Harvard c/o 2016 Applicants (2012-2013)

Share Your Experiences, Read About Other Experiences. Please keep posts organized by school and expected year of graduation.
Cronea
Posts: 3
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2012 9:55 am

Re: Harvard c/o 2016 Applicants (2012-2013)

Postby Cronea » Thu Dec 13, 2012 11:34 am

Just finished my interview with JS!

Against all the predictions on this thread, she didn't ask any app-specific question, but only two general ones (why here? biggest challenge?)

Finger crossed for hearing back before Christmas!

UMich11
Posts: 409
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2012 8:34 pm

Re: Harvard c/o 2016 Applicants (2012-2013)

Postby UMich11 » Thu Dec 13, 2012 11:36 am

NoodleyOne wrote:
teiswei wrote:
NoodleyOne wrote:
UMich11 wrote:I could be completely wrong, but they might start going the way of MBA admissions and giving more weight to what an applicant has done vs. the scores, since they really aren't indicative of true performance and aren't exactly standardized. if this gains traction across the board i think Numbers will still be a factor, but not as big of one as it is today.

I fucking hope not. "Holistic" is a huge flame in % 95 of cases. The way it is now, where if you've done something truly significant (military, TFA, etc.) You get a boost is fine, while Bullshit like frat president and weekend volunteer at the SPCA is not a determining factor.

Law school admissions are close to perfect.


Schools have pretty openly mocked "frat presidents" in my interviews. I think they see through it and really only acknowledge the truly experienced. If they were to adopt a "holistic" methodology, I think it would benefit most schools. Hard numbers will always have to matter, but giving leeway to those that have accomplished more than their fellow applicants should be OK with most of us.

Define accomplish? I had to work two minimum wage jobs to pay bills and go to school. Do you think that's as impressive of the guy that could afford to take a month off to do missionary work in Haiti?

I think a lot of "softs" are hidden socioeconomic biases. Some people like myself simply can't afford to take months off to do a lot of volunteer work or school activities. My rent isnt going to go away, I don't have the family network to get a good job with no experience, and I can't take the risk of striking out on my own. Yet despite that, due to the numbers based process, I still have an opportunity to go to an elite school. Admissions are fine, and I think the cry for the holistic approach reeks of classism.



I agree with you. I started my companies to cover the cost of my education, so i sympathize with you 100%. Fortunately for me it paid off, literally.

shntn
Posts: 5319
Joined: Sun Jun 10, 2012 1:45 pm

Re: Harvard c/o 2016 Applicants (2012-2013)

Postby shntn » Thu Dec 13, 2012 11:38 am

NoodleyOne wrote:Yet despite that, due to the numbers based process, I still have an opportunity to go to an elite school. Admissions are fine, and I think the cry for the holistic approach reeks of classism.

Well, on the other hand, I think my app gets even more attention than my numbers (particularly my GPA) deserve precisely because of a "holistic" approach and a well-written set of personal and diversity statements highlighting the things I've had to overcome to get where I am today.

That said, I think LS admissions are pretty transparent and okay as they are.

User avatar
domino
Posts: 323
Joined: Sat Dec 08, 2012 8:51 pm

Re: Harvard c/o 2016 Applicants (2012-2013)

Postby domino » Thu Dec 13, 2012 11:38 am

NoodleyOne wrote:
teiswei wrote:
NoodleyOne wrote:
UMich11 wrote:I could be completely wrong, but they might start going the way of MBA admissions and giving more weight to what an applicant has done vs. the scores, since they really aren't indicative of true performance and aren't exactly standardized. if this gains traction across the board i think Numbers will still be a factor, but not as big of one as it is today.

I fucking hope not. "Holistic" is a huge flame in % 95 of cases. The way it is now, where if you've done something truly significant (military, TFA, etc.) You get a boost is fine, while Bullshit like frat president and weekend volunteer at the SPCA is not a determining factor.

Law school admissions are close to perfect.


Schools have pretty openly mocked "frat presidents" in my interviews. I think they see through it and really only acknowledge the truly experienced. If they were to adopt a "holistic" methodology, I think it would benefit most schools. Hard numbers will always have to matter, but giving leeway to those that have accomplished more than their fellow applicants should be OK with most of us.

Define accomplish? I had to work two minimum wage jobs to pay bills and go to school. Do you think that's as impressive of the guy that could afford to take a month off to do missionary work in Haiti?

I think a lot of "softs" are hidden socioeconomic biases. Some people like myself simply can't afford to take months off to do a lot of volunteer work or school activities. My rent isnt going to go away, I don't have the family network to get a good job with no experience, and I can't take the risk of striking out on my own. Yet despite that, due to the numbers based process, I still have an opportunity to go to an elite school. Admissions are fine, and I think the cry for the holistic approach reeks of classism.


really good point--makes me stop and think. i have more often heard the argument the other way, with numbers focus (more) advantaging people who have more resources because they can afford lsat prep/would be connected to a network that is more likely to be informed about the process. and poor kids more likely to have to work during college, which could affect grades.
Last edited by domino on Thu Dec 13, 2012 11:48 am, edited 1 time in total.

04102014
Posts: 1696
Joined: Mon Feb 09, 2009 2:42 am

Re: Harvard c/o 2016 Applicants (2012-2013)

Postby 04102014 » Thu Dec 13, 2012 11:40 am

NoodleyOne wrote:
teiswei wrote:
NoodleyOne wrote:
UMich11 wrote:I could be completely wrong, but they might start going the way of MBA admissions and giving more weight to what an applicant has done vs. the scores, since they really aren't indicative of true performance and aren't exactly standardized. if this gains traction across the board i think Numbers will still be a factor, but not as big of one as it is today.

I fucking hope not. "Holistic" is a huge flame in % 95 of cases. The way it is now, where if you've done something truly significant (military, TFA, etc.) You get a boost is fine, while Bullshit like frat president and weekend volunteer at the SPCA is not a determining factor.

Law school admissions are close to perfect.


Schools have pretty openly mocked "frat presidents" in my interviews. I think they see through it and really only acknowledge the truly experienced. If they were to adopt a "holistic" methodology, I think it would benefit most schools. Hard numbers will always have to matter, but giving leeway to those that have accomplished more than their fellow applicants should be OK with most of us.

Define accomplish? I had to work two minimum wage jobs to pay bills and go to school. Do you think that's as impressive of the guy that could afford to take a month off to do missionary work in Haiti?

I think a lot of "softs" are hidden socioeconomic biases. Some people like myself simply can't afford to take months off to do a lot of volunteer work or school activities. My rent isnt going to go away, I don't have the family network to get a good job with no experience, and I can't take the risk of striking out on my own. Yet despite that, due to the numbers based process, I still have an opportunity to go to an elite school. Admissions are fine, and I think the cry for the holistic approach reeks of classism.


Yup

User avatar
Mr. Elshal
Posts: 611
Joined: Thu Sep 20, 2012 11:30 pm

Re: Harvard c/o 2016 Applicants (2012-2013)

Postby Mr. Elshal » Thu Dec 13, 2012 11:44 am

shntn wrote:
NoodleyOne wrote:Yet despite that, due to the numbers based process, I still have an opportunity to go to an elite school. Admissions are fine, and I think the cry for the holistic approach reeks of classism.

Well, on the other hand, I think my app gets even more attention than my numbers (particularly my GPA) deserve precisely because of a "holistic" approach and a well-written set of personal and diversity statements highlighting the things I've had to overcome to get where I am today.

That said, I think LS admissions are pretty transparent and okay as they are.


+1
My GPA is not that great for these schools but my softs are carrying me (hopefully)

User avatar
teiswei
Posts: 695
Joined: Thu Sep 29, 2011 3:50 pm

Re: Harvard c/o 2016 Applicants (2012-2013)

Postby teiswei » Thu Dec 13, 2012 11:45 am

NoodleyOne wrote:Define accomplish? I had to work two minimum wage jobs to pay bills and go to school. Do you think that's as impressive of the guy that could afford to take a month off to do missionary work in Haiti?

I think a lot of "softs" are hidden socioeconomic biases. Some people like myself simply can't afford to take months off to do a lot of volunteer work or school activities. My rent isnt going to go away, I don't have the family network to get a good job with no experience, and I can't take the risk of striking out on my own. Yet despite that, due to the numbers based process, I still have an opportunity to go to an elite school. Admissions are fine, and I think the cry for the holistic approach reeks of classism.


In my opinion, volunteer work is pretty weak. The kids that generally do these things have the family money to do them and it's more of a vacation than helping people.

The second part of your argument is difficult for me... The hard work you had to put in should be very relevant in admissions. You cannot be compared 1 to 1 with the guy with the exact same scores that drove a Mercedes that his parents bought for his 16th. I, like you, had to pay for myself to survive. My family does not come from money, and I am a first generation college student. My father dropped out at 15 and my two older siblings had kids before their 17th birthday. The only success in my family has come from hard work and it can hardly be considered highly successful.

