Top Law Schools

seanPtheB wrote:

thederangedwang wrote:

sharktankdean wrote:I was discussing this with a friend of mine.

Not to offend anyone but cases where someone with great numbers (>3.8 and >174) gets rejected from H/Y/S and gets accepted to CCN down or MVP down with a good scholarship COULD be an indicator that the their application was not spectacular/great. (the whole numbers are not everything for law school debate)

If I was an adcomm for Virginia and I saw an applicant with great numbers but not so great an application, I could conclude that he/she would likely not get into H/Y/S. But in order to help my stats and get a fairly good applicant, I would accept that applicant with a scholarship knowing I will be competing with other T7-T10 (maybe T4-T10) schools. Adcomms know what makes a great app and although not every school has the same requirements they can estimate where a candidate would get accepted, thats why some schools YP.

I am not saying that those who didn't get into Harvard did not have well-rounded or great applications, Raj is a case that kinda disproves the speculation. It was just something that was thrown around at the dinner table. You are all free to correct me if I am wrong.

I really do wish schools could tell you what was wrong with your app when you get rejected especially when people have great numbers (i know is unfeasible though). The lack of info does not help applicants if they choose to reapply.

Again this is all SPECULATION...something we discussed as we waited for our ding email (that didn't come to our surprise).

No it does not. Raj has a high GPA but a (relatively) low lsat. It is not at all surprising Raj got rejected from HLS but accepted at SLS (where there is heavy emphasis on GPA). So far, imho, the only applicant that has been rejected so far that is somewhat surprising is Hawkeye...other than that, I really see no surprises so far.

Deranged, I'm assuming you're just talking about people on TLS? Beause there's also a 176/3.81 on lsn that was dinged. They could of course have something else very detrimental to their app (and really they probably do).

LawGuy321 wrote: Everyone who has had a 3.9x and at least a 173 has been accepted so far on LSN.

LawGuy321 wrote:

seanPtheB wrote:

thederangedwang wrote:

sharktankdean wrote:I was discussing this with a friend of mine.

Not to offend anyone but cases where someone with great numbers (>3.8 and >174) gets rejected from H/Y/S and gets accepted to CCN down or MVP down with a good scholarship COULD be an indicator that the their application was not spectacular/great. (the whole numbers are not everything for law school debate)

If I was an adcomm for Virginia and I saw an applicant with great numbers but not so great an application, I could conclude that he/she would likely not get into H/Y/S. But in order to help my stats and get a fairly good applicant, I would accept that applicant with a scholarship knowing I will be competing with other T7-T10 (maybe T4-T10) schools. Adcomms know what makes a great app and although not every school has the same requirements they can estimate where a candidate would get accepted, thats why some schools YP.

I am not saying that those who didn't get into Harvard did not have well-rounded or great applications, Raj is a case that kinda disproves the speculation. It was just something that was thrown around at the dinner table. You are all free to correct me if I am wrong.

I really do wish schools could tell you what was wrong with your app when you get rejected especially when people have great numbers (i know is unfeasible though). The lack of info does not help applicants if they choose to reapply.

Again this is all SPECULATION...something we discussed as we waited for our ding email (that didn't come to our surprise).

No it does not. Raj has a high GPA but a (relatively) low lsat. It is not at all surprising Raj got rejected from HLS but accepted at SLS (where there is heavy emphasis on GPA). So far, imho, the only applicant that has been rejected so far that is somewhat surprising is Hawkeye...other than that, I really see no surprises so far.

Deranged, I'm assuming you're just talking about people on TLS? Beause there's also a 176/3.81 on lsn that was dinged. They could of course have something else very detrimental to their app (and really they probably do).

I agree. It might have been a combo of very weak softs, maybe a bad LOR, no WE, horrible/awkward interview, poorly written essay with errors...and also KB seems to be really emphasizing GPA this year, huh? 3.81 is good but it's below the median. Everyone who has had a 3.9x and at least a 173 has been accepted so far on LSN.

Also, all of these numbers are self-reported too, so who knows?

Aqualung wrote:Just checking in. I was rejected a few days ago (January 6th). It happened to be my birthday. Oh well. Good luck to everyone else. Stats in profile.

sharktankdean wrote: Honestly after the the next wave of rejections go out and then the holds ( i honestly think that blog post was premature), we might see an increase in KB1's and Kb2's for people with > 3.8s and splitters . The 3.9's have to end some time. Our time will come!!!

WhiteGuy5 wrote:Can someone post what the rejection email says? I want to prepare myself emotionally.

