Law School Discussion

Nine Years of Discussion
;

Author Topic: Should I try for the top 3?  (Read 4565 times)

Captain

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 3366
    • View Profile
    • http://img164.imageshack.us/img164/5526/thumbid5.jpg
Re: Should I try for the top 3?
« Reply #40 on: May 10, 2007, 11:36:11 AM »
Stranger things have happened.

True, but Data does have some pretty unique soft factors.

Yeah, but he didn't have a 171... so if OP has some better-than-mediocre softs, we could be talking...
VIP.

245

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 1010
    • View Profile
Re: Should I try for the top 3?
« Reply #41 on: May 10, 2007, 12:36:35 PM »
who 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.

I would argue that Stanford cares a lot about soft factors, probably much more so than most other law schools with the possible exceptions of Yale and Boalt.  Look at LSN: a lot of people are waitlisted or rejected with outstanding numbers, including a lot who got accepted to Harvard and several who got into Yale.  Clearly, something other than numbers must have been used to differentiate applicants. Faye Deal herself has said in interviews that she cares a lot about work experience, ethnic and socioeconomic diversity, etc.
SLS '10 and now working.  PM me if you want to get in touch!

ě

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 4603
  • non sequitur
    • View Profile
Re: Should I try for the top 3?
« Reply #42 on: May 10, 2007, 12:42:14 PM »
Well people both at schools and at employers says a lot of stuff that's pure bull. But even so, the soft factors Stanford cares about would only be to differentiate between several 178/3.95 candidates (figuratively speaking), not compensating for lack of numbers.

245

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 1010
    • View Profile
Re: Should I try for the top 3?
« Reply #43 on: May 10, 2007, 01:07:06 PM »
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.
SLS '10 and now working.  PM me if you want to get in touch!

ty1228

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 94
    • View Profile
Re: Should I try for the top 3?
« Reply #44 on: May 10, 2007, 01:19:06 PM »
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. 

ty1228

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 94
    • View Profile
Re: Should I try for the top 3?
« Reply #45 on: May 10, 2007, 01:20:02 PM »
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.

ě

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 4603
  • non sequitur
    • View Profile
Re: Should I try for the top 3?
« Reply #46 on: May 10, 2007, 01:21:47 PM »
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.
Telling of what? That Harvard is preferred over Stanford for a majority? That's hardly news. Anyway, doing the numbers is always pure speculation but looking at the cold facts...

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.

Quote
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.
Based on what? From the numbers available in public, Stanford seems to be the most rigid champion of the numbers game out there to me.

245

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 1010
    • View Profile
Re: Should I try for the top 3?
« Reply #47 on: May 10, 2007, 01:32:12 PM »
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. 

Hmmm...I don't know about that.  At the Stanford ASW, I counted at least as many students from Harvard and Yale (each) as from Stanford--probably in the range of about 30 or so from the two schools alone.  Harvard, Yale, Penn, Princeton, Columbia, MIT and U Chicago are all huge feeders into Stanford's acceptance pool.  Moreover, a lot of them get accepted and still go elsewhere, so I don't think it's necessarily yield protection.
SLS '10 and now working.  PM me if you want to get in touch!

245

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 1010
    • View Profile
Re: Should I try for the top 3?
« Reply #48 on: May 10, 2007, 01:43:42 PM »
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.


To me, this argument still doesn't explain why Stanford would reject people with top LSAT/GPA.  I see 22 people on LSN who were rejected with 170+/3.8+.  Many of those people were even accepted at other top schools, including Harvard and Yale.  Numerically, they made the cut, and it can't be yield protection, since they weren't waitlisted. 
SLS '10 and now working.  PM me if you want to get in touch!

ě

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 4603
  • non sequitur
    • View Profile
Re: Should I try for the top 3?
« Reply #49 on: May 10, 2007, 01:59:10 PM »
Well, LSN only gives 22 rejections of people with 170+/3.8+ that's not really a lot I think. Speculating on what got them rejected is very hypothetical, I could imagine they are trying to balance the type of undergrad degrees people come in with, so if there's too many English Lits with 3.95 they ding someone with good numbers etc. Anyway, I'm not the one that mentioned yield protection anyway :) My only opinion is that no 'normal' soft factors will get you into Stanford if you're lacking in either LSAT or UGPA, and based on LSN numbers there's really not a single acceptance that counter-proves that theory in my opinion. The sub-170s all have very good UGPAs, and the acceptances with a UGPA below 3.75 generally have very good LSATs, and most of them are also URMs.

I dont know, I guess I'm just seeing the numbers different than you are, but I can't really find a single profile (perhaps except "cutepug") that looks like a "normal ding" that has been accepted for somewhat unknown reasons.