I have worked since the day I turned 16 and have built a career. I was lucky enough to work for a very large company and was able to establish myself and was recognized for it. I have worked up from a grunt in a call center to a professional in our corporate headquarters. This should be recognized by admissions. I have had to work full-time through all of undergraduate and graduate school and never dropped even close to below full-time in school. Why should I be looked at as the same as the kids that were able to go to school without any responsibilities?

User avatar
kingsfield69
Posts: 344
Joined: Mon Nov 05, 2012 2:52 pm

Re: Harvard c/o 2016 Applicants (2012-2013)

Postby kingsfield69 » Thu Dec 13, 2012 11:50 am

This thread used to be beautiful. When did it get swallowed up by the class warfare debate?

*face palm*

User avatar
NoodleyOne
Posts: 2358
Joined: Fri May 25, 2012 7:32 pm

Re: Harvard c/o 2016 Applicants (2012-2013)

Postby NoodleyOne » Thu Dec 13, 2012 11:52 am

But we already account for that. Softs are a factor, but they have to be significant. Which is why I really like the way admissions are handled. Your numbers matter a lot, but if you have something awesome you can outperform them.

I don't remember what started this... anyway good luck to all the JS1s today.

talesofyore
Posts: 294
Joined: Fri Sep 07, 2012 10:21 pm

Re: Harvard c/o 2016 Applicants (2012-2013)

Postby talesofyore » Thu Dec 13, 2012 11:57 am

NoodleyOne wrote:
teiswei wrote:
NoodleyOne wrote:
UMich11 wrote:I could be completely wrong, but they might start going the way of MBA admissions and giving more weight to what an applicant has done vs. the scores, since they really aren't indicative of true performance and aren't exactly standardized. if this gains traction across the board i think Numbers will still be a factor, but not as big of one as it is today.

I fucking hope not. "Holistic" is a huge flame in % 95 of cases. The way it is now, where if you've done something truly significant (military, TFA, etc.) You get a boost is fine, while Bullshit like frat president and weekend volunteer at the SPCA is not a determining factor.

Law school admissions are close to perfect.


Schools have pretty openly mocked "frat presidents" in my interviews. I think they see through it and really only acknowledge the truly experienced. If they were to adopt a "holistic" methodology, I think it would benefit most schools. Hard numbers will always have to matter, but giving leeway to those that have accomplished more than their fellow applicants should be OK with most of us.

Define accomplish? I had to work two minimum wage jobs to pay bills and go to school. Do you think that's as impressive of the guy that could afford to take a month off to do missionary work in Haiti?

I think a lot of "softs" are hidden socioeconomic biases. Some people like myself simply can't afford to take months off to do a lot of volunteer work or school activities. My rent isnt going to go away, I don't have the family network to get a good job with no experience, and I can't take the risk of striking out on my own. Yet despite that, due to the numbers based process, I still have an opportunity to go to an elite school. Admissions are fine, and I think the cry for the holistic approach reeks of classism.


Well said. Even if I'd wanted to start a business, all my money is earmarked for my food and shelter.

UMich11
Posts: 409
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2012 8:34 pm

Re: Harvard c/o 2016 Applicants (2012-2013)

Postby UMich11 » Thu Dec 13, 2012 11:59 am

talesofyore wrote:
Well said. Even if I'd wanted to start a business, all my money is earmarked for my food and shelter.


It's cheaper than you think.

User avatar
NoodleyOne
Posts: 2358
Joined: Fri May 25, 2012 7:32 pm

Re: Harvard c/o 2016 Applicants (2012-2013)

Postby NoodleyOne » Thu Dec 13, 2012 12:01 pm

UMich11 wrote:
talesofyore wrote:
Well said. Even if I'd wanted to start a business, all my money is earmarked for my food and shelter.


It's cheaper than you think.

Ever eat PB&J for a week straight? I have exactly 20 bucks of extra income every two weeks. Life ain't cheap bro.

talesofyore
Posts: 294
Joined: Fri Sep 07, 2012 10:21 pm

Re: Harvard c/o 2016 Applicants (2012-2013)

Postby talesofyore » Thu Dec 13, 2012 12:02 pm

domino wrote:
NoodleyOne wrote:
NoodleyOne wrote:
UMich11 wrote:I could be completely wrong, but they might start going the way of MBA admissions and giving more weight to what an applicant has done vs. the scores, since they really aren't indicative of true performance and aren't exactly standardized. if this gains traction across the board i think Numbers will still be a factor, but not as big of one as it is today.


