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.
User avatar
Nala7892
Posts: 54
Joined: Thu Nov 01, 2012 12:33 pm

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

Postby Nala7892 » Fri Jan 18, 2013 10:00 pm

twinkletoes16 wrote:
Nala7892 wrote:
Audeamus wrote:
bigbang wrote:Good luck to everyone! FYI, I am a 1L and I got in last year with a 168 and 173. Crazy, I know, but I think they definitely took the highest for me. Shows that not everything is 100% numbers based (in my opinion at least)!


if you don't mind sharing, what was your GPA?


If they did average my scores, that means they let me in with a 3.76/168, and I'm non-URM K-JD. I feel like they probably took my highest, which is still only a 170



Wait, you're under both medians? You are one lucky SOB olympian


Haha seriously, tell me about it! I am more confused than anyone on the planet

User avatar
wert3813
Posts: 1408
Joined: Sat Oct 06, 2012 6:29 pm

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

Postby wert3813 » Fri Jan 18, 2013 10:01 pm

NoodleyOne wrote:Alright, I've had some time so here is my attempt at rationalizing this...

Maybe H meant what they said in the hold e-mail. This is a weird cycle, and things aren't going to clear up until they've been through all the applications and see where everything lies. The numbers indicate that H needs to admit fewer people, admit more splitters, or let their medians slip, but maybe they're taking their time determining to what extent these three options will be weighed. I don't know how previous cycles went, but a lot of the people held were "borderline" candidates. Were splitters getting hold e-mails last year, or were they getting waitlisted?


Noodley, I'll just remind you what you were saying about your chances in November. If you get in it's gonna late. Don't give up hope; you knew this was going to be long and stressful.

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

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

Postby domino » Fri Jan 18, 2013 10:07 pm

Nala7892 wrote:
twinkletoes16 wrote:
Nala7892 wrote:
If they did average my scores, that means they let me in with a 3.76/168, and I'm non-URM K-JD. I feel like they probably took my highest, which is still only a 170



Wait, you're under both medians? You are one lucky SOB olympian


Haha seriously, tell me about it! I am more confused than anyone on the planet


I feel like if the person who's interviewing your file can walk away feeling impressed, that can do it for you. A great interview that reinforces your leadership potential or whatever other good stuff is suggested by your file and decent numbers could be more than enough.

User avatar
Nala7892
Posts: 54
Joined: Thu Nov 01, 2012 12:33 pm

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

Postby Nala7892 » Fri Jan 18, 2013 10:10 pm

domino wrote:
Nala7892 wrote:
twinkletoes16 wrote:
Nala7892 wrote:
If they did average my scores, that means they let me in with a 3.76/168, and I'm non-URM K-JD. I feel like they probably took my highest, which is still only a 170



Wait, you're under both medians? You are one lucky SOB olympian


Haha seriously, tell me about it! I am more confused than anyone on the planet


I feel like if the person who's interviewing your file can walk away feeling impressed, that can do it for you. A great interview that reinforces your leadership potential or whatever other good stuff is suggested by your file and decent numbers could be more than enough.


JS made it pretty clear that that's what it was, actually. She kept talking about how "passionate" and "impressive" I am (??), while I nervously looked around the room wondering if she was talking to someone behind me

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

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

Postby domino » Fri Jan 18, 2013 10:29 pm

Nala7892 wrote:
domino wrote: I feel like if the person who's interviewing your file can walk away feeling impressed, that can do it for you. A great interview that reinforces your leadership potential or whatever other good stuff is suggested by your file and decent numbers could be more than enough.
JS made it pretty clear that that's what it was, actually. She kept talking about how "passionate" and "impressive" I am (??), while I nervously looked around the room wondering if she was talking to someone behind me


That's awesome! I definitely have come across people who have not always had the top numbers so far fwiw, but who have that "it" factor and maturity that allow them to command the attention of a room, lