3.87/171 Am I good at Columbia without ED? Forum

[bofaem]

I go to a top 20 UG, with a 3.87 and a 171 this past june am i good enough with regular at columbia?...if so i want to take a stab at stanford and harvard--but if not then i think ED would be the move

[Emma.]

I go to a top 20 UG, with a 3.87 and a 171 this past june am i good enough with regular at columbia?...if so i want to take a stab at stanford and harvard--but if not then i think ED would be the move

Admissions is always going to be a gamble, and I don't think anyone can tell you you are 'good enough' to feel totally secure at Columbia. I think with your numbers you have a great shot there, especially if you have strong softs and good essays. I'd tend to lean away from ED.

[ze2151]

um, no. 171 is not even close to a lock.

[lawls]

um, no. 171 is not even close to a lock.

Credited. If you want a shot at Harvard/Stanford, don't ED, but also don't be completely surprised if you don't make Columbia -- you aren't "safe."

Also, unless you are a URM, are HYP (and especially Harvard), or have out of this world softs, you're out at Harvard.

[im_blue]

You have a shot at Stanford, and the T20 will help a bit. Harvard will be harder. You're not a lock at Columbia, but your chances there are decent.

[WestOfTheRest]

You're chances at Columbia aren't that good. They really are lsat crazy at that school.

[bofaem]

looking at the stats it looks as though my chances my be better at stanford in terms of a reach school than harvard--but i've heard that stanfords stats are lower because they take kids from HYP and really good UGs--being in a UG that ranks mid to high teens, like me, probably doesn't cut it for that...also what kind of crazy softs would i need (humor me)

so if my goal was to go t4 my chances are obviously best ED at columbia right? given that im certainly not a lock at columbia RD, and a long shot at h and s it would make the most sense to ED at columbia and blanket the rest of the t14?

[zanda]

I was 3.85, high LSAT 174, average LSAT 171, and got D --> WL --> Reject. Nothing is guaranteed.

[Columbia Law]

Yeah man. You have almost no shot at Columbia. No offense, just the facts. My first LSAT was 171 and I wasn't getting in if I didn't retake. That was three years ago.

[bofaem]

really? my lsat is at their mean and my gpa is above their 75% i've gotta have a chance? certainly if i apply ED i have a chance? Or are those mostly URMs, crazy softs and ivyUGs that are at the mean and get in?

[berkeleykel06]

A quick glance at LSN shows that you probably have a 30-40% chance or so of getting into Columbia. There are a lot of WLs around 171, 3.9.

[lawls]

You have a chance, for sure. But you are below the LSAT median, and the LSAT median is more important than the GPA median (especially at Columbia, which is one of the most LSAT heavy schools there is). Whether you want to risk getting into Stanford with your numbers is up to you (where you are still below the GPA median), but Yale/Harvard are out--you are below both medians for both schools. As noted in the post above, a little less than half of the students with your numbers were admitted to Columbia this cycle.

I think ED to Columbia is probably a decent decision here, unless you have great softs we don't know about. You aren't getting Columbia money with that LSAT, and Stanford is still unlikely. But a lot of this depends on things we don't know--how good your application is, and your career goals. If you want NY biglaw, and have some personal preference for Columbia over NYU/Chicago, I'd recommend Columbia ED in this instance.

[Soda Mixer]

This thread is very relevant to my interests, as I have an identical GPA and an LSAT one point higher. I too have been unsure about ED'ing to Columbia, but I am beginning to feel less and less secure about my RD chances and will likely end up applying early decision.

I don't have too much advice for OP other than to echo lawls and say that, assuming you view Columbia differently than Chicago and NYU and wouldn't mind paying sticker and giving up whatever slim chance you might have at Stanford, ED would probably be the smart play. Whatever you decide to do, good luck!

[WestOfTheRest]

This thread is very relevant to my interests, as I have an identical GPA and an LSAT one point higher. I too have been unsure about ED'ing to Columbia, but I am beginning to feel less and less secure about my RD chances and will likely end up applying early decision.

