How much does applying and being rejected one year effect your chances future years?

Americanski · October 22, 2009, 9:38pm

If schools are concerned with yield protection, the admission numbers certainly don’t reflect it. It doesn’t really make much sense for them to be concerned with yield, anyway, since it’s not a factor US News considers, and they may as well admit almost everyone with excellent stats and hope a few enroll rather than trying to psychoanalyze each applicant to figure out whether they were genuinely interested in the school.

flowerhead · October 22, 2009, 10:16pm

You should have specified that you were talking about repercussions outside of admissions in your initial post. Of course, there are factors outside of the admissions process that might go against doing another cycle.

It’s great that you did the legwork, but it’s also really interesting how most schools don’t really follow the policies written on their website as far as retakes are concerned. How do I know this? During a visit at HLS admissions, I inquired about how multiple LSATs are viewed; while their official policy is to consider all the scores, the admissions officer shrugged and admitted that they only look at the highest. At Michigan, Dean Zearfoss openly admits to taking the higher score if it’s beyond one standard deviation of the original one (1 SD=the MoE). At NYU, the website says they average, but if you look at multiple LSAT takers on LSN, many got in… who wouldn’t have gotten in if they averaged. Same with CLS. Same with Chicago. Same with UVA. Same with Georgetown. Same with Duke. You can’t tell me that that many had a “compelling reason.” Yale, Stanford, and Berkeley are too much of a black box for me to make any educated statement as to how they view multiple LSATs, though–for the record–I was admitted at SLS even though I had multiple LSATS (and their average put me way out of their range).

Sally, I’m beginning to wonder whether you actually read before you respond. In my last post, I clearly specified that schools that are not HYSCCN are very conscious of applicants’ desire to attend their school.

1) Now you’re turning this into a *****-measuring contest, which is funny because neither of us have one.
2) It’s great that you’ve had many years of experience in the admissions process, but so do I.
3) Why on earth do you keep capitalizing BIGLAW?
4) Law school admissions is nothing like getting a job in biglaw, and thinking so is a mistake many applicants make. The former is heavily formalized and numbers-based. The latter, while somewhat “numbers based,” is still hugely obsessed with the so-called “soft-factors.” That’s why I know top students on law review at my T6 who struck out, and people in the bottom-half who scored bigtime. These aren’t just exceptions to the rule. The economy has exposed the blatant truth that while good grades might be necessary for getting a job, they most definitely are not sufficient. This truism hardly applies to law school admissions, and people who walked into screening interviews thinking they’d do well simply because they earned straight-As were quickly awakened by the ding letters.
5) You cannot say that because you’ve written so extensively on this subject here, I should provide you with some deference. That’s circular reasoning.
6) I don’t care about persuading others here about the degree of your ignorance. People can believe me if they want to; as it stands, all you’ve done is boast about your experience (which, aside from the law school admissions experience, is not even applicable). I, however, have cited lawschoolnumbers.com, websites of law schools (Michigan Law’s admissions FAQ; you should read it… HUGELY helpful and informative), and my own experience with law school admissions, both as an applicant and as an insider.
7) I don’t believe I’m wrong on the facts, and your simply telling me that I’m wrong doesn’t help your case. Give reasons, rationales, and evidence.

flowerhead · October 22, 2009, 10:26pm

Really?

University of Pennsylvania
[LSN</a> :: mikemkang](<a href=“Recently Updated J.D. Profiles | Law School Numbers”>mikemkang | Law School Numbers)
[LSN</a> :: Hair3500](<a href=“Recently Updated J.D. Profiles | Law School Numbers”>Hair3500 | Law School Numbers)
[LSN</a> :: felixc](<a href=“Recently Updated J.D. Profiles | Law School Numbers”>Recently Updated J.D. Profiles | Law School Numbers)
[LSN</a> :: TylerDoom](<a href=“Recently Updated J.D. Profiles | Law School Numbers”>TylerDoom | Law School Numbers)
[LSN</a> :: hokin](<a href=“Recently Updated J.D. Profiles | Law School Numbers”>hokin | Law School Numbers)

And that’s just rejected people. I’m sure I’ll find more classic cases of yield protection if I sift through the waitlisted people as well.

I’m pretty sure you’re wrong about this, but the fact that you say it with such conviction makes me doubt myself. USNews does consider matrics in its rankings.

I certainly agree with you on this, but that doesn’t change the fact that schools can and do do it.

Also, “yield protection” sounds too negative. The rationale for rejecting applicants who don’t demonstrate interest is quite sound, I think: Why would you want to admit someone who doesn’t clearly want to be at your school?

