2013-2014 Admissions Spreadsheets Forum

[TheMostDangerousLG]

I love that in most of these there's about a 50/50 split between average and above average softs and basically no one with below average softs.

It is extremely doubtful that all of your softs are as awesome as you think they are.

I was waiting for someone to point this out! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illusory_superiority

[neprep]

I love that in most of these there's about a 50/50 split between average and above average softs and basically no one with below average softs.

It is extremely doubtful that all of your softs are as awesome as you think they are.

I was waiting for someone to point this out! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illusory_superiority

Strange, though, because there are definitely "what are my chances" posts that often have something like "so-so softs" or "…and nothing great about my softs." But these spreadsheets clearly have many rockstars.

[TheMostDangerousLG]

I love that in most of these there's about a 50/50 split between average and above average softs and basically no one with below average softs.

It is extremely doubtful that all of your softs are as awesome as you think they are.

I was waiting for someone to point this out! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illusory_superiority

Strange, though, because there are definitely "what are my chances" posts that often have something like "so-so softs" or "…and nothing great about my softs." But these spreadsheets clearly have many rockstars.

Right? But as soon as people have to compare themselves to others, they decide they're actually sitting pretty.

If I had to guess, I'd say 90% of the people who rate themselves "above average" are actually average, 10% really are above average, and of the people who rated themselves "average", 10% are above average, 40% are average, and 50% are below average.

[lawschool22]

I love that in most of these there's about a 50/50 split between average and above average softs and basically no one with below average softs.

It is extremely doubtful that all of your softs are as awesome as you think they are.

I was waiting for someone to point this out! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illusory_superiority

Strange, though, because there are definitely "what are my chances" posts that often have something like "so-so softs" or "…and nothing great about my softs." But these spreadsheets clearly have many rockstars.

Right? But as soon as people have to compare themselves to others, they decide they're actually sitting pretty.

If I had to guess, I'd say 90% of the people who rate themselves "above average" are actually average, 10% really are above average, and of the people who rated themselves "average", 10% are above average, 40% are average, and 50% are below average.

According to some research my company has done as far as comparing people on job performance (which may be somewhat comparable to this situation), we should be seeing something like this (1 is best):

1 rated - 5%
2 rated - 15%
3 rated - 50%
4 rated - 20%
5 rated - 10%

[iamgeorgebush]

Hey OP, I've been thinking about this, and I feel like there could be a better/more descriptive category than "highly unique," for several reasons:

1. There is no degree to uniqueness; something is either unique or it isn't.

2. Uniqueness seems like a pretty high bar to set. Founders of multi-million dollar charities, for instance, are not unique, but that would be a soft that is definitely higher on the scale than "above average."

3. A soft could be unique but not all that helpful. For example, someone might be the only amateur basket weaver to apply to LS this year, but that would probably not count as anything more than above average (assuming the applicant didn't make it to the basket weaving world championships or anything).

Maybe replace the category with something like "Very good"?

[lawschool22]

Hey OP, I've been thinking about this, and I feel like there could be a better/more descriptive category than "highly unique," for several reasons:

1. There is no degree to uniqueness; something is either unique or it isn't.

2. Uniqueness seems like a pretty high bar to set. Founders of multi-million dollar charities, for instance, are not unique, but that would be a soft that is definitely higher on the scale than "above average."

3. A soft could be unique but not all that helpful. For example, someone might be the only amateur basket weaver to apply to LS this year, but that would probably not count as anything more than above average (assuming the applicant didn't make it to the basket weaving world championships or anything).

Maybe replace the category with something like "Very good"?

I agree - I set up those categories without really thinking about the description. My main goal was to have a 1-5 scale. I think the description could be better, but the work of changing the formulas, updating the answers already given by people, etc. across 10+ spreadsheets would be a lot of work without too much gain. What may be better is providing a definition/guideline on the first page for answering that question. Maybe we can work out some descriptions and guidelines that I can add which would achieve the same goal?

[Blackjack45]

Should there be a URM checkbox? Or am I so rare that I should just be happy as an outlier?

EDIT: Saw the URM checkbox in many. There isn't one in Georgetown.

[Kimikho]

Could there be a "Why X" or "Optional Essay" box, at least for Michigan, Duke, Penn, and UVA?

p.s. OP i like you

[iamgeorgebush]

Hey OP, I've been thinking about this, and I feel like there could be a better/more descriptive category than "highly unique," for several reasons:

1. There is no degree to uniqueness; something is either unique or it isn't.

2. Uniqueness seems like a pretty high bar to set. Founders of multi-million dollar charities, for instance, are not unique, but that would be a soft that is definitely higher on the scale than "above average."

3. A soft could be unique but not all that helpful. For example, someone might be the only amateur basket weaver to apply to LS this year, but that would probably not count as anything more than above average (assuming the applicant didn't make it to the basket weaving world championships or anything).

Maybe replace the category with something like "Very good"?

