Post removed.
Posted: Mon Oct 28, 2013 6:36 pm
Post removed.
Yes, it makes more sense than you might think from reading TLS/LSN.
1) Applicants who make LSN profiles are already highly ambitious, aware, and for the most part will as a result craft sounder applications, apply to the right schools, ect. The data is definitely swayed towards applicants who already stand a slightly greater than 50/50 shot than another applicant with their same numbers, IMO.
2) Lots of people don't report when they get rejected. Go onto any of the LSN pages for a T14 school: the majority of the pages are "pending". My bet is most of these pendings are WL/rejects.
3) A 169 until recently has not been a strong enough score to guarantee admission into any T14. UCLA was holding a 170 LSAT median in 2011 when your friend applied. Cornell may be easier on numbers, but they are a little more selective in other categories than some of the other lower T14's; Berkeley is a crapshoot, he's below medians at Stanford.
The Georgetown and Duke rejects are the only surprising ones for me, but that was a tougher cycle than the last few.