<p>Do they really mean it? And by they I mean Yale and Stanford. What are their admissions criteria like relative to, say, Harvard's (which I assume is more numbers based)?</p>
<p>Being holistic is compatible with being “numbers-oriented.” For instance, you can still consider non-quantitative aspects of an application, all the while giving them 1% in the decision. Technically, that is holistic.</p>
<p>The idea is that when choosing from among an otherwise outstanding candidate pool, they are going to make distinctions based upon factors other than numbers. In other words, generally, one needs a top LSAT score and GPA to be in the running at all. Once a candidate is part of the “potential” pool, the law school looks at other factors that jump out from a candidate’s application.</p>
<p>My conjecture about YS law schools is that they consider everyone above 170ish and 3.8ish academically qualified, and then evaluate based on softs after that point. This is contrasted with HLS which will accept a 174/3.9/no softs over a 171/3.8/cured cancer.</p>
<p>If you have EXTRAORDINARY softs, Yale will accept you if you are close to its normal numbers. Among the folks who have gotten into YLS: (1) Elizabeth Wurtzel, who gave the world the phrase “Prozac Nation,” authored several books and wrote lots of magazine articles. She reportedly had a decent gpa at Harvard, but scored in the low 160s on the LSAT–and reportedly needed 2 tries to do that. (2) Someone whose #s I don’t know so I may be insulting him, but it’s his unusual background that did the trick. He came to the US as a toddler and lived in a public housing project in Providence. He was arrested for dealing drugs in his teens, convicted and sent to federal prison. There he kicked his drug habit. He procured his GED in prison. Upon release, he was threatened with deportation to his “homeland.” He represented himself pro se and won. He enrolled at Brown as a special exception to the normal requirements for RUE (Brown’s program for those who interrupted their undergrad ed and want to return to college) , and did very well there. He also started what turned out to be a successful campaign to give most ex-cons in Rhode Island the right to vote. He drafted the legislation. He was admitted to Yale Law. Now, as I said he may have had good enough numbers, but it’s definitely the unusual prospective he offers that was the attraction. (3) Rowan Farrow, son of Mia Farrow and Woody Allen, who finished Bard College at the age of 17 with a 3.9 gpa but had a LSAT score in the mid-160s. He did a lot of humanitarian things between college and law school. </p>
<p>So, if you have truly EXTRAORDINARY softs, you might get in without meeting the usual numbers. From this chart <a href=“http://www.law.yale.edu/admissions/profile.htm[/url]”>http://www.law.yale.edu/admissions/profile.htm</a> you can see someone got in with a LSAT of 152 and someone (presumably someone else) got in with a 3.35. Yale likes “stories.”
The fact that its medians are still so high suggests to me that if you aren’t a story, you’ll need high numbers–but that’s speculation on my part.</p>
<p>I should be more specific. Relative to undergraduate admission, how easy or hard is it to “muscle your way in” with numbers?</p>
<p>And PS: Thank you for the responses so far. They really are helpful.</p>
<p>You should think of YLS and SLS as more-difficult versions of undergraduate admissions. Like Yale and Stanford undergraduate, numbers are necessary but not sufficient. Like undergrad, there are some exceptions but not an awful lot and certainly not enough to bank on.</p>
<p>For comparison, Harvard Law is simply a numbers game. Get the numbers and you’re in.</p>
<p>NO. </p>
<p>particularly for the topmost tier schools, they want a holistic, well-rounded STUDENT BODY, not well-rounded STUDENTS. in fact, they prefer the student who is UNBALANCED but has a passion for a certain field or subject. thats what a princeton university representative told me. They want a diverse student body with diverse interests, not a group of robots who got good grades, joined clubs aimlessly, and took random electives in various subjects.</p>
<p>my kid approached a letter of continued interest (LOCI) for a school she was waitlisted at in a similar manner to what idwater described.
As this school waitlisted her (and not an outright rejection) she felt her basic stats were acceptible to them. But she needed to focus her LOCI on a particular program/clinic they offered that would absolutely fit her background.<br>
She felt that if the school wanted to ensure they had students participating in that program, she decided to focus her LOCI on a particular program/ clinic the school offered. She felt that would be her only chance of gaining admittance to this T-5 school. She is being realistic and not expecting an acceptance- but hey- you never know. </p>
<p>There is alot of waitlisting going on this year. Heck, my kid got more waitlists than rejections. So if you have something unique to bring to the table- let the schools know. Admission seems to be a bit more than just gpa and lsat scores this year.</p>
<p>I agree with idrinkwater- the holistic concept may not be focused on the individual student- but on the student body as a whole.</p>
<p>Sadly, even most waitlists are all about the numbers, especially at Columbia and NYU.</p>
<p>flowerhead- i don’t disagree with you- but I’m also seeing the concept of the waitlist as “icing on the cake”.
