Top Law Schools

MichelFoucault wrote:

tiger11 wrote:Made an account today after weeks of lurking!!! Accepted today, URM status. Submitted for review 1-17-12, called a few hours ago! Best to everyone else and their cycles!

Stats please?

Just threw 'em in there for you buddy.

stanford please select me as part of the chosen few!

Regarding LOCI's:

I've had two things of note occur since the last time I sent anything to SLS - I got a promotion at work and accepted at HLS. I'm planning on writing a LOCI shortly. I figure that the promotion is definitely relevant, but I can't figure out if "I got in at H but will go to SLS in a heartbeat if you let me in" is relevant/valuable/an awful idea. Thoughts?

txl wrote:Regarding LOCI's:

I've had two things of note occur since the last time I sent anything to SLS - I got a promotion at work and accepted at HLS. I'm planning on writing a LOCI shortly. I figure that the promotion is definitely relevant, but I can't figure out if "I got in at H but will go to SLS in a heartbeat if you let me in" is relevant/valuable/an awful idea. Thoughts?

Not sure if this is relevant to Stanford but I said something similar to Northwestern when I applied and ended up getting placed on hold. I would say (based on nothing but gut feeling and brief personal experience) that it's probably a bad idea to bring it up. If you got into Harvard your numbers presumably speak for themselves. The promotion, however, is definitely relevant

Good luck!

txl wrote:Regarding LOCI's:

I've had two things of note occur since the last time I sent anything to SLS - I got a promotion at work and accepted at HLS. I'm planning on writing a LOCI shortly. I figure that the promotion is definitely relevant, but I can't figure out if "I got in at H but will go to SLS in a heartbeat if you let me in" is relevant/valuable/an awful idea. Thoughts?

Intuitively I think that the latter is inappropriate for the LOCI. It might make SLS think you're equating SLS with HLS, something I don't think either school would agree with. They obviously have different criteria and try to select different people.

Anecdotally I know of one person who was accepted to SLS and wanted to go to HLS and vice versa. The person who wanted to go to HLS called them and said "Listen, I just got into Stanford (very late, in August, off of a waitlist or hold pile... can't remember) and I have to let them know in a week. I will go to HLS over any other school, including SLS, no questions asked. Can you please let me know if I'm going to be accepted or held?" and HLS said something like "Sorry, we don't do that."

The person who got into HLS and wanted to go to SLS did the same thing and I think they acquiesced to her decision. It may be that she was about to be let in anyway, but it was sort of a last minute thing where she said "I will go to SLS, but I have to know this week."

Both of these situations took place around August though. Not sure if you can wait that long. Either way -- congrats on HLS and good luck with Stanford!!

txl wrote:Regarding LOCI's:

I've had two things of note occur since the last time I sent anything to SLS - I got a promotion at work and accepted at HLS. I'm planning on writing a LOCI shortly. I figure that the promotion is definitely relevant, but I can't figure out if "I got in at H but will go to SLS in a heartbeat if you let me in" is relevant/valuable/an awful idea. Thoughts?

Please, please don't mention you got into HLS. At best, Stanford won't care (as they have their own admission criteria that doesn't necessarily match up with Harvard's) and at worst, they'll see it as heavy-handed bragging. Writing about your promotion is fine, especially if you can emphasize increased responsibility, but leave other law school acceptances out of it.

tiger11 wrote:

MichelFoucault wrote:

tiger11 wrote:Made an account today after weeks of lurking!!! Accepted today, URM status. Submitted for review 1-17-12, called a few hours ago! Best to everyone else and their cycles!

Stats please?

Just threw 'em in there for you buddy.

Awesome. Congrats!!

Complete in early January, still waiting!

I've been "submitted for review" since SEPTEMBER!

Odin (and Stanford!), hear my prayers!

Thanks for the advice everyone. I think you all raise good points. I'll stick with the work stuff.

Does anyone know when we can reasonably expect a financial aid award letter from Stanford. I submitted my documents to them before I was admitted in January So would it be reasonable to expect an award letter in March?

