SLS: 3.98 @ Ivy, LSAT 167-174 (?) Forum

[Casey2889]

I've done well in college (philosophy/political science major) and have a pretty strong GPA with pretty strong softs (nominated by my university for the Rhodes/Marshall scholarships [winners announced in Nov.], writing an honors thesis, hold/have held leadership positions, etc.).

I just took the LSAT yesterday, and though I had been pretty consistent with my PTs (171 average overall, 174 high 2x), the test yesterday didn't feel like one of my best performances. In fact, I'm concerned I didn't break 170, and if I did, only barely.

For a variety of reasons, Stanford is my first choice. While I've heard they are "more interested" in GPA/softs at SLS than LSAT score, at what threshold should I consider retaking?

Thanks in advance, I really appreciate the advice.

[oppotomus]

--

[rso11]

Hm, hard to say. I know West coast schools tend to be pretty GPA-happy and your GPA is really good. Wait for your score; if you check the numbers, they actually tend to accept ppl w/ the score you've proposed. So I'd stick with it unless you hit like the mid 160s. If need be, I think you still have time to register for Dec after the scores come out.

[Casey2889]

Thanks for info re: Michigan and responses thus far.

I'm feeling a 170 as a reasonable semi-conservative estimate...but, to clarify, you are saying a 169 would NOT be worth a retake? (Note: SLS 25-75 = 167-172; Median = 170.)

[Grizz]

Come back when you actually have an LSAT. 167-174 is a massive range.

[Columbia Law]

WTF? You are an Ivy grad and you still don't have the common sense to know that we need to know your actual score (not a huge range) to help you? Legacy?

[im_blue]

Come back when you actually have an LSAT. 167-174 is a massive range.

+1. Massive range of possibilities from Cornell to Yale.

[rso11]

+1

[Casey2889]

Ha, no, I'm not a legacy, though I appreciate the humor.

I understand that my posted range (167-174) gives you no grounds to provide a prediction, but my specific question--which it looks like I didn't do such a great job of highlighting--was whether I should retake in December if I score below 170 and want to go to SLS.

This input is valuable because it will help me decide whether to register (and pay) for the December test. Since I may not be guaranteed a local test-center if I register too late (i.e. after Nov. 1 when I receive my score), I would want to register sooner than later if I had reason to believe a score below a certain level (i.e. 170) would substantially imperil my admission.

Thanks for all of your responses thus far.

[im_blue]

If you want Stanford, a 170 will give you significantly better chances than 169 or lower.

[Kretzy]

If you want Stanford, a 170 will give you significantly better chances than 169 or lower.

This. With your GPA, you'll get a look with anything above a 167. A 170 puts you in a range where applying early probably outweighs any value of retaking. Have the application ready to send the day scores come out. That includes having your Form B and LORs in.

[Casey2889]

I thought SLS was not on a rolling admissions schedule, guess not. Will take note of that, thanks.

So is there consensus that I'm pretty screwed sub-170?

Again, thanks for replies.

[The Real Jack McCoy]

I'm curious as regards the Stanford and rolling admissions. Closer to Yale or Stanford?

But I agree with the consensus, 170 is the magic number in your case; below and I'd retake.

[BioEBear2010]

I'm curious as regards the Stanford and rolling admissions. Closer to Yale or Stanford?

I'm confused . . . Stanford's take on rolling admissions is almost certainly more similar to Stanford's than Yale's.

In any case, Yale has said many times that it does not care when an applicant sends in his/her materials (as long as it is done before the deadline, of course). I've heard that Stanford is the same way, but I'm not 100%.

[r6_philly]

Their status checker states that decisions are made on a rolling basis.

Anyone has any insights on how admission decisions are made?

[theadw]

Hey, stranger.

Your fancy undergrad & fancy GPA will go over well here. Unless admissions standards change radically next year (and unless you write an incoherent, alarming, or silly PS), you're probably in with a 168 or over. If you'd like to be less nervous, retake if you suspect that you'll break 170.

As to whether Stanford has rolling admissions, well, I don't think so, but I also don't remember them having a status checker. I'm getting old.

[The Real Jack McCoy]

I'm curious as regards the Stanford and rolling admissions. Closer to Yale or Stanford?

I'm confused . . . Stanford's take on rolling admissions is almost certainly more similar to Stanford's than Yale's.

In any case, Yale has said many times that it does not care when an applicant sends in his/her materials (as long as it is done before the deadline, of course). I've heard that Stanford is the same way, but I'm not 100%.