Americanski · October 22, 2009, 11:07pm

Yes, really. For example, SUNY Buffalo accepted literally every single person with above a 3.0/165 who applied last year:

<a href=“Search for Law Schools – LSAC Official Guide | The Law School Admission Council”>Search for Law Schools – LSAC Official Guide | The Law School Admission Council;

I’m guessing most of them didn’t enroll. Did all of them manage to fool the admissions office into thinking they were interested in Buffalo?

Well, I’d say that some of those examples are questionable; I don’t think someone with a 169 or 170 is such a lock at Mich that they must have rejected them out of fear they wouldn’t enroll. Your first example is also a curious choice given your previous post, since his result is a lot easier to explain if you assume they looked at his average LSAT score. But why not look at the admission grids that are available for most non-HYSCCN schools? It’s a much better source of data.

Why assume that someone who spends the time and money to apply to your school is “clearly” not interested? Why do so many schools admit 90+% of students with numbers that are well above the 75th percentile of their typical entering class?

flowerhead · October 23, 2009, 12:16am

Sorry, I should have restricted my statement about yield protection to schools that are actually good.

Wait, they have actual grids detailing every applicant they accept?

That’s what I thought; they don’t. LSN is the next best thing. I could find many more examples if I wasn’t lazy.

And for the record, a friend who applied alongside me during my cycle (178/3.94) was deferred at Penn; he received a handwritten note asking him to write an extra essay about why he wanted to attend the school. He refused to do so, mostly because he had already gotten into Harvard at that point. He was later waitlisted.

1) You assume that most applicants pay to apply. Of applicants with a good shot at a given school, the preponderance of them will have merit-based fee waivers.
2) Where did you get 90% from?
3) I’m not saying that everyone with super-high numbers for a given school is rejected. Rather, I’m saying that if the applicant fails to show interest, the school isn’t as sure a shot as it was if she had shown interest.
4) You ask for an incentive for why schools engage in yield protection. Isn’t it clear? USNews. Aside from that, there’s always the incentive of taking in applicants who really want to be at your school. If you’re deciding between a 171/3.7 and a 173/3.8, and you only have one spot left, but the former has been super-dedicated in showing why she wants to attend the school, odds are the spot will go to her (all else being equal).

flowerhead · October 23, 2009, 12:21am

[Law</a> School Rankings Methodology - US News and World Report](<a href=“http://www.usnews.com/articles/education/best-law-schools/2009/04/22/law-school-rankings-methodology.html?PageNr=1]Law”>http://www.usnews.com/articles/education/best-law-schools/2009/04/22/law-school-rankings-methodology.html?PageNr=1)

There really isn’t a yield factor, per se, in the methodology, but acceptance rates are a factor. This translates in an incentive to reject applicants who don’t demonstrate sufficient interest, but who otherwise would attend, in order to drive down one’s acceptance rate and increase selectivity. Yes, LSAT and GPA are also considered in the selectivity section, but that’s for matriculated students, not entering students.

Americanski · October 23, 2009, 1:31am

Oh, so when you said “schools that are not HYSCCN”, you actually just meant Michigan and Penn, based on a handful of examples. Though if anything, Buffalo more strongly indicates how much more schools care about numbers than interest in attending. I mean, plenty of people with 3.8/171 would consider Michigan, but Buffalo?

No, but they (at least most of them) have grids breaking down the acceptance rates by GPA and LSAT range.

You could also find far more examples of people with numbers much better than the average at Mich and Penn who were admitted.

They still have to pay for the score report, and spend at least some time applying, which may include writing an additional essay. Why would they bother if they had absolutely no interest in attending? Why assume, purely on the basis of their numbers, that they’re not even remotely interested in your school? Are Michigan and Penn really that insecure?

Well, Buffalo is one example, though apparently they don’t count. Is BU a good school? Admittedly, they only admit about 87% of applicants with the best numbers, though only a small minority enroll:

<a href=“Search for Law Schools – LSAC Official Guide | The Law School Admission Council”>Search for Law Schools – LSAC Official Guide | The Law School Admission Council;

That’s certainly true. Though to return to the original question, I’m not sure that applying with poor numbers, getting rejected and then applying with better numbers is a strong indication of interest. Would it really indicate a lack of interest that they declined to apply when their numbers were so weak that they had no realistic shot? Is a school really going to hold that against them?

Do you have any support for this? At most schools, both would get in. It doesn’t really cost the school anything to admit the one with better numbers, even if they don’t enroll, and they do tend to care a bit more about numbers than enthusiasm.

Yield isn’t a factor at all, and acceptance rate is only 10% of the selectivity component. LSAT and GPA are the other 90%. This is part of the reason schools will admit large numbers of students with great stats knowing that only a small percentage of them will enroll.

