Harvard 2012 applicants (class of 2015) Forum

[hypothalamus]

The above 3 posters:




To give you guys some perspective:

09 / 21: Applied
10 / 13: Under Review
10 / 27: Complete
02 / 08 / 2012: Held

Nothing since.

Haha ok I'm not complaining anymore.

But what I meant (sorry if it wasn't clear is) I don't know how to interpret the TOTAL silence (no "hold", just nothing) ever since I follow this thread closely and I saw tons of people who applied after me (and went complete and UR after me as well) and who've been place on hold ever since.

Your hold will come around April 6, or never.

[driver2012]

Wow. There are some whiny and entitled misogynists in this thread.

On this topic, I just want to say that I made a pretty self-entitled comment earlier on and I really regret that. I was already feeling edgy before I logged onto the forum because of sleep deprivation and some unrelated stuff that I was on my mind and I took out my frustration in my post. It was inappropriate and very far from the sort of thing that I would usually say. I've just been feeling really bad about it, so I wanted to put that out there and apologize.

Curiouscat, we love you. No need to apologize.

Sometimes we say things and they are interpreted by others in an ignorant light... Ala my comment about HLS admissions hiring two people knowing well that they wont be able to fulfill responsibilities for an entire admissions cycle as being a careless decision. By including the fact for which they knew the two people could not fulfill the task made my remark misogynist?...No, it makes the ignorant reader guilty of presumptuous and most likely careless analysis.

I wouldn't say that you're a misogynist, but I think the "whiny" and "entitled" adjectives are spot on.

You said that everyone who had a JS1 and who hasn't heard back from them "ought" to have a shot with KB... seriously? You made it explicit that you think that they are having trouble getting things done, and made it all but explicit that you think this is partially or entirely the result of HLS knowingly hiring and then suffering through the difficulties of leaving the admissions process in the hands of two "prego ladies." Each year many people get first round calls and then hear nothing --> hold/reject, and to this outsider this seems like a far likelier reality for you than KB/JS not being able to pick up the phone to tell you you're in because she is incapacitated with morning sickness.

You yourself said that you can't discriminate against pregnant ladies, and then in a later post you talk about HLS "knowing" that these two either together or severally could not handle their full responsibilities, yet for all we know they are meeting or exceeding whatever mysterious strategy HLS admissions articulated at the beginning of the cycle.

Eh, screw it. You're projecting so much that I think it's safe to agree with the misogynist label.

[kindaklueless]

I wouldn't say that you're a misogynist, but I think the "whiny" and "entitled" adjectives are spot on.

Pretty much. Harvard didn't promise us anything (re: when they were getting back to us) that they haven't followed through on. It's an idiosyncratic process. Babies or no babies.

[poultry]

As someone whose first language is not English, I picked up the word "misogynist" from this thread. It is a sad fact reminding us of how awry this thread has gone. Let's get all the negative energy behind us and await the good news coming in the imminent future!

[adam1]

As someone whose first language is not English, I picked up the word "misogynist" from this thread. It is a sad fact reminding us of how awry this thread has gone. Let's get all the negative energy behind us and await the good news coming in the imminent future!

women. foreigners. misogynists. we are all beautiful.

none of us are getting into harvard.

[hypothalamus]

As someone whose first language is not English, I picked up the word "misogynist" from this thread. It is a sad fact reminding us of how awry this thread has gone. Let's get all the negative energy behind us and await the good news coming in the imminent future!

women. foreigners. misogynists. we are all beautiful.

none of us are getting into harvard.

As someone who probably falls into all categories, this made me laugh

[larsoner]

Hey I just thought I would let you know, I called Harvard about the Chicago deadline many of us are coming up against and asked if I should get them the information by email/snail mail/carrier pigeon. They told me email would be fine. (I'm a held applicant.)

[nids333]

I may have missed earlier discussion on this, but does the Chicago deposit deadline imply that if accepted from a school that you were "held" at you would have to withdraw?

[arez]

Hey I just thought I would let you know, I called Harvard about the Chicago deadline many of us are coming up against and asked if I should get them the information by email/snail mail/carrier pigeon. They told me email would be fine. (I'm a held applicant.)

By "information" do you mean a pdf of our Chicago scholarship offer letter? Thanks for calling and asking!

[curiouscat]

I may have missed earlier discussion on this, but does the Chicago deposit deadline imply that if accepted from a school that you were "held" at you would have to withdraw?

Yes.
Re: emailing, that's strange, when I called I was told that it's snail-mail only. Multiple policies?

[Nulli Secundus]

I may have missed earlier discussion on this, but does the Chicago deposit deadline imply that if accepted from a school that you were "held" at you would have to withdraw?

Yes.
Re: emailing, that's strange, when I called I was told that it's snail-mail only. Multiple policies?

Snail-mail to misogynists!11

[curiouscat]

I may have missed earlier discussion on this, but does the Chicago deposit deadline imply that if accepted from a school that you were "held" at you would have to withdraw?

Yes.
Re: emailing, that's strange, when I called I was told that it's snail-mail only. Multiple policies?

Snail-mail to misogynists!11

LOL. Damn, if only I'd known...

