<p>“That’s not really true. Most applicants at top law schools have top grades and scores. Grades and LSATs are important, obviously, but if admissions has something to look at other than those, they will focus on the other things. So yes, the other things must be spectacular.”</p>
<p>Not many applicants at top law schools have top grades (3.9+) and scores (175+), and law school admissions is largely a numbers game. <a href=“The Top 14 Things to Know Before Going to Law School Forum - Top Law Schools”>The Top 14 Things to Know Before Going to Law School Forum - Top Law Schools;
<p>“Essentially, those above the 75th% at CLS have a 65% chance of admission. Above that number for Harvard and its ~50%.”</p>
<p>I agree with bluebayou. However, I don’t know where you got those percentages, but they are lower than the actual ones. If you have both numbers above the 75% (especially the LSAT), you are considered as an auto-admit at HLS and CLS, which means you are going to get in unless there’s a serious flaw in your application (i.e. drug dealing, blank resume, etc.).</p>
<p>For people with 175+, very few didn’t get into CLS, and those who didn’t had very low GPA. [LSN</a> :: Columbia University - Admissions Graph](<a href=“Recently Updated J.D. Profiles | Law School Numbers”>Stats | Law School Numbers)</p>
<p>Just being conservative, bcos I don’t believe in auto-admit unless you are the scion of the President, a foreign leader or Bill Gates or Warren Buffett… :)</p>
<p>“Just being conservative”</p>
<p>That’s for sure, since everyone who had 175+ and 3.7+ on LSN got admitted to CLS.</p>
<p>I aslo don’t believe that self-reported data to an anonymous website is even close to statistically valid.</p>
<p>“I aslo don’t believe that self-reported data to an anonymous website is even close to statistically valid.”</p>
<p>Those numbers are more valid than your random guess of 65%.</p>
<p>Actually, no they are not ‘more valid’. From a statistical basis, my ‘guess’ is just as worthless as self-reported data. :D</p>
<p>But the main point is not which number is more ‘accurate’ (or a SWAG), but is the thesis is correct: that law schools are (nearly) all about the numbers.</p>
<p>“Actually, no they are not ‘more valid’. From a statistical basis, my ‘guess’ is just as worthless as self-reported data.”</p>
<p>No. Guesses are not as or more accurate than a set of self-reported data, especially when the self-reported data are quite good. LSP is based on LSN, and people on TLS agree that LSP is largely accurate unless you are a splitter.</p>
<p>But yeah. Law school admissions (excluding Yale and Stanford) is largely a numbers game. Softs won’t help you much unless it’s Rhodes, military, and other very impressive activities. Summer internships (even if it’s in consulting, law, or finance) and club presidencies wouldn’t affect you at all unless you are on the borderline. Therefore, attending Columbia wouldn’t help you at all for admissions into CLS.</p>
<p>I had a similar situation this year, I had to choose between Dartmouth and Columbia for rowing. I went on my visits and here’s the good and bad of both.</p>
<p>Dartmouth:
PROS:
-Community-oriented
-Happy students (from what I saw)
-Tradition (you can feel how old the school is, and they have a million schoolwide traditions)
-Undergraduate focus (the amount of attention amazed me)
-D-Plan (study abroad)
-Greek system
-Quintessential college experience
-Spirit (90% of kids are wearing green/the carpets/walls/everything is green)
-Fireplaces in dorms (a lot of schools have this)
CONS:
-Location (for some people)
-Drinking-heavy
-Hook-up school (I guess that’s a bad thing)
-Elitist/Conservative</p>
<p>Columbia:
PROS:
-NYC (access to a lot of things)
-Very tiny campus (never be late to class)
-Very beautiful architecture
CONS:
-Campus is too small (my tour took 7 minutes)
-Very minimal school spirit (the only thing that reminded me that I was at Columbia were the two flags)
-Facilities are not maintained well (aka dorms are ugly)
-A very big divide between the administration and students (Red-tape bureaucracy)
-Graduate-focused
-Sports are embarrassing
-Very individualistic
-Drinking at bars (not normal college nightlife)
-Fraternities are in brownstones/are not a big deal
-Elitist/Conservative
-Students did not seem happy (they always seemed rushed/cold)</p>
<p>This may look like I am biased toward Dartmouth but to be honest I was trying my hardest to balance the two schools. I think the one thing that made my college decision was that someone told me that you can always go to New York City (graduate school, internships, vacation, living) but you can’t always go live in a small college town. I’m a city person, but when I was at Columbia I knew that I couldn’t have a happy college experience there. I looked out my dorm at Columbia and saw a huge brick wall 4 feet away, and listened to the constant siren of NYC. Even though I did like the city, I knew that I wasn’t independent/individualistic enough to be happy in a city as big as NYC. When I first learned of Dartmouth a year ago, it wasn’t at the top of my list, but after I visited the school (and visited my other options) I knew that I was going to choose it. I wanted a really traditional college experience and I knew that Dartmouth was going to offer that.</p>
<p>But seriously that’s just me. Personally I would go Princeton, Dartmouth, then Columbia. But it’s really about where you are happy. You made a really good point when you said that they are all at the same caliber. They are all amazing schools and all Ivy Leagues, you’ll succeed at any of the three, so what matters is what kind of experience you want while achieving that success.</p>
<p>Basically just go visit.</p>