Let me explain-- The school takes the kids they really want in the first round of acceptances. The re-evaluate the class after they get deposits/commitments from the initial acceptees. The basic cake is formed from the initial group of acceptees.</p>
<p>schools then re-evaluate the entering class-
do they have enough kids from UR geographic areas (utah kansas etc)?; or minorities?; or kids who have certain backgrounds or interests and will participate in particular programs that are offered?; or splitters-- those with very high lsat or gpa’s in case the school still needs to bolster their ranking for uswnr??</p>
<p>from the group of kids on the waitlist- (the icing) the school can cherry pick those that will help the school meet it’s needs based on what they are still looking for in developing their incoming law school class. Or simply stated, a holistic approach for forming the incoming class. </p>
<p>That’s why I use the term icing on the cake. The school may not know what it’s need is until after they receive deposits and have an idea as to the basic make-up of the incoming class. They can accept those waitlist kids (and there seem to be alot this year) that best fulfill the needs of the school once the basic group of acceptees is known.</p>
<p>I realize this, but I can bet you that both Columbia and NYU won’t dip below 170 (mayyyybe 169) for admitting off the waitlist, unless it’s for a URM. Chicago is a little different. I think they waitlist fewer people and admit more from it.</p>
<p>again- we don’t disagree. But the 169 Lsat from Utah may have a better shot at getting off the waitlist than the 171 Lsat from NJ even though their score is just a tad lower. I’m sure most T-5’s already have their fair share of 170 + LSAT students from NY/NJ/Conn.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Yeah, I think you’re overrating this aspect.</p>
<p>it really doesn’t matter what we think- it is up to the admission office to make the final decision. But this is just to add food for thought (gosh- I’m into food analogies) for those who will be going through the application process.</p>
<p>for those that have a bit of a unique background- make it part of your application package either through an essay or resume. If you have the basic stats to get into a school, you never know what additional info is going to get your application into the admission pile vs. reject or waitlist group.</p>
<p>Good luck to all future applicants.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>yeah, never heard of geographical diversity as a component. for that hypothetical, it would really depend on the school’s target medians. if their target median is 170 and they haven’t hit it, they will go for the 171 without question. if their target median is 173, perhaps you are right since the WL admit wouldn’t really affect their stats.</p>
<p>in following lsn for the past few years, there has always been a few candidates from less represented states who get admitted to top schools with less than stellar stats. Stats are always fine- but the lsat or gpa may be a point or two below most other candidates. There may be other factors too, but that geographic diversity is what sticks out when looking at these candidates. </p>
<p>College admission always took geographic diversity into consideration. Ask any NY/NJ parent. Why wouldn’t law schools also factor in geographic diversity?- especially when law schools like to maintain a national reputation and be able to network throughout the country.</p>
<p>But to be more factual- in following LSN for the past 2 years, there are always a few
T-14 acceptances for kids from less represented states who might not have normally gotten in with those given stats if the were from the NE. </p>
<p>anyway- who would want to be in an environment where everyone has such similar backgrounds. Just what the T-14’s need-- another Ivy kid from the metro NYC area. And even though that is exactly my own kids background- I can see the benefit of having a more diverse environment than that.</p>
<p>It is a smart and good idea to have a diverse (or take a holistic approach) incoming class. There are enough high scoring lsat/gpa’s out there to allow the top schools to meet their target numbers for USWNR. Once those goals are met, the schools may have a bit more latitude in who they will accept.</p>
<p>Bottom line- schools must meet their target LSAT/gpa stats first and foremost. After that they can choose those kids that may have other things to bring to the table. (couldn’t resist it!). Maybe that is why so many kids are waitlisted this year. </p>
<p>this is all said with a bit of speculation and with following LSN for a few years- but most importantly, I don’t want new applicants to overlook those things in their own background that might add to the diversity of an incoming law school class. No one on these boards really know what might be the final tipping point in getting an acceptance into a particular school.
Yes- we all agree. Law schools must meet their target lsat/gpa #'s. But once that thresehold is met, anything goes.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>You realize how unscientific and unreliable this analysis is, right?</p>
<p>ah you young ones–
Sometimes one learns that it is good to see trends-follow past history and patterns and analyze info that’s presented to you.</p>
<p>life is not all about statistics. There are always too many exceptions to the rules. That is what makes life interesting.</p>
<p>It’s not just the limited data set that’s disconcerting. It’s also how confusing it is. When someone puts in their location, are they actually where they’re from or where they went to college? That’s just one example.</p>
<p>I agree that there’s a gap-filling task going on when plucking people off a waitlist, but factors after numbers are usually: Interest, race, gender, and LGBT (in no particular order; there could be others, but geographic diversity doesn’t pop up as one).</p>