UCLA? Forum

[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.

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.

You make my wildest dreams come true, especially since I know you're good at math.

[rondemarino]

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?

Dude, I am completely pulling this out of my ass (UCLA aiming for a higher median).

[finalaspects]

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.

You make my wildest dreams come true, especially since I know you're good at math.

are you ED though shadowfrost? your lsn account doesn't say you are.

[MC Southstar]

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.

You make my wildest dreams come true, especially since I know you're good at math.

are you ED though shadowfrost? your lsn account doesn't say you are.

I'm ED at Penn. I'd prefer to go to UCLA over most bottom half of T14 though.

[finalaspects]

does this mean you think im doomed?

Dude, I am completely pulling this out of my ass (UCLA aiming for a higher median).

yea but i think you're right... perfect time to raise medians with the increased applicants and lsat takers

[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.

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.

Certainly, but not that many more. That's why I did some hand waving with numbers. Lemme break it down a bit more:

Assume 100,000 people took the LSAT for the sake of simplicity.

178-180 = 99.9%, That'd mean about 100 people have scores in that range.
176-177 = 99.8%, So there's another 100.
175 = 99.7%. Adds another 100.
174 = 99.5% Adds 200 more.
173 = 99.3% Adds 200 more.
172 = 99% Adds 300 more.
171 = 98.5% Adds 500 more.
170 = 98.1% Adds 400 more.

So, in total, from 170-180 there are about 1900 people total.

Assuming every LSAT score goes to the best school with room available:

Yale takes 200.
Harvard takes 500.
Stanford takes 200.
Columbia takes 400.
NYU takes 450.
UC Berkeley takes 250.

We're actually 100 people over, and we've only filled the T6.

Back to the pool:
169 adds 600.

Chicago takes 200.
Penn takes 250.
Michigan takes 350.

We're over again, and we've only filled two more schools and some of Michigan.

Unless significantly more than 100k people took the LSAT (like double) UCLA will get some significant numbers that self select there, but they're not making that jump.

Edit: I couldn't type and read at the same time. If 200k is a more realistic estimate of total test takers, maybe it's possible. It'd be close though. I'll stand corrected.

[MC Southstar]

Approximately 200k LSATs administered this cycle is a sound estimate (actual number is probably under the 200k mark though, imo)

http://lsacnet.lsac.org/data/lsac-volume-summary.htm

Applications have shot up dramatically, so draw your own conclusions. Retakers don't make up a meaningful portion of those test takers either (someone did math on this in another thread).

[rondemarino]

Edit: I couldn't type and read at the same time. If 200k is a more realistic estimate of total test takers, maybe it's possible. It'd be close though. I'll stand corrected.

It would. I actually ran the numbers before (wish I could find this post). 30% increase in LSATs administered made raising medians by a point realistic.

[Vegas_Rebel]

It would. I actually ran the numbers before (wish I could find this post). 30% increase in LSATs administered made raising medians by a point realistic.

I wonder if many schools are looking to up class sizes while the applicant pool is so big.

Assuming they have the facilities, I'm sure T10 could find 100 people more each willing to attend. They could trade the median bump for increased funding, which might not be a bad idea given the economy. I'd imagine UCLA and UC Berkeley could do pretty well for themselves if they increased class size by 25-50%+, especially if they focused on out of state candidates willing to pay sticker.

[ruleser]

Approximately 200k LSATs administered this cycle is a sound estimate (actual number is probably under the 200k mark though, imo)

http://lsacnet.lsac.org/data/lsac-volume-summary.htm

Applications have shot up dramatically, so draw your own conclusions. Retakers don't make up a meaningful portion of those test takers either (someone did math on this in another thread).

Hmm... a pretty modest bump compared to 2001-2003.

[MC Southstar]

Approximately 200k LSATs administered this cycle is a sound estimate (actual number is probably under the 200k mark though, imo)

http://lsacnet.lsac.org/data/lsac-volume-summary.htm

Applications have shot up dramatically, so draw your own conclusions. Retakers don't make up a meaningful portion of those test takers either (someone did math on this in another thread).

Hmm... a pretty modest bump compared to 2001-2003.

I think those are numbers for last year's cycle. If they were for this year, they wouldn't have accounted for the December test takers yet.

[finalaspects]

Approximately 200k LSATs administered this cycle is a sound estimate (actual number is probably under the 200k mark though, imo)

http://lsacnet.lsac.org/data/lsac-volume-summary.htm

Applications have shot up dramatically, so draw your own conclusions. Retakers don't make up a meaningful portion of those test takers either (someone did math on this in another thread).

Hmm... a pretty modest bump compared to 2001-2003.

I think those are numbers for last year's cycle. If they were for this year, they wouldn't have accounted for the December test takers yet.

yea its not over yet, and i agree with shadowfrost that it'll be below the 200k mark but i wouldn't be surprised if it was very very close to it. the least UCLA will do is hold their median but higher their 25% lsat from 164 to 166 or something. Perhaps bring their 75% to 170 or so.

[rondemarino]

It would. I actually ran the numbers before (wish I could find this post). 30% increase in LSATs administered made raising medians by a point realistic.

I wonder if many schools are looking to up class sizes while the applicant pool is so big.

Assuming they have the facilities, I'm sure T10 could find 100 people more each willing to attend. They could trade the median bump for increased funding, which might not be a bad idea given the economy. I'd imagine UCLA and UC Berkeley could do pretty well for themselves if they increased class size by 25-50%+, especially if they focused on out of state candidates willing to pay sticker.