Define accomplish? I had to work two minimum wage jobs to pay bills and go to school. Do you think that's as impressive of the guy that could afford to take a month off to do missionary work in Haiti?

I think a lot of "softs" are hidden socioeconomic biases. Some people like myself simply can't afford to take months off to do a lot of volunteer work or school activities. My rent isnt going to go away, I don't have the family network to get a good job with no experience, and I can't take the risk of striking out on my own. Yet despite that, due to the numbers based process, I still have an opportunity to go to an elite school. Admissions are fine, and I think the cry for the holistic approach reeks of classism.


really good point--makes me stop and think. i have more often heard the argument the other way, with numbers focus (more) advantaging people who have more resources because they can afford lsat prep/would be connected to a network that is more likely to be informed about the process. and poor kids more likely to have to work during college, which could affect grades.


This. My interviewer for a T10 school actually congratulated me on my just above average score, given the resources I had to work with. He told me he'd seen first hand with one of his family members what the ability to pay for a class, and having time to attend said class could do for one's scores.

talesofyore
Posts: 294
Joined: Fri Sep 07, 2012 10:21 pm

Re: Harvard c/o 2016 Applicants (2012-2013)

Postby talesofyore » Thu Dec 13, 2012 12:03 pm

NoodleyOne wrote:
UMich11 wrote:
talesofyore wrote:
Well said. Even if I'd wanted to start a business, all my money is earmarked for my food and shelter.


It's cheaper than you think.

Ever eat PB&J for a week straight? I have exactly 20 bucks of extra income every two weeks. Life ain't cheap bro.



I have -98 dollars in my bank account at this time, but tomorrow is pay day so I won't starve, thankfully. No way I can start a business though.

LSP12
Posts: 42
Joined: Wed Jun 27, 2012 8:58 pm

Re: Harvard c/o 2016 Applicants (2012-2013)

Postby LSP12 » Thu Dec 13, 2012 12:16 pm

Anonymous4444 wrote:Ok people tough love time. Someone mentioned if your complete for two months ur being held I was complete in early October 10/10. Do I still have a shot? Harvard is my dream school.... Ill ride wait list if nec but are we at that point yet?



Long time thread lurker here - is the above idea the general consensus?

Should you expect to get a JS1 invite within two months of complete date if you have a solid chance? What happens to the apps that don't get a JS1 in this window? Are they held for review and looked at again later or are they likely just going to be dinged?

User avatar
Rahviveh
Posts: 2271
Joined: Mon Aug 06, 2012 12:02 pm

Re: Harvard c/o 2016 Applicants (2012-2013)

Postby Rahviveh » Thu Dec 13, 2012 12:36 pm

UMich11 wrote:I could be completely wrong, but they might start going the way of MBA admissions and giving more weight to what an applicant has done vs. the scores, since they really aren't indicative of true performance and aren't exactly standardized. if this gains traction across the board i think Numbers will still be a factor, but not as big of one as it is today.


I think admissions are going to become more holistic but not necessarily in the way people think. I don't think "predicting academic performance" of applicants is really a logical or necessary objective to what they are doing nowadays, although I'm sure its part of the general groupthink. Everyone is on a damn curve so who gives a shit about how you think they're going to perform. Anyways, what really may have an impact is the economy and the bad press law schools are getting. I think schools will evaluate candidates more on how they think they will do in OCI or come hiring time. Admitting socially awkward or mentally weak candidates can hurt employment stats in the long run, which COULD hurt USNWR ranking but also the school's reputation and marketability in general. So its not really holisitic, but its more than GPA/LSAT.

Then again, this isnt really an issue at HLS where everyone's getting jobs. But you could see it at non-HYS T14's, and I think we're seeing it, with Chicago's new interview process.

Combine that with YP, non-URM diversity (which I think doesn't get discussed enough on here, schools want things like geographic diversity to market themselves), and REAL softs (not frat/internship/volunteer BS, but the type of strong softs that matter like military, awards, etc), and you have enough non-GPA/LSAT/URM factors to explain why some people with numbers get in and some do not. But B-School isn't that holistic either, you need the numbers to be considered, which is the same as law school and that will never change

jenglish27
Posts: 34
Joined: Thu Nov 15, 2012 12:24 pm

Re: Harvard c/o 2016 Applicants (2012-2013)

Postby jenglish27 » Thu Dec 13, 2012 1:55 pm

Hate to interrupt an interesting convo, but should I be concerned that I've been awaiting complete since 11/25? I don't know if this is typical for HLS, but it seems weird to me.

