Columbia c/o 2020 applicants (2016-2017) Forum

[Leliana]

Obviously, any school reserves the right to do whatever they want. But we as applicants were led to believe that LSAT accounts for most of the admissions (except Y/S). "Unfair" is obviously the wrong word to use... but if LSAT doesn't guarantee anything.....What are we supposed to do...?

If soft factors are becoming increasingly more important... how are people without $$$ who must work multiple jobs to support themselves supposed to have a chance? Just quit my job and go make a difference in the world?

Over the past 5 cycles on LSN, CLS has accepted 87% of the 485 non-URM applicants with 3.7+/172+ and given half of them scholarship money. That's pretty close to an admission guarantee.

Oh... didn't know that! Thank you for sharing that info.

So it's still very much LSAT-driven?! That's great to hear! Thanks.

Sure, to some extent, but not in a vacuum from GPA. As goldenbear2020 notes, that 89% is for applicants above both medians, not just LSAT. I do not think it is accurate to say that "LSAT accounts for most of the admissions"... even a 180 won't guarantee anything if your GPA is terrible.

[Kaylasvi]

Held today, above both 75ths, email time-stamped 11:56am.

Does anyone know if held applicants tend to have to wait until the late April deadline, or could an actual decision happen anytime between now and then?

+1

[MrJD2020]

For those of you that interviewed, does anyone know if there is a general timeline for when one interviewed and received a decision?

I went interview to decision in two weeks, not sure if that's the average, though. Have you looked at the spreadsheet? Should be able to get a better idea that way.

On the spreadsheet, most people who interviewed in mid-January or later have heard back within two weeks, and a handful who interviewed in early February heard back within one week!

[Thelaw23]

So sorry for everybody who was held! Keep it up with the LOCI's and have hope! Rooting for everybody still waiting and will post funny meme's daily.


Also, guys, I have more than 200 pages of tax returns (they really ask for business tax return of ANY company that a parent is part of?) I'm pretty sure I will be emailing it.

Edit: And I need to somehow print it, have a person sign it, and then PDF it back. This is a nightmare. Maybe they will just let me bring it in physically to the office.

[tinycatfriend]

Worth it to send an extra LOR if held? Already sent LOCI.

Also, emailed a prof who I like - should I ask her to meet?

[alpinespring]

By the way, I was searching on TLS and is it true that from the school's perspective, once an applicant hits MEDIAN, then his/her LSAT score becomes practically meaningless?

I never understood the difference between median and average (I'm just a poor temp, please understand)

but from Columbia's perspective, aren't a 171/3.8 and 179/3.8 numerically the SAME in terms of affecting their MEDIAN LSAT and therefore rankings?

So ALL ELSE being equal, there's no particular incentive for Columbia to choose a 179 over 171 other than trying to pick the "smartest" students?

To sum:

1) Law schools care deeply about their MEDIAN LSAT score because it affects their rankings
2) Once two scores meet or exceed the median, then they no longer impact the MEDIAN in any way
3) Thus, exclusively in terms of Columbia's self-interest in maintaining their median, the value of a 171 and 179 are the same (all else being equal)

From my preliminary research, I get the sense that perhaps TLS places too much emphasis on LSAT (I'm talking exclusively about those who are at or above median). So once you meet the median, your LSAT score doesn't really matter anymore in terms of the school's median, right? (assuming your GPA meets or exceeds median)

So say, an applicant with 171/3.8 was rejected by CLS this year. There's no point in telling him to re-take LSAT because even if he gets 179, to the school, it doesn't matter (except that you're incredibly smart) in terms of the institutional self-interest.

So it would be bad advice to tell someone whose LSAT/GPA meet or exceed the school's MEDIAN to re-take LSAT hoping for a higher score, right?

I'm not sure if any of this makes sense, Again, I'm just a poor temp who doesn't know anything. I'd appreciate if someone can help me process this.

[NotAGolfer]

By the way, I was searching on TLS and is it true that from the school's perspective, once an applicant hits MEDIAN, then his/her LSAT score becomes practically meaningless?

I never understood the difference between median and average (I'm just a poor temp, please understand)

but from Columbia's perspective, aren't a 171/3.8 and 179/3.8 numerically the SAME in terms of affecting their MEDIAN LSAT and therefore rankings?

So ALL ELSE being equal, there's no particular incentive for Columbia to choose a 179 over 171 other than trying to pick the "smartest" students?

To sum:

1) Law schools care deeply about their MEDIAN LSAT score because it affects their rankings
2) Once two scores meet or exceed the median, then they no longer impact the MEDIAN in any way
3) Thus, exclusively in terms of Columbia's self-interest in maintaining their median, the value of a 171 and 179 are the same (all else being equal)

From my preliminary research, I get the sense that perhaps TLS places too much emphasis on LSAT (I'm talking exclusively about those who are at or above median). So once you meet the median, your LSAT score doesn't really matter anymore in terms of the school's median, right? (assuming your GPA meets or exceeds median)

So say, an applicant with 171/3.8 was rejected by CLS this year. There's no point in telling him to re-take LSAT because even if he gets 179, to the school, it doesn't matter (except that you're incredibly smart) in terms of the institutional self-interest.

