|
|
Show Posts
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 - absy
Pages: 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 8 9 10 ... 382
41
« on: September 25, 2006, 07:32:59 PM »
Absy, I don't get this. Sorry to be a pain, and thank you so much for all you are doing and offering, but why are the 2nd numbers less likely to get into Columbia, NYU & Chicago? Thanks again!
3.66/172 going for t14
Yale and Stanford: unlikely
Harvard: 35-40%
Columbia: 80%
NYU: 95%
Chi: 95%
Berk: 35%
3.93/172. Thanks Absy!
Yale: 30-35%
Stanford: 30% accept, 50% waitlist
Harvard: 50% accept, 30% waitlist
Columbia: 65% accept, 35% waitlist
NYU: 90% accept, 10% waitlist
Chi: 50% accept, 50% waitlist
Penn: 90% accept, 10% waitlist
Berk: 90% accept
I should apologize for that. the first one came early in my career, and I tweaked my method to break out the waitlist odds instead of trying to quantify it within the acceptance category. and Chicago yield protects.
42
« on: September 25, 2006, 07:29:55 PM »
Another calculator? why not: 3.86/173, HSCCNMVPB
Do you ever plan to publish your method (after this cycle?) I'm sure that it's interesting, whether it's close to reality or not.
probably no publishing; I'm working on publishing other things H: 45% accept, 35% waitlist S: 25% accept, 50% waitlist C: 60% accept, 35% waitlist C: 45% accept, 50% waitlist N: 85% accept, 10% waitlist M: 60% accept, 40% waitlist (yield protection hurts) V: 99% accept P: 85% accept, 15% waitlist B: 85% accept
43
« on: September 24, 2006, 10:06:03 PM »
168/3.9
Stanford, Columbia, NYU, Berkeley, UVA, Duke
I seem to have gotten lost in the shuffle of arguments over whether absy's method is accurate. I still want to have my fortune read. Trying again. Thanks.
haha, sorry about that. I'll see what I can do with my nebulous, doubtful, unprovable and potentially circle-jerking method. Stanford: 10% accept, 60% WL Columbia: 45% accept, 40% WL NYU: 50% accept, 35% WL UVA: 50% accept, 40% WL Berkeley: 60% accept, 10% WL Duke: 75% accept, 20% WL
44
« on: September 24, 2006, 02:50:24 PM »
a few observations and random thoughts from organizing and using my formula, and from mucking through LSN data:
Yale's admissions may be becoming more stratified. there is a range of people who can be relatively confident on their admission based on their numbers. in terms of LSN, more people are being represented in the higher numbers than they were two years ago, so that might be a factor.
Stanford waitlists an assload of people. looking at LSN, 19% of their admits were off the waitlist (as compared to 5% each for H and Y). given that they had about a 30% yield on their outright accepts on LSN, I would say a very significant chunk of the 1L class comes off their waitlist. this inflates their selectivity a bit.
there is almost definitely a line above which HLS just won't reject people.
Chicago does some combination of yield protection, soft-factor emphasis, and extra waitlisting.
45
« on: September 24, 2006, 11:34:48 AM »
I'm going to do myself (hah), and absy can tell me if he agrees.
172/3.81
Yale/Stanford: little chance
Harvard: 1/3 accept, 1/3 waitlist
Columbia: 70% accept
Chicago: 70-80% accept
Everywhere else: should be OK
Yale: 25% waitlist Stanford: 10% accept, 60% WL Harvard: 15% accept, 35% WL Columbia: 90% accept Chicago: 35% accept, 50% WL Berkeley: 75% accept
46
« on: September 24, 2006, 02:20:17 AM »
you will find that I never said I relied solely on LSN. in fact, the interchange quoted in Athos's message should provide further evidence. when I was confronted on seemingly anomalous numbers, I backed myself up with some LSN data that provided different but similar results. had I simply been using LSN data, I would have arrived upon the same numbers.
I acknowledge that no method is foolproof and that people shouldn't rely upon my predictions. I do, however, stand by my method and invite people to return here at the end of their cycle to compare their results with my predictions.
now enough talk about that. going to bed for now; will return later to give more predictions to anyone who so chooses.
47
« on: September 24, 2006, 02:15:25 AM »
ok, i'll have a go.
