What are my odds of getting into nyu law from Bk College Forum

[bk1]

Too many people to quote, sorry.

No, not new around here, this is my second cycle on TLS. Not a flame. Not fooled by common TLS misconceptions. UG Rep matters. Sure it doesn't matter for USNWR, but last I checked the NYU admissions committee is not USNWR. If you go to a shit UG, and apologies to OP but that's what CUNY BK is, you had better get a 4.0 or else you're toast! The comment about UG class rank and relative position to other BK law school hopefuls was just an attempt to quantify this.

On the flip side, applicants from strong UG institutions with no grade inflation get unofficial GPA bumps from admissions committees. Again grade inflation is discernible by looking at relative position to other LS applicants from your UG, and also through lay impressions of inflation. Some of the strongest UGs, many Ivys for instance, do not get this bump because it is well known that the only hard part is being accepted in the first place. I got all this from personal convos with Berkeley, UCLA, and USC deans and/or committee members. I see no reason why it would be any different at NYU than at the California schools. Berkeley committee member: "We consider a 3.6/3.7 at School X a 4.0." (PM if you care what School X is). Straight from the horse's mouth.

I realize that this is not a popular stance on TLS, whatever. OP, I would urge you to ask this question in other forums/venues besides TLS and see how the answers vary. TLS is great, but the answers aren't always as cut and dried as they seem here.

Two things:

1. Thousands of dots on LSN disagree with you.

2. Adcomms say all sorts of bullshit that they may believe, even if they don't really practice it. i.e. "We are holistic" even when their admissions process confirms that 95% of what they care about is GPA and LSAT.

[Cade McNown]

Too many people to quote, sorry.

No, not new around here, this is my second cycle on TLS. Not a flame. Not fooled by common TLS misconceptions. UG Rep matters. Sure it doesn't matter for USNWR, but last I checked the NYU admissions committee is not USNWR. If you go to a shit UG, and apologies to OP but that's what CUNY BK is, you had better get a 4.0 or else you're toast! The comment about UG class rank and relative position to other BK law school hopefuls was just an attempt to quantify this.

On the flip side, applicants from strong UG institutions with no grade inflation get unofficial GPA bumps from admissions committees. Again grade inflation is discernible by looking at relative position to other LS applicants from your UG, and also through lay impressions of inflation. Some of the strongest UGs, many Ivys for instance, do not get this bump because it is well known that the only hard part is being accepted in the first place. I got all this from personal convos with Berkeley, UCLA, and USC deans and/or committee members. I see no reason why it would be any different at NYU than at the California schools. Berkeley committee member: "We consider a 3.6/3.7 at School X a 4.0." (PM if you care what School X is). Straight from the horse's mouth.

I realize that this is not a popular stance on TLS, whatever. OP, I would urge you to ask this question in other forums/venues besides TLS and see how the answers vary. TLS is great, but the answers aren't always as cut and dried as they seem here.

Two things:

1. Thousands of dots on LSN disagree with you.

2. Adcomms say all sorts of bullshit that they may believe, even if they don't really practice it. i.e. "We are holistic" even when their admissions process confirms that 95% of what they care about is GPA and LSAT.

Point 1: No, LSN agrees with me. Take NYU. By all measures a 173 and a 3.9/4.0 should get you in, after all admitting such students only boosts their numbers. Yet somehow there's always those few odd red dots that don't make any sense. Of course this begs the question, why not admit that guy?

Addendum to Point 1: When I suggest that UG rep matters, I'm really only talking about the extremes. Highly selective UGs w/o grade inflation = boost, UG TTTs = demerit.

Point 2: Point taken. I agree. But I'm not referencing the standard bs lines adcomms give regularly. I've been lucky with a few connections to have real, not phony convos with adcomms and deans, and I trust what they've told me.

Sum: Of course pure numbers are important. But we've got a CUNY BK guy essentially asking will he be held back from NYU because of his UG, and I think it's misleading to just say no. That's too PC. The real answer is all else roughly equal, they're taking the guy with the better softs, and if you don't think UG rep is just about the most important soft you're nuts!

Addendum to Sum: Turn it around. If it's really all numbers, then why have all of you posters spent so much time caring about your PS, Resume, Supplemental Essays etc.?

[Cade McNown]

My point more succinctly: There are no numbers that guarantee you'll get into a school like NYU.

[paulinaporizkova]

Too many people to quote, sorry.

No, not new around here, this is my second cycle on TLS. Not a flame. Not fooled by common TLS misconceptions. UG Rep matters. Sure it doesn't matter for USNWR, but last I checked the NYU admissions committee is not USNWR. If you go to a shit UG, and apologies to OP but that's what CUNY BK is, you had better get a 4.0 or else you're toast! The comment about UG class rank and relative position to other BK law school hopefuls was just an attempt to quantify this.