The tiny boost from a small decrease in the acceptance rate isn’t going to make up for losing applicants whose stats would make your numbers look better. And the LSAT and GPA numbers are only for the entering class (otherwise schools like CLS and NYU wouldn’t take boatloads of transfers from lower-ranked schools every year).

flowerhead · October 23, 2009, 8:07am

Why do I feel like you keep missing the point? If our argument was based on some substantive difference in opinion, I’d be happy to have this discussion. Rather, it seems to be based on a ton of misunderstanding and (intentional) distortion of arguments, making it a grand waste of time. Thus, this will be my last response (assuming your next one commits the same gaffes your previous ones did).

I hope you’re being sarcastic, because I clearly did not intend to limit the scope to Penn and Michigan.

Very good, but these numbers don’t indicate the LSAT/GPA of people who were admitted, only of those who matriculated (you do know the difference, right?).

Never said that all people with categorically high numbers are rejected.

$12. Big deal.

Have you ever used the LSDAS? It’s not that hard to send out additional apps once you’ve done the first one. When I was applying, I think the only school that prevented me from applying–even with a fee waiver–because of the application was UCLA. The application was something like 16 pages long.

You mean like a “Why Michigan?” or a “Why Penn?” Very good, they’d write these additional, optional, essays to… SHOW INTEREST.

1) Cover your bases. It costs little to do so, and if you don’t make your first choice, Michigan and Penn are good schools to fall back on.
2) Scholarship money.
3) Scholarship money for the purposes of leveraging (schools ranked higher than Michigan and Penn, or even on par or lower ranked than them, are open to being convinced to raise their scholarship/grant aid if those schools provided more).

I never said that Michigan assumes that applicants are “not even remotely interested.”

In a world where the schools play second choice for applicants who have a genuine shot at HYSCCN, yes.

Why were 13% of them rejected?

Never said it was. You’re distorting my argument.

Not at all.

Nope. And now you officially wasted one paragraph arguing against an argument that no one made. Congratulations.

Obviously numbers are more important than enthusiasm. That’s why I chose the examples of two applicants whose numbers would make them strong candidates for admission based on their numbers. If the applicant was a 3.6/161, I doubt Michigan would care that the dude showed significant interest.

But it’s also advantageous to reject/waitlist people with great stats who you are pretty confident won’t attend if accepted. It lowers the acceptance rate, and you aren’t missing out on the LSAT/GPA boost because she never would have enrolled in the first place.

Doesn’t make a difference if they don’t matriculate in the first place (again, I question whether you know the distinction between the acceptance rate and matriculation rate, and how USNews only considers the LSAT/GPA of those who matriculate).

Not sure what this proves, but whatever.

[/quote]

Americanski · October 23, 2009, 11:54am

No, they indicate the numbers for the entire applicant pool. Not sure how you could have misunderstood that, unless you didn’t look at the charts but still felt qualified to tell someone they misinterpreted them.

1) So they would attend if they were dinged at HYSCCN. This is true of a large percentage of Michigan and Penn applicants.

3) Probably not a very effective strategy. Schools that aren’t really competing with Michigan and Penn for applicants are unlikely to be moved, and if you’re seriously considering a school like UVa or Duke, why would you have no interest in Michigan or Penn?

So what was your argument? In the hypothetical case of someone applying to UVa with substandard numbers and getting rejected, then applying again with better numbers, the previous failed application would “most definitely” help. Why? Because schools supposedly “need to see interest” in applicants and are “very conscious” of their desire to attend. So there are two claims, one being that a failed application with poor numbers is a meaningful expression of interest and the other is that schools put any significant emphasis on demonstrated interest. The first is tough to substantiate or refute, but the second is difficult to reconcile with actual admissions patterns, as the applicants with the highest acceptance rates are also the ones least likely to enroll.

For one thing, this doesn’t seem to be the schools’ mentality, since they admit tons of people they should be pretty confident won’t attend. I think every non-HYS school realizes that they’re going to lose the vast majority of cross-admits to HYS. Yet they accept nearly every applicant who has a realistic shot at also being admitted to HYS. Why? Well, because some of them won’t get HYS and may consider your school. There’s not really a downside to admitting nearly everyone with the best numbers knowing that only a few will attend, considering how much more important GPA and LSAT are in the rankings.

Except that a small percentage of them will matriculate. That’s the point. Admitting the 100 strongest applicants you get knowing that only maybe 10 will enroll is worthwhile from the schools’ perspective, even though it means admitting a lot of people you know are not very interested in your school.

flowerhead · October 23, 2009, 12:56pm

Wasn’t referring to the chart. Was referring to the USNews methodology.

Yes, but a much smaller percentage of those applicants actually have a shot at HYSCCN.

