An E-mail I just Received From Harvard Forum

[vicpin5190]

dude how did a 2.8 with a 148 get in? is that president obama's kid or something?

I'm thinking

do you really think someone would do that? just go on the internet and tell lies?

[lawschool22]

well do we know that it's take this makeup or nothing? I've seen previous posts about refunds and taking Feb for free. if those are options then it only makes sense to allow Feb.

if they're doing it partly to get more applicants...just who do you think they'll get between Feb 1 and March 1?

people who would've applied anyway before Feb 1, but think "I could use the extra time"

people applying to hls would have already planned to submit by Feb 1, taken a previous administration, etc. the people signed up for the Feb admin are probably people looking at the next cycle. I can't imagine anyone thinking "well the last few months I've been planning to submit next cycle...well, now that I know I can take the Feb test, let me just study for the next 2 months, get that 174, and apply this cycle instead"

the theme (agreeing to disagree) is that it takes an unusual TLS cynic (like the OP self-reflectively acknowledges) to think "they're doing this to improve their app pool" when there are much more plausible & honest explanations than using the weather as a cover for an under-the-table operation.

and people wonder why JS (and JR before her) doesn't like TLS

I am fairly cynical about the admissions game - why wouldn't I be? I have seen minimal (if any) evidence to suggest that schools are not acutely aware of, and primarily motivated by, their rankings, and by extension, LSAT scores.

If HLS were satisfied with what it is seeing, why extend it? Why reach out and specifically ask people to apply in an email to EVERY December test taker?

As you say, the people taking February were likely not going to appy this cycle anyway. They would not normally be HLS's target. Unless HLS realized they needed more apps. But what would get them to apply? What if they were to realize that the 175 they just received on the February test was still good for this cycle at HLS? They know this cycle will probably be wonderful for applicants, so maybe they should apply. But they still need that little nudge, since they weren't planning on applying yet. Well I can't think of a better nudge than an email from HLS saying "we want that February score."

You don't think HLS considered this when sending it out?

I've already addressed the "every dec taker" argument. They're not gonna go down the list individually to figure out if a given test taker was registered at a center that was closed, so they can just email everyone.

if march 1 is the deadline then the feb score prob won't come out by then. hence a feb taker won't be in a position to be motivated to apply one cycle early by that shining 175. and the larger point is that there are probably very few people who will have been taking it slow, planning to apply 14-15, and then suddenly hustle to get their app in in a day (assuming scores are even out by Feb 28; the last few Febs it's gone into March).

also, i've thought that hls has been less explicit about its ranking than most other schools. it's not dropping out of the top 3, and the separation between it and sls isn't on the basis of lsat scores.

and re: solid projections. i don't think they're instrumental enough to think "we're good. these guys who were counting on their Dec scores to apply, but now are taking the Feb test rather than the make-up--forget them. let them wait til next cycle and figure something else out to do for a year, disrupting their plans."

accommodating people who were screwed over by something outside of their control is a sufficient reason to take the action they did, and there's no good reason to prefer the "let's bolster our app pool" theory to that one

also, the hls's blog's wording re "Feb first time takers" and "retaking in Feb" and lsac's own wording re "options, including" suggest that taking in Feb is an alternative remedy to making it up a week later

As I mentioned in the HLS thread, I'm not going to engage in this debate any more for the sake of others. It's going nowhere.

[mellow]

dude how did a 2.8 with a 148 get in? is that president obama's kid or something?

I'm thinking

[troll]

do you really think someone would do that? just go on the internet and tell lies?

http://lawschoolnumbers.com/PhillyCollins

This person got into Harvard last year with a 3.3/180 and a million dollar scholarship. It's the Internet - of course people just go on the internet and tell lies.

[luckystar84]

deleted

[vicpin5190]

dude how did a 2.8 with a 148 get in? is that president obama's kid or something?

I'm thinking

[troll]

do you really think someone would do that? just go on the internet and tell lies?

http://lawschoolnumbers.com/PhillyCollins

This person got into Harvard last year with a 3.3/180 and a million dollar scholarship. It's the Internet - of course people just go on the internet and tell lies.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YWdD206eSv0

[mellow]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YWdD206eSv0

oh wow that totally went over my head. never having watched arthur might have something to do with it. sorry, ignore me

[midwest17]

once they allow Feb scores to be used, they have to extend the deadline to March 1 because many applicants use how well they think they did on the lsat to decide whether applications are still worth it. If they kept the deadline at Feb 1, then Feb takers wouldn't be making an informed decision.

if march 1 is the deadline then the feb score prob won't come out by then. hence a feb taker won't be in a position to be motivated to apply one cycle early by that shining 175.

You've got a bit of a contradiction going here.

accommodating people who were screwed over by something outside of their control is a sufficient reason to take the action they did, and there's no good reason to prefer the "let's bolster our app pool" theory to that one

I don't really care this much about this argument, but I think you're stating this "fairness" point a little too strongly. I don't think it's wildly unfair for Harvard to not extend it's deadline to accommodate people who (a) were counting on the last possible LSAT, knowing it could be canceled or something could go wrong, AND (b) turned down a rescheduled test a week later and chose instead to take the test in February.

It seems like you're claiming that people who got weather-canceled and choose to retake are entitled to have schools extend their deadlines as a matter of basic fairness. It's definitely nice for Harvard to do this, especially if it's just out of a sense of fairness to people who would have otherwise not been able to apply due to circumstances partially out of their control. But it's not an entitlement.

[luckystar84]

deleted

[dcoppo01]

I received the email. Did a major double-take when I saw that it was from Harvard.

[p3aceandl0v3]

Does anyone know if any other schools are going to follow suit and accept the Feb 2014 LSAT?