2015-2016 Admissions Spreadsheets Forum

benwyatt · Post by **benwyatt** » Sat Oct 24, 2015 12:44 am

Post removed.

omd3117 · Post by **omd3117** » Wed Nov 04, 2015 6:32 pm

Sorry to be annoying and make it get updated, but if possible, can we get a URM column going in all of the spreadsheets? option is only listed for a couple.

benwyatt · Post by **benwyatt** » Wed Nov 04, 2015 7:20 pm

Post removed.

omd3117 · Post by **omd3117** » Wed Nov 04, 2015 7:21 pm

benwyatt wrote:
omd3117 wrote:Sorry to be annoying and make it get updated, but if possible, can we get a URM column going in all of the spreadsheets? option is only listed for a couple.
Should be fixed!
I'm pretty sure the only 2 missing it were Columbia and GULC.

Thank you!!

kepfd24 · Post by **kepfd24** » Wed Nov 11, 2015 9:35 am

I know TLS posters tend to be more competitive than the rest ... but the 'softs' categories should be reworked if ~50% of the people are "above average" and ~50% are "average"

benwyatt · Post by **benwyatt** » Wed Nov 11, 2015 10:19 am

kepfd24 wrote:I know TLS posters tend to be more competitive than the rest ... but the 'softs' categories should be reworked if ~50% of the people are "above average" and ~50% are "average"

No it shouldn't, people should just stop lying about their softs.

Either way, that's easily the least important part of the sheets.

basedvulpes · Post by **basedvulpes** » Wed Nov 11, 2015 10:27 am

Post removed.

kepfd24 · Post by **kepfd24** » Wed Nov 11, 2015 10:43 am

benwyatt wrote:
kepfd24 wrote:I know TLS posters tend to be more competitive than the rest ... but the 'softs' categories should be reworked if ~50% of the people are "above average" and ~50% are "average"
No it shouldn't, people should just stop lying about their softs.

Either way, that's easily the least important part of the sheets.

but that doesnt mean it is not important

benwyatt · Post by **benwyatt** » Wed Nov 11, 2015 11:17 am

kepfd24 wrote:
benwyatt wrote:
kepfd24 wrote:I know TLS posters tend to be more competitive than the rest ... but the 'softs' categories should be reworked if ~50% of the people are "above average" and ~50% are "average"
No it shouldn't, people should just stop lying about their softs.

Either way, that's easily the least important part of the sheets.
but that doesnt mean it is not important

It does.

Even if I were willing to rework it (spoiler alert: I'm probably not) what would you propose? There's never going to be an objective measure of softs so even if I make the choices more granular, people are still going to overestimate their softs.

basedvulpes · Post by **basedvulpes** » Wed Nov 11, 2015 12:01 pm

Post removed.

McJimJam · Post by **McJimJam** » Wed Nov 11, 2015 8:09 pm

Lulz.

mornincounselor · Post by **mornincounselor** » Tue Nov 24, 2015 3:54 am

Haha, the only person I saw who admitted having "weak" softs only did so after being admitted. For future years we should scrap that (if we get an olympic gold medalist or w/e they can note it in the details section) and replace it with an In-State option for the schools where that matters.

scone · Post by **scone** » Tue Nov 24, 2015 1:29 pm

Something's funny with the mean admit GPA in Berkeley's spreadsheet (i.e. it includes blank GPA cells in the calculation)

benwyatt · Post by **benwyatt** » Tue Nov 24, 2015 1:50 pm

scone wrote:Something's funny with the mean admit GPA in Berkeley's spreadsheet (i.e. it includes blank GPA cells in the calculation)

I see what you're talking about. I can experiment a bit with it later, but there may not be a good solution for that. On other spreadsheets the effect is minimal but with Berkeley it skews it a bit more because there are fewer applicants.

schocolate · Post by **schocolate** » Tue Dec 08, 2015 12:14 pm

Post removed...

benwyatt · Post by **benwyatt** » Tue Dec 08, 2015 12:16 pm

schocolate wrote:Hi, sorry to be a hassle, but would it be possible to update the Stanford sheet with the new medians? Thanks!

Happy to update with new medians if you can give them to me.
I stopped following the new median stuff and I'm pretty slammed at work today so I can't track them down myself. (He said while typing on TLS)

schocolate · Post by **schocolate** » Tue Dec 08, 2015 12:20 pm

Post removed...

benwyatt · Post by **benwyatt** » Tue Dec 08, 2015 12:47 pm

schocolate wrote:
benwyatt wrote:
schocolate wrote:Hi, sorry to be a hassle, but would it be possible to update the Stanford sheet with the new medians? Thanks!
Happy to update with new medians if you can give them to me.
I stopped following the new median stuff and I'm pretty slammed at work today so I can't track them down myself. (He said while typing on TLS)
3.78 - 3.89 - 3.97
169 - 171 - 173

https://law.stanford.edu/aba-required-disclosures/

Thanks! You're a champ.

Done!

scone · Post by **scone** » Sat Dec 12, 2015 4:39 am

There's some very funky stuff going on in the Duke analytics, fyi.

benwyatt · Post by **benwyatt** » Sat Dec 12, 2015 7:00 pm

scone wrote:There's some very funky stuff going on in the Duke analytics, fyi.

I think you were referring to the mean lsat of WL decisions.

Fixed.

Please be as specific as possible WRT issues so I can fix them quickly

scone · Post by **scone** » Sat Dec 12, 2015 7:05 pm

benwyatt wrote:
scone wrote:There's some very funky stuff going on in the Duke analytics, fyi.
I think you were referring to the mean lsat of WL decisions.

Fixed.

Please be as specific as possible WRT issues so I can fix them quickly

Sorry

benwyatt · Post by **benwyatt** » Mon Dec 14, 2015 12:21 am

scone wrote:
benwyatt wrote:
scone wrote:There's some very funky stuff going on in the Duke analytics, fyi.
I think you were referring to the mean lsat of WL decisions.

Fixed.

Please be as specific as possible WRT issues so I can fix them quickly
Sorry

No worries!

It's just easier for me to jump right in if you say something along the lines of "The Applicant count is off"

gamerish · Post by **gamerish** » Mon Dec 14, 2015 12:46 am

Post removed...

benwyatt · Post by **benwyatt** » Mon Dec 14, 2015 11:35 am

gamerish wrote:The Cornell analytics says the average wait time for a decision is 42,000 days

I know decisions have started rolling out so maybe someone typed something in incorrectly? Nothing jumped out at me when I looked though

Fixed!
Thanks!

lymenheimer · Post by **lymenheimer** » Mon Dec 14, 2015 11:41 am

gamerish wrote:The Cornell analytics says the average wait time for a decision is 42,000 days

I know decisions have started rolling out so maybe someone typed something in incorrectly? Nothing jumped out at me when I looked though

They're just trying to lock in their C/O 2134.