Quote from: Tempo on May 08, 2007, 03:28:05 PMStranger things have happened.True, but Data does have some pretty unique soft factors.
Stranger things have happened.
Quote from: cranman15 on May 09, 2007, 11:52:59 AMwho do you all think has a better shot at stanford...someone with the OP's numbers or someone with a 169/3.9?Neither would get in. Stanford is so small, and seemingly relies so little on soft factors, that it might be the toughest law school to get into in the country.
who do you all think has a better shot at stanford...someone with the OP's numbers or someone with a 169/3.9?
Not necessarily true. Stanford is a very desirable law school that is extremely selective-- if it chose to fill its class with all numerically strong candidates, then it probably could. It doesn't have to differentiate between top GPA/LSAT scorers; it could just take them all. Yet if you look at the class profile and the LSN statistics, they have chosen to reject or waitlist lots of high number candidates, and instead accepted people with slightly lower numbers. Granted, it may not be a representative sample, but approximately 20% of the Stanford acceptances on LSN have lower than a 170 on the LSAT. In contrast, only 2% of the Harvard acceptances posted have lower than 170. I think that's kind of telling.
For the record though, they seem to care A LOT more about soft factors than some other schools. Just saying, the waitlist thing has a secondary (or I suspect primary) alternative purpose.
Mike, It is telling, but it is not about soft factors. What that is really about is yield protection (yes, even at Stanford). Stanford does not take many people from Yale and Harvard (probably do more for California and West Coast students). Every year, a substantial amount of their class is taken from the waitlist. Waitlisting these people keeps their yield down so they only accept people that might actually take them over Harvard or Yale. Again, its a numbers game and having a low acceptance rate helps as far as rankings.
Approximately 2100 people scored 170+ on the 2006 LSATs. Approximately 490 people scored 175+. A quite considerable number of those opt for sub-top3 schools due to full rides etc. Quite a few of these people do not have the UGPA that Stanford places a very heavy focus on. About 450-500 of them choose Harvard. About 150 of them choose Yale. The fact that 20% of Stanford acecptances have sub 170 LSAT doesn't confirm leniency in regards to soft factors, it indicates their preference of UGPA. Could Stanford fill their class with 200 people with 170+ scores? Certainly. Can they fill their class with 200 people with 170+ and 3.9+ ? No, very likely not. Of the people admitted to Stanford (based on LSN, and I'm not discrediting anyone as fake) with a LSAT score below 170, 3.83 is the weakest non-URM UGPA. That's pretty much exactly on Stanford's median and doesn't really leave room for any leniency based on anything but the numbers. You don't get in with either the LSAT or the UGPA, you get in with both. Could there be 3 or 4 people admitted that cured aids and world hunger, sure. Would even outstanding by normal definitions ECs get you in with sub-par numbers in even just one of the categories? Nope.