No. Northwestern is as far as I know the only one, UChi on rare occasions and Harvard by phone.
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
Messages - «ě»
NYU is most certainly a private university. This is not even something that should be remotely in doubt to anyone to is even thinking about applying to a top 5 law school. You have got to be kidding me.
Are you drunk, retarded or just decided to turn into a xoxo troll lately?
« on: November 06, 2007, 06:54:35 AM »
You say that people's soft factors with lower numbers (at Yale) can get them chosen over candidates with higher numbers. So in this situation, good enough soft factors override numbers. Yet in a situation where numbers are equal - soft factors can't override numbers? In this situation, Yale would choose numbers, even though there is no large number difference between the candidates, but choose soft factors when there is?
No, that is not what I'm saying at all. What I am saying is that there could be a hundred reasons why a 175/3.9 is rejected from Yale. Lacking soft factors could most certainly be one of them, but very far from the only reason. He could be an Engineering major and the Yale adcoms felt like they already admitted too many with engineering background, and the list goes on like that.
So a 176/3.8 with amazing soft factors would be less desirable to Yale than a 176/3.9 with nothing but 3.6/167 with amazing soft factors would be chosen over a 3.8/170? (for example).I just don't think this is right.
No, of course not, where did you get that from? I certainly said nothing like that. As said before, there's a large number of reasons why schools like Yale might reject you. There's only one reason why a school like Yale would admit a 160/3.5 student. My entire point was that you can't look at a rejection without knowing anything about that person and automatically chalk it down to a lack of soft factors, no matter how you define the term soft factors. You simply cannot know why the adcoms rejected that candidate without knowing everything they knew about him (or her).
I don't think you can 'prove' what it is that makes a school take a candidate but you can make an educated guess. Schools say they value soft factors, outliers often get through on soft factors - but talking about soft factors is 'lazy'? It could be that all the candidates reviewed after lunch are dinged because the adcoms have indigestion. Just because we can't disprove it doesn't make it the most sensible theory. Just because adcoms may ding on completely random things we can't measure doesn't make a theory based on soft factors stupid or unhelpful. Not sure why you think it does.
So, you actually agree with me.
« on: November 06, 2007, 06:26:53 AM »
All those are soft factors, since they aren't numerical. The only thing that wouldn't be is if they made the decisions entirely randomly.Actually they're not, but if you chose to stretch the definintion of soft factors to whatever suits you to still complete your argument, this will be getting pretty retarded. Soft factors are things like work experience, volunteer work, military background, stuff like that. Your academic record is not a soft factor by a long shot. It's as hard as they get.
BTW, there's wasn't a single non-URM on LSN accepted to NYU with <169, <3.65 last year (except the obviously fake dfturner), despite their tremendously high acceptance rate overall, so I'm not seeing these lower-number candidates who get in.
Here I am, Sherlock. Now you see one. And I've had it with arguing with you, quite clearly you're nothing but a complete tool who can't accept defeat even when it's punching you in the face.
« on: November 06, 2007, 01:53:19 AM »
Penn would be worth applying to for sure. Chicago seems like a bit too much of a reach. And I understand your reason for Colorado, just that you could have some considerably better safeties too
« on: November 06, 2007, 01:47:28 AM »
You know absolutely nothing about what criteria Yale choses between their sufficient number candidates. The only cases where you can know soft factors played a role is where people get accepted with sub-par numbers. When picking between two different 175/3.7 candidates Yale might very well be picking the one who has the most interesting major, the one that had an upwards trend in GPA instead of downwards, the one that had a father who's a Yale alum or a mother who's in the Senate. You have no basis what-so-ever to draw any conclusions based on this.
There's a million things that can get a high number candidate accepted or rejected at Yale. There's only one thing that can get a low number candidate in. That's the very essence of this thread.
Are you talking about from diagnostic to real test or between a first test and a retake?
In the first case you can easily do a 60 point jump, it's just about prepping.
As for retaking, I improved from a 156 to a 178, and I'm confident anyone putting in the same amount of work can do the same.