extracurricular credentials or work experience to exempt them from a sub median LSAT/GPA... despite the fact that a lot of TLSers like to claim that they have "super softs," the fact is, tons of other people have been highly active individuals throughout college. Even being president of a club, for example, is probably not a game-changer (unless it was SGA president, then maybe). Hence, adcomms focus on numbers for the vast majority of applicants... but don't mistakenly believe from that, that they are focused exclusively on numbers.

Most TLS users actually claim they have average softs (because if you've been here long enough, someone will tell you that everything you do is average until you get a 173+). From just what I've seen, the only people that claim to have "great softs, LoRs, and PS" are people with below median numbers.

In my opinion, the only great softs are anything that will provide diversity or a proven track record of success. that's just me though.

Really? I didn't notice that actually.
I agree with the comment after that, though.

[starrydreamz3]

I think my cycle is proof that TFA/Peace Corp/Military experience are not the only softs that will make you stand out in a crowd. I think I've out-preformed my numbers and I have none of those on my resume.

[QuailMan]

These forums have led me to believe that TLSers believe in numbers a little too much.

Absolutely. With pretty much every school -- but Stanford and Columbia most -- there are a LOT of people who get in with sub-170 scores (by definition almost 25% of matriculants at Columbia and almost 50% at Stanford) and yet LSN/TLS show virtually none of them. We're only getting part of the picture here.

Also, since schools only publish the 25/50/75 numbers, you really don't know exactly how low the sub-25th LSAT admits go -- I personally know one girl who had some exceptional circumstances, an unusually interesting life story, etc. and was admitted to Columbia with a 15X score last cycle.

This is a fallacy, just b/c the median is 170 does not mean that 50% of people score 169 or less. It could mean that 170 is the lowest score they accept, but more than half the class has it.

180-180-180-175-175-175-170-170-170-170-170-170-170-170-170-170-168-154

180-180-180-175-175-175-170-170-170-170-169-169-168-168-168-168-165-154

Both of those classes have a median of 170.

[jrose5]

These forums have led me to believe that TLSers believe in numbers a little too much.

Absolutely. With pretty much every school -- but Stanford and Columbia most -- there are a LOT of people who get in with sub-170 scores (by definition almost 25% of matriculants at Columbia and almost 50% at Stanford) and yet LSN/TLS show virtually none of them. We're only getting part of the picture here.

Also, since schools only publish the 25/50/75 numbers, you really don't know exactly how low the sub-25th LSAT admits go -- I personally know one girl who had some exceptional circumstances, an unusually interesting life story, etc. and was admitted to Columbia with a 15X score last cycle.

This is a fallacy, just b/c the median is 170 does not mean that 50% of people score 169 or less. It could mean that 170 is the lowest score they accept, but more than half the class has it.

180-180-180-175-175-175-170-170-170-170-170-170-170-170-170-170-168-154

180-180-180-175-175-175-170-170-170-170-169-169-168-168-168-168-165-154

Both of those classes have a median of 170.

As a former stats tutor, I feel ashamed for having forgotten that.

[bdubs]

I think my cycle is proof that TFA/Peace Corp/Military experience are not the only softs that will make you stand out in a crowd. I think I've out-preformed my numbers and I have none of those on my resume.

A 4.0 GPA is a damn good "number" to have.

[r6_philly]

Haha looking at the LSN graph, they reserved a bunch of 170's. I wonder why then are a bunch of 168/169's held? I don't understand CLS's tactics.

I mean, it's a bit presumptuous to assume that everyone with a 168/169 is an auto-reject based on a sub-25th LSAT -- and not just because a lot of those candidates had extremely high GPAs. And I've already communicated with two people on TLS who have 166/167 scores and were admitted (not URM) because they had stellar applications otherwise. (An excellent PS or good softs can be compelling for the admissions committee.)

So in other words, those 170s might have had comparatively lacking applications...

Your post is full of assumptions.

[cardinals1989]

I think my cycle is proof that TFA/Peace Corp/Military experience are not the only softs that will make you stand out in a crowd. I think I've out-preformed my numbers and I have none of those on my resume.

Completely agree with this post!

[jrose5]

I think my cycle is proof that TFA/Peace Corp/Military experience are not the only softs that will make you stand out in a crowd. I think I've out-preformed my numbers and I have none of those on my resume.

You also have a kickass GPA, though... congrats on the awesome cycle!!

May I ask what your softs were? PM if you don't feel like posting here (or don't, if you don't want to share at all, whichever ).