Well Duke rejected a number of students and placed plenty on the waitlist.. on the day that they got to know they had broken into the top 10 so this could be true.
@kendallM I don't think law schools really have a quota so I don't think they admit less students (haven't really looked into the data but would be interested). Rather, they maintain relatively the same number of students but try to lower their percentage of admitted students (and show exclusivity) by expanding the pie and getting more applicants to apply. I know it's a practice for schools to send few waivers to students to apply, even though many of those applicants are well outside their median rage of GPA and LSAT scores.
@ddakjiking totally... a mid to high 160s score makes you competitive today at some of the T14... but would not have done so 3 - 5 years ago. You MAY have secured admission... but certainly not and schol money.
haha @emli1000 UNC is a GREAT school to have as an option... you should check out some of the Columbia and NYU Law revue videos... they are just like that one if not more lolworthy
lol ...speaking from experience... both at UChicago and at UPenn law where I did my LL.Ms... those were the days of the week that I used to look forward too
@emli1000 Well I'd love to... I was a national champion at mooting back home... and my fave moot to go for (and if you want to work in international commercial law you should DEFINITELY try for this one) is the Wilhelm C. Vis Arbitration moot... you do well there and that practically guarantees you a top legal job... and Vienna is an awesome city to visit... but as I'm already an attorney back home, I don't think I'm eligible for it ...yes for the School internal moot court though.
Selectivity is a ranking criterion iirc, so it's more likely that a school would rise in rank BECAUSE they're selective, not become more selective as they rise in rank.
Yes, that's why some schools may offer waivers for application fees to students outside their numbers range. Even though they will likely not accept them, it raises their selectivity rating.
I get what your saying @"Jonathan Wang" I see how I may have done the incorrect reversal of your statement. But sounds like a circular reasoning to me a bit.
So they rise in rank because they are selective. Wouldn't that mean that their selectivity is correlated with higher rank? For example, if Harvard is ranked number 2 this year and they start selecting less students then by next year their ranking can go higher. That's essentially same as their selectivity correlated with higher ranking. And ranking correlated wiyh higher selectivity.
I don't want to say it's a causation because their ranking does also factor in other interesting elements.
@kendallM Harvard is again ranked at #2 this year (tied with Stanford now). I do not see Harvard tightening their admission standards so they can try to beat Yale (or at least tie). Harvard has very large class sizes (500+) so they can't be as selective as Yale/Stanford.
But in the grande scheme of things, I wouldn't worry about your initial worries...the number of applicants are down across the board so schools are scrambling to keep their medians.
Comments
Like how we overpay for a brand. It's just because of the brand that the price is so high.
So they rise in rank because they are selective. Wouldn't that mean that their selectivity is correlated with higher rank?
For example, if Harvard is ranked number 2 this year and they start selecting less students then by next year their ranking can go higher. That's essentially same as their selectivity correlated with higher ranking. And ranking correlated wiyh higher selectivity.
I don't want to say it's a causation because their ranking does also factor in other interesting elements.
But in the grande scheme of things, I wouldn't worry about your initial worries...the number of applicants are down across the board so schools are scrambling to keep their medians.
&& I hope so haha