So it would be bad advice to tell someone whose LSAT/GPA meet or exceed the school's MEDIAN to re-take LSAT hoping for a higher score, right?

I'm not sure if any of this makes sense, Again, I'm just a poor temp who doesn't know anything. I'd appreciate if someone can help me process this.

Unless they are trying to raise their median.

If it's true that law schools care only about median and anything above that doesn't matter, I do not think I would be having as much success this cycle as I am having. So far I have 7 acceptances (including CLS), 1 rej, and 1 WL in the T14 with a GPA well below the 25th for these schools and an LSAT>>>75th. I think there are soft aspects of my application that have also played into this, but I definitely think my LSAT got me in the door. If my LSAT were closer to median, I think it far more likely that I would be looking at a longer list of WL/rej.

And, if CLS has a choice between a 171/3.8 candidate and a 179/3.8 candidate, don't you think they'd take the latter? (I think they would likely accept both candidates in this scenario, just using this purely for illustration). Also, if you retake and get a 179, you have a strong shot at HYS

[goldenbear2020]

To sum:

1) Law schools care deeply about their MEDIAN LSAT score because it affects their rankings
2) Once two scores meet or exceed the median, then they no longer impact the MEDIAN in any way
3) Thus, exclusively in terms of Columbia's self-interest in maintaining their median, the value of a 171 and 179 are the same (all else being equal)

Yes, but higher LSAT scores still correlate with better 1L grades and bar passage rates. Also, all else being equal, schools would rather have a higher 75th percentile. So schools will still take the 179 over the 171.

[alpinespring]

To sum:

1) Law schools care deeply about their MEDIAN LSAT score because it affects their rankings
2) Once two scores meet or exceed the median, then they no longer impact the MEDIAN in any way
3) Thus, exclusively in terms of Columbia's self-interest in maintaining their median, the value of a 171 and 179 are the same (all else being equal)

Yes, but higher LSAT scores still correlate with better 1L grades and bar passage rates. Also, all else being equal, schools would rather have a higher 75th percentile. So schools will still take the 179 over the 171.

Of course, I definitely see the many benefits of a higher LSAT score and how that would make you stand out (for your superior cognitive ability)

But I see many comments on TLS and just people around me recommending people to re-take LSAT (even when your GPA is above median) as if that will be a HUGE boost. In other words, to a disappointed applicant (*cough cough*), let's say he is 171/3.8, there's no point in telling him to re-take the LSAT in the blind faith that getting 175+ will drastically raise his chances at Columbia, right?

I mean, that will never happen, obviously, but continuing on with the hypothetical, the higher score will show that he's incredibly smart & gifted and all, but the boost might not be as big.... (or at least as big as we think it is).... because it doesn't really promote Columbia's self-interests as much (contributes 0.001% to raising the median because the number of people who get those scores are tiny). Obviously I don't want to re-take so I have a vested interest but hm...)

** by the way, just to contribute to this thread, I took LSAT more than 3 times, and my CLS interviewer did bring that up during the interview. Obviously, the interviewer said only nice things, but the vibe I got was: you're a total psycho for taking LSAT that many times. I've been trying to understand why my interviewer looked at me that way, but.. I think once you're near median (high 160s), re-taking LSAT might not be such a GREAT way to impress the admissions office. I don't know what I'm talking about but that's just the vibe I got.

[curry1]

To sum:

1) Law schools care deeply about their MEDIAN LSAT score because it affects their rankings
2) Once two scores meet or exceed the median, then they no longer impact the MEDIAN in any way
3) Thus, exclusively in terms of Columbia's self-interest in maintaining their median, the value of a 171 and 179 are the same (all else being equal)

Yes, but higher LSAT scores still correlate with better 1L grades and bar passage rates. Also, all else being equal, schools would rather have a higher 75th percentile. So schools will still take the 179 over the 171.

Of course, I definitely see the many benefits of a higher LSAT score and how that would make you stand out (for your superior cognitive ability)

But I see many comments on TLS and just people around me recommending people to re-take LSAT (even when your GPA is above median) as if that will be a HUGE boost. In other words, to a disappointed applicant (*cough cough*), let's say he is 171/3.8, there's no point in telling him to re-take the LSAT in the blind faith that getting 175+ will drastically raise his chances at Columbia, right?

I mean, that will never happen, obviously, but continuing on with the hypothetical, the higher score will show that he's incredibly smart & gifted and all, but the boost might not be as big.... (or at least as big as we think it is).... because it doesn't really promote Columbia's self-interests as much (contributes 0.001% to raising the median because the number of people who get those scores are tiny). Obviously I don't want to re-take so I have a vested interest but hm...)

This is all wrong. Schools do care about their 75ths to some extent and a 171 retook to a 175 + a 3.8 gpa means going from a good chance at CLS to near guaranteed admittance with a butler/hamilton.

[lawschool2017712]

x

[dietcoke1]

Anyone else here complete before 12/1 and still waiting?

yup

[addie1412]

Anyone else here complete before 12/1 and still waiting?