On the flip side, applicants from strong UG institutions with no grade inflation get unofficial GPA bumps from admissions committees. Again grade inflation is discernible by looking at relative position to other LS applicants from your UG, and also through lay impressions of inflation. Some of the strongest UGs, many Ivys for instance, do not get this bump because it is well known that the only hard part is being accepted in the first place. I got all this from personal convos with Berkeley, UCLA, and USC deans and/or committee members. I see no reason why it would be any different at NYU than at the California schools. Berkeley committee member: "We consider a 3.6/3.7 at School X a 4.0." (PM if you care what School X is). Straight from the horse's mouth.

I realize that this is not a popular stance on TLS, whatever. OP, I would urge you to ask this question in other forums/venues besides TLS and see how the answers vary. TLS is great, but the answers aren't always as cut and dried as they seem here.

Two things:

1. Thousands of dots on LSN disagree with you.

2. Adcomms say all sorts of bullshit that they may believe, even if they don't really practice it. i.e. "We are holistic" even when their admissions process confirms that 95% of what they care about is GPA and LSAT.

THIS. admissions committees are guilty of spewing bullshit from time to time for their own benefit, which really makes them no different from anyone else. if they told the truth, fewer people would apply to their schools and they would lose a ton of money and suffer in the rankings because of decreased selectivity. then their schools would suffer. they need the holistic guise. they need to reject upwards of 80% of their applicants, so where do all these people come from? they are the "holistic" applicants. very few get in, most don't. this is why TLS is great - anyone can share their true stories about adcomm experiences and most people are willing to put it all out there because they have nothing to hide and nothing to gain from "stretching the truth" like adcomms do. oh, and their identities are protected.

[Mike12188]

Cade McNown is an idiot.

[BrownBears09]

Cade McNown is an idiot.

How do you explain the outliers on LSN then? A majority of them are from Top20 schools like the Ivies.

People, on this board specifically, don't like being excluded by getting their school's rep (and by association their accomplishments) knocked down. I used to feed into this hype, until I took a harder look at the data sets.

[HowdyYall]

if all goes according to plan, you're in pretty good position to get into NYU. Undergrad prestige doesnt matter as much as all undergrads think it does (this is coming from someone who actually goes to a prestigious undergrad school. If there is one thing to remember though, it's that LSAT is singular not plural (LSATs) unless you took more than one

[BrownBears09]

if all goes according to plan, you're in pretty good position to get into NYU. Undergrad prestige doesnt matter as much as all undergrads think it does (this is coming from someone who actually goes to a prestigious undergrad school. If there is one thing to remember though, it's that LSAT is singular not plural (LSATs) unless you took more than one

You post a lot of admissions anecdotes and hearsay for a 0L.

[Cade McNown]

Cade McNown is an idiot.

Right. I suppose I'll have to defer to consensus on that one too...

[98234872348]

Berkeley committee member: "We consider a 3.6/3.7 at School X a 4.0." (PM if you care what School X is). Straight from the horse's mouth.

You realize Berkeley is generally recognized to be the exception, rather than the rule, right?

I don't really know how much undergrad pedigree matters, but I think it's a safe bet that, all things equal, random 3.85/175 for XXX State University is in everywhere but HYS and random 3.85/170 from HYP has a hard time breaking into CCN.

[Cade McNown]

Berkeley committee member: "We consider a 3.6/3.7 at School X a 4.0." (PM if you care what School X is). Straight from the horse's mouth.

You realize Berkeley is generally recognized to be the exception, rather than the rule, right?

I don't really know how much undergrad pedigree matters, but I think it's a safe bet that, all things equal, random 3.85/175 for XXX State University is in everywhere but HYS and random 3.85/170 from HYP has a hard time breaking into CCN.

Woah woah woah. You're putting words in my mouth. I never said anything about the LSAT. Nobody is disputing the importance of the LSAT to admissions. I never said that a strong UG makes up for a weak LSAT, and never said that a strong LSAT is leveled by a shitty UG. Talking only about UG rep with respect to GPA.

Also, yes I realize Berkeley may be a bit different. That's why I also spoke to UCLA and USC and got the same answer: UG rep matters. Again, if there's any reason to think that these 3 schools collectively are unrepresentative, I'd be happy to hear it.

[sanjola]

Cade McNown is an idiot.

How do you explain the outliers on LSN then? A majority of them are from Top20 schools like the Ivies.

