Harvard c/o 2016 Applicants (2012-2013) Forum

[d330]

Oh, okay.

Anyway - you survived another day. I'm hoping that bodes well for you. I still want to claim some unofficial record for longest time between JS1 and hold as a consolation prize, so I'm really rooting for your JS2.

[BrickLi]

I did. Lots of people on here did. It won't hurt you, so if it feels right, do it

Did you send the email directly to the interviewer or to Harvard JD Admission? My interview was invited by Harvard JD Admission so I don't know the email address of the interviewer.

[MacB]

I did. Lots of people on here did. It won't hurt you, so if it feels right, do it

Did you send the email directly to the interviewer or to Harvard JD Admission? My interview was invited by Harvard JD Admission so I don't know the email address of the interviewer.

...who interviewed you, JS or KB? Not that hard to find an email, brah.

[ph5354a]

brah.

[MacB]

brah.

Hahaha, I hope we both get in to H so we can be friends in real life, T.

[ph5354a]

brah.

Hahaha, I hope we both get in to H so we can be friends in real life, T.

+1

[bosmer88]

Oh, okay.

Anyway - you survived another day. I'm hoping that bodes well for you. I still want to claim some unofficial record for longest time between JS1 and hold as a consolation prize, so I'm really rooting for your JS2.

Thanks. I have to admit that is one record you have.

[redbrickwall]

Can you find out who you have before the interview?

No. Prepare for either.

Thanks, MacB.

[LexLeon]

Fyi:A js1 reported on the urm thread

Thanks. Larties are you a urm? Seems to be lots of urms in limbo at the moment.

Affirmative (get it?).

Hispanic (not M.A.), if anyone is keeping track.

I'm asking this because I legitimately don't know: but all Hispanics aren't URM's correct?

As I understood it URM consists of Mexican, Puerto Rican, Native American and African American only. Is that correct?

Edit: I'll phrase my original in positive language:

All data I've seen strongly suggest that there is reason to assume that all Hispanics are counted as underrepresented (because the data suggest they are all actually underrepresented).

I love learning. So please call my attention to any errors you think I've made.

[MacB]

Did anyone suggest that all Hispanics aren't URMs?

[John_rizzy_rawls]

Did anyone suggest that all Hispanics aren't URMs?

Yeah, Grutter. It's laid out as AA, NA, MA, and Puerto Rican. That's it. Don't know about any data regarding the non-URM designated Hispanics though.

[MacB]

...Too drunk right now. Going to make this argument more clearly in the morning.

[MacB]

Spoiler alert: it's the difference between "not all are," and "all are not."

[lijun]

Cool! Thanks for the answers!
Happy waiting~

[jselson]

Spoiler alert: it's the difference between "not all are," and "all are not."

These are still the same thing. If you wanted to say "All Hispanics are not URMs" in the way you're implying, you would say "No Hispanics are URMs," otherwise "Some Hispanics are URMs" is consistent with "All Hispanics are not URMs" AND "Not all Hispanics are URMs."

[John_rizzy_rawls]

Spoiler alert: it's the difference between "not all are," and "all are not."

These are still the same thing. If you wanted to say "All Hispanics are not URMs" in the way you're implying, you would say "No Hispanics are URMs," otherwise "Some Hispanics are URMs" is consistent with "All Hispanics are not URMs" AND "Not all Hispanics are URMs."

Yup, this.

Also said I don't know what the data is on Hispanic URMs not outlined by Grutter, LSAC, TLS, etc so I just won't make any conclusion about a boost.

[cwid1391]

Spoiler alert: it's the difference between "not all are," and "all are not."

These are still the same thing. If you wanted to say "All Hispanics are not URMs" in the way you're implying, you would say "No Hispanics are URMs," otherwise "Some Hispanics are URMs" is consistent with "All Hispanics are not URMs" AND "Not all Hispanics are URMs."

Yup, this.

Also said I don't know what the data is on Hispanic URMs not outlined by Grutter, LSAC, TLS, etc so I just won't make any conclusion about a boost.

Agreed. Nobody made the argument that "all hispanics are not URM." The question was whether Hispanics outside of MA and Puerto Rican - who nobody seems to dispute are URM - get the URM boost as well. The common answer seems to be that they get a boost, but not the full URM boost. Some people claimed they get the full boost regardless. The TLS FAQ page seemed to indicate that only MA, NA, AA, and PR get the boost. So who knows.

[MacB]

Spoiler alert: it's the difference between "not all are," and "all are not."

These are still the same thing. If you wanted to say "All Hispanics are not URMs" in the way you're implying, you would say "No Hispanics are URMs," otherwise "Some Hispanics are URMs" is consistent with "All Hispanics are not URMs" AND "Not all Hispanics are URMs."

FINE. Apparently it's a good thing I didn't take the lsat drunk at 1am.

[Searchparty]

Spoiler alert: it's the difference between "not all are," and "all are not."

These are still the same thing. If you wanted to say "All Hispanics are not URMs" in the way you're implying, you would say "No Hispanics are URMs," otherwise "Some Hispanics are URMs" is consistent with "All Hispanics are not URMs" AND "Not all Hispanics are URMs."

FINE. Apparently it's a good thing I didn't take the lsat drunk at 1am.

To be fair, I think
Not all are: Some
All are not: None

So, I see the difference

[wert3813]

Spoiler alert: it's the difference between "not all are," and "all are not."

These are still the same thing. If you wanted to say "All Hispanics are not URMs" in the way you're implying, you would say "No Hispanics are URMs," otherwise "Some Hispanics are URMs" is consistent with "All Hispanics are not URMs" AND "Not all Hispanics are URMs."

FINE. Apparently it's a good thing I didn't take the lsat drunk at 1am.

To be fair, I think
Not all are: Some
All are not: None

So, I see the difference

OMG EVERYONE STOP THIS RIGHT NOW OR I SWEAR TO GOD I WILL PULL THIS CAR OVER!!!!

[TripTrip]

OMG EVERYONE STOP THIS RIGHT NOW OR I SWEAR TO GOD I WILL PULL THIS CAR OVER!!!!

Dissecting argument structure and logical equivalence is far more fun than debating the outlook of holds vs forgottens!

Not all are: At least some are not
All are not: None

[MacB]

Not all are: At least some are not
All are not: None

This is exactly how it struck me.

ETA: lol@wert

[az21833]

lol! love you guys

[az21833]

Not to state the obvious, but as long as Harvard is still holding people, there is a difference between being held and not being held. If people were basically just defacto held they would stop actually holding people.

yah, completely agreed wert. by "nearing the point" i had in mind something like 3 weeks when essentially all the pools will merge into admit/waitlist/deny but i bet a ton of pre-js2 non holds will get in before then (like yourself )

[Lar-ties]

You guys are ridiculous.

It's hardly early enough to be explaining tides to my students; it's WAY too early to discuss syntax/grammar/logic.