HELD @ HARVARD 2012 style

Share Your Experiences, Read About Other Experiences. Please keep posts organized by school and expected year of graduation.
User avatar
Nelson
Posts: 2061
Joined: Thu Feb 03, 2011 12:43 am

Re: HELD @ HARVARD 2012 style

Postby Nelson » Fri Feb 17, 2012 12:02 am

seahawk32 wrote:
Nelson wrote:Not sure why this is a shock. Harvard has always held a lot of candidates and a lot of people get in after being held. But the people who get in have Harvard numbers. Harvard is very predictable.


Talk more about these "Harvard numbers."

173+/3.85+ Be over one and close to the other.

They may have held more than usual but they aren't going to budge on the medians.

edits
Posts: 20
Joined: Sun Feb 12, 2012 9:52 pm

Re: HELD @ HARVARD 2012 style

Postby edits » Fri Feb 17, 2012 12:43 am

Nelson wrote:
seahawk32 wrote:
Nelson wrote:Not sure why this is a shock. Harvard has always held a lot of candidates and a lot of people get in after being held. But the people who get in have Harvard numbers. Harvard is very predictable.


Talk more about these "Harvard numbers."

173+/3.85+ Be over one and close to the other.

They may have held more than usual but they aren't going to budge on the medians.


You wouldn't necessarily have to be over one and close to the other in order for them to maintain medians. I'm not saying that may not be how they go about choosing who to admit/deny/WL, but in order to maintain a certain median this isn't necessarily true.

User avatar
Nelson
Posts: 2061
Joined: Thu Feb 03, 2011 12:43 am

Re: HELD @ HARVARD 2012 style

Postby Nelson » Fri Feb 17, 2012 12:55 am

edits wrote:
Nelson wrote:
seahawk32 wrote:
Nelson wrote:Not sure why this is a shock. Harvard has always held a lot of candidates and a lot of people get in after being held. But the people who get in have Harvard numbers. Harvard is very predictable.


Talk more about these "Harvard numbers."

173+/3.85+ Be over one and close to the other.

They may have held more than usual but they aren't going to budge on the medians.


You wouldn't necessarily have to be over one and close to the other in order for them to maintain medians. I'm not saying that may not be how they go about choosing who to admit/deny/WL, but in order to maintain a certain median this isn't necessarily true.

Except they have a 3.7 GPA floor and don't seem to dip below 170. Harvard takes a ton of URMs and connected folks so they shun splitters.

User avatar
cogitoergosum
Posts: 788
Joined: Tue May 31, 2011 7:13 pm

Re: HELD @ HARVARD 2012 style

Postby cogitoergosum » Fri Feb 17, 2012 2:16 am

Anyone think a superlatively positive LOR from a professor who is also an HLS alum makes me one of the "connected folks"? :?

ETA: :roll:

User avatar
thelawschoolproject
Posts: 1364
Joined: Thu Jun 23, 2011 12:58 am

Re: HELD @ HARVARD 2012 style

Postby thelawschoolproject » Fri Feb 17, 2012 12:46 pm

cogitoergosum wrote:Anyone think a superlatively positive LOR from a professor who is also an HLS alum makes me one of the "connected folks"? :?

ETA: :roll:


I mean...I dno the degree of connectedness, but yes to some extent I think so. This is what I did for Yale.

EMZE
Posts: 715
Joined: Wed Jun 29, 2011 10:53 am

Re: HELD @ HARVARD 2012 style

Postby EMZE » Fri Feb 17, 2012 12:48 pm

cogitoergosum wrote:Anyone think a superlatively positive LOR from a professor who is also an HLS alum makes me one of the "connected folks"? :?

ETA: :roll:


Not sure if you will be deemed connected, but the idea sounds good.

User avatar
jetissent
Posts: 431
Joined: Sat Oct 22, 2011 12:33 am

Re: HELD @ HARVARD 2012 style

Postby jetissent » Fri Feb 17, 2012 12:54 pm

Nelson wrote:
seahawk32 wrote:
Nelson wrote:Not sure why this is a shock. Harvard has always held a lot of candidates and a lot of people get in after being held. But the people who get in have Harvard numbers. Harvard is very predictable.


Talk more about these "Harvard numbers."

173+/3.85+ Be over one and close to the other.

They may have held more than usual but they aren't going to budge on the medians.