I agree - I set up those categories without really thinking about the description. My main goal was to have a 1-5 scale. I think the description could be better, but the work of changing the formulas, updating the answers already given by people, etc. across 10+ spreadsheets would be a lot of work without too much gain. What may be better is providing a definition/guideline on the first page for answering that question. Maybe we can work out some descriptions and guidelines that I can add which would achieve the same goal?

Yeah, no big deal. It's awesome that you've done this at all. I don't really know if people would follow the descriptions and guidelines anyway.

[lawschool22]

Should there be a URM checkbox? Or am I so rare that I should just be happy as an outlier?

EDIT: Saw the URM checkbox in many. There isn't one in Georgetown.

Good catch! I'll fix when I'm near a computer...

[lawschool22]

Hey OP, I've been thinking about this, and I feel like there could be a better/more descriptive category than "highly unique," for several reasons:

1. There is no degree to uniqueness; something is either unique or it isn't.

2. Uniqueness seems like a pretty high bar to set. Founders of multi-million dollar charities, for instance, are not unique, but that would be a soft that is definitely higher on the scale than "above average."

3. A soft could be unique but not all that helpful. For example, someone might be the only amateur basket weaver to apply to LS this year, but that would probably not count as anything more than above average (assuming the applicant didn't make it to the basket weaving world championships or anything).

Maybe replace the category with something like "Very good"?

I agree - I set up those categories without really thinking about the description. My main goal was to have a 1-5 scale. I think the description could be better, but the work of changing the formulas, updating the answers already given by people, etc. across 10+ spreadsheets would be a lot of work without too much gain. What may be better is providing a definition/guideline on the first page for answering that question. Maybe we can work out some descriptions and guidelines that I can add which would achieve the same goal?

Yeah, no big deal. It's awesome that you've done this at all. I don't really know if people would follow the descriptions and guidelines anyway.

They probably wouldn't

[lawschool22]

Could there be a "Why X" or "Optional Essay" box, at least for Michigan, Duke, Penn, and UVA?

p.s. OP i like you

Nice idea - would be interesting to see if that indeed has an effect and the magnitude. I'll have to work out how to "control" for lsat/gpa to calculate the effect.

Also, thanks for the praise. I have to say, your posts in the October waiters thread were very entertaining and kept me sane during that time. So I like you too!

[drevo]

I agree - I set up those categories without really thinking about the description. My main goal was to have a 1-5 scale. I think the description could be better, but the work of changing the formulas, updating the answers already given by people, etc. across 10+ spreadsheets would be a lot of work without too much gain. What may be better is providing a definition/guideline on the first page for answering that question. Maybe we can work out some descriptions and guidelines that I can add which would achieve the same goal?

A description might be helpful. I think probably a big divide is K-JD applicants (like myself) being inclined to compare softs relative to other college seniors, whereas obviously the softs are relative to all applicants including people coming from great careers. At least for me at first I thought "I'm about average for a college senior with a couple very good internships in my field of study, a couple of organizations, some journalism, etc." because these are by no means anything crazy special like some of my friends here who are exec for AS and volunteer all the damn time while being captain of the surf team, etc. But I also know plenty of people within my major who did a WHOLE lot less.

But then I realized a) those aren't people applying to T14s, and b) that excludes the huge number of applicants who have had real careers not just internships and have more time to accomplish more than me. This is anecdotal but I could definitely see other K-JD hopefuls falling into the same trap.

I think maybe just a brief description of even just what "average" means could help people decide where they stand rather than leaving it to everyone on their own to use their own measuring sticks. Either way this is a great idea and probably one of the best things in this admissions forum so thank you big time for putting this together lawschool22

[Kimikho]

Could there be a "Why X" or "Optional Essay" box, at least for Michigan, Duke, Penn, and UVA?

p.s. OP i like you

Nice idea - would be interesting to see if that indeed has an effect and the magnitude. I'll have to work out how to "control" for lsat/gpa to calculate the effect.

Also, thanks for the praise. I have to say, your posts in the October waiters thread were very entertaining and kept me sane during that time. So I like you too!

Im also really excited to see how much the numbers converge to the reported 25-50-75. this was a fantastic idea and thanks for spending the time to do it!

[neprep]

Could there be a "Why X" or "Optional Essay" box, at least for Michigan, Duke, Penn, and UVA?

p.s. OP i like you

Nice idea - would be interesting to see if that indeed has an effect and the magnitude. I'll have to work out how to "control" for lsat/gpa to calculate the effect.

Also, thanks for the praise. I have to say, your posts in the October waiters thread were very entertaining and kept me sane during that time. So I like you too!

Im also really excited to see how much the numbers converge to the reported 25-50-75. this was a fantastic idea and thanks for spending the time to do it!

lawschool22, do you like me too?

[iamgeorgebush]

75% of the K-JDs on the CLS spreadsheet listing their softs as above average. Some real special snowflakes here on TLS.

[Kimikho]

75% of the K-JDs on the CLS spreadsheet listing their softs as above average. Some real special snowflakes here on TLS.

this was discussed in the previous pages. someone either needs to come up with guidelines or stop making fun of us. We can only compare to people we know and adjust from there. HTH.