I don't have too much advice for OP other than to echo lawls and say that, assuming you view Columbia differently than Chicago and NYU and wouldn't mind paying sticker and giving up whatever slim chance you might have at Stanford, ED would probably be the smart play. Whatever you decide to do, good luck!

Your chances with a 172 are significantly higher than op with a 171.

[bofaem]

do i have a realistic shot at stanford who takes lower stats but looks more at your app and if you have good softs--assuming i had some standout ones

or are the lower stats coming because they take kids 168-172 from HYP

[LjakW]

I went to a TTT, but 3.93 and a 172 did not get me off their WL.

[lawls]

do i have a realistic shot at stanford who takes lower stats but looks more at your app and if you have good softs--assuming i had some standout ones

or are the lower stats coming because they take kids 168-172 from HYP

Yes to the bolded. Unless you went to HYPS for undergrad, and/or have something else that is very rare (e.g. Rhodes Scholar), having medianish stats for Stanford is not a good sign. The low stats are a sign that Stanford is pulling applicants with elite credentials besides their numbers.

[r6_philly]

do i have a realistic shot at stanford who takes lower stats but looks more at your app and if you have good softs--assuming i had some standout ones

or are the lower stats coming because they take kids 168-172 from HYP

Yes to the bolded. Unless you went to HYPS for undergrad, and/or have something else that is very rare (e.g. Rhodes Scholar), having medianish stats for Stanford is not a good sign. The low stats are a sign that Stanford is pulling applicants with elite credentials besides their numbers.

Is this cited as fact because you have factual data to support it? Of course the more people are discouraged, the better it is for everyone who isn't...

[bofaem]

Anyone know how early stanford could potentially get back to you if you applied right at the beginning of the cycle? Are they looking for certain types of good softs (like rhodes/fulbright) or do they actually look at the whole app for quality softs that may not be part of an established institution or program?

and does this look accurate?:
Y-out
H,S-most likely out, unless incredible softs
Columbia-50/50 if ED, probably WL if not
Chicago and NYU-WL/In
Duke and Penn-WL/In
Mich-Probably In $?
Cornell-Probably In $?
Gtown-Probably In

[sumus romani]

Anyone know how early stanford could potentially get back to you if you applied right at the beginning of the cycle? Are they looking for certain types of good softs (like rhodes/fulbright) or do they actually look at the whole app for quality softs that may not be part of an established institution or program?

and does this look accurate?:
Y-out
H,S-most likely out, unless incredible softs
Columbia-50/50 if ED, probably WL if not
Chicago and NYU-WL/In
Duke and Penn-WL/In
Mich-Probably In $?
Cornell-Probably In $?
Gtown-Probably In

Just regarding S. They accept a very small number early (as in early Dec.). Then, they sit on the vast bulk of the applications for quite some time (presumably to avoid accepting EDers at, say Columbia, NYU, and those who are in at Y and perhaps H). So we are talking Feb. or later for the bulk here.

[lawls]

do i have a realistic shot at stanford who takes lower stats but looks more at your app and if you have good softs--assuming i had some standout ones

or are the lower stats coming because they take kids 168-172 from HYP

Yes to the bolded. Unless you went to HYPS for undergrad, and/or have something else that is very rare (e.g. Rhodes Scholar), having medianish stats for Stanford is not a good sign. The low stats are a sign that Stanford is pulling applicants with elite credentials besides their numbers.

Is this cited as fact because you have factual data to support it? Of course the more people are discouraged, the better it is for everyone who isn't...

Sorry bofaem I re-read the first post. bofaem, didn't mean to suggest they wouldn't take good softs over a HYPS with lesser softs, though I think the HYPS degree will tend to break ties. I do have second-hand knowledge that the class at Stanford seems to be pretty heavy on the elite undergrads, but this is usually a proxy for softs mattering, not adcomms being fooled by a name brand degree. If you have some standout softs, sure it is on the table; that is what they are looking for. (As my explanation makes clear, this is what I was trying to express). I shouldn't have replied I was reading too quick.

