Law School Discussion

Nine Years of Discussion
;

Author Topic: Umm, Boalt Email?  (Read 19698 times)

jeb240

  • Guest
Re: Umm, Boalt Email?
« Reply #250 on: February 21, 2006, 08:09:53 AM »
The conceit is there, whether you are applying the term yield protect to your application or to someone else's.  Invoking yield protect is saying, "Yes, I know the school wanted this kid, but the school didn't think the kid would go."  Uhm, maybe the school just didn't want the kid.  We can argue this back and forth, but the fact of the matter is that calling "yield protect" is saying that whoever *should* have gotten in here or there, and we don't know that.

Re: third tier behavior, by saying that if a school does x it should be relegated to the third tier, that is saying that schools in the third tier do x.  Perhaps I misspoke before, but that's the point I wanted to make.  Making implications on the methodology and behaviors of schools based on where they fall in this ranking doesn't really seem fair.  If we're going to rank, someone has to be at the top and someone has to be at the bottom, but that constellation does not necessarily imply at all how these schools might treat people/applicants.

Re: 7, I don't think 3 = several.  I am waiting on final decisions from ten schools.
7: HYSCCN and Berkeley
3: Vanderbilt, Cornell and Brooklyn.
But I was going back on what I said because as I was typing I realized that, yeah, schools will decide which students mean a great deal to them and which ones mean less, so perhaps there's no reason to this rhyme.

Re: the system, I mean the rankings system.  This whole ranking system (and I do not claim to be free of its power) is this massive negative credentialing that seems just grossly unfair.  If all of the schools that we had to choose from were HYSCCN and they were broken up into tiers 1, 2 and 3 by the most influential ranking publication around, but the schools were exactly the same as they are now (save for the fact that clearly all of the faculty would only have come from those 6 schools), would the term TTT still be used?  I feel like people would use it, just so they could say something.  Because being at the bottom = bad, no matter what the bottom is actually composed of, which is such limited thinking.

We denounce the rankings as arbitrary, but the "most qualified" students apply to the "best" schools.  We say that schools should look at more than numbers, but when a 4.0/173 gets waitlisted/deferred or even rejected by Michigan, we call that a "yield protect," and maybe it was a yield protect, yet the only evidence used in support of that argument are the applicant's numbers, and we are upset... how dare Michigan turn down an applicant with such great numbers, even though Michigan may have picked up on the fact that he or she is a total feminine hygiene product bag from the application?  And given that students who do not necessarily write the "Why This School" essays still manage to get into those schools, I would argue that the "proof" of such essays being required as indicative of yield protecting is weak at best.

But really, there is no point in this argument.  All anyone is really saying is that the term TTT is immature and annoying, which you seemed to agree with when you said "Annoying things happen" or whatever it was that you said.  Which I guess means we're all on the same page, and you can continue to do whatever the hell you damn well please.  It is the internet, after all.

Lgirl

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 241
    • View Profile
Re: Umm, Boalt Email?
« Reply #251 on: February 21, 2006, 10:58:13 AM »
Jason, I think that is incredibly well articulated and absolutely true. Thank you for saying it. Kudos to you.

Yale College Inferno

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 2126
  • New daily nonstop to Hell
    • View Profile
Re: Umm, Boalt Email?
« Reply #252 on: February 21, 2006, 11:06:07 AM »
Setting aside the question of the maturity of the term TTT, I think it's legitimate to use the term "yield protect."

For one thing, conceit is by definition an overestimtion of one's own worth or ability, so it can't exist in a statement that simply gives a high evaluation to someone else's worth or ability.

And I think we can often say that someone "should" have gotten in here or there. Not with 100% certainty (Did he write on his why Penn essay "I don't want to go to Penn, I just want to collect acceptances"?), but with something like 80% certainty. For example, in most cases I think that a student who got into all three of HYS deserved get into Mich or Penn. If she only got into Y and not HS, then I would not say that she necesarily deserved to get into Mich or Penn, because Y might have seen something that the other schools weren't interested in. Similarly, I would often say that a student who got into Mich, Penn, and Cornell definitely deserved to get into Florida Coastal.