People, on this board specifically, don't like being excluded by getting their school's rep (and by association their accomplishments) knocked down. I used to feed into this hype, until I took a harder look at the data sets.

It doesn't matter what UG university you attended. Logistically, more people who were accepted at high ranked law schools attended high ranked UG schools because they are more academically inclined to do so. It's pretty clear why Harvard UG has more students accepted at t14 law schools than local bumfuk college.

[BrownBears09]

Berkeley committee member: "We consider a 3.6/3.7 at School X a 4.0." (PM if you care what School X is). Straight from the horse's mouth.

You realize Berkeley is generally recognized to be the exception, rather than the rule, right?

I don't really know how much undergrad pedigree matters, but I think it's a safe bet that, all things equal, random 3.85/175 for XXX State University is in everywhere but HYS and random 3.85/170 from HYP has a hard time breaking into CCN.

A 170 vs. 175... what a ridiculous analogy.

[Cade McNown]

Cade McNown is an idiot.

How do you explain the outliers on LSN then? A majority of them are from Top20 schools like the Ivies.

People, on this board specifically, don't like being excluded by getting their school's rep (and by association their accomplishments) knocked down. I used to feed into this hype, until I took a harder look at the data sets.

It doesn't matter what UG university you attended. Logistically, more people who were accepted at high ranked law schools attended high ranked UG schools because they are more academically inclined to do so. It's pretty clear why Harvard UG has more students accepted at t14 law schools than local bumfuk college.

And thus the importance of standing out if you do go to a local bumfuck college because it's taken for granted that the people you go to school with are not academically inclined to succeed. Sorry, that's just how it is.

[BrownBears09]

Cade McNown is an idiot.

How do you explain the outliers on LSN then? A majority of them are from Top20 schools like the Ivies.

People, on this board specifically, don't like being excluded by getting their school's rep (and by association their accomplishments) knocked down. I used to feed into this hype, until I took a harder look at the data sets.

It doesn't matter what UG university you attended. Logistically, more people who were accepted at high ranked law schools attended high ranked UG schools because they are more academically inclined to do so. It's pretty clear why Harvard UG has more students accepted at t14 law schools than local bumfuk college.

Do you even cite evidence? Your statement proves what? That people who go into high ranked UG schools do better in school because they're more inclined to do so? Are you intending to be circular?

If anything you prove my point.

And logistically? Do you mean logically? This isn't UPS (or any other courier service.)

[98234872348]

Berkeley committee member: "We consider a 3.6/3.7 at School X a 4.0." (PM if you care what School X is). Straight from the horse's mouth.

You realize Berkeley is generally recognized to be the exception, rather than the rule, right?

I don't really know how much undergrad pedigree matters, but I think it's a safe bet that, all things equal, random 3.85/175 for XXX State University is in everywhere but HYS and random 3.85/170 from HYP has a hard time breaking into CCN.

Woah woah woah. You're putting words in my mouth. I never said anything about the LSAT. Nobody is disputing the importance of the LSAT to admissions. I never said that a strong UG makes up for a weak LSAT, and never said that a strong LSAT is leveled by a shitty UG. Talking only about UG rep with respect to GPA.

Also, yes I realize Berkeley may be a bit different. That's why I also spoke to UCLA and USC and got the same answer: UG rep matters. Again, if there's any reason to think that these 3 schools collectively are unrepresentative, I'd be happy to hear it.

So, what you're saying is, all things considered, a 3.85/173 from HYP has a better chance of gaining admission than a 3.85/173 from podunk U to CCN?

I don't think anyone would contest this. It's a soft factor, and will almost always have some, albeit small, effect on an applicant's admission. However, does the HYP soft outweigh someone who attended podunk U then spent two years doing teach for America or 4 years as an investment banker on wall street? Possibly, but less likely than before. But, in situations where people are numerically indistinguishable, the nuances of their application packages are always going to matter.

[BrownBears09]

Berkeley committee member: "We consider a 3.6/3.7 at School X a 4.0." (PM if you care what School X is). Straight from the horse's mouth.

You realize Berkeley is generally recognized to be the exception, rather than the rule, right?

I don't really know how much undergrad pedigree matters, but I think it's a safe bet that, all things equal, random 3.85/175 for XXX State University is in everywhere but HYS and random 3.85/170 from HYP has a hard time breaking into CCN.

Woah woah woah. You're putting words in my mouth. I never said anything about the LSAT. Nobody is disputing the importance of the LSAT to admissions. I never said that a strong UG makes up for a weak LSAT, and never said that a strong LSAT is leveled by a shitty UG. Talking only about UG rep with respect to GPA.