Dani.B wrote:Does anyone know when we can reasonably expect a financial aid award letter from Stanford. I submitted my documents to them before I was admitted in January So would it be reasonable to expect an award letter in March?

I am pretty sure the priority deadline is 3/15 so you probably won't hear back at least until then.

Have they stopped DLSing people for a while?

knickerbocker wrote:Have they stopped DLSing people for a while?

Well, I am still under review. Considering my numbers give me zero chance, I would think they are just starting on January and holding earlier applications. When did you apply?

Also have been under review since September. 179, 3.87. Have had a bad cycle so far however with Stanford's peers so I expect a reject soon enough.

madvillain wrote:Also have been under review since September. 179, 3.87. Have had a bad cycle so far however with Stanford's peers so I expect a reject soon enough.

Are you K-JD?

Solely based on numerical qualification, you should have had a good cycle within HYS. But you know this already, as I am sure you have heard everywhere on TLS.

It would really be a shame for you to not attend one of those simply because of a lack of work experience. If that is the case, a year off may serve you well.

madvillain wrote:Also have been under review since September. 179, 3.87. Have had a bad cycle so far however with Stanford's peers so I expect a reject soon enough.

That sucks dude. I can't believe schools don't want you with numbers like that.

Stanford, why u keep playing with my heart?

madvillain wrote:Also have been under review since September. 179, 3.87. Have had a bad cycle so far however with Stanford's peers so I expect a reject soon enough.

Your numbers are obviously great, but given that why don't you take advantage of graduating a year early and get some REAL WORLD EXPERIENCE. If you search on LSN, there was another student who graduated a year early (she might have been a URM in fact) who had HYS numbers but what was WL'd and denied at a ton of top schools.

Its pretty clear that schools put a significant value on real world experience, and they do it for a reason. You have the grades and intelligence to get really great experiences that you will not have once your chained by debt/career.

So not only is it a no brainer to go out and experience the world for its own sake, but SCHOOLS WILL ACTUALLY REWARD YOU FOR IT.

Go out and do something interesting for 2-3 years and I guarantee you will have an H or Y acceptance, maybe even a Rubinstein and a Hamilton (the value of which real world experience will surely demonstrate unless you have a trust fund). ITS A WIN WIN.

I'm not sure how productive it is to speculate on why one particular person with great numbers wasn't admitted to School X. At the end of the day, numbers are no guarantee of anything. Maybe it's the K-JD thing. Maybe the applicant hasn't done much exciting outside of class. Maybe one of the recommendation letters raised red flags. Maybe there was something off-putting about the personal statement. Maybe there's something prejudicial in their criminal or disciplinary record. Maybe the application reader had a bad day. Maybe they had already admitted too many people from Undergrad Y. Maybe they already had too many people interested in Specialty Z. Maybe they applied late. Who knows? I think there's a tendency here to attribute way too much cause and effect to the little information we have (LSAT/GPA/Work Exp) and give corresponding advice, without accounting for how much of the variation on admissions results is due to interactions of other factors.

splbagel wrote:I'm not sure how productive it is to speculate on why one particular person with great numbers wasn't admitted to School X. At the end of the day, numbers are no guarantee of anything. Maybe it's the K-JD thing. Maybe the applicant hasn't done much exciting outside of class. Maybe one of the recommendation letters raised red flags. Maybe there was something off-putting about the personal statement. Maybe there's something prejudicial in their criminal or disciplinary record. Maybe the application reader had a bad day. Maybe they had already admitted too many people from Undergrad Y. Maybe they already had too many people interested in Specialty Z. Maybe they applied late. Who knows? I think there's a tendency here to attribute way too much cause and effect to the little information we have (LSAT/GPA/Work Exp) and give corresponding advice, without accounting for how much of the variation on admissions results is due to interactions of other factors.

