UCLA? Forum

[finalaspects]

I went complete 10/19, have a 171 3.75, and have not heard anything from UCLA yet either. I am hoping that doesn't mean we are heading for waitlist/rejection territory. I am from the West and would love an option of staying somewhat close to home.

Yuppers, I'm in the same boat (higher GPA, 170 LSAT). Heard nothing since getting the complete email 10/16.

I don't think you guys should be worried at all... unless they believe you guys are going elsewhere and yield protect.

I think UCLA is busy with getting through all the ED applicants now, than they'll start worrying about RD.

[finalaspects]

they just waitlisted a splitter w/ a 170 and 2.99....

ouch.... just noticed this too... i guess they don't want all splitters... my light is getting dimmer and dimmer.

I thought they didn't want any?

they accept a few... even reverse splitters actually... but until my rejection letter or waitlist email comes i will have hope..

(watch they already sent my rejection letter to my permanent address, and i don't know)

[rondemarino]

they just waitlisted a splitter w/ a 170 and 2.99....

ouch.... just noticed this too... i guess they don't want all splitters... my light is getting dimmer and dimmer.

Interesting. I wonder if going complete and sending the application after the deadline had any effect.

[lateforthesky16]

just waitlisted by email. ED, 168/3.46. Good luck to those of you still waiting

[finalaspects]

just waitlisted by email. ED, 168/3.46. Good luck to those of you still waiting

oh god... you have a higher lsat and gpa than i do... sigh wonder why they're not just sending me a rejection letter or an waitlist email yet...

[lateforthesky16]

just waitlisted by email. ED, 168/3.46. Good luck to those of you still waiting

oh god... you have a higher lsat and gpa than i do... sigh wonder why they're not just sending me a rejection letter or an waitlist email yet...

I'm sure you'll do great. hope you hear some good news soon

[rondemarino]

just waitlisted by email. ED, 168/3.46. Good luck to those of you still waiting

Can I assume these are your true numbers? As opposed to the 169/3.39 on LSN? I ask because I think a 169, who went complete in time, getting WLed would worry me.

[lateforthesky16]

just waitlisted by email. ED, 168/3.46. Good luck to those of you still waiting

Can I assume these are your true numbers? As opposed to the 169/3.39 on LSN? I ask because I think a 169, who went complete in time, getting WLed would worry me.

yep my true numbers are 168/3.46 I'll be pissed if the ED cutoff is 168/3.5! (but I won't be surprised haha)

[Mosca]

just waitlisted by email. ED, 168/3.46. Good luck to those of you still waiting

Sorry to hear that. Do you plan on riding it out?

[rondemarino]

just waitlisted by email. ED, 168/3.46. Good luck to those of you still waiting

Can I assume these are your true numbers? As opposed to the 169/3.39 on LSN? I ask because I think a 169, who went complete in time, getting WLed would worry me.

yep my true numbers are 168/3.46 I'll be pissed if the ED cutoff is 168/3.5! (but I won't be surprised haha)

Interesting. Wonder if it really is a holistic review, or if 169 is the new target median.

[ruleser]

Interesting. Wonder if it really is a holistic review, or if 169 is the new target median.

I would think the latter - the former as well.

[rondemarino]

Interesting. Wonder if it really is a holistic review, or if 169 is the new target median.

I would think the latter - the former as well.

I have to say, I would be very impressed and possibly heartened by a "holistic" review. I'm always skeptical of subjective evaluations (as someone who worked 20 hours in college, I didn't have time for bullshit ECs), but it would be a good thing if done right.

[Vegas_Rebel]

Interesting. Wonder if it really is a holistic review, or if 169 is the new target median.

I would think the latter - the former as well.

There's no way, is there?

167 is 95%. If 100k people took the LSAT for this cycle, that'd mean 5000 people got a 167+. That wouldn't even fill out the class of the top 10, would it? Plus, that'd include 167/2.2's, who would probably get passed for 166/3.5's.

I just don't see the numbers working that way.

[rondemarino]

^^ Huh?

[ruleser]

Interesting. Wonder if it really is a holistic review, or if 169 is the new target median.

I would think the latter - the former as well.

There's no way, is there?

167 is 95%. If 100k people took the LSAT for this cycle, that'd mean 5000 people got a 167+. That wouldn't even fill out the class of the top 10, would it? Plus, that'd include 167/2.2's, who would probably get passed for 166/3.5's.

I just don't see the numbers working that way.

Especially with the tuition increase, I don't think so - but with the larger ap pool, I think they are going to try - which is why the person was just WL'd and not dinged.

[lateforthesky16]

just waitlisted by email. ED, 168/3.46. Good luck to those of you still waiting

Sorry to hear that. Do you plan on riding it out?

Yeah I'll give the waitlist my best shot. I know my waitlist chances aren't great but it can't hurt to try. My girlfriend lives in the area and my sister attends UCLA, so I'd certainly like to attend.




Rondemarino, i agree they might be trying to increase the median this year. I'm pretty confident in the rest of my application (softs, etc) but you never know i guess.

[Vegas_Rebel]

^^ Huh?

Just a convoluted way of saying I think UCLA is too far down the rankings to jump that much, given the number of applicants.

