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

[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.

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

1) My argument is substantiated by hard data - you can call it circular if you please, but you'd be hard pressed to find hard data to refute my point

2) A relatively clear, one sentence statement expressing the jist of my argument isn't opaque. I know lawyers like to find ambiguity in relatively clear language, but at least wait until you're in law school.

3) how is this out of scope? I used the numbers provided by you to prove my point. Do I think it gets closer when it's a 3.8 ivy vs. a 3.9 TTT? Yes, it does. As I stated before, UG prestige is a soft factor - it plays a marginal role in admissions decisions, but will not compensate for a poor GPA or guarantee that someone with a high GPA does exceedingly better than his peers who have even 1 or 2 more points on the LSAT.

Also, excellent use of number 2 (LinkRemoved)

[Cade McNown]

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.

Well, no, UG prestige is not limited to those schools. In fact, I think a GPA bump would be less significant from these schools than from say Williams College. Isn't Yale one of those elite schools with incredible grade inflation?? Certainly all of those schools are ridiculously tough to get into in the first place, but that's the toughest part. Really we're not talking lay prestige so much as we're talking UG reputation, and applicants can get a rep bump from schools beyond those you've listed (again, from my convos with West Coast adcomms/deans). And yes, if you went to a UG where the majority of students can't spell, read, write, think...it will hurt you. Unfortunately, I don't think this is limited to community colleges. Perhaps I'm too cynical, but I doubt it.

[bk1]

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?

Really? You're banking this statement off a single 173/3.9 dot on LSN?

http://nyu.lawschoolnumbers.com/stats/0910/
http://lawschoolnumbers.com/tj396/jd

Considering he got into Harvard: Maybe he didn't care about his NYU app and fucked it up. Maybe he made an egregious typo. Who the fuck knows but if his profile is accurate he actually went to NYU for undergrad and not Bumfuck State Uni.

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.

I'm pretty sure they sincerely believe it when they say it despite the fact that it isn't true in practice when you look at admissions patterns across the board. They really do take time to read every single app, otherwise they would be able to render most decisions within a week or even a few days. The reason they care brings me to my next point...

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.?

Because if you do a shitty job on all that it can ding you, but if you fucking blow that crap out of the water it isn't going to make that much of a difference. They can hurt you a lot despite not being able to help you that much. Plus, people are often under the naive impression that they are borderline (whether they have good numbers or bad) so they try to eek every last ounce they can out of their app despite the fact that it doesn't matter a ton. You may as well try to impress them even if it is unlikely considering your GPA and LSAT are already set in stone, relatively speaking.

[Cade McNown]

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?

I'm sorry to hear all that, and don't mean to imply that you won't do well out of Brooklyn. I wouldn't make it the focal point of your statement, but yes I think you should relay it somehow, either through the PS or a supplemental statement about financial hardship/self-sufficiency. While there's a chance you'll be judged unfairly because of CUNY BK, you do have an opportunity to present yourself as mature, independent, resourceful etc.

[Cade McNown]

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?

Really? You're banking this statement off a single 173/3.9 dot on LSN?

http://nyu.lawschoolnumbers.com/stats/0910/
http://lawschoolnumbers.com/tj396/jd

Considering he got into Harvard: Maybe he didn't care about his NYU app and fucked it up. Maybe he made an egregious typo. Who the fuck knows but if his profile is accurate he actually went to NYU for undergrad and not Bumfuck State Uni.

Sorry, should have said red and yellow dots. Also, try checking other top-6 schools as well as for previous cycles. You will find that I have more than one data point. Moreover, the data on LSN are skewed and self-selecting the best, most anal applicants. A far better tool, if available, are the school admissions charts based on gpa and lsat ranges. This collects all applicants to a given school, not just those who report themselves, and not only those who report themselves and subsequently report their decisions rendered. I'm having trouble finding an example because I've only seen these charts in viewbooks before...

[Cade McNown]

This is what I'm looking for, but this one is for George Washington:

Applicant Group Applying for the 2010 Academic Year

In each box, the figure to the left of the slash represents applicants; while the figure to the right of the slash represents admittees (e.g. 10/2 in a box means 2 of 10 applicants with that combination of LSAT score and GPA were admitted).


3.75+ 3.50- 3.74 3.25- 3.49 3.00- 3.24 2.75- 2.99 2.50- 2.74 below 2.50 NoGPA
180-175: 18/16 26/23 28/17 14/11 4/3 4/2 5/0 19/3
170-174: 136/124 177/142 141/91 81/41 34/11 15/1 11/0 15/12
165-169: 563/467 722/306 483/162 258/67 105/12 53/6 17/4 72/37
160-164: 712/360 1018/14 735/12 566/10 133/5 61/3 34/0 98/30
155-159: 275/54 389/11 341/10 222/6 107/1 52/2 30/0 51/3
150-154: 104/6 291/2 192/1 176/0 88/1 43/0 36/0 35/1
below 150: 48/0 106/0 145/0 133/0 128/0 95/0 76/0 32/0


And this is only for GW! I'll see if I can find one for NYU. Still, you see the point. Even with the best stats there's still a chance you'll be rejected, or WL-reject.