[nids333]

Ooo ok! Did any of you guys already submit a LOCI prior to hearing about Chicago's financial aid package?

I may have missed earlier discussion on this, but does the Chicago deposit deadline imply that if accepted from a school that you were "held" at you would have to withdraw?

Yes.
Re: emailing, that's strange, when I called I was told that it's snail-mail only. Multiple policies?

[larsoner]

Hey I just thought I would let you know, I called Harvard about the Chicago deadline many of us are coming up against and asked if I should get them the information by email/snail mail/carrier pigeon. They told me email would be fine. (I'm a held applicant.)

By "information" do you mean a pdf of our Chicago scholarship offer letter? Thanks for calling and asking!

I just sent them an email telling them about the deadline without the pdf from Chicago. I told them to let me know if they need anything else. Since they have a policy against opening email attachments, all I sent was in the body of the email and I don't know if they would open a pdf.

[larsoner]

I may have missed earlier discussion on this, but does the Chicago deposit deadline imply that if accepted from a school that you were "held" at you would have to withdraw?

Yes.
Re: emailing, that's strange, when I called I was told that it's snail-mail only. Multiple policies?

Yeah it was weird. I was really just calling to confirm that your earlier post was right and fully expected them to tell me to mail it.

Maybe they've changed their policy because they're behind. There have to be fair number of people in this same boat and dealing with emails has to be more efficient.

[Geneva]

hey, is there any clear info on whether a URM hold is better/worse/no different for odds of admission? i feel like it could go either way.

[EMZE]

hey, is there any clear info on whether a URM hold is better/worse/no different for odds of admission? i feel like it could go either way.

I'm certain that there is no "clear" or definitive info to speak of. I haven't seen anything from Harvard, or really any school aside from the SCOTUS cases about the admissions process of public schools, that really discusses a distinct admissions process since it is such a contested issue.

Based on stuff discussed earlier, it would seem to depend more on the applicant pool. If there are fewer accepted applicants of your specific URM category, then your chances would seem to be better. You are then competing against the rest of the applicants of your same background. The same applies for non-trad applicants.

Short of knowing the composition of the applicant pool, there's no real way to speculate about a specific URM's chances since you would be competing for spots against a more specific group.

[PopTorts13]

Wow. There are some whiny and entitled misogynists in this thread.

On this topic, I just want to say that I made a pretty self-entitled comment earlier on and I really regret that. I was already feeling edgy before I logged onto the forum because of sleep deprivation and some unrelated stuff that I was on my mind and I took out my frustration in my post. It was inappropriate and very far from the sort of thing that I would usually say. I've just been feeling really bad about it, so I wanted to put that out there and apologize.

Curiouscat, we love you. No need to apologize.

Sometimes we say things and they are interpreted by others in an ignorant light... Ala my comment about HLS admissions hiring two people knowing well that they wont be able to fulfill responsibilities for an entire admissions cycle as being a careless decision. By including the fact for which they knew the two people could not fulfill the task made my remark misogynist?...No, it makes the ignorant reader guilty of presumptuous and most likely careless analysis.

I wouldn't say that you're a misogynist, but I think the "whiny" and "entitled" adjectives are spot on.

You said that everyone who had a JS1 and who hasn't heard back from them "ought" to have a shot with KB... seriously? You made it explicit that you think that they are having trouble getting things done, and made it all but explicit that you think this is partially or entirely the result of HLS knowingly hiring and then suffering through the difficulties of leaving the admissions process in the hands of two "prego ladies." Each year many people get first round calls and then hear nothing --> hold/reject, and to this outsider this seems like a far likelier reality for you than KB/JS not being able to pick up the phone to tell you you're in because she is incapacitated with morning sickness.

You yourself said that you can't discriminate against pregnant ladies, and then in a later post you talk about HLS "knowing" that these two either together or severally could not handle their full responsibilities, yet for all we know they are meeting or exceeding whatever mysterious strategy HLS admissions articulated at the beginning of the cycle.

Eh, screw it. You're projecting so much that I think it's safe to agree with the misogynist label.

So you can conclude from my comments that I hate women? Grow up .

It's not preposterous to suggest applicants receive a holistic review from the two people that have juggled responsibility for admissions either. Unless, well, I am sure applicants just love throwing $85 towards a review processes with leadership that has been pin-balled the entire cycle. The fact is they did hire two pregnant women. Being pregnant and birthing a child is a laborious, consuming, difficult part in a woman's life and absolutely beautiful. For one to deny that it would affect their abilities in the work place would be ridiculous and this is why we have maternity leave.

Just to clarify everyone... I HATE WOMEN and I AM WHINY. People on these forums, dang

[aekea]

So you can conclude from my comments that I hate women? Grow up .

It's not preposterous to suggest applicants receive a holistic review from the two people that have juggled responsibility for admissions either. Unless, well, I am sure applicants just love throwing $85 towards a review processes with leadership that has been pin-balled the entire cycle. The fact is they did hire two pregnant women. Being pregnant and birthing a child is a laborious, consuming, difficult part in a woman's life and absolutely beautiful. For one to deny that it would affect their abilities in the work place would be ridiculous and this is why we have maternity leave.

Just to clarify everyone... I HATE WOMEN and I AM WHINY. People on these forums, dang

It's not preposterous to believe everyone should get a holistic review of their application. But, you're assuming that because two pregnant women were juggling the position, that Harvard has not come through in that regard. You have no reason for believing this is true. Yes, it seems like Harvard has been moving a bit slow this cycle, but to me that supports the idea that they're still committed to giving every application a thorough review. What you're saying, is that you think Harvard was irresponsible in hiring a pregnant woman because she would not be able to fulfill her duties for a short period of time in the immediate future. It just so happened that the position was vacant and was being temporarily occupied by another pregnant woman. JS has no control over that, and to deny her this position, assuming she is in fact the most qualified person for the job, simply because she's pregnant would be short-sighted and not in Harvard's best interest.

[Doorkeeper]

Wow. The waiting game has really turned this thread for the worst.

*backs away slowly*

[Elendil]

[lawschoolperson]

Meh. Pregnant --> can't do the work. In many cases, not being able to do the work is a problem. Maybe it delayed decisions in this case, maybe it caused confusion which made the process less meritocratic and less fair. It's impossible for us to know...though on its face it certainly seems possible that the two changes at least caused delay.

But, independent of that, I think we should all recognize as true the more controversial point that any attribute that prevents a person from doing a required task is a problem if we need that person to do the required task. I think the only way to argue that some attribute of a person that prevents that person from doing a required task should not be considered in whether to hire the person to do the task is to say that there is some very compelling reason to accept the person's inability to do the task because, in doing so, we achieve some greater good (or prevent a wrong). Such a wrong could be a discriminatory society (i.e., we should hire the pregnant woman even though she'll do a worse job because, by not discriminating, we create a better society). But, it's a weighing. Not being able to do work is not irrelevant--the drawback of hiring a pregnant woman to defuse a nuclear bomb would outweigh the benefit of preventing a discriminatory society.

[eibesfeldt]

Meh. Pregnant --> can't do the work. In many cases, not being able to do the work is a problem. Maybe it delayed decisions in this case, maybe it caused confusion which made the process less meritocratic and less fair. It's impossible for us to know...though on its face it certainly seems possible that the two changes at least caused delay.

But, independent of that, I think we should all recognize as true the more controversial point that any attribute that prevents a person from doing a required task is a problem if we need that person to do the required task. I think the only way to argue that some attribute of a person that prevents that person from doing a required task should not be considered in whether to hire the person to do the task is to say that there is some very compelling reason to accept the person's inability to do the task because, in doing so, we achieve some greater good (or prevent a wrong). Such a wrong could be a discriminatory society (i.e., we should hire the pregnant woman even though she'll do a worse job because, by not discriminating, we create a better society). But, it's a weighing. Not being able to do work is not irrelevant--the drawback of hiring a pregnant woman to defuse a nuclear bomb would outweigh the benefit of preventing a discriminatory society.

Ok everyone shut up because I just got my KBB1

[chickenalfredo]

Meh. Pregnant --> can't do the work. In many cases, not being able to do the work is a problem. Maybe it delayed decisions in this case, maybe it caused confusion which made the process less meritocratic and less fair. It's impossible for us to know...though on its face it certainly seems possible that the two changes at least caused delay.

But, independent of that, I think we should all recognize as true the more controversial point that any attribute that prevents a person from doing a required task is a problem if we need that person to do the required task. I think the only way to argue that some attribute of a person that prevents that person from doing a required task should not be considered in whether to hire the person to do the task is to say that there is some very compelling reason to accept the person's inability to do the task because, in doing so, we achieve some greater good (or prevent a wrong). Such a wrong could be a discriminatory society (i.e., we should hire the pregnant woman even though she'll do a worse job because, by not discriminating, we create a better society). But, it's a weighing. Not being able to do work is not irrelevant--the drawback of hiring a pregnant woman to defuse a nuclear bomb would outweigh the benefit of preventing a discriminatory society.

Ok everyone shut up because I just got my KBB1

que?

[eibesfeldt]

Meh. Pregnant --> can't do the work. In many cases, not being able to do the work is a problem. Maybe it delayed decisions in this case, maybe it caused confusion which made the process less meritocratic and less fair. It's impossible for us to know...though on its face it certainly seems possible that the two changes at least caused delay.

But, independent of that, I think we should all recognize as true the more controversial point that any attribute that prevents a person from doing a required task is a problem if we need that person to do the required task. I think the only way to argue that some attribute of a person that prevents that person from doing a required task should not be considered in whether to hire the person to do the task is to say that there is some very compelling reason to accept the person's inability to do the task because, in doing so, we achieve some greater good (or prevent a wrong). Such a wrong could be a discriminatory society (i.e., we should hire the pregnant woman even though she'll do a worse job because, by not discriminating, we create a better society). But, it's a weighing. Not being able to do work is not irrelevant--the drawback of hiring a pregnant woman to defuse a nuclear bomb would outweigh the benefit of preventing a discriminatory society.

Ok everyone shut up because I just got my KBB1

que?