3.84/180
top-5 liberal arts
Yale: 40% accept, 35% WL Stanford: 30% accept, 50% WL all else, accept
48
« on: September 24, 2006, 02:08:04 AM »
Don't get me wrong, I like the odds you've given me! It looks like you're using LSN data, though, so I wonder if you can say how much your method is affected by people who never update their profiles after a certain point? You could discount anyone who doesn't have an "A" for attending some school, but that would be tough to do (finding every single person who applied to a top ten school and checking for an A). On the other hand, it's likely that if these people were getting off the waitlists, they'd be updating their profiles to say so...
to the extent that I use LSN data, I exclude anyone with incomplete information or without a final decision. I treat all WL as a final decision, because WLs are extremely finicky given year-to-year fluctuations.
49
« on: September 24, 2006, 02:04:52 AM »
Asserting that no one knows (except of course, admissions officers for schools and even their knowledge would only extend to the "boost" for that year at that particular school) what the boost is (not even the Great Absy) is the only correct answer. Predictions and assertions to the contrary are absurd and miss the particularities and complexities of what makes admissions an art - decisions about candidates on their qualifications holistically. If this position were incorrect, then what do you make of some African Americans of the same numbers getting into elite schools and others being rejected?
This is not to say that affirmative action doesn't exist, as your quote would indicate I was suggesting. Only that any rigid application of a boost is not discernable to us and your definition was pitiful in trying to define said boost.
I care not to get into the broader debate. I will agree that the bolded statement was, at best, poorly worded. I would decline to mystify the admissions process into an art. certainly a lot of factors go into admissions decisions, but an overall study shows a very strong emphasis on numbers. I chose HCN because they are well represented and larger schools, meaning that there should be a good amount of data for them. a cursory glance shows that approximately 20% (172 / 800) of HLS's admit class is represented on LSN. I erased the pending, not applied, deferred (if no further action is indicated), and those with incomplete data. I then split out the self-identified URMs. this process isn't exact, since not all URMs will choose to identify. however, I found 29 for HLS, and the enrollment is around 93 (not admission); this jives with the above percentage. I then sorted the two groups based on an equation of 20*GPA + LSAT for HLS (which other sources use). this didn't seem quite right for CLS (based on acceptances and based on the given index numbers; I didn't bother looking up the exact formula), so I changed it until it comported with the index numbers. that formula is 13*GPA + LSAT. I used 15*GPA + LSAT for NYU. that seems about right. I then looked at the point at which the first rejection occurred, when waitlists were prevalent, when odds first dipped below 50%, the point beyond which they never rose above 50%, and never above 30%. there results are as follows (non-URM / URM): HLS CLS NYU 255 / 245.6 221.5 / 216.18 234.15 / 218.5 249.5 / 239 218.06 / 216.13 225.35 / * 249.5 / 239 218.7 / 212.44 225.35 / 216.95 249 / 239 218.43 / 206.49 224.5 / 213.5 246.4 / 235.4 216.63 / 205.3 223.25 / 211.1 * NYU only WLed 8 of 56 URMs, so this was N/A this comes to: 9.4 4.32 15.65 10.5 1.07 N/A 10.5 6.26 8.4 10 11.94 11 11 11.33 12.15 any one of these might be skewed by peculiarities, but let's take an average: 10.28, 6.984, 11.8 or, if you prefer not to go through those machinations, you can simply compare the average between URM and non-URM accepted numbers on LSN: HLS: 3.89 / 174.4, 3.76 / 169.8 (.13 / 4.6) CLS: 3.79 / 173.3, 3.70 / 168 (.09 / 5.3) NYU: 3.79 / 172.6, 3.67 / 167.4 (.12 / 5.2) if you plug those into the above formulas, you get: 7.2, 6.47, 7.0 this comports with my earlier estimation that the "boost" (since this is the term used above) is between 6 and 9 points.
50
« on: September 24, 2006, 12:24:56 AM »
I've been told a lot that once you're beyond the 170s schools don't see a huge difference in the numbers. Personally I don't believe it. If you give a school a stellar number (GPA or LSAT), then you're bringing up their average, and they love that. It also gives them room to admit more of the candidates they really like with less than spectacular numbers. So I'd say a 172 versus a 176 DOES matter. Though I doubt it'll matter much in terms of their assessment of your ability. In that context, it's not a big deal if you're 98% percentile or 99%.
there is a big difference between a 172 and a 176. a 3.8 would have 70% chances at Harvard with a 176, but only 30% with a 172 (these numbers are, incidentally, HLS's 25/75%ile for LSAT.)
Pages: 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 8 9 10 ... 382
|
Discussion
Resources