You the median downgrade for increased funding? When student faculty ratios go to hell and rankings drop, that'll be fun. Also, I'm not crazy about need based admission. We've got enough barriers to opportunity as it is.

Found it (link, previous math). Wish I could have been clearer.

[rondemarino]

Approximately 200k LSATs administered this cycle is a sound estimate (actual number is probably under the 200k mark though, imo)

http://lsacnet.lsac.org/data/lsac-volume-summary.htm

Applications have shot up dramatically, so draw your own conclusions. Retakers don't make up a meaningful portion of those test takers either (someone did math on this in another thread).

Hmm... a pretty modest bump compared to 2001-2003.

I think those are numbers for last year's cycle. If they were for this year, they wouldn't have accounted for the December test takers yet.

yea its not over yet, and i agree with shadowfrost that it'll be below the 200k mark but i wouldn't be surprised if it was very very close to it. the least UCLA will do is hold their median but higher their 25% lsat from 164 to 166 or something. Perhaps bring their 75% to 170 or so.

25th percentile numbers aren't good for much. They just indicate how splitter friendly a school is. USC's 25th LSAT = 166. UVA's = 165. UVA's median is higher by 3 points (170 to 167). All the 25th LSAT tells you is how far down in LSAT scores the school was willing to go to pick up the high GPA.

[dltripledouble]

.

[MC Southstar]

Got the waitlist email today.
Applied ED. 169 LSAT and 3.39 GPA. Engineering major.

Good luck everyone!

DUN DUN DUN DRAMATIC REVERB!

[rondemarino]

Got the waitlist email today.
Applied ED. 169 LSAT and 3.39 GPA. Engineering major.

Good luck everyone!

DUN DUN DUN DRAMATIC REVERB!

Damn. My theory got shot down. GULC's big envelope is the only thing keeping me sane now.

[ruleser]

Got the waitlist email today.
Applied ED. 169 LSAT and 3.39 GPA. Engineering major.

Good luck everyone!

DUN DUN DUN DRAMATIC REVERB!

Damn. My theory got shot down. GULC's big envelope is the only thing keeping me sane now.

Listen, let's not make this about size...

[crackberry]

Got the waitlist email today.
Applied ED. 169 LSAT and 3.39 GPA. Engineering major.

Good luck everyone!

DUN DUN DUN DRAMATIC REVERB!

Damn. My theory got shot down. GULC's big envelope is the only thing keeping me sane now.

What? It was a small envelope. Also, if the answer to this lies somewhere buried in the black hole that is the GULC thread, I've stopped paying attention to that monster for a reason.

[rondemarino]

Got the waitlist email today.
Applied ED. 169 LSAT and 3.39 GPA. Engineering major.

Good luck everyone!

DUN DUN DUN DRAMATIC REVERB!

Damn. My theory got shot down. GULC's big envelope is the only thing keeping me sane now.

What? It was a small envelope. Also, if the answer to this lies somewhere buried in the black hole that is the GULC thread, I've stopped paying attention to that monster for a reason.

huh?

[crackberry]

huh?

Let's back up a second. You said something about GULC's big envelope. I was confused because GULC sends small envelope acceptances.

The GULC thread for this cycle is like 100 pages and has devolved into crazy talk. I made the black hole comment because trying to dig through that thread is like pulling teeth.

[CardinalRules]

huh?

Let's back up a second. You said something about GULC's big envelope. I was confused because GULC sends small envelope acceptances.

The GULC thread for this cycle is like 100 pages and has devolved into crazy talk. I made the black hole comment because trying to dig through that thread is like pulling teeth.

+1. I gave up on it about a week ago.

[rondemarino]

huh?

Let's back up a second. You said something about GULC's big envelope. I was confused because GULC sends small envelope acceptances.

The GULC thread for this cycle is like 100 pages and has devolved into crazy talk. I made the black hole comment because trying to dig through that thread is like pulling teeth.

Ah. Dunno. SO called me at work today to say I got an acceptance in the mail. Figured it was a big envelope.

Yeah. I just checked the GULC thread. 117 pages.

Also, you got money right off the bat with UCLA, did you get any with GULC?

[CardinalRules]

huh?

Let's back up a second. You said something about GULC's big envelope. I was confused because GULC sends small envelope acceptances.

The GULC thread for this cycle is like 100 pages and has devolved into crazy talk. I made the black hole comment because trying to dig through that thread is like pulling teeth.

Ah. Dunno. SO called me at work today to say I got an acceptance in the mail. Figured it was a big envelope.

Yeah. I just checked the GULC thread. 117 pages.

Also, you got money right off the bat with UCLA, did you get any with GULC?

Can't answer for crackberry, but I got the full ride from UCLA and not a cent from GULC. I have heard that they contact one about scholarship information later.

[crackberry]

huh?

Let's back up a second. You said something about GULC's big envelope. I was confused because GULC sends small envelope acceptances.

The GULC thread for this cycle is like 100 pages and has devolved into crazy talk. I made the black hole comment because trying to dig through that thread is like pulling teeth.

Ah. Dunno. SO called me at work today to say I got an acceptance in the mail. Figured it was a big envelope.

Yeah. I just checked the GULC thread. 117 pages.

Also, you got money right off the bat with UCLA, did you get any with GULC?

They haven't made scholarship decisions yet. Don't think they're doing that until 2010.