Harvard wrote:Dear Tiago Splitter:

I am sorry to report that, after full and careful consideration, the Admissions Committee has denied your application for admission to Harvard Law School. During this admission season, over 6,000 candidates are applying for spots in an entering class that is limited to 560 students. A large majority of these applicants have demonstrated strong academic preparation for law school and the ability to contribute significantly to the quality of our student body. As a result, we must select a class that we believe to be the very best from an outstanding pool and deny admission to many candidates whom we would like to have at Harvard.



Denials of admission are neither negative estimates of potential for the study of law nor absolute assessments of candidates' achievements. Rather, they are the inevitable result of many attractive candidates for comparatively few spaces in our class.



Thank you for your interest in Harvard Law School, and best wishes for your education and career plans.



Sincerely,

Karen Buttenbaum

Director of Admissions

Tiago Splitter wrote:

WhiteGuy5 wrote:Can someone post what the rejection email says? I want to prepare myself emotionally.

Harvard wrote:Dear Tiago Splitter:

I am sorry to report that, after full and careful consideration, the Admissions Committee has denied your application for admission to Harvard Law School. During this admission season, over 6,000 candidates are applying for spots in an entering class that is limited to 560 students. A large majority of these applicants have demonstrated strong academic preparation for law school and the ability to contribute significantly to the quality of our student body. As a result, we must select a class that we believe to be the very best from an outstanding pool and deny admission to many candidates whom we would like to have at Harvard.



Denials of admission are neither negative estimates of potential for the study of law nor absolute assessments of candidates' achievements. Rather, they are the inevitable result of many attractive candidates for comparatively few spaces in our class.



Thank you for your interest in Harvard Law School, and best wishes for your education and career plans.



Sincerely,

Karen Buttenbaum

Director of Admissions

Elendil wrote:

Tiago Splitter wrote:

WhiteGuy5 wrote:Can someone post what the rejection email says? I want to prepare myself emotionally.

Harvard wrote:Dear Tiago Splitter:

I am sorry to report that, after full and careful consideration, the Admissions Committee has denied your application for admission to Harvard Law School. During this admission season, over 6,000 candidates are applying for spots in an entering class that is limited to 560 students. A large majority of these applicants have demonstrated strong academic preparation for law school and the ability to contribute significantly to the quality of our student body. As a result, we must select a class that we believe to be the very best from an outstanding pool and deny admission to many candidates whom we would like to have at Harvard.



Denials of admission are neither negative estimates of potential for the study of law nor absolute assessments of candidates' achievements. Rather, they are the inevitable result of many attractive candidates for comparatively few spaces in our class.



Thank you for your interest in Harvard Law School, and best wishes for your education and career plans.



Sincerely,

Karen Buttenbaum

Director of Admissions

Thanks for posting, Tiago... this should also quell those concerns about HLS cutting class size this year...

LawGuy321 wrote:

seanPtheB wrote:

thederangedwang wrote:

sharktankdean wrote:I was discussing this with a friend of mine.

Not to offend anyone but cases where someone with great numbers (>3.8 and >174) gets rejected from H/Y/S and gets accepted to CCN down or MVP down with a good scholarship COULD be an indicator that the their application was not spectacular/great. (the whole numbers are not everything for law school debate)

If I was an adcomm for Virginia and I saw an applicant with great numbers but not so great an application, I could conclude that he/she would likely not get into H/Y/S. But in order to help my stats and get a fairly good applicant, I would accept that applicant with a scholarship knowing I will be competing with other T7-T10 (maybe T4-T10) schools. Adcomms know what makes a great app and although not every school has the same requirements they can estimate where a candidate would get accepted, thats why some schools YP.

I am not saying that those who didn't get into Harvard did not have well-rounded or great applications, Raj is a case that kinda disproves the speculation. It was just something that was thrown around at the dinner table. You are all free to correct me if I am wrong.

I really do wish schools could tell you what was wrong with your app when you get rejected especially when people have great numbers (i know is unfeasible though). The lack of info does not help applicants if they choose to reapply.

Again this is all SPECULATION...something we discussed as we waited for our ding email (that didn't come to our surprise).

No it does not. Raj has a high GPA but a (relatively) low lsat. It is not at all surprising Raj got rejected from HLS but accepted at SLS (where there is heavy emphasis on GPA). So far, imho, the only applicant that has been rejected so far that is somewhat surprising is Hawkeye...other than that, I really see no surprises so far.

Deranged, I'm assuming you're just talking about people on TLS? Beause there's also a 176/3.81 on lsn that was dinged. They could of course have something else very detrimental to their app (and really they probably do).