+ 1

splbagel wrote:I'm not sure how productive it is to speculate on why one particular person with great numbers wasn't admitted to School X. At the end of the day, numbers are no guarantee of anything. Maybe it's the K-JD thing. Maybe the applicant hasn't done much exciting outside of class. Maybe one of the recommendation letters raised red flags. Maybe there was something off-putting about the personal statement. Maybe there's something prejudicial in their criminal or disciplinary record. Maybe the application reader had a bad day. Maybe they had already admitted too many people from Undergrad Y. Maybe they already had too many people interested in Specialty Z. Maybe they applied late. Who knows? I think there's a tendency here to attribute way too much cause and effect to the little information we have (LSAT/GPA/Work Exp) and give corresponding advice, without accounting for how much of the variation on admissions results is due to interactions of other factors.

True or not, someone with those numbers graduating a year early should get real world experience. Harvard is already starting to appreciate the importance of this and I think there is a very strong chance that in the future a minimum of 1-2 years of experience could become the norm.

Years ago almost all B-School students came straight out of undergrad. B-schools recognized the benefits of having a more experienced student body, and I think there is a strong argument for Law School as well. At the very least, if you graduated a year early, then pat yourself on the back and DO SOMETHING INTERESTING. Law schools will always be there, while youth and its accompanying freedom wont.

MichelFoucault wrote:

splbagel wrote:I'm not sure how productive it is to speculate on why one particular person with great numbers wasn't admitted to School X. At the end of the day, numbers are no guarantee of anything. Maybe it's the K-JD thing. Maybe the applicant hasn't done much exciting outside of class. Maybe one of the recommendation letters raised red flags. Maybe there was something off-putting about the personal statement. Maybe there's something prejudicial in their criminal or disciplinary record. Maybe the application reader had a bad day. Maybe they had already admitted too many people from Undergrad Y. Maybe they already had too many people interested in Specialty Z. Maybe they applied late. Who knows? I think there's a tendency here to attribute way too much cause and effect to the little information we have (LSAT/GPA/Work Exp) and give corresponding advice, without accounting for how much of the variation on admissions results is due to interactions of other factors.

True or not, someone with those numbers graduating a year early should get real world experience. Harvard is already starting to appreciate the importance of this and I think there is a very strong chance that in the future a minimum of 1-2 years of experience could become the norm.

Years ago almost all B-School students came straight out of undergrad. B-schools recognized the benefits of having a more experienced student body, and I think there is a strong argument for Law School as well. At the very least, if you graduated a year early, then pat yourself on the back and DO SOMETHING INTERESTING. Law schools will always be there, while youth and its accompanying freedom wont.

But at the same time it seems a bit odd that people would be punished for not taking the time off from undergrad. A good number of people have worked each summer in between school and have developed a keen sense of why they want to practice law. I mean, if you are genuinely excited at the prospect of starting you legal career so you can spend as much time as possible doing what you want to do -- why would that candidate be any less "useful" or "diverse"?

/endrant

I desperately need decision so I can stop pondering such things.

FryBreadPower wrote:

MichelFoucault wrote:

splbagel wrote:I'm not sure how productive it is to speculate on why one particular person with great numbers wasn't admitted to School X. At the end of the day, numbers are no guarantee of anything. Maybe it's the K-JD thing. Maybe the applicant hasn't done much exciting outside of class. Maybe one of the recommendation letters raised red flags. Maybe there was something off-putting about the personal statement. Maybe there's something prejudicial in their criminal or disciplinary record. Maybe the application reader had a bad day. Maybe they had already admitted too many people from Undergrad Y. Maybe they already had too many people interested in Specialty Z. Maybe they applied late. Who knows? I think there's a tendency here to attribute way too much cause and effect to the little information we have (LSAT/GPA/Work Exp) and give corresponding advice, without accounting for how much of the variation on admissions results is due to interactions of other factors.

True or not, someone with those numbers graduating a year early should get real world experience. Harvard is already starting to appreciate the importance of this and I think there is a very strong chance that in the future a minimum of 1-2 years of experience could become the norm.

Years ago almost all B-School students came straight out of undergrad. B-schools recognized the benefits of having a more experienced student body, and I think there is a strong argument for Law School as well. At the very least, if you graduated a year early, then pat yourself on the back and DO SOMETHING INTERESTING. Law schools will always be there, while youth and its accompanying freedom wont.