Also, yes I realize Berkeley may be a bit different. That's why I also spoke to UCLA and USC and got the same answer: UG rep matters. Again, if there's any reason to think that these 3 schools collectively are unrepresentative, I'd be happy to hear it.

So, what you're saying is, all things considered, a 3.85/173 from HYP has a better chance of gaining admission than a 3.85/173 from podunk U to CCN?

I don't think anyone would contest this. It's a soft factor, and will almost always have some, albeit small, effect on an applicant's admission. However, does the HYP soft outweigh someone who attended podunk U then spent two years doing teach for America or 4 years as an investment banker on wall street? Possibly, but less likely than before. But, in situations where people are numerically indistinguishable, the nuances of their application packages are always going to matter.

You're missing his entire point, he's only talking about GPA.

I.e. 3.70 Ivy vs 3.90 Low Regional

[98234872348]

Berkeley committee member: "We consider a 3.6/3.7 at School X a 4.0." (PM if you care what School X is). Straight from the horse's mouth.

You realize Berkeley is generally recognized to be the exception, rather than the rule, right?

I don't really know how much undergrad pedigree matters, but I think it's a safe bet that, all things equal, random 3.85/175 for XXX State University is in everywhere but HYS and random 3.85/170 from HYP has a hard time breaking into CCN.

A 170 vs. 175... what a ridiculous analogy.

I was making an analogy with a clear auto-admit vs a clear outlier. Change it to 3.85/171 and 3.85/173 if you like, I'd still say the student from XXX state has a better chance at admission (and money) from all three schools.

[BrownBears09]

Berkeley committee member: "We consider a 3.6/3.7 at School X a 4.0." (PM if you care what School X is). Straight from the horse's mouth.

You realize Berkeley is generally recognized to be the exception, rather than the rule, right?

I don't really know how much undergrad pedigree matters, but I think it's a safe bet that, all things equal, random 3.85/175 for XXX State University is in everywhere but HYS and random 3.85/170 from HYP has a hard time breaking into CCN.

A 170 vs. 175... what a ridiculous analogy.

I was making an analogy with a clear auto-admit vs a clear outlier. Change it to 3.85/171 and 3.85/173 if you like, I'd still say the student from XXX state has a better chance at admission (and money) from all three schools.

Nobody is talking about LSAT weights. Why do you keep talking about the LSAT?

[$1.99]

the fact is that UG prestige matters only at Yale, Stanford, Harvard, and Columbia. Also, this does not mean they diminish a state applicant's file, it just boosts those who come from HYP undergrads. Unless you got a degree from the internet or a community college, it does not hurt you.

[98234872348]

You're missing his entire point, he's only talking about GPA.

I.e. 3.70 Ivy vs 3.90 Low Regional

Orly? My point was that indistinguishable GPAs are going to affect application status because prestige plays a role as a soft factor at that level.

If you're going to sit here and tell me that a 3.7/171 has a better chance than a 3.9/171 from XXX state at CCN, I do not think you have a marginally tenable argument.

[98234872348]

Nobody is talking about LSAT weights. Why do you keep talking about the LSAT?

If your theory held true, an identical gpa could compensate for a lower lsat.

[BrownBears09]

You're missing his entire point, he's only talking about GPA.

I.e. 3.70 Ivy vs 3.90 Low Regional

Orly? My point was that indistinguishable GPAs are going to affect application status because prestige plays a role as a soft factor at that level.

If you're going to sit here and tell me that a 3.7/171 has a better chance than a 3.9/171 from XXX state at CCN, I do not think you have a marginally tenable argument.

You are completely circular, opaque, and continually out of scope with your arguments. I agree to disagree, Mr. State.

[bergg007]

Plans are super neat.... Personally I plan on being #1 in the entire class in law school and clerking for the Supreme Court of the United States!

Me too, 'cept I'll win a few Super Bowls and walk on the moon somewhere in between.

Wimps. I'll be resolving world hunger and colonizing Mars by 2014.

Word to the wise, don't let arnold shwarzennegger come because he'll press the button and give the planet an atmosphere and ruin your whole plan.

[dglover29]

Ok, you guys have taken this argument to a different level! I thank you for the insight and have somewhat of a better understanding than I had before. I only asked because I had the opportunity to go to nyu undergrad but I turned it down partly because I couldnt afford it and I was told by the NYU Law admissions counselor that it would hurt my chances of being admitted. I went to UVA (originally from boston) before but me and my father had a falling out and he refused to pay for my schooling. So I moved to New york in hopes of going to NYU. I am only at Brooklyn College (or Bumfuck college lol) because I can't afford a private instuition and I am now paying for schooling on my own. Assuming that all goes well is that something I should relay in my personal statement?