As much as I selfishly love the numbers you've chosen, I think you should highlight that while many people who are accepted from the hold will fit those criteria not everyone (perhaps not even a majority--holds are hard to track on LSN) of those who are +173/+3.85 and held will be admitted.

EMZE
Posts: 715
Joined: Wed Jun 29, 2011 10:53 am

Re: HELD @ HARVARD 2012 style

Postby EMZE » Fri Feb 17, 2012 1:10 pm

jetissent wrote:
Nelson wrote:
seahawk32 wrote:
Nelson wrote:Not sure why this is a shock. Harvard has always held a lot of candidates and a lot of people get in after being held. But the people who get in have Harvard numbers. Harvard is very predictable.


Talk more about these "Harvard numbers."

173+/3.85+ Be over one and close to the other.

They may have held more than usual but they aren't going to budge on the medians.



As much as I selfishly love the numbers you've chosen, I think you should highlight that while many people who are accepted from the hold will fit those criteria not everyone (perhaps not even a majority--holds are hard to track on LSN) of those who are +173/+3.85 and held will be admitted.


Agreed, and no offense to you Nelson, but that sounds like a little bit too much of the standard TLS kool-aid. BUT, if you had to create a general rule about where to feel comfortable numerically applying to Harvard, those would be the numbers. That someone is held with those numbers means something different than for someone with my numbers, probably.

whentheworldcavesin
Posts: 4
Joined: Fri Feb 17, 2012 5:16 pm

Re: HELD @ HARVARD 2012 style

Postby whentheworldcavesin » Fri Feb 17, 2012 5:20 pm

Do you guys think most held applicants will be interviewed? or just those with Harvard numbers?

User avatar
Nelson
Posts: 2061
Joined: Thu Feb 03, 2011 12:43 am

Re: HELD @ HARVARD 2012 style

Postby Nelson » Fri Feb 17, 2012 5:24 pm

EMZE wrote:Agreed, and no offense to you Nelson, but that sounds like a little bit too much of the standard TLS kool-aid. BUT, if you had to create a general rule about where to feel comfortable numerically applying to Harvard, those would be the numbers. That someone is held with those numbers means something different than for someone with my numbers, probably.

Yeah, I didn't think that my original post was that controversial. Lots of people get in after being held, but they are usually people with Harvard profiles to being with. This means that people with Harvard numbers who were held (jetissent, Elendil, etc.) should still feel pretty good about their chances. For the rest of us, getting held doesn't mean we're any better off than we were. You're obviously not your average TLS candidate so YMMV.

seanPtheB
Posts: 276
Joined: Tue Jan 25, 2011 11:06 am

Re: HELD @ HARVARD 2012 style

Postby seanPtheB » Fri Feb 17, 2012 5:30 pm

whentheworldcavesin wrote:Do you guys think most held applicants will be interviewed? or just those with Harvard numbers?


Ya I think they'll interview all 2000+ held peeps

User avatar
jetissent
Posts: 431
Joined: Sat Oct 22, 2011 12:33 am

Re: HELD @ HARVARD 2012 style

Postby jetissent » Fri Feb 17, 2012 5:32 pm

whentheworldcavesin wrote:Do you guys think most held applicants will be interviewed? or just those with Harvard numbers?


The people who did go through TLS/LSN and attempt to gauge chances after a hold said they saw about a 25% admit rate. Which is at slight least an improvement over their 11% general acceptance rate.

Not sure if the hold pile is likely to have better or worse average stats that the overall applicant pool because both the top and bottom are theoretically removed--though obviously not in equal number. Oh well, might as well stay optimistic/ignore all laws of statistics and insist that we have double the likelihood of getting in now than we did before the holds. :)

TL;DR: No. The future is bleak for most holds. Pray you're one of the luck ones. :D

User avatar
boosk
Posts: 381
Joined: Thu May 05, 2011 6:31 pm

Re: HELD @ HARVARD 2012 style

Postby boosk » Fri Feb 17, 2012 6:05 pm

I think (but I'm not completely sure, maybe somone can substantiate this) that we have a better shot than those that were rejected...

