Top Law Schools

What are your #s and what do you guys think you did that got you in besides having competitive numbers? Also say if you're URM so we can more accurately assess our chances.

ITT: HYS admits give each other high fives.

sassafraza wrote:What are your #s and what do you guys think you did that got you in besides having competitive numbers? Also say if you're URM so we can more accurately assess our chances.

http://www.lawschoolnumbers.com

I've browsed that site but most of the profiles aren't really descriptive. I was hoping those who are done with their cycles would open up more!

You don't need much other than high numbers for Harvard. If you hit both medians (3.88/173), you're about 95% to get in, based on the experience of LSN users. Prestigious undergrads like HYPS also seem to get a measurable bump (maybe 1 LSAT point).

yes, though I've been noticing HLS paying more attention to softs lately. what about Y and S? What kinds of softs would make one a realistic admit?

sassafraza wrote:yes, though I've been noticing HLS paying more attention to softs lately. what about Y and S? What kinds of softs would make one a realistic admit?

Go to Yale's website and look at the accomplishments of the incoming class.

im_blue wrote:You don't need much other than high numbers for Harvard. If you hit both medians (3.88/173), you're about 95% to get in, based on the experience of LSN users. Prestigious undergrads like HYPS also seem to get a measurable bump (maybe 1 LSAT point).

Definitely not true, probably only 75% last cycle if you're above both medians, and so far this cycle its been even lower than that. Many people with 3.9's and 173s have been held or heard nothing at all this year.

im_blue wrote:You don't need much other than high numbers for Harvard. If you hit both medians (3.88/173), you're about 95% to get in, based on the experience of LSN users. Prestigious undergrads like HYPS also seem to get a measurable bump (maybe 1 LSAT point).

id say that is generally true, but w/ the way this cycle has been shaping up for a lot of HLS hopefuls, i wouldnt bank on this ideology anymore -- i mean, go look at the HLS thread lol

for me personally, my numbers were good for HLS, but the aspect i was most proud of was my whole application. i wrote a PS that i enjoyed and thought it really represented me well. my resume is pretty average among TLS users (id give it a 5/10 compared to all others here on this site) but was not all over the place and could help form a decent picture of me. my LORs came from 2 professors that really knew me well in a small or 1 on 1 setting. i think you just have to have an overall package that you feel is strong...one that portrays you in the way that you would want it to.

Na_Swatch wrote:

im_blue wrote:You don't need much other than high numbers for Harvard. If you hit both medians (3.88/173), you're about 95% to get in, based on the experience of LSN users. Prestigious undergrads like HYPS also seem to get a measurable bump (maybe 1 LSAT point).

Definitely not true, probably only 75% last cycle if you're above both medians, and so far this cycle its been even lower than that. Many people with 3.9's and 173s have been held or heard nothing at all this year.

From last year with 3.88+/173+: 59 in, 3 out, 2 pending. Even if you assume those 2 pending were rejected, that's 92-95% who got in. Might not be as true this year, but that still remains to be seen.

im_blue wrote:

Na_Swatch wrote:

im_blue wrote:You don't need much other than high numbers for Harvard. If you hit both medians (3.88/173), you're about 95% to get in, based on the experience of LSN users. Prestigious undergrads like HYPS also seem to get a measurable bump (maybe 1 LSAT point).

Definitely not true, probably only 75% last cycle if you're above both medians, and so far this cycle its been even lower than that. Many people with 3.9's and 173s have been held or heard nothing at all this year.

From last year with 3.88+/173+: 59 in, 3 out, 2 pending. Even if you assume those 2 pending were rejected, that's 92-95% who got in. Might not be as true this year, but that still remains to be seen.

I'm talking about people who are exactly at the Median, so people who actually have 3.90, 173. Their chances are def not 95%.

With the way you pulled data from LSN, you're saying that people with a 3.99, 176 have a 95% of admittance, which I definitely agree with.

Na_Swatch wrote:

im_blue wrote:

Na_Swatch wrote:

im_blue wrote:You don't need much other than high numbers for Harvard. If you hit both medians (3.88/173), you're about 95% to get in, based on the experience of LSN users. Prestigious undergrads like HYPS also seem to get a measurable bump (maybe 1 LSAT point).

Definitely not true, probably only 75% last cycle if you're above both medians, and so far this cycle its been even lower than that. Many people with 3.9's and 173s have been held or heard nothing at all this year.

From last year with 3.88+/173+: 59 in, 3 out, 2 pending. Even if you assume those 2 pending were rejected, that's 92-95% who got in. Might not be as true this year, but that still remains to be seen.

I'm talking about people who are exactly at the Median, so people who actually have 3.90, 173. Their chances are def not 95%.

With the way you pulled data from LSN, you're saying that people with a 3.99, 176 have a 95% of admittance, which I definitely agree with.

good point. that and LSN is a bit biased imo. more qualified applicants would, for the most part, actually look up and use LSN.

and as im_blue himself said, that was last yr after all. this yr remains to be seen (and that was what i commented on...the massive holding of '10 haha)

Ragged wrote:ITT: HYS admits give each other high fives.

high five!

also, i'll echo what was said previously about HLS not seeming so numbers based. I had marginal numbers and they were the only ones from HYS to let me in.

x

also, hi five

BlueCivic wrote:

Ragged wrote:ITT: HYS admits give each other high fives.

high five!

also, i'll echo what was said previously about HLS not seeming so numbers based. I had marginal numbers and they were the only ones from HYS to let me in.