But at the same time it seems a bit odd that people would be punished for not taking the time off from undergrad. A good number of people have worked each summer in between school and have developed a keen sense of why they want to practice law. I mean, if you are genuinely excited at the prospect of starting you legal career so you can spend as much time as possible doing what you want to do -- why would that candidate be any less "useful" or "diverse"?

/endrant

I desperately need decision so I can stop pondering such things.

I would respond by saying that the above situation you have laid out is *theoretically* possible. But more often than not a 20 y/o graduating a year early just doesn't have the maturity and experience to really appreciate the tradeoff that they are making by not taking any time off. I mean look at Barry Obama. He had a strong desire to help his community, and I don't think anyone can argue that he was probably a very precocious young man who was very carefully planning his career. Did he need to enroll at HLS right away? No. He had the maturity to understand that by taking time off and working as a community organizer in the inner city of Chicago he could make a difference AND gain valuable experience (an experience that I do not think anyone would doubt indirectly helped him attain the position of president of the harvard law review) without going directly K-JD.

Now I am not trying to make the point that a traditional K-JD is a bad idea. I am really restricting my point to the select few K-JD's who BOTH have HYS numbers AND graduate a year early. Those people are exhibiting their (relative) immaturity by not taking time to enrich their personal experience before slaving away in a library, and then likely a cubicle.

MichelFoucault wrote:

FryBreadPower wrote:

MichelFoucault wrote:

splbagel wrote:I'm not sure how productive it is to speculate on why one particular person with great numbers wasn't admitted to School X. At the end of the day, numbers are no guarantee of anything. Maybe it's the K-JD thing. Maybe the applicant hasn't done much exciting outside of class. Maybe one of the recommendation letters raised red flags. Maybe there was something off-putting about the personal statement. Maybe there's something prejudicial in their criminal or disciplinary record. Maybe the application reader had a bad day. Maybe they had already admitted too many people from Undergrad Y. Maybe they already had too many people interested in Specialty Z. Maybe they applied late. Who knows? I think there's a tendency here to attribute way too much cause and effect to the little information we have (LSAT/GPA/Work Exp) and give corresponding advice, without accounting for how much of the variation on admissions results is due to interactions of other factors.

True or not, someone with those numbers graduating a year early should get real world experience. Harvard is already starting to appreciate the importance of this and I think there is a very strong chance that in the future a minimum of 1-2 years of experience could become the norm.

Years ago almost all B-School students came straight out of undergrad. B-schools recognized the benefits of having a more experienced student body, and I think there is a strong argument for Law School as well. At the very least, if you graduated a year early, then pat yourself on the back and DO SOMETHING INTERESTING. Law schools will always be there, while youth and its accompanying freedom wont.

But at the same time it seems a bit odd that people would be punished for not taking the time off from undergrad. A good number of people have worked each summer in between school and have developed a keen sense of why they want to practice law. I mean, if you are genuinely excited at the prospect of starting you legal career so you can spend as much time as possible doing what you want to do -- why would that candidate be any less "useful" or "diverse"?

/endrant

I desperately need decision so I can stop pondering such things.

I would respond by saying that the above situation you have laid out is *theoretically* possible. But more often than not a 20 y/o graduating a year early just doesn't have the maturity and experience to really appreciate the tradeoff that they are making by not taking any time off. I mean look at Barry Obama. He had a strong desire to help his community, and I don't think anyone can argue that he was probably a very precocious young man who was very carefully planning his career. Did he need to enroll at HLS right away? No. He had the maturity to understand that by taking time off and working as a community organizer in the inner city of Chicago he could make a difference AND gain valuable experience (an experience that I do not think anyone would doubt indirectly helped him attain the position of president of the harvard law review) without going directly K-JD.

Now I am not trying to make the point that a traditional K-JD is a bad idea. I am really restricting my point to the select few K-JD's who BOTH have HYS numbers AND graduate a year early. Those people are exhibiting their (relative) immaturity by not taking time to enrich their personal experience before slaving away in a library, and then likely a cubicle.

The irony of someone with the username MichelFoucault trying to normalize age and personal experience is, frankly, hilarious.