<p>I have no idea what the profile says and would have to take a serious memory pill to dig up my reasoning why I “lied.” I probably didn’t care at the time. I’m significantly older than that. </p>
<p>Again, we seem to be talking about two slightly different things. It’s not important in any great way but let me do this one more time. I don’t quibble with the data; I’m well aware of the Latin honors cut offs and I don’t think that top 20% is a particularly outstanding GPA. My point, which I don’t think you have data about, is that if you look at the bottom half of that group, will they have the same extra characteristics of the top half of that group? A number of kids at Yale are privileged in a variety of ways - not talking about ability. Take away the privilege so you have an ordinary Yale College student. My bet, since it appears at this point we can little on this but bet, is these kids will be much more highly grouped to the top end of the GPA distribution. (I’d also bet that some, meaning a few, of the kids admitted to the law school fall well short of the 20% line, but that’s not the issue.) </p>
<p>Now to put this in what I perceived as the original context for the question. (You may disagree about that but this is my post.) The question was for an ordinary person, no privilege. Not wealthy. Not the daughter of a minority Appeals Court justice. My original comment was that you’d need to get into the top of the class at Yale College to get in - 5-10% is a good marker. You may disagree with my conclusion, especially since we appear to be betting about these exact data points, but my reasoning should now be clear: take out the privileged admits and look at what you need to achieve. It’s a lot. And if you want to put an extra on your resum</p>