[rondemarino]

Especially with the tuition increase, I don't think so - but with the larger ap pool, I think they are going to try - which is why the person was just WL'd and not dinged.

Duke and Michigan haven't handed out too many ED acceptances at their 2009 medians - 169. I'd imagine UCLA shares their optimism.

Also, UCLA WLs everyone and their uncle.

[MC Southstar]

Especially with the tuition increase, I don't think so - but with the larger ap pool, I think they are going to try - which is why the person was just WL'd and not dinged.

Duke and Michigan haven't handed out too many ED acceptances at their 2009 medians - 169. I'd imagine UCLA shares their optimism.

Also, UCLA WLs everyone and their uncle.

I see us getting WL. Am I correct in thinking if LSAT medians are the target, that either the schools would collectively all aim slightly higher than their usual numbers, or that splitters might be increasingly appealing since they aren't guaranteed better admission? Wishful thinking maybe.

[rondemarino]

^^ Huh?

Just a convoluted way of saying I think UCLA is too far down the rankings to jump that much, given the number of applicants.

Um.... its easier to move medians at lower scores because there are more people at those levels. Its a bell curve. Its easier for UCLA to move medians than it is for CCN. Look at the change in percentiles between individual scores.

[Hopefullawstudent]

Interesting. Wonder if it really is a holistic review, or if 169 is the new target median.

I would think the latter - the former as well.

There's no way, is there?

167 is 95%. If 100k people took the LSAT for this cycle, that'd mean 5000 people got a 167+. That wouldn't even fill out the class of the top 10, would it? Plus, that'd include 167/2.2's, who would probably get passed for 166/3.5's.

I just don't see the numbers working that way.

Ha. I have done this math in my head too. Problems with your estimate though:

1) THIS cycle, about 150,000 LSATs were administered. So eschewing retakes, this means that roughly 7,500 people scored a 167 or higher. 2) You eliminate people with 167+ and low GPAs, but what about the many, many, many, many people with "low" LSATs and high GPA? These "reverse" splitters are oftentimes very competitive candidates.

Main take away point: This cycle, the Adcoms are seeing A LOT of a 167+s. A LOT. I think something to watch out for this year is not only the inevitable median increases, but also the 25th percentile "floor". That "floor" is going to go up every where in the T14. Berkeley's 25th percentile will NOT remain at 164 this year, mark my words.

[finalaspects]

There's no way, is there?

167 is 95%. If 100k people took the LSAT for this cycle, that'd mean 5000 people got a 167+. That wouldn't even fill out the class of the top 10, would it? Plus, that'd include 167/2.2's, who would probably get passed for 166/3.5's.

I just don't see the numbers working that way.

Actually... you'd be surprised...

There was about 160k people who took the lsat last cycle, and it's expected for that number to be even higher this year, which makes sense with the increased numbers of applicants as well.

168 which is their current median is 96%. 4% of 160k = 6,400. Also only 50% of UCLA students are higher so they only need a small fraction to make it possible. I'm guessing around 180k-200k took the LSATs this year.

[rondemarino]

Especially with the tuition increase, I don't think so - but with the larger ap pool, I think they are going to try - which is why the person was just WL'd and not dinged.

Duke and Michigan haven't handed out too many ED acceptances at their 2009 medians - 169. I'd imagine UCLA shares their optimism.

Also, UCLA WLs everyone and their uncle.

I see us getting WL. Am I correct in thinking if LSAT medians are the target, that either the schools would collectively all aim slightly higher than their usual numbers, or that splitters might be increasingly appealing since they aren't guaranteed better admission? Wishful thinking maybe.

You're spot on. If schools are targeting higher medians, you can't let go of the splitters have limited options. Look at Penn and UVA who last year were more generous to high LSATs with 3.0ish GPAs than those with 3.5ish GPAs.

Engineers with 75th percentile numbers committed via ED? I'm almost sure we're both in.

[finalaspects]

Ha. I have done this math in my head too. Problems with your estimate though:

1) THIS cycle, about 150,000 LSATs were administered. So eschewing retakes, this means that roughly 7,500 people scored a 167 or higher. 2) You eliminate people with 167+ and low GPAs, but what about the many, many, many, many people with "low" LSATs and high GPA? These "reverse" splitters are oftentimes very competitive candidates.

Main take away point: This cycle, the Adcoms are seeing A LOT of a 167+s. A LOT. I think something to watch out for this year is not only the inevitable median increases, but also the 25th percentile "floor". That "floor" is going to go up every where in the T14. Berkeley's 25th percentile will NOT remain at 164 this year, mark my words.

This cycle hasn't ended yet with people taking the December LSAT. Official numbers for last year had it pegged at around 150-160k. It'll be higher this year.

[finalaspects]

I see us getting WL. Am I correct in thinking if LSAT medians are the target, that either the schools would collectively all aim slightly higher than their usual numbers, or that splitters might be increasingly appealing since they aren't guaranteed better admission? Wishful thinking maybe.

You're spot on. If schools are targeting higher medians, you can't let go of the splitters have limited options. Look at Penn and UVA who last year were more generous to high LSATs with 3.0ish GPAs than those with 3.5ish GPAs.

Engineers with 75th percentile numbers committed via ED? I'm almost sure we're both in.

does this mean you think im doomed?