Yeah my lsat is one point below median and though I have a 4.0, it is from a really crappy state school in the south. Still, I was accepted over people with gpas and lsats above the 75th who also came from much more reputable UGs. I really think my personal statement helped a lot. like doublechecks said, giving them a clear and consistent picture of who you are goes a long way.

BlueCivic wrote:

Ragged wrote:ITT: HYS admits give each other high fives.

high five!

also, i'll echo what was said previously about HLS not seeming so numbers based. I had marginal numbers and they were the only ones from HYS to let me in.

I don't want to devalue BlueCivic's impressive HLS acceptance, but it should be said that H is the least selective school of HYS. There are a lot of applicants who get into H but not Y and S.

Dignan wrote:

BlueCivic wrote:

Ragged wrote:ITT: HYS admits give each other high fives.

high five!

also, i'll echo what was said previously about HLS not seeming so numbers based. I had marginal numbers and they were the only ones from HYS to let me in.

I don't want to devalue BlueCivic's impressive HLS acceptance, but it should be said that H is the least selective school of HYS. There are a lot of applicants who get into H but not Y and S.

to be absolutely, positively fair, H's median lsat score is higher than stanford's 75th percentile

stanford's nominal selectivity rate may be marginally lower, but that doesn't exactly say all that much on its own

APimpNamedSlickback wrote:

Dignan wrote:

BlueCivic wrote:

Ragged wrote:ITT: HYS admits give each other high fives.

high five!

also, i'll echo what was said previously about HLS not seeming so numbers based. I had marginal numbers and they were the only ones from HYS to let me in.

I don't want to devalue BlueCivic's impressive HLS acceptance, but it should be said that H is the least selective school of HYS. There are a lot of applicants who get into H but not Y and S.

to be absolutely, positively fair, H's median lsat score is higher than stanford's 75th percentile

stanford's nominal selectivity rate may be marginally lower, but that doesn't exactly say all that much on its own

Umm, I believe looking at yield is a better indicator of selectivity and harvard and yale's yield are both substantially higher than stanford's.

sure. i could have made a fuller argument against the contention that stanford is more selective than harvard, but i figured that the strength of each school's lsat figures was at least relevant to that extent.

its pretty clear that stanford's lower selectivity rate is more a function of its small size and perhaps some applicant self-selection than anything else.

APimpNamedSlickback wrote:

Dignan wrote:

BlueCivic wrote:

Ragged wrote:ITT: HYS admits give each other high fives.

high five!

also, i'll echo what was said previously about HLS not seeming so numbers based. I had marginal numbers and they were the only ones from HYS to let me in.

I don't want to devalue BlueCivic's impressive HLS acceptance, but it should be said that H is the least selective school of HYS. There are a lot of applicants who get into H but not Y and S.

to be absolutely, positively fair, H's median lsat score is higher than stanford's 75th percentile

Sure. CLS's median LSAT score is higher than stanford's 75th percentile as well. It's pretty clear that SLS values the LSAT less than the other schools in the T6. But that's the point. BlueCivic was implying that HLS was less numbers-based. I think that SLS is a lot less numbers based than HLS. It accepts a lower percentage of its applicants and it's got lower medians.

Dignan wrote:

APimpNamedSlickback wrote:

Dignan wrote:

BlueCivic wrote:
high five!

also, i'll echo what was said previously about HLS not seeming so numbers based. I had marginal numbers and they were the only ones from HYS to let me in.

I don't want to devalue BlueCivic's impressive HLS acceptance, but it should be said that H is the least selective school of HYS. There are a lot of applicants who get into H but not Y and S.

to be absolutely, positively fair, H's median lsat score is higher than stanford's 75th percentile

Sure. CLS's median LSAT score is higher than stanford's 75th percentile as well. It's pretty clear that SLS values the LSAT less than the other schools in the T6. But that's the point. BlueCivic was implying that HLS was less numbers-based. I think that SLS is a lot less numbers based than HLS. It accepts a lower percentage of its applicants and it's got lower medians.

if bluecivic actually meant to say HLS is less numbers based than we think...esp. this cycle, id agree. i wouldnt say, however, that HLS is less numbers based than SLS or YLS

Yeah i was just saying that it seems like its less numbers based than we think based on the anecdotal evidence i've seen.

As to selectivity, i do think that yield is probably the better metric than acceptance rate, given the size disparity between H and S. I don't think it is fair to say that H is the easiest to get into.

x

On the 203 blog, Dean Asha says that:
"You might think of ours as a Rawlsian-inspired admissions process, in that it offers the most advantage to numerically weaker applicants, since we do a holistic review of every application."
What do you guys think are some qualities that people with weaker numbers have that make them compelling enough to get in? There are probably a few of such admits every year.