I was contrasting "the Stanford" with "Stanford", obviously. How else would you interpret the "the" in the first sentence?

[r6_philly]

As to whether Stanford has rolling admissions, well, I don't think so, but I also don't remember them having a status checker. I'm getting old.

Stanford, and a few others schools has transitioned to LSAC powered, branded status checkers this year.

Quote from the status checker:

"Please be advised that decisions are made on a rolling basis. The Office of Admissions will make every effort to provide decisions by April 30. "

[MartianManhunter]

There wasn't any sort of status checker. From what I observed last cycle, it doesn't seem like when you apply is going to significantly alter your chances. Submit now, retake, and send new scores in December. You'll be straight.

[Casey2889]

Didn't know you could submit w/ a score and re-take during review... Interesting, but really don't want to retake. Would be especially maddening considering my last 3 PTs were 171-174.

Hopefully the SLS specific letter I'm sending on top of the 2 general LORs, plus the strong Stanford specific endorsement from my Dean on Form B (he nominated and subsequently guided me through the scholarships processes) will give me redeeming "softs" should my score (gulp) fall at the lower end of my range.

Thanks again for the comments.

[MaxWeber]

.

[Casey2889]

FWIW, I've been named a finalist for one of the above scholarships.

Hope my LSAT hits 170 on 11/1, but maybe this can deflect some pressure if its 168-169...

[abl]

Good luck! I don't think that 170 is the magic number for SLS (which is far more softs-driven than it's generally given credit for). Rather, with your GPA and background, I think you're in pretty good shape with anything above a 168. I would retake if you score below a 165, would consider retaking if you score in the 165-168 range, and would keep your score with a 168+. Pending an LSAT in line with your PTs, your paper profile makes you exactly the sort of candidate SLS loves. That's not to say that you're going to get in with a 168+; as you obviously understand, part of SLS caring a ton about "softs" means that once your stats are within a certain range--as yours seem likely to be--it's going to come down to largely what sort of "feel" the admissions staff gets from your application, which is not something we can guess at here on the board.

Incidentally, the SLS admissions procedure is most similar to Yale's (both schools are super softs-driven and include faculty review in the process, although my sense is that Yale is marginally more numbers-driven).

[r6_philly]

Incidentally, the SLS admissions procedure is most similar to Yale's (both schools are super softs-driven and include faculty review in the process, although my sense is that Yale is marginally more numbers-driven).

Really? I don't hear this too much. It's always about Yale and what they claim.

[abl]

I guess I have no real basis for claiming that Yale is more numbers driven than Stanford other than from what I've seen, which is admittedly a pretty small sample. My sense is that both Stanford and Yale have informal numbers thresholds above which it becomes almost entirely about softs. My hypothesis is that the difference is that Yale's informal cut-off is higher relative to their applicant pool.

To make up some numbers to illustrate my point, imagine that Yale and Stanford each get 5,000 applicants, admit 500, and matriculate 200. My hypothesis here is that, based almost entirely on numbers, Yale narrows its pool to 1,000, and chooses its 450 favorite of those top 1,000 scorers based almost entirely on softs, with 50 truly exception applicants being pulled from the remaining 4,000 who didn't meet the soft numbers cut-off. Stanford, on the other hand, narrows its pool to 1,500 and chooses its 450 favorites within the slightly larger pool based almost entirely on softs (also with 50 truly exceptional candidates pulled from below the cut-off). This way of doing admissions would lead to a perceived "black box" effect as a fair number of 178/3.9s would be rejected in favor of a fair number of 174/3.8s.

Now, obviously this is an oversimplification, as the applicant pools for SLS and YLS are not exactly the same, nor are the schools' class sizes or yield rates. Also, I do think that numbers play a small role for those who make the cut-offs (so a boring applicant with a 180/4.0 out of Swarthmore is going to have a better chance of admission than a boring applicant with a 178/3.9 out of Swarthmore).

Also, my sense is that the sort of softs that impress the YLS adcom are not exactly the same as the sort of softs that impress the SLS adcom. I think SLS puts marginally more weight on getting students with interesting personalities and exotic backgrounds while YLS puts marginally more weight on getting students with a serious intellectual bent. Thus, I would argue that a jazz fiddler with a 3.8/175 and 8 years in covert ops would have a marginally better shot at SLS while someone with a 3.8/175 and a phd in classics with several noteworthy publications would have a marginally better shot at YLS (although probably both would get into both schools haha).