I kind of don't understand why they didn't just have KB finish this year out then and give JS the reigns starting next year. This seems like an awful lot of turnover for very little benefit.

To those who have had JS1s, has anyone sent a post-interview email to JS? Particularly since she does such an outstanding job of making the interviews as conversational as possible, I would really like to thank her.

Saying thank you at the end of the dialog shows a genuine enough response; sending a thank you e-mail afterwards seems a little desperate or kiss-ass, ha ha.

when are we expecting some more JS2's?

This.

Hmmm, I actually did send a thank you email to KB after my interview in December. I thought it was standard practice for interviews, esp such an important one =/ I still got in so I doubt it matters?

Blasphemy! How dare you claim a follow-up e-mail after JS1 is not the most important admissions criterion for Harvard Law School?!?!

Haha. I love the overanalysis on TLS. I never even thought about most of the random small things people posted about until I read these threads...oops!

Seriously. I talked to people at the ASW who had no clue what the general timeline of things was supposed to be and then just got in when they got in and didn't stress at all about waiting/preparing for a KB1, etc. I'm actually kind of jealous of them - I can't imagine how much less stressful this whole process would've been.

As for a 'thank you' after a JS1, I'd lean towards no just because they get a ton of emails as is and I'd rather not give them even more clutter to filter through, but it's largely inconsequential, I'd imagine.

This. I really don't understand all this turnover. Especially if JS will be going on Mat leave?!

*Whew*

Interview done. Anyone wants to discuss how things went send me a PM!

From what I got, it is dang near impossible to have an awkward/nervous conversation with JS.

Another held international like Secundus without a JS1. Should I be ready to give up even with my 179/3.86?

One should never give up with a 179/3.86.





Ever.

#3?

http://grad-schools.usnews.rankingsandr ... w-rankings

This isn't that uncommon, H and S trade places a fair amount going back the past decade or so. I think they are actually split pretty evenly at holding the #2 spot.

Really?? Never realized that. Ah well, not as big news as I thought then. Still very interesting.

Whoa.

I guess the whole 'diploma mill' rep is starting to take its toll.

Harvard's drop definitely makes being in the hold pile less intense. I mean, really - #3, who cares about it?

Watches Legally Blonde again. Cries softly to sleep.

Having been accepted to Stanford and nervously waiting for communication from Harvard, this just made me laugh. What an interesting cycle so far.

Anyone here make the decision for H over S? Reasons?

Yeah, Harvard and Stanford do switch places sometimes. From what I can tell, Harvard seems to hold the #2 spot unless Stanford has reasonably better employment at graduation/9-months scores and more spending per student that year. Those two things are sorta random year by year and are really just statistical noise, but in the rare years like this where Stanford outdoes Harvard by a fair bit in those two, I guess it ends up ahead. I doubt Stanford will keep the #2 slot next year.

Care to share the support for these findings?

This site seems to fairly accurately estimate the scores each school got in the various different categories each year:

http://money-law.blogspot.com/2009/07/z ... n-law.html

That's just the 2010 year, but you can link to other years.

Here's my logic for why those two things affect the rankings of the two year by year:

Harvard seems to consistently rank above Stanford in Peer Assessment by a small amount and they are equal in Lawyer/Judge assessment. These factors seem to stay the same every year, so they can't be the reason for the change in ranking. Harvard consistently ranks above Stanford in GPA and LSAT medians, and this past year was no different. Change in those factors is not what causes Stanford to occasionally pull ahead. Stanford is always ahead in Student/Faculty ratio and Acceptance Rate, while Harvard is always ahead in Library volumes. These scores are not going to change year to year; they are very constant, so they cannot account for the variance in ranking.

All this leaves are the employment numbers and the spending numbers. These are the only factors that it is reasonable to believe would change significantly from year to year (and in fact, they are the only ones that seem to change year to year in the link above). This means they are the only ones that could logically explain a change in ranking. In the link above, it shows that in 2010, Stanford spent very slightly more per student and had very slightly better employment numbers, but they ended up behind still. This leads me to believe that Stanford must perform a significant amount better in those two relatively random factors in order to pull ahead, as the static factors seem to mildly favor Harvard. I know that Stanford's employment numbers this past year were better, and I assume their spending numbers might have been as well. This likely accounts for the flip flop in the rankings.

EDIT: I suppose bar passage rate is also a relatively random factor. Stanford seems to do better every year on this (I assume because it's compared to the state average and CAs average is really low), but not always by the same amount. So that is probably another random factor that could help Stanford pull ahead but I doubt it's decisive given how little it is weighed in the calculations.

anyone have a JS1 scheduled for today?

Alright guys and girls, Harvard is #3 now. Might as well withdraw all of your applications now...