EMZE
Posts: 715
Joined: Wed Jun 29, 2011 10:53 am

Re: HELD @ HARVARD 2012 style

Postby EMZE » Fri Feb 17, 2012 6:23 pm

Nelson wrote:
EMZE wrote:Agreed, and no offense to you Nelson, but that sounds like a little bit too much of the standard TLS kool-aid. BUT, if you had to create a general rule about where to feel comfortable numerically applying to Harvard, those would be the numbers. That someone is held with those numbers means something different than for someone with my numbers, probably.

Yeah, I didn't think that my original post was that controversial. Lots of people get in after being held, but they are usually people with Harvard profiles to being with. This means that people with Harvard numbers who were held (jetissent, Elendil, etc.) should still feel pretty good about their chances. For the rest of us, getting held doesn't mean we're any better off than we were. You're obviously not your average TLS candidate so YMMV.


Nothing controversial about your post, I think that I just failed to emphasize that there is no such thing as comfortable numbers at these schools absent a unique background. Those individuals stand a better chance at getting in because, well, their numbers are better. But if H realizes they want to add a veteran to the class, those applicants aren't, in this case, considered.

Held is better than rejected because you have met their numbers bar. Now its up to the adcomm to figure out what they want their class to look like.

User avatar
Elendil
Posts: 516
Joined: Wed Nov 23, 2011 12:45 pm

Re: HELD @ HARVARD 2012 style

Postby Elendil » Fri Feb 17, 2012 6:29 pm

EMZE wrote:
Nelson wrote:
EMZE wrote:Agreed, and no offense to you Nelson, but that sounds like a little bit too much of the standard TLS kool-aid. BUT, if you had to create a general rule about where to feel comfortable numerically applying to Harvard, those would be the numbers. That someone is held with those numbers means something different than for someone with my numbers, probably.

Yeah, I didn't think that my original post was that controversial. Lots of people get in after being held, but they are usually people with Harvard profiles to being with. This means that people with Harvard numbers who were held (jetissent, Elendil, etc.) should still feel pretty good about their chances. For the rest of us, getting held doesn't mean we're any better off than we were. You're obviously not your average TLS candidate so YMMV.


Nothing controversial about your post, I think that I just failed to emphasize that there is no such thing as comfortable numbers at these schools absent a unique background. Those individuals stand a better chance at getting in because, well, their numbers are better. But if H realizes they want to add a veteran to the class, those applicants aren't, in this case, considered.

Held is better than rejected because you have met their numbers bar. Now its up to the adcomm to figure out what they want their class to look like.


Errr... where are you drawing this conclusion from? Personally, I've only interpreted "Held" as meaning "Not auto-reject for one reason or another."

EDIT: Obviously, held is better than rejected because well, you're not rejected. I meant the "numbers bar" part. :wink:

User avatar
fingerscrossedxx
Posts: 733
Joined: Mon Oct 17, 2011 11:56 am

Re: HELD @ HARVARD 2012 style

Postby fingerscrossedxx » Fri Feb 17, 2012 6:32 pm

Elendil wrote:
EMZE wrote:
Nelson wrote:Yeah, I didn't think that my original post was that controversial. Lots of people get in after being held, but they are usually people with Harvard profiles to being with. This means that people with Harvard numbers who were held (jetissent, Elendil, etc.) should still feel pretty good about their chances. For the rest of us, getting held doesn't mean we're any better off than we were. You're obviously not your average TLS candidate so YMMV.


Nothing controversial about your post, I think that I just failed to emphasize that there is no such thing as comfortable numbers at these schools absent a unique background. Those individuals stand a better chance at getting in because, well, their numbers are better. But if H realizes they want to add a veteran to the class, those applicants aren't, in this case, considered.

Held is better than rejected because you have met their numbers bar. Now its up to the adcomm to figure out what they want their class to look like.


Errr... where are you drawing this conclusion from? Personally, I've only interpreted "Held" as meaning "Not auto-reject for one reason or another."

EDIT: Obviously, held is better than rejected because well, you're not rejected. I meant the "numbers bar" part. :wink:


Wouldn't the assumption be that if you hadn't met their "numbers bar" you would have been outright rejected rather than held?

edits
Posts: 20
Joined: Sun Feb 12, 2012 9:52 pm

Re: HELD @ HARVARD 2012 style

Postby edits » Fri Feb 17, 2012 6:34 pm

Elendil wrote:
EMZE wrote:
Nelson wrote:
EMZE wrote:Agreed, and no offense to you Nelson, but that sounds like a little bit too much of the standard TLS kool-aid. BUT, if you had to create a general rule about where to feel comfortable numerically applying to Harvard, those would be the numbers. That someone is held with those numbers means something different than for someone with my numbers, probably.