[iamgeorgebush]

75% of the K-JDs on the CLS spreadsheet listing their softs as above average. Some real special snowflakes here on TLS.

this was discussed in the previous pages. someone either needs to come up with guidelines or stop making fun of us. We can only compare to people we know and adjust from there. HTH.

I know, I was a part of said discussion...just reiterating.

[kwu]

"Highly Unique" : Rhodes
"Above Average" : Marshall/Gates/Fulbright/Truman; MBB Consulting/bulge bracket Investment Banking
"Average" : student government, student newspaper, neighborhood outreach, fund raising
"Below Average" : one or two of "average," internships at no-name firms revealing lack of focus
"Weak" : few to no ECs, few to no internships

[Otunga]

Makes me reconsider saying that I'm retaking for HYS and more scholarship money. Since my softs are in the weak category (not k-jd; not sure if it matters), I probably should just say H and more scholarship money.

[Kimikho]

"Highly Unique" : Rhodes
"Above Average" : Marshall/Gates/Fulbright/Truman; MBB Consulting/bulge bracket Investment Banking
"Average" : student government, student newspaper, neighborhood outreach, fund raising
"Below Average" : one or two of "average," internships at no-name firms revealing lack of focus
"Weak" : few to no ECs, few to no internships

ty ty

[iamgeorgebush]

"Highly Unique" : Rhodes
"Above Average" : Marshall/Gates/Fulbright/Truman; MBB Consulting/bulge bracket Investment Banking
"Average" : student government, student newspaper, neighborhood outreach, fund raising
"Below Average" : one or two of "average," internships at no-name firms revealing lack of focus
"Weak" : few to no ECs, few to no internships

Eh, you make it seem like adcoms only care about brand names. From everything I've heard and read, an interesting story goes a lot further than having all the right checkboxes marked (excluding the LSAT and GPA checkboxes). You're leaving out all kinds of uncommon softs like "Sommelier at a Michelin starred restaurant" that, paired with a compelling personal statement, could strengthen an application more than stuff like consulting and i-banking.

[Kimikho]

"Highly Unique" : Rhodes
"Above Average" : Marshall/Gates/Fulbright/Truman; MBB Consulting/bulge bracket Investment Banking
"Average" : student government, student newspaper, neighborhood outreach, fund raising
"Below Average" : one or two of "average," internships at no-name firms revealing lack of focus
"Weak" : few to no ECs, few to no internships

Eh, you make it seem like adcoms only care about brand names. From everything I've heard and read, an interesting story goes a lot further than having all the right checkboxes marked (excluding the LSAT and GPA checkboxes). You're leaving out all kinds of uncommon softs like "Sommelier at a Michelin starred restaurant" that, paired with a compelling personal statement, could strengthen an application more than stuff like consulting and i-banking.

-_______-

what is your list then

[lawschool22]

"Highly Unique" : Rhodes
"Above Average" : Marshall/Gates/Fulbright/Truman; MBB Consulting/bulge bracket Investment Banking
"Average" : student government, student newspaper, neighborhood outreach, fund raising
"Below Average" : one or two of "average," internships at no-name firms revealing lack of focus
"Weak" : few to no ECs, few to no internships

Eh, you make it seem like adcoms only care about brand names. From everything I've heard and read, an interesting story goes a lot further than having all the right checkboxes marked (excluding the LSAT and GPA checkboxes). You're leaving out all kinds of uncommon softs like "Sommelier at a Michelin starred restaurant" that, paired with a compelling personal statement, could strengthen an application more than stuff like consulting and i-banking.

-_______-

what is your list then

Maybe could we post this over in the Spivey/Karen B thread and get their thoughts?

[iamgeorgebush]

"Highly Unique" : Rhodes
"Above Average" : Marshall/Gates/Fulbright/Truman; MBB Consulting/bulge bracket Investment Banking
"Average" : student government, student newspaper, neighborhood outreach, fund raising
"Below Average" : one or two of "average," internships at no-name firms revealing lack of focus
"Weak" : few to no ECs, few to no internships

Eh, you make it seem like adcoms only care about brand names. From everything I've heard and read, an interesting story goes a lot further than having all the right checkboxes marked (excluding the LSAT and GPA checkboxes). You're leaving out all kinds of uncommon softs like "Sommelier at a Michelin starred restaurant" that, paired with a compelling personal statement, could strengthen an application more than stuff like consulting and i-banking.

-_______-

what is your list then

"Highly Unique" : Rhodes, founder of a nonprofit/startup, chef at a Michelin starred restaurant, NFL player, published novelist, etc.
"Above Average" : Marshall/Gates/Fulbright/Truman, MBB Consulting/bulge bracket Investment Banking, production assistant at CNN, paralegal at the ACLU, software engineer at a venture-funded startup, officer of a state or national student organization, etc.
"Average" : student government, student newspaper, neighborhood outreach, fund raising, officer at a student club or two, etc. (some combination of at least three of these)
"Below Average" : one or two of "average" internships at no-name firms revealing lack of focus
"Weak" : few to no ECs/internships , few to no internships