Basically, when multiple adcoms at schools with high standards agree that a student has excellent qualifications and would make a great lawyer, a considerably less selective school's adcom should be able to see the same.

Now, I can see that in some cases, some adcoms might legitimately not be interested in intelligent students who do well in class and are actively involved outside the classroom: for example, I could see Liberty Univeresity rejecting a 3.9/178 who is an atheist and wrote a PS on the joys of sodomy.

That said, I think there are numerous circumstances were a rejection at a less selective school, viewed in light of multiple acceptances at considerably more selectives schools, can be pretty strong evidence that the student is in fact academically qualified but the less selective school did not think he/she would attend.

I also certainly don't claim to hate the rankings system. I think it's useful for applicants to have the at-a-glance comparison that US News offers. I certainly don't think that the ranking say everything or that they should be the only factor students consider. I don't think that the #12 school is going to necessarily be a better choice for a particular student than the #13 school. However, I think it is often very likely that the #12 or 13 schools will be better choices for a particular student than the #50 or #60 schools, if the student considers US News's factors (student to faculty ratio, spending per student, selectivity) important to his/her experience at a school.
Yale College '06
Harvard Law School '09

Bored? Try the mafia boss. (Warning: addictive!)
http://www.themafiaboss.com/?refer=admiral28
http://www.lawschoolnumbers.com/display.php?user=yalecol06

Lgirl

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 241
    • View Profile
Re: Umm, Boalt Email?
« Reply #253 on: February 21, 2006, 11:23:06 AM »
You say that rankings are widely useful, comparing top 14 and top 50, yet you say that the schools to which you've been admitted are considerably more selective than those/one from which you have yet to hear - and they're all in the top 14. And selectivity is what the rankings are about for the most part.

I absolutely disagree that if a 'better' school's adcom could see the merits of an application, lower schools' adcom should be able to see the same. Schools have very different personalities and look for different people *in general* and different people at different parts of the cycle. We more or less know Michigan looks for specific sorts of individuals to 'complete' its class, so if ithas lots of economists it might look for a Spanish major or whatever. Boalt cares massively about public service whereas Columbia on the whole probably cares less and places emphasis on other things. We all want to be seen as individuals in this cycle, yet critique schools for seeing us as such by suggesting that certain numbers should make us auto-admits. Hypocritical.

As for conceit not being applicable to the statement that a school's yield protecting by not admitting an individual (because that individual isn't you) I disagree again. Presuming to know better than an admissions committee with less information than they have is overestimation of one's own worth or ability if ever I saw it. 

Yale College Inferno

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 2126
  • New daily nonstop to Hell
    • View Profile
Re: Umm, Boalt Email?
« Reply #254 on: February 21, 2006, 12:11:12 PM »
You say that rankings are widely useful, comparing top 14 and top 50, yet you say that the schools to which you've been admitted are considerably more selective than those/one from which you have yet to hear - and they're all in the top 14. And selectivity is what the rankings are about for the most part.
Actually, selectivity is only a small % of the ranking formula.
I said that in determining how good a school is for a particular student, only large differences in ranking are informative while small differences in ranking or not.

However, in terms of seeing how selective schools are, since US news provides the exact numbers I think their data is extremely useful for seeing how selective specific schools are in comparison to each other. My point was that just because a school is more selective does not mean that it will be a better educational experience for a given student, just that it will be harder for most students to get into.

I absolutely disagree that if a 'better' school's adcom could see the merits of an application, lower schools' adcom should be able to see the same. Schools have very different personalities and look for different people *in general* and different people at different parts of the cycle.
I already said in my original post that there are specific circumstances under which schools might legitimately be looking for different things. But I think there are also some things that most schools would be impressed by, e.g. good grades, high scores, glowing recs, and excellent writing.