Actually, it’s a very effective strategy. Schools do encourage applicants to submit competing scholarship and financial aid offers, and some of them do have schools they consider as peers. What was great about Michigan was that they considered UCLA a peer as far as money-matching was concerned, which is why I was tempted to submit an application.

Also, there are many reasons not to be interested in one T14 and interested in another. They might not be related to academics, but they are certainly there.

Sure. “Most definitely” wasn’t meant to indicate the intensity of the “help” it would provide, but it’s certainly a positive nudge.

I don’t see how this is controversial.

Sure, don’t see why it isn’t.

Yup.

Eh, but a little common sense goes a long way. Applicants who never had a shot probably never received a fee waiver, so the fact that they went out of their way to pay 100$ to apply probably means something.

Not really. I never said YP is an absolute bar to admissions at a school at which your numbers are way out of their league. Rather, I said it’s probably a good thing to show interest if that’s the situation. Who knows? Maybe the 50% or so of those super stellar applicants at Michigan submitted a “Why Michigan?”, thus showing the requisite interest? Perhaps Michigan felt like they could woo a substantial portion of those super-stellar applicants with a Darrow? Perhaps there aren’t enough Darrows going around to justify admitting the entire pool of super-steller people and offering them all full tuition, and perhaps without that money, Michigan feels that an applicant in that position would be tough to convince to attend.

Eh, it’s a pretty inexact science. It’s hard to tell who will attend, who won’t, who’s sincerely interested, and who isn’t. Like I said, schools don’t categorically reject people who are way out of their league. In the same vein, however, there’s ar eason why Michigan has an “optional” “why Michigan?” essay. You think it’s just there for fun?

You haven’t really substantiated this.

This doesn’t really contradict what I’m saying. I think we can reconcile your position with mine simply by stating that non-HYS schools will admit people out of their range, with the hopes of luring them with substantial scholarship money. They can’t admit everyone and offer them all full scholarships, so they’ll take their chances with a select few, admit others in the range who have demonstrated interest, and waitlist/reject those in the mushy middle. It works.

Not really. Having 10 students with super-strong credentials matriculate won’t really raise the schools percentiles in any meaningful way (Michigan matrics approximately 360 students per class), especially when the school’s means/medians are already pretty high as it is.

Americanski · October 23, 2009, 3:05pm

Maybe, but in the case of someone with a smaller but still significant increase, the school may be prejudiced against them (since they have, in fact, previously judged them) and that might be tough to overcome, even if they new stats would give them a decent shot. Moving from a 167 to 170 is within the MoE, but would probably still have a dramatic effect on someone’s chances at Michigan. Though I’d have to think their odds would be better if they waited until they had the 170, rather than getting rejected with a 167 and re-applying. But there’s not really any evidence.

Because the admission patterns look just about the way they would if the schools didn’t care at all about demonstrated interest. It seems unlikely that people go out of their way to impress safety schools, or that the schools are very bad at accurately guaging interest.

There certainly aren’t enough to go around, yet they still probably admit nearly the entire pool of super-stellar people anyway. Michigan gives about 65 scholarships of half tuition or more; if they accept anywhere near as many 3.75/170+ students as Duke (which accepted 565 last year), then they’re admitting a ton of people with numbers above their 75th percentile they couldn’t offer significant money.

Right, which is why they take a shotgun approach and admit nearly all applicants with the best numbers, with a few exceptions.

Really? Well, here’s Duke’s applicant grid. I think they’re the highest-ranked school (other than Yale) to provide one:

<a href=“Search for Law Schools – LSAC Official Guide | The Law School Admission Council”>Search for Law Schools – LSAC Official Guide | The Law School Admission Council;

They admitted 565/631 applicants with 3.75/170 or better, which is about a 90% acceptance rate. And fewer than 10% of them could have enrolled, based on Duke’s entering student profile.

I don’t really disagree, I just think they take their chances with just about everyone in that group and accord very little weight to demonstrated interest.

It certainly helps a bit, and when your median LSAT is already near the 99th percentile, you can’t afford to reject a lot of the people who could potentially bring it up.

Thread		Replies	Views
Disadvantages of applying, getting rejected and trying again Transfer Students	5	38	April 17, 2021
Will applying now hurt my chances later? Yale University	4	67	April 17, 2021
For people applying again next year Prep School Cafe	2	45	April 17, 2021
Reapplying Prep School Admissions	5	72	April 15, 2021
Applying twice on different years. Applying to College	5	38	April 16, 2021

How much does applying and being rejected one year effect your chances future years?

POPULAR STATES

SEARCH SAT SCORES

SEARCH ACT SCORES

SEARCH GPA’S

How much does applying and being rejected one year effect your chances future years?

Related topics

POPULAR STATES

SEARCH SAT SCORES

SEARCH ACT SCORES

SEARCH GPA’S

CONNECT WITH US