Yale 2010 Forum

[CardinalRules]

You pointing it out is funny. Hehe.

Why?

I meant that as you were right, and not an affront to you. Didn't realize it could have been read that way.

Yale is (at least within T14) the most holistic school. They just have the luxury of receiving the best applications by the best candidates (plus, it helps that the best applications are usually accompanied by great softs AND great numbers.).

It's interesting that you make the T14 qualification. I wonder if very low-ranked schools (whose names shall not be mentioned in the thread of this temple of legal excellence) could be considered holistic as well for the opposite reason that their applicants' numbers are uniformly poor and thus softs are required to distinguish them as well.

[r6_philly]

I for one would love to meet and read about all the admits who had the sub 25% numbers. Their lives must have been amazing. I think that's the most attractive part of Yale to me, the people I would get to meet and learn from. And for all that hate New Haven, it is much better than what I am used to

[CardinalRules]

And now I think the numbers have reached a point where so much vagueness has been introduced that nothing more can be discerned.

TBF, I thought that we passed that point a while ago.

[booboo]

Okay, there are 51 178+s on LSN for the 2009-2010 cycle. There may be a few more after the February LSAT, but the February LSAT crowd is unusual in any case because their scores cannot count towards Harvard or Stanford admission, adding extra pressure on them to apply at Yale. I'll ignore them.

Of the 180s, 8 of 15 applied to Yale. Two of these only "intend to apply", but I assume they will apply. One 180 reported no applications; I discounted that person entirely. A few of the 180s were extreme splitters and likely would have been rejected from Yale regardless, but I didn't take that into account.

Of the 179s, 11 of 14 applied to Yale. Again, this includes extreme splitters and those who only "intend to apply".

Of the 178s, 13 of 21 applied to Yale. Ditto on previous.

There are people who applied to other schools in September or October who have not applied to Yale; they're clearly not stalling on their 250s. Some of the non-applicants look to have specific reasons. One was accepted into UCLA ED very early; another from Idaho applied only to Harvard and BYU (obviously Mormon). Others had more normal circumstances: They got Hamiltons or Darrows or got into Harvard or Stanford early on and just chose never to apply to Yale. The data simply do not back up the assertion that the lion's share of 178+s apply to Yale.

I suppose you could do a similar analysis of last cycle's 178+s to eliminate the possibility of stalling, but I doubt it accounts for more than one or two 178+s on LSN who reported not even intending to apply to Yale.

Let's assume there are 160000 administrations of the LSAT in the June 2009 - February 2010 cycle. I believe the LSAT claims 30% of it's administrations are retakes (or 30% of it's unique test takers retake the exam, but for simplicity's sake we will assume the former, while admitting that the latter could mean those that take the examination three times can skew this a bit [but hopefully not enough to ruin this demonstration]) which gives us a total unique LSAT test taker value of approximately 125000. A 178+ is a 99.8% score, meaning .002 applicants score at this level or above. This equates to approximately 250 scorers, which means the LSN information would represent only 20% of all scorers with a 178+.

If you extrapolate out from the LSN figures, only around 160 178+s apply to Yale (and, also by LSN, around 10%, or 16, of those have sub-3.5 GPAs, making them very probable rejects, although I'll ignore that).

In order to maintain its 75th percentile at 177, Yale must matriculate at least 50 178+s: a little under a third of all of the 178+s who apply, or a little over a third of all 178+s who apply with >3.5 GPAs, assuming all sub-3.5 GPAs are rejected (not necessarily true, but it shows that around 33% of competitive 178+s must matriculate).

Yale's yield, however, is not 100%--it's only about 80%, the remainder containing people who get Hamiltons or Darrows or other big scholarships, who are admitted but get in ED somewhere else, who decide not to go to law school, who just prefer some other school for whatever reason, etc. So they have to admit around 63 178+s to matriculate 50 of them. That means almost 40% of 178+s must be admitted, or else more than 40% of the >3.5 GPA 178+s. This is without pointing out that the yield among the highest-level applicants is likely to be lower: A 168 admitted to Yale will almost certainly have no competitive options, but a 179 admitted might have a Darrow and a Hamilton and Harvard and Stanford admissions to consider.

And now I think the numbers have reached a point where so much vagueness has been introduced that nothing more can be discerned.

Welcome to statistics.

[BenJ]

Does anyone else find it ironic and amusing that we're engaging in an intensive numbers-crunching exercise in the thread of the school that arguably is the least numbers-crunching of all?

True, although I think the original point was that someone suggested Yale has to be numbers-crunching at least a little bit in order to maintain such a high 75th percentile. The numbers seem to bear that out.

[CardinalRules]

I for one would love to meet and read about all the admits who had the sub 25% numbers. Their lives must have been amazing. I think that's the most attractive part of Yale to me, the people I would get to meet and learn from. And for all that hate New Haven, it is much better than what I am used to

+1. When I see someone with below-median numbers who got in to a top school, my first reaction is "they must have something truly extraordinary to offer about which I would love to know."