User avatar
helix23
Posts: 1807
Joined: Tue Jun 19, 2012 3:18 pm

Re: Harvard c/o 2016 Applicants (2012-2013)

Postby helix23 » Thu Dec 13, 2012 1:57 pm

jenglish27 wrote:Hate to interrupt an interesting convo, but should I be concerned that I've been awaiting complete since 11/25? I don't know if this is typical for HLS, but it seems weird to me.


Nope not weird mine took around 24 days to go complete.

UMich11
Posts: 409
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2012 8:34 pm

Re: Harvard c/o 2016 Applicants (2012-2013)

Postby UMich11 » Thu Dec 13, 2012 2:00 pm

helix23 wrote:
jenglish27 wrote:Hate to interrupt an interesting convo, but should I be concerned that I've been awaiting complete since 11/25? I don't know if this is typical for HLS, but it seems weird to me.


Nope not weird mine took around 24 days to go complete.


You'll see my earlier post but i just went complete on SC yesterday, confirmation email was today. I submitted over the 12/1-12/2 weekend. Call and see. I am not sure if i was just lucky or maybe yours was held up somewhere?

glasses23
Posts: 5
Joined: Thu Dec 13, 2012 1:59 pm

Re: Harvard c/o 2016 Applicants (2012-2013)

Postby glasses23 » Thu Dec 13, 2012 2:01 pm

Any expected movement on JS2's today?

shntn
Posts: 5319
Joined: Sun Jun 10, 2012 1:45 pm

Re: Harvard c/o 2016 Applicants (2012-2013)

Postby shntn » Thu Dec 13, 2012 2:05 pm

NoodleyOne wrote:
UMich11 wrote:
talesofyore wrote:
Well said. Even if I'd wanted to start a business, all my money is earmarked for my food and shelter.


It's cheaper than you think.

Ever eat PB&J for a week straight? I have exactly 20 bucks of extra income every two weeks. Life ain't cheap bro.

Especially with the ability to FUTPT for half price now gone. :cry: :cry:

User avatar
sabanist
Posts: 573
Joined: Tue Jun 12, 2012 12:48 pm

Re: Harvard c/o 2016 Applicants (2012-2013)

Postby sabanist » Thu Dec 13, 2012 2:09 pm

glasses23 wrote:Any expected movement on JS2's today?

No one knows except the ladies in power themselves. There was speculation that JS was going to be free all day, but apparently she did an interview this morning if this thread is to be trusted, so who knows. We'll find out soon enough.

User avatar
domino
Posts: 323
Joined: Sat Dec 08, 2012 8:51 pm

Re: Harvard c/o 2016 Applicants (2012-2013)

Postby domino » Thu Dec 13, 2012 2:40 pm

wow anticipated being way more zen about this post-js1 waiting. but...am really not feeling zen lol. i think i'm going to go the ways of lavitz and elterrible--am just going to assume i did not get in unless i hear otherwise. great options already and much better for sanity!

shntn
Posts: 5319
Joined: Sun Jun 10, 2012 1:45 pm

Re: Harvard c/o 2016 Applicants (2012-2013)

Postby shntn » Thu Dec 13, 2012 2:41 pm

domino wrote:wow anticipated being way more zen about this post-js1 waiting. but...am really not feeling zen lol. i think i'm going to go the ways of lavitz and elterrible--am just going to assume i did not get in unless i hear otherwise. great options already and much better for sanity!

Solid plan.

wisteria
Posts: 285
Joined: Fri Nov 02, 2012 4:43 am

Re: Harvard c/o 2016 Applicants (2012-2013)

Postby wisteria » Thu Dec 13, 2012 3:06 pm

jenglish27 wrote:Hate to interrupt an interesting convo, but should I be concerned that I've been awaiting complete since 11/25? I don't know if this is typical for HLS, but it seems weird to me.


If it makes you feel better, I've been waiting since 11/16. Sent an email to inquire, but no response. :(




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

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Assasindowntheavenue, Ferrisjso, Google Adsense [Bot], hellohalo, Houzy, lg77, lillawyer2, PDX4343, premalone, stewhan, uhwrestler, whodareswins, xnsch, Yahoo [Bot] and 16 guests