thanks Forum

[lawlcat4179]

You have H this cycle. If you are dead set on YS or bust, then retake. Otherwise, enjoy H.

Not sure if serious. He has a below median GPA and a median LSAT. He said he has no impressive softs. Really quite far from a lock.

Once again, every single applicant with his numbers was accepted last cycle and so far this cycle.

Harvard hasn't rejected or waitlisted anyone yet this cycle, so we're really talking about 4 people in the 173-173 3.83-3.87 range from one cycle. I think these are the people:

http://lawschoolnumbers.com/deluxe2012/jd
http://lawschoolnumbers.com/beeveekay
http://lawschoolnumbers.com/ew3721
http://lawschoolnumbers.com/ellpaul

Two ivy undergrads, one URM, so not very representative. If you widen the range even a little bit, things start to look different: http://myLSN.info/68rnj4.

This cycle, there's a 178/3.83 who submitted early, interviewed in November, and still hasn't heard back, while a 170/3.76 non-URM got in straight out of undergrad with supposedly average softs. I only mention the latter to point out that the new interview makes Harvard a lot less predictable.

+1
For what it's worth I got waitlisted last year with a 3.85 and a 175. At the time my soft factors were pretty below average and I applied late in the cycle, but did manage to get in this year (with fairly improved softs). So while a 3.85 173 certainly looks good in this cycle, with below average soft factors it is far from a lock.

[suralin]

not stressing, title is hypo. Asking which of those 2 numbers is keeping me down @ HYS: GPA or LSAT

if GPA, hard to believe a few hundredths from the median makes that big of a difference.

if LSAT, it's more easily raised

Shouldn't be surprised.

[gottago]

deleted

[Nova]

And how do TLSers know medians are all-important to LS's wrt an individual applicant?

Its clear medains are importaint based on LSN data.

Look at UVA. Look at the wall of green with 170s. Look at the lack of green below 170 (except for above median GPA applicants)

http://uva.lawschoolnumbers.com/stats

Notice the wall of green at 167 for UMN (their median):

http://minnesota.lawschoolnumbers.com/stats/1112/

[lawlcat4179]

+1
For what it's worth I got waitlisted last year with a 3.85 and a 175. At the time my soft factors were pretty below average and I applied late in the cycle, but did manage to get in this year (with fairly improved softs). So while a 3.85 173 certainly looks good in this cycle, with below average soft factors it is far from a lock.

<.05 from median & >median or 75% LSAT & early application won't be enough?

And how do TLSers know medians are all-important to LS's wrt an individual applicant? I.e., it's all the same if you're below the median no matter how far below?

That's not really what I said. A 3.85 and a 173 would likely be enough to get you in (or at least give you a good shot), even if you still submitted this cycle. I'm merely saying that they are not good enough to be a lock at getting in, especially with below-average soft factors, as my waitlist from last year (with better numbers even) illustrates.

Also worth noting, however, is that I withdrew from the waitlist early on last year. There were a lot of waitlisters who got accepted over the summer, and I likely could have been one of them had I rode it out.

[Nova]

I.e., it's all the same if you're below the median no matter how far below?

Its not. It just matters alot less than being above/below median.

A 3.3 is probably gonna do a little worse than a 3.5, all else being equal equal.

Most top schools also have GPA floors, where applicants typically have no chance if they are below a certain GPA.

[gottago]

deleted

[sinfiery]

Also worth noting, however, is that I withdrew from the waitlist early on last year. There were a lot of waitlisters who got accepted over the summer, and I likely could have been one of them had I rode it out.

Please, mention this earlier next time. Your previous post made me all sad.