We all want to be seen as individuals in this cycle, yet critique schools for seeing us as such by suggesting that certain numbers should make us auto-admits. Hypocritical.
No. What we WANT to happen and what we THINK actually happens are two different things. Perhaps we would all want to be seen as individuals with numbers not mattering any more than personality and other characteristics, but I  think we know that LS admissions is to a great extent a numbers game, though certainly other factors also matter. We don't WANT it to be true, but we know that it is.

As for conceit not being applicable to the statement that a school's yield protecting by not admitting an individual (because that individual isn't you) I disagree again. Presuming to know better than an admissions committee with less information than they have is overestimation of one's own worth or ability if ever I saw it. 
You know less about who I am than I do, yet you judge me. Aren't you conceited, based on your own argument?
Yale College '06
Harvard Law School '09

Bored? Try the mafia boss. (Warning: addictive!)
http://www.themafiaboss.com/?refer=admiral28
http://www.lawschoolnumbers.com/display.php?user=yalecol06

SFnative

  • Guest
Re: Umm, Boalt Email?
« Reply #255 on: February 21, 2006, 12:48:35 PM »
You say that rankings are widely useful, comparing top 14 and top 50, yet you say that the schools to which you've been admitted are considerably more selective than those/one from which you have yet to hear - and they're all in the top 14. And selectivity is what the rankings are about for the most part.
Actually, selectivity is only a small % of the ranking formula.
I said that in determining how good a school is for a particular student, only large differences in ranking are informative while small differences in ranking or not.

However, in terms of seeing how selective schools are, since US news provides the exact numbers I think their data is extremely useful for seeing how selective specific schools are in comparison to each other. My point was that just because a school is more selective does not mean that it will be a better educational experience for a given student, just that it will be harder for most students to get into.

I absolutely disagree that if a 'better' school's adcom could see the merits of an application, lower schools' adcom should be able to see the same. Schools have very different personalities and look for different people *in general* and different people at different parts of the cycle.
I already said in my original post that there are specific circumstances under which schools might legitimately be looking for different things. But I think there are also some things that most schools would be impressed by, e.g. good grades, high scores, glowing recs, and excellent writing.

We all want to be seen as individuals in this cycle, yet critique schools for seeing us as such by suggesting that certain numbers should make us auto-admits. Hypocritical.
No. What we WANT to happen and what we THINK actually happens are two different things. Perhaps we would all want to be seen as individuals with numbers not mattering any more than personality and other characteristics, but I  think we know that LS admissions is to a great extent a numbers game, though certainly other factors also matter. We don't WANT it to be true, but we know that it is.

As for conceit not being applicable to the statement that a school's yield protecting by not admitting an individual (because that individual isn't you) I disagree again. Presuming to know better than an admissions committee with less information than they have is overestimation of one's own worth or ability if ever I saw it. 
You know less about who I am than I do, yet you judge me. Aren't you conceited, based on your own argument?

I think this debate can be futile - i think we all realize that both numbers and individuality are important to LS admission committees. The emphasis differ across schools and contexts. In general, you would be organized by numbers. With that said, if HYS or many of the tops schools want to compose a class with the highest numbers and solid writing skills, they can do but they dont.

Is there an element of yield protection in the process? maybe. Law schools have the right to try and recruit students who want to be there. I do think law schools have the right to exercise their autonomy in the admission process in that respect.

I read on the UMich website for instance that their biggest overlap of acceptance every year is with Harvard. They can simply try to increase their yield and identify the bulk of these acceptances and deny the ones likely to get into Harvard..but they dont....so the picture is very nuanced and both dynamics exist. We can speculate about their motives but we dont truly know. I think both of you are guessing but there is no need to get upset over it. It can be yield protection and it can be a more genuine consideration of the application. There is no need to throw around 'conceit' on both sides.