[BenJ]

I for one would love to meet and read about all the admits who had the sub 25% numbers. Their lives must have been amazing. I think that's the most attractive part of Yale to me, the people I would get to meet and learn from. And for all that hate New Haven, it is much better than what I am used to

+1. When I see someone with below-median numbers who got in to a top school, my first reaction is "they must have something truly extraordinary to offer about which I would love to know."

+2. Although I imagine meeting such people is a lot more intimidating than meeting people who just have really high numbers, too.

[r6_philly]

I for one would love to meet and read about all the admits who had the sub 25% numbers. Their lives must have been amazing. I think that's the most attractive part of Yale to me, the people I would get to meet and learn from. And for all that hate New Haven, it is much better than what I am used to

+1. When I see someone with below-median numbers who got in to a top school, my first reaction is "they must have something truly extraordinary to offer about which I would love to know."

+2. Although I imagine meeting such people is a lot more intimidating than meeting people who just have really high numbers, too.

I love this comment. I would bet a lot of money if any of you saw me on the street you wouldn't give me a second thought. If you had to formulate a thought, you would probably say "what a waste of a life" ... I would imagine people would feel somewhat intimidating meeting me because I would just feel like someone who shouldn't be at a top law school.

[notanumber]

Does anyone else find it ironic and amusing that we're engaging in an intensive numbers-crunching exercise in the thread of the school that arguably is the least numbers-crunching of all?

True, although I think the original point was that someone suggested Yale has to be numbers-crunching at least a little bit in order to maintain such a high 75th percentile. The numbers seem to bear that out.

And then the question is "where does that numbers crunching come from."

My suspicion is that it's (partly) what the "auto admit" category is for. I suspect that the dean admits enough +75% GPA/LSAT folk during this round to ensure that the professors don't only admit folk with lower LSAT/GPAs.

Obviously not all, or even most, +75% folk are getting in during the "auto" round. Which makes the decision process that much more intriguing.

I absolutely love how Yale has the admissions process that is simultaneously the most opaque (in terms of results) and transparent (in terms of process). Makes me all the more interested in getting a phone call from New Haven.

[booboo]

Does anyone else find it ironic and amusing that we're engaging in an intensive numbers-crunching exercise in the thread of the school that arguably is the least numbers-crunching of all?

True, although I think the original point was that someone suggested Yale has to be numbers-crunching at least a little bit in order to maintain such a high 75th percentile. The numbers seem to bear that out.

And then the question is "where does that numbers crunching come from."

My suspicion is that it's (partly) what the "auto admit" category is for. I suspect that the dean admits enough +75% GPA/LSAT folk during this round to ensure that the professors don't only admit folk with lower LSAT/GPAs.

Obviously not all, or even most, +75% folk are getting in during the "auto" round. Which makes the decision process that much more intriguing.

I absolutely love how Yale has the admissions process that is simultaneously the most opaque (in terms of results) and transparent (in terms of process). Makes me all the more interested in getting a phone call from New Haven.

I am sure there are few opportunities that present themselves as a better way to live for three years.

[CardinalRules]

I absolutely love how Yale has the admissions process that is simultaneously the most opaque (in terms of results) and transparent (in terms of process). Makes me all the more interested in getting a phone call from New Haven.

^^Nominated for co-Chair of the Dept. of Admission-ology, with BenJ.

[notanumber]

I for one would love to meet and read about all the admits who had the sub 25% numbers. Their lives must have been amazing. I think that's the most attractive part of Yale to me, the people I would get to meet and learn from. And for all that hate New Haven, it is much better than what I am used to

+1. When I see someone with below-median numbers who got in to a top school, my first reaction is "they must have something truly extraordinary to offer about which I would love to know."

+2. Although I imagine meeting such people is a lot more intimidating than meeting people who just have really high numbers, too.

I love this comment. I would bet a lot of money if any of you saw me on the street you wouldn't give me a second thought. If you had to formulate a thought, you would probably say "what a waste of a life" ... I would imagine people would feel somewhat intimidating meeting me because I would just feel like someone who shouldn't be at a top law school.

I'm 100% in agreement here. Although I'm sure that Harvard and Stanford (and most law schools, for that matter) also have stellar applicants with sub-par numbers, there's gotta be some *really* interesting folk who get into Yale at or under the 25%. Somebody who can make their application stand out and be the 1 out of 1000+ who is admitted with a sub-165 LSAT must be really, really impressive. Going to school with those folk would be an incredibly fascinating (if more than a little frightening) experience.