Yeah, I didn't think that my original post was that controversial. Lots of people get in after being held, but they are usually people with Harvard profiles to being with. This means that people with Harvard numbers who were held (jetissent, Elendil, etc.) should still feel pretty good about their chances. For the rest of us, getting held doesn't mean we're any better off than we were. You're obviously not your average TLS candidate so YMMV.


Nothing controversial about your post, I think that I just failed to emphasize that there is no such thing as comfortable numbers at these schools absent a unique background. Those individuals stand a better chance at getting in because, well, their numbers are better. But if H realizes they want to add a veteran to the class, those applicants aren't, in this case, considered.

Held is better than rejected because you have met their numbers bar. Now its up to the adcomm to figure out what they want their class to look like.


Errr... where are you drawing this conclusion from? Personally, I've only interpreted "Held" as meaning "Not auto-reject for one reason or another."

EDIT: Obviously, held is better than rejected because well, you're not rejected. I meant the "numbers bar" part. :wink:


I would take this to mean that those of us who were held were not rejected based on our numbers (i.e. they didn't see our numbers and toss us out). Reasoning being that if our numbers were auto-reject material, we would have just been rejected. Right?

User avatar
Elendil
Posts: 516
Joined: Wed Nov 23, 2011 12:45 pm

Re: HELD @ HARVARD 2012 style

Postby Elendil » Fri Feb 17, 2012 6:35 pm

fingerscrossedxx wrote:
Elendil wrote:
EMZE wrote:
Nelson wrote:Yeah, I didn't think that my original post was that controversial. Lots of people get in after being held, but they are usually people with Harvard profiles to being with. This means that people with Harvard numbers who were held (jetissent, Elendil, etc.) should still feel pretty good about their chances. For the rest of us, getting held doesn't mean we're any better off than we were. You're obviously not your average TLS candidate so YMMV.


Nothing controversial about your post, I think that I just failed to emphasize that there is no such thing as comfortable numbers at these schools absent a unique background. Those individuals stand a better chance at getting in because, well, their numbers are better. But if H realizes they want to add a veteran to the class, those applicants aren't, in this case, considered.

Held is better than rejected because you have met their numbers bar. Now its up to the adcomm to figure out what they want their class to look like.


Errr... where are you drawing this conclusion from? Personally, I've only interpreted "Held" as meaning "Not auto-reject for one reason or another."

EDIT: Obviously, held is better than rejected because well, you're not rejected. I meant the "numbers bar" part. :wink:


Wouldn't the assumption be that if you hadn't met their "numbers bar" you would have been outright rejected rather than held?


I guess that you're right and I'm just being overly picky... I just feel like numbers are still going to play a pretty big part at this point, making it kind of irrelevant to talk about meeting a "numbers bar" already.

User avatar
WhiteGuy5
Posts: 919
Joined: Thu Oct 06, 2011 3:47 pm

Re: HELD @ HARVARD 2012 style

Postby WhiteGuy5 » Fri Feb 17, 2012 6:39 pm

I think getting held this year meant that you're not a super auto-reject (meaning: even if you saved a species from extinction or something you'd still have no shot). The vast majority of the holds came in when the KB --> JS switch was happening. I think KB made the call that she's not going to let in any more students because the next Dean should have that right. So pretty much anyone close to and within the 25th-75th range was put on hold.

Being on hold = you're close to/within Harvard's 25th-75th range...but you knew that before you applied.

User avatar
sach1282
Posts: 330
Joined: Sun Oct 18, 2009 1:50 pm

Re: HELD @ HARVARD 2012 style

Postby sach1282 » Fri Feb 17, 2012 6:42 pm

I have nowhere near Harvard numbers yet I was held. They didn't even have a spot for my GPA addendum that helped explain a bad freshmen year, so it was the only school not to receive one.

There's nothing to do but wait and hope for the best.

Cheers and good luck my fellow holdees.

User avatar
WhiteGuy5
Posts: 919
Joined: Thu Oct 06, 2011 3:47 pm

Re: HELD @ HARVARD 2012 style

Postby WhiteGuy5 » Fri Feb 17, 2012 6:44 pm

sach1282 wrote:I have nowhere near Harvard numbers yet I was held. They didn't even have a spot for my GPA addendum that helped explain a bad freshmen year, so it was the only school not to receive one.