11/30

[alpinespring]

To sum:

1) Law schools care deeply about their MEDIAN LSAT score because it affects their rankings
2) Once two scores meet or exceed the median, then they no longer impact the MEDIAN in any way
3) Thus, exclusively in terms of Columbia's self-interest in maintaining their median, the value of a 171 and 179 are the same (all else being equal)

Yes, but higher LSAT scores still correlate with better 1L grades and bar passage rates. Also, all else being equal, schools would rather have a higher 75th percentile. So schools will still take the 179 over the 171.

Of course, I definitely see the many benefits of a higher LSAT score and how that would make you stand out (for your superior cognitive ability)

But I see many comments on TLS and just people around me recommending people to re-take LSAT (even when your GPA is above median) as if that will be a HUGE boost. In other words, to a disappointed applicant (*cough cough*), let's say he is 171/3.8, there's no point in telling him to re-take the LSAT in the blind faith that getting 175+ will drastically raise his chances at Columbia, right?

I mean, that will never happen, obviously, but continuing on with the hypothetical, the higher score will show that he's incredibly smart & gifted and all, but the boost might not be as big.... (or at least as big as we think it is).... because it doesn't really promote Columbia's self-interests as much (contributes 0.001% to raising the median because the number of people who get those scores are tiny). Obviously I don't want to re-take so I have a vested interest but hm...)

This is all wrong. Schools do care about their 75ths to some extent and a 171 retook to a 175 + a 3.8 gpa means going from a good chance at CLS to near guaranteed admittance with a butler/hamilton.

That's EXACTLY what I thought (and still think) but if you look above, people with 175+ and 3.8 are being put on held/reserve, so that's why I asked the question.

[Mackgal]

Held today via email (URM, 25th LSAT, 75th GPA, interviewed in December)

[lsa16]

Anyone else here complete before 12/1 and still waiting?

11/30

10/11 y'all, 10/11

[lsa16]

Anyone else here complete before 12/1 and still waiting?

11/30

10/11 y'all, 10/11

Honestly, do you guys think this is still a normal wait or should I call/email soon?

[doritoslocostacos316]

Anyone else here complete before 12/1 and still waiting?

11/30

10/11 y'all, 10/11

Honestly, do you guys think this is still a normal wait or should I call/email soon?

I've been complete since 9/20 and have also heard nothing.

[bettyboopydoop]

So do we think it's better to have interviewed and be put on Hold or to have interviewed and not heard anything?

[jjcorvino]

Who here is going to the Columbia ASW next week? I will be attending. We should have a TLS meetup after the program for a drink.

[lawdude31]

To sum:

1) Law schools care deeply about their MEDIAN LSAT score because it affects their rankings
2) Once two scores meet or exceed the median, then they no longer impact the MEDIAN in any way
3) Thus, exclusively in terms of Columbia's self-interest in maintaining their median, the value of a 171 and 179 are the same (all else being equal)

Yes, but higher LSAT scores still correlate with better 1L grades and bar passage rates. Also, all else being equal, schools would rather have a higher 75th percentile. So schools will still take the 179 over the 171.

Of course, I definitely see the many benefits of a higher LSAT score and how that would make you stand out (for your superior cognitive ability)

But I see many comments on TLS and just people around me recommending people to re-take LSAT (even when your GPA is above median) as if that will be a HUGE boost. In other words, to a disappointed applicant (*cough cough*), let's say he is 171/3.8, there's no point in telling him to re-take the LSAT in the blind faith that getting 175+ will drastically raise his chances at Columbia, right?

I mean, that will never happen, obviously, but continuing on with the hypothetical, the higher score will show that he's incredibly smart & gifted and all, but the boost might not be as big.... (or at least as big as we think it is).... because it doesn't really promote Columbia's self-interests as much (contributes 0.001% to raising the median because the number of people who get those scores are tiny). Obviously I don't want to re-take so I have a vested interest but hm...)

This is all wrong. Schools do care about their 75ths to some extent and a 171 retook to a 175 + a 3.8 gpa means going from a good chance at CLS to near guaranteed admittance with a butler/hamilton.

That's EXACTLY what I thought (and still think) but if you look above, people with 175+ and 3.8 are being put on held/reserve, so that's why I asked the question.

I got a 168 and on the retake a 175. And the median is not in high 160s

[lsa16]

Who here is going to the Columbia ASW next week? I will be attending. We should have a TLS meetup after the program for a drink.

Will join if you convince them to let me in first

[airwrecka]

Who here is going to the Columbia ASW next week? I will be attending. We should have a TLS meetup after the program for a drink.

I wish I was going! But I'm waiting to hear if I need to fly out to NYC for an interview at NYU, and I don't want to fly out more than once so it's a waiting game for me right now....bleh!

[NotAGolfer]

Who here is going to the Columbia ASW next week? I will be attending. We should have a TLS meetup after the program for a drink.

Me! I'm in for a TLS meetup.

[tomgirl]

Is anyone else going to the luncheon next Friday from 12 - 2? (The Richard Paul Richman leadership one)