[Fevsi]

In order to maintain its 75th percentile at 177, Yale must matriculate at least 50 178+s:

[/quote

What a weird assumption. In order to maintain its 75th percentile at 177, Yale must matriculate at least 50 177+
Given that according to your own calculation there are 250 applicants with 178+, there must be no less than 375 with 177+. Picking out 75 of them (to make sure more than 50 matriculate at yield of 75%) is a breeze. Remember, all of those 75 can be 177s

[BenJ]

In order to maintain its 75th percentile at 177, Yale must matriculate at least 50 178+s:

[/quote

What a weird assumption. In order to maintain its 75th percentile at 177, Yale must matriculate at least 50 177+
Given that according to your own calculation there are 250 applicants with 178+, there must be no less than 375 with 177+. Picking out 75 of them (to make sure more than 50 matriculate at yield of 75%) is a breeze. Remember, all of those 75 can be 177s

Goddammit, you're right. I was just taking earlier comments for granted. Oh well. I'm sure the statistics would still show something like a 30-35% admit-rate for 177+s, though, above what it "should" be. Of course, that would need to be verified via LSN, which again has selection bias because it probably contains more people who work really hard on their applications but also fewer people with eons of work experience (and more right out of undergrad) than the general applicant pool, or the 177+ pool (although IIRC the median LSAT declines with years out of undergrad, so those might cancel each other out).

[BenJ]

For what it's worth, of the 11 180s on LSN who applied to Yale last year (and reported the decision), 5 were admitted, 5 were rejected, and 1 was waitlisted (and presumably never admitted). Of the 179s, 4 were admitted, 4 were rejected, and 2 were waitlisted. Of the 178s, 4 were admitted, 5 were rejected and 3 were waitlisted; one of the admits was accepted off the waitlist and is only counted as admitted.

So there appears to be around the selection towards high LSATs that the calculations suggested, although the samples are very small. (The 177s show a similar pattern, not bothering right now.)

[notanumber]

Hey. Buyer beware! I clearly stated in my original musings that I'm really bad at math and was pulling these numbers out of my arse. It's what I get for majoring in the humanities.... . Thank goodness the LSAT only tests for logic skills and reading comprehension.

So, the 75% doesn't mean that 75% of applicants had a 177 or lower? Instead it means that 25% of applicants had a 177 or higher?

I give up! Yale is totally unpredictable. It's Saturday evening and I need a drink. Enjoy your weekends y'all. . .

[CardinalRules]

**looks around for the escape route from the statistical labyrinth**

[booboo]

LSN is so much fun. Too bad we cannot get this kind of aggregate data from LSAC, .

[CardinalRules]

LSN is so much fun. Too bad we cannot get this kind of aggregate data from LSAC, .

The lurking adcom who just read that post fainted from fear.

[BenJ]

**looks around for the escape route from the statistical labyrinth**

Would you believe that I'm a philosophy/history major and never took a statistics class in my life? Hooray for random mathiness!

[CardinalRules]

**looks around for the escape route from the statistical labyrinth**

Would you believe that I'm a philosophy/history major and never took a statistics class in my life? Hooray for random mathiness!

I'm taking a statistics class next quarter as my math requirement, having deliberately saved it for the end so as not to wreck my GPA.

Philosophy and history are two of my favorite fields.

[booboo]

**looks around for the escape route from the statistical labyrinth**

Would you believe that I'm a philosophy/history major and never took a statistics class in my life? Hooray for random mathiness!

I'm taking a statistics class next quarter as my math requirement, having deliberately saved it for the end so as not to wreck my GPA.

Philosophy and history are two of my favorite fields.

I was going to say you can depend on the low performers to help with the curve. But as a HYPS student, that doesn't hold true... Smart decision.

[ConMan345]

**looks around for the escape route from the statistical labyrinth**

Would you believe that I'm a philosophy/history major and never took a statistics class in my life? Hooray for random mathiness!

I'm taking a statistics class next quarter as my math requirement, having deliberately saved it for the end so as not to wreck my GPA.

Philosophy and history are two of my favorite fields.

stats 60? lol

[BenJ]

**looks around for the escape route from the statistical labyrinth**

Would you believe that I'm a philosophy/history major and never took a statistics class in my life? Hooray for random mathiness!

I'm taking a statistics class next quarter as my math requirement, having deliberately saved it for the end so as not to wreck my GPA.

Philosophy and history are two of my favorite fields.

Awesome! They're some of my favorite fields, too. Right now, I'm writing a thesis on the organization of the medieval Catholic church, a topic I will have absolutely no use for once I get to law school. But it's fun

My academic background is so f'ed up. I lived and breathed math and science throughout high school with essentially no exposure to the humanities, then threw them to the winds and took nothing more science-y or math-y than basic archaeology and formal logic in college. I mean, how many people take multivariable calculus in high school, then never take a math class again? It saved me from anything seriously GPA-wrecking, though (although I probably would have aced a low-level science or calc class freshman year--not so much now).

/Okay, the thread is no longer about me. Hi, Yale. Please admit us all.

[CardinalRules]

**looks around for the escape route from the statistical labyrinth**

Would you believe that I'm a philosophy/history major and never took a statistics class in my life? Hooray for random mathiness!

I'm taking a statistics class next quarter as my math requirement, having deliberately saved it for the end so as not to wreck my GPA.

Philosophy and history are two of my favorite fields.

stats 60? lol

Yes. The lol makes me nervous.