There's nothing to do but wait and hope for the best.

Cheers and good luck my fellow holdees.


171/3.69 = Close enough.

Edit: Think about it, she held everyone she thought JS MIGHT accept/want to decide for herself. And a 171/3.69 (especially if you were a URM) has that slight chance of getting in, IMO.
Last edited by WhiteGuy5 on Fri Feb 17, 2012 6:45 pm, edited 1 time in total.

EMZE
Posts: 715
Joined: Wed Jun 29, 2011 10:53 am

Re: HELD @ HARVARD 2012 style

Postby EMZE » Fri Feb 17, 2012 6:44 pm

Elendil wrote:
EMZE wrote:
Nelson wrote:
EMZE wrote:Agreed, and no offense to you Nelson, but that sounds like a little bit too much of the standard TLS kool-aid. BUT, if you had to create a general rule about where to feel comfortable numerically applying to Harvard, those would be the numbers. That someone is held with those numbers means something different than for someone with my numbers, probably.

Yeah, I didn't think that my original post was that controversial. Lots of people get in after being held, but they are usually people with Harvard profiles to being with. This means that people with Harvard numbers who were held (jetissent, Elendil, etc.) should still feel pretty good about their chances. For the rest of us, getting held doesn't mean we're any better off than we were. You're obviously not your average TLS candidate so YMMV.


Nothing controversial about your post, I think that I just failed to emphasize that there is no such thing as comfortable numbers at these schools absent a unique background. Those individuals stand a better chance at getting in because, well, their numbers are better. But if H realizes they want to add a veteran to the class, those applicants aren't, in this case, considered.

Held is better than rejected because you have met their numbers bar. Now its up to the adcomm to figure out what they want their class to look like.


Errr... where are you drawing this conclusion from? Personally, I've only interpreted "Held" as meaning "Not auto-reject for one reason or another."

EDIT: Obviously, held is better than rejected because well, you're not rejected. I meant the "numbers bar" part. :wink:


Not attempting to be secretive, but this was told to me in confidence and I will respect that. But anyway I spoke to one of the rare few people that was actually informed on the process, and they said H does have a numbers bar (I don't think URMs fall under the same one). Applicants that the adcomm is interested in who aren't initally accepted, with rare rare exception, must be above that bar.

If you are held, you are above it. Again, please don't ask me to post or PM data specifically.

User avatar
Elendil
Posts: 516
Joined: Wed Nov 23, 2011 12:45 pm

Re: HELD @ HARVARD 2012 style

Postby Elendil » Fri Feb 17, 2012 6:56 pm

EMZE wrote:
Not attempting to be secretive, but this was told to me in confidence and I will respect that. But anyway I spoke to one of the rare few people that was actually informed on the process, and they said H does have a numbers bar (I don't think URMs fall under the same one). Applicants that the adcomm is interested in who aren't initally accepted, with rare rare exception, must be above that bar.

If you are held, you are above it. Again, please don't ask me to post or PM data specifically.


Alright, I'll take your word for it.

User avatar
boosk
Posts: 381
Joined: Thu May 05, 2011 6:31 pm

Re: HELD @ HARVARD 2012 style

Postby boosk » Fri Feb 17, 2012 6:59 pm

sach1282 wrote:I have nowhere near Harvard numbers


c'mon man

User avatar
Killingly
Posts: 1179
Joined: Sat Jun 04, 2011 11:17 am

Re: HELD @ HARVARD 2012 style

Postby Killingly » Fri Feb 17, 2012 7:05 pm

Elendil wrote:
EMZE wrote:
Not attempting to be secretive, but this was told to me in confidence and I will respect that. But anyway I spoke to one of the rare few people that was actually informed on the process, and they said H does have a numbers bar (I don't think URMs fall under the same one). Applicants that the adcomm is interested in who aren't initally accepted, with rare rare exception, must be above that bar.

If you are held, you are above it. Again, please don't ask me to post or PM data specifically.


Alright, I'll take your word for it.


That must be a low-ass bar, I was held and my GPA is pretty low.




Return to “Law School Acceptances, Denials, and Waitlists”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: brinicolec, Kaziende, lawlzi, ls2016! and 19 guests