[I was curious and ran your approximate numbers on LSN: 3.82-3.87 GPA, or slightly below median and at least halfway above the 25th, and 170-172 LSAT, or from the median LSAT to the 75th LSAT. The sample size isn't huge, even with this too large range, but the results back up my basic point: 1 acceptance, 8 rejections, and four waitlists that probably turned into rejections, but were not updated. The one acceptance is finishing his PhD at Stanford; PhD in engineering I think, and I think his info is in the Stanford 2010 thread. So you have a chance but you are in the reach category. Stanford admissions isn't easy. Also, the above advice that Stanford takes a while for the majority of its acceptances is credited.]

As for your comment r6philly, not sure what to say, other than: why are you so quick to assume someone would try to dissuade an applicant from applying for extremely base and petty reasons (which is a pretty absurd thing to be doing for a million reasons)? Sure, I bet it happens, but going around tossing out accusations regarding others petty motives often says just as much about the accuser than the accused.

[r6_philly]

As for your comment r6philly, not sure what to say, other than: why are you so quick to assume someone would try to dissuade an applicant from applying for extremely base and petty reasons (which is a pretty absurd thing to be doing for a million reasons)? Sure, I bet it happens, but going around tossing out accusations regarding others petty motives often says just as much about the accuser than the accused.

I asked about the facts first.

Of course, based on your logic, by accusing me of being petty, it more than often reflect on the accuser being actually pety right? lol Sorry, can't help it. If you feel like my sarcastic comments from the original post was in anyway serious, I should bear the blame. It's a joke...

[rv11]

This thread is very relevant to my interests, as I have an identical GPA and an LSAT one point higher. I too have been unsure about ED'ing to Columbia, but I am beginning to feel less and less secure about my RD chances and will likely end up applying early decision.

I don't have too much advice for OP other than to echo lawls and say that, assuming you view Columbia differently than Chicago and NYU and wouldn't mind paying sticker and giving up whatever slim chance you might have at Stanford, ED would probably be the smart play. Whatever you decide to do, good luck!

Your chances with a 172 are significantly higher than op with a 171.

Sorry to hijack the thread for a second, but what do people recommend ED-wise for a similar GPA and a 172? Would having a median LSAT completely change the advice to ED?

[lawls]

As for your comment r6philly, not sure what to say, other than: why are you so quick to assume someone would try to dissuade an applicant from applying for extremely base and petty reasons (which is a pretty absurd thing to be doing for a million reasons)? Sure, I bet it happens, but going around tossing out accusations regarding others petty motives often says just as much about the accuser than the accused.

I asked about the facts first.

Of course, based on your logic, by accusing me of being petty, it more than often reflect on the accuser being actually pety right? lol Sorry, can't help it. If you feel like my sarcastic comments from the original post was in anyway serious, I should bear the blame. It's a joke...

I actually never said it revealed the accuser to be petty. But you are right in that I should have assumed it was a joke.

[As for the facts, it is mostly second-hand reports from students regarding their incoming classes (two occasions); they just noted the classes seemed heavy on elite undergrads, though I don't think this should be interpreted as "independent of softs."]

[r6_philly]

I actually never said it revealed the accuser to be petty. But you are right in that I should have assumed it was a joke.

[As for the facts, it is mostly second-hand reports from students regarding their incoming classes (two occasions); they just noted the classes seemed heavy on elite undergrads, though I don't think this should be interpreted as "independent of softs."]

It's ok, it doesn't always pay to be a smart ass and I am old enough to know that well

I don't feel it's really because of the students' quality, but the fact that elite undergrads perhaps have more access and resources to accomplish more EC activities/softs. I have always been impressed by the amount of things elite undergrads do while they are in school... Now that I am going to one as a grad student, I finally realize how many opportunities they are presented with, and how anyone who is interested can do so many interesting and rewarding things. It is only summer time and I already signed up to be involved in 3 different programs. Compare to my state UG ... well there is not comparison.

So maybe the quantitative difference is not with the students themsevles, but rather the educational/EC environment of the institutions. I can see why elite LS's will want to give more preference to graduates of elite UG insitutions, they are probably on average more diverse (in knowledge, activities and experiences) than most.