[bk1]

Sorry, should have said red and yellow dots. Also, try checking other top-6 schools as well as for previous cycles. You will find that I have more than one data point. Moreover, the data on LSN are skewed and self-selecting the best, most anal applicants. A far better tool, if available, are the school admissions charts based on gpa and lsat ranges. This collects all applicants to a given school, not just those who report themselves, and not only those who report themselves and subsequently report their decisions rendered. I'm having trouble finding an example because I've only seen these charts in viewbooks before...

Yeah but those charts don't include the info necessary to shed any light on this.

Obviously LSN is self-selecting but it is decently representative (in that it is fairly close to reality) and it has the data. After taking a couple minutes to look at the yellow/red dots that are in the sea of green for NYU 09-10 I found these UG's:

Syracuse
UCLA
Top 5 Liberal Arts
Top Public
Liberal Arts
Unreported
Liberal Arts
Top Public
T1

I could go on but after a very small small sample I don't see your theory holding much water that those who are autoadmits on numbers don't get in because of their school. I bet I could go through the autoadmits and find more than few TTT undergrads.

You really think LSN is the best, most anal applicants? Holy fuck have you seen the graphs of people self-reporting their tons of rejections. Sure it skews heavily towards the T14/T30 or so applicants, but we are talking about the better schools here. There are tons of NYU applicants in the 169 or less LSAT range and sub 3.5 GPA range.

[bk1]

And this is only for GW! I'll see if I can find one for NYU. Still, you see the point. Even with the best stats there's still a chance you'll be rejected, or WL-reject.

No shit Sherlock. I'm not disputing that it is possible (if unlikely). I am contending that the reason isn't because they went to school in the backwoods of Idaho in almost all cases.

[Cade McNown]

This is what I'm looking for, but this one is for George Washington:

Applicant Group Applying for the 2010 Academic Year

In each box, the figure to the left of the slash represents applicants; while the figure to the right of the slash represents admittees (e.g. 10/2 in a box means 2 of 10 applicants with that combination of LSAT score and GPA were admitted).


3.75+ 3.50- 3.74 3.25- 3.49 3.00- 3.24 2.75- 2.99 2.50- 2.74 below 2.50 NoGPA
180-175: 18/16 26/23 28/17 14/11 4/3 4/2 5/0 19/3
170-174: 136/124 177/142 141/91 81/41 34/11 15/1 11/0 15/12
165-169: 563/467 722/306 483/162 258/67 105/12 53/6 17/4 72/37
160-164: 712/360 1018/14 735/12 566/10 133/5 61/3 34/0 98/30
155-159: 275/54 389/11 341/10 222/6 107/1 52/2 30/0 51/3
150-154: 104/6 291/2 192/1 176/0 88/1 43/0 36/0 35/1
below 150: 48/0 106/0 145/0 133/0 128/0 95/0 76/0 32/0


And this is only for GW! I'll see if I can find one for NYU. Still, you see the point. Even with the best stats there's still a chance you'll be rejected, or WL-reject.

So much for my reformatting. Anyway, for GW applicants with a 3.75+ and a 175+, 16 of 18 were admitted. 89%. At GW. My guess is the 2 rejects aren't on LSN...

[bk1]

So much for my reformatting. Anyway, for GW applicants with a 3.75+ and a 175+, 16 of 18 were admitted. 89%. At GW. My guess is the 2 rejects aren't on LSN...

Fair enough (I checked, they aren't). It still in no way helps your argument.

[Cade McNown]

And this is only for GW! I'll see if I can find one for NYU. Still, you see the point. Even with the best stats there's still a chance you'll be rejected, or WL-reject.

No shit Sherlock. I'm not disputing that it is possible (if unlikely). I am contending that the reason isn't because they went to school in the backwoods of Idaho in almost all cases.

Right, I get that, and my other contention is that a lot of the data isn't necessarily on LSN. I fully admit that there are a variety of reasons why someone with stellar numbers could get shut down at a top school, and I also admit that it's possible to be admitted from the UG equivalent of a TTT. So maybe my language that the data supports the idea that UG rep matters is a bit strong. At least you have to admit the data doesn't rule out UG rep as a significant factor as was originally claimed.

[Cade McNown]

So much for my reformatting. Anyway, for GW applicants with a 3.75+ and a 175+, 16 of 18 were admitted. 89%. At GW. My guess is the 2 rejects aren't on LSN...

Fair enough (I checked, they aren't). It still in no way helps your argument.

Right. My argument was never based on LSN data, it was based on my convos with West Coast adcomms. I was just defending myself earlier against the "thousands of little dots on LSN disagree with you" attack, and I guess I overstated it. What I should have said is that LSN data neither confirm nor deny that UG rep matters. FWIW.

[bk1]

Right, I get that, and my other contention is that a lot of the data isn't necessarily on LSN. I fully admit that there are a variety of reasons why someone with stellar numbers could get shut down at a top school, and I also admit that it's possible to be admitted from the UG equivalent of a TTT. So maybe my language that the data supports the idea that UG rep matters is a bit strong. At least you have to admit the data doesn't rule out UG rep as a significant factor as was originally claimed.

I'll take the handful of LSN dots (despite that they are not everything) and claim that UG rep can be ruled out as a significant factor.

[dr123]

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.

Correlation does mean causation my friend, I'd be willing to wager that most top students at ivies have significantly better softs than top students at podunk U

[ATR]

3.75+ 3.50- 3.74 3.25- 3.49 3.00- 3.24 2.75- 2.99 2.50- 2.74 below 2.50 NoGPA
180-175: 18/16 26/23 28/17 14/11 4/3 4/2 5/0 19/3
170-174: 136/124 177/142 141/91 81/41 34/11 15/1 11/0 15/12
165-169: 563/467 722/306 483/162 258/67 105/12 53/6 17/4 72/37
160-164: 712/360 1018/14 735/12 566/10 133/5 61/3 34/0 98/30
155-159: 275/54 389/11 341/10 222/6 107/1 52/2 30/0 51/3
150-154: 104/6 291/2 192/1 176/0 88/1 43/0 36/0 35/1
below 150: 48/0 106/0 145/0 133/0 128/0 95/0 76/0 32/0

Well, this clears things up.

[bk1]

3.75+ 3.50- 3.74 3.25- 3.49 3.00- 3.24 2.75- 2.99 2.50- 2.74 below 2.50 NoGPA
180-175: 18/16 26/23 28/17 14/11 4/3 4/2 5/0 19/3
170-174: 136/124 177/142 141/91 81/41 34/11 15/1 11/0 15/12
165-169: 563/467 722/306 483/162 258/67 105/12 53/6 17/4 72/37
160-164: 712/360 1018/14 735/12 566/10 133/5 61/3 34/0 98/30
155-159: 275/54 389/11 341/10 222/6 107/1 52/2 30/0 51/3
150-154: 104/6 291/2 192/1 176/0 88/1 43/0 36/0 35/1
below 150: 48/0 106/0 145/0 133/0 128/0 95/0 76/0 32/0

Well, this clears things up.

i lol'ed

[Nicholasnickynic]

UG reputation barely matters. Focus on your GPA/LSAT.

Edit: Also, plans aren't worth much.

UG rep barely matters??? Doubtful. Admissions committees aren't stupid, they know the difference between a 3.7 at bumfuck state university versus a 3.7 at a top school. They also know about grade inflation.

Coming from SUNY Brooklyn, make sure you're nearly the best of your UG's law school applicant pool. Then actually score in the 170s. Then ask.

But USNWR rankings don't know the difference. And lets be honest, thats what the admissions staff is there to do- get the best ranking possible. Sorry, your prestigious degree is worth as much as someones shitty degree.

[Cade McNown]

3.75+ 3.50- 3.74 3.25- 3.49 3.00- 3.24 2.75- 2.99 2.50- 2.74 below 2.50 NoGPA
180-175: 18/16 26/23 28/17 14/11 4/3 4/2 5/0 19/3
170-174: 136/124 177/142 141/91 81/41 34/11 15/1 11/0 15/12
165-169: 563/467 722/306 483/162 258/67 105/12 53/6 17/4 72/37
160-164: 712/360 1018/14 735/12 566/10 133/5 61/3 34/0 98/30
155-159: 275/54 389/11 341/10 222/6 107/1 52/2 30/0 51/3
150-154: 104/6 291/2 192/1 176/0 88/1 43/0 36/0 35/1
below 150: 48/0 106/0 145/0 133/0 128/0 95/0 76/0 32/0

Well, this clears things up.

Yeah fail on my part.

[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

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

O.M.G!

[Cade McNown]

This thread is old but I found this in a similar thread and am putting it here for reference:

"FWIW, years ago I read an article concerning Boalt Hall's modification of GPAs based on their opinion of the UG. I just did a quick search and found this:

--LinkRemoved--"

[taxnstuff]

Are the people arguing against any difference in UG prestige mostly said graduates of shit UG's?

[skers]

This thread is old but I found this in a similar thread and am putting it here for reference:

"FWIW, years ago I read an article concerning Boalt Hall's modification of GPAs based on their opinion of the UG. I just did a quick search and found this:

--LinkRemoved--"

Link doesn't work bro. Also, it still seems like you haven't gotten the point that Berk has atypical admissions and isn't representative of the rest of the t13. Do you want to change your argument regarding the importance of numbers v. undergrad prestige in light of your prestigious undergrad earning you a WL at USC and UCLA (two schools that supposedly would give prestigious universities outside of HYP a bump), a WL at Vandy and BU, and a ding at Michigan?