« on: November 07, 2005, 03:01:51 AM »
The short answer: nothing. But I was obsessing about my slim chances of getting into UCLA. Looking at their most recent attending class profile data, I'd be middle of the pack. But all that means, predicatbly, is that the people that go are at the lower end of the admitted pool than those that are accepted.
Looking at LSAC, the UCLA report says that 149/439 was the acceptance rate for the 3.5-3.74/165-169 matrix. So that would place me at about a 33% chance of admission. Yet Lawschoolstat's slightly older numbers put me at a 55%. What methodology are they using that produces such weird results? A similar look at USC reveals a 73% chance from the LSAC index, but a 65% chance off of LSS. Some of the effect must be due to the way the spectrum of values go; that box contains someone who's a 3.5/165 competing against a 3.74/169. Yet i'm unclear why it would overstate my odds of admission to UCLA and understate them at USC. You'd think schools would be reporting data differently to make their numbers look uniformly inflated.
Less interestingly: 33% of that group ends up distinguishing themselves somehow--but how? I haven't been to a forum and have only read Ivey's book so maybe someone that has can discuss this for me. Do adcomms tend to have some sort of ranking preference for the non-numerical indicators when they try to figure out which applicants should get in? Does the LOR trump the PS?
On a related note, i'm still wondering why people feel so much better with addenda (like i have for my grades) If the motivating factor for using a heavily numeric system is to make US News happy, then it won't do any good. All you're doing is explaining to the school why you have subpar numbers. Those numbers are still the ones being reported to US News, unless I missed some mechanism where they adjust the school's rank on the basis of well-written addenda they receive.