I agree. It might have been a combo of very weak softs, maybe a bad LOR, no WE, horrible/awkward interview, poorly written essay with errors...and also KB seems to be really emphasizing GPA this year, huh? 3.81 is good but it's below the median. Everyone who has had a 3.9x and at least a 173 has been accepted so far on LSN.

Also, all of these numbers are self-reported too, so who knows?

seanPtheB wrote: Huh? There are 7 people on LSN who have 173's and 3.9+ who haven't been accepted. Four out of those seven applied on or before 10/27, so it appears as tho they have been passed up.

euskadi wrote:

seanPtheB wrote: Huh? There are 7 people on LSN who have 173's and 3.9+ who haven't been accepted. Four out of those seven applied on or before 10/27, so it appears as tho they have been passed up.

It seems like Harvard is really looking for students who haven't come straight from UG and is correspondingly raising its standards for those not yet out of college. Though I haven't checked LSN, I'd wager that this is the case for the 173s/3.9+s. Were HP a year or two out of UG, I'd suppose that she'd have gotten in. With a near-median LSAT (172/3), I'd say 3.9 is what it takes to be in UG (with good softs) and get an early'ish KB2.

seanPtheB wrote:

euskadi wrote:

seanPtheB wrote: Huh? There are 7 people on LSN who have 173's and 3.9+ who haven't been accepted. Four out of those seven applied on or before 10/27, so it appears as tho they have been passed up.

It seems like Harvard is really looking for students who haven't come straight from UG and is correspondingly raising its standards for those not yet out of college. Though I haven't checked LSN, I'd wager that this is the case for the 173s/3.9+s. Were HP a year or two out of UG, I'd suppose that she'd have gotten in. With a near-median LSAT (172/3), I'd say 3.9 is what it takes to be in UG (with good softs) and get an early'ish KB2.

I definitely agree that it seems as though they are being somewhat more strict on people still in UG. Sucks for meeee

PopTorts13 wrote:Does anyone know the biggest time gap between "under review" and KB1? Curious

addy11 wrote:

PopTorts13 wrote:Does anyone know the biggest time gap between "under review" and KB1? Curious

> 2 months.

PopTorts13 wrote:

addy11 wrote:

PopTorts13 wrote:Does anyone know the biggest time gap between "under review" and KB1? Curious

> 2 months.

I mean, presuming that there is no hold of course, ha ha. Thank you

tomwatts wrote:The "not straight out of undergrad" is a trend that has been going on for a few years and is likely to continue. Very few people I meet in my section or elsewhere in the first-year class are straight from undergrad. (There are a few, but very few.)

thederangedwang wrote:

tomwatts wrote:The "not straight out of undergrad" is a trend that has been going on for a few years and is likely to continue. Very few people I meet in my section or elsewhere in the first-year class are straight from undergrad. (There are a few, but very few.)

Hmmm...yeah KB mentioned this when she visited my school that work expierience is desirable but not neccessary...geez, I should be counting my lucky stars then!

Regardless, best of luck to all you guys!

seanPtheB wrote:

thederangedwang wrote:

tomwatts wrote:The "not straight out of undergrad" is a trend that has been going on for a few years and is likely to continue. Very few people I meet in my section or elsewhere in the first-year class are straight from undergrad. (There are a few, but very few.)

Hmmm...yeah KB mentioned this when she visited my school that work expierience is desirable but not neccessary...geez, I should be counting my lucky stars then!

Regardless, best of luck to all you guys!

Damn dunno why I didn't know that the percentage was so low.. I guess I was just assuming it'd be similar to other schools, which typically aren't incredibly low on UG's. Does anyone have any idea where we can find the exact percentage of the class of 2014 that is straight through from UG?

thederangedwang wrote:

seanPtheB wrote:

thederangedwang wrote:

tomwatts wrote:The "not straight out of undergrad" is a trend that has been going on for a few years and is likely to continue. Very few people I meet in my section or elsewhere in the first-year class are straight from undergrad. (There are a few, but very few.)

Hmmm...yeah KB mentioned this when she visited my school that work expierience is desirable but not neccessary...geez, I should be counting my lucky stars then!

Regardless, best of luck to all you guys!

Damn dunno why I didn't know that the percentage was so low.. I guess I was just assuming it'd be similar to other schools, which typically aren't incredibly low on UG's. Does anyone have any idea where we can find the exact percentage of the class of 2014 that is straight through from UG?

http://www.law.harvard.edu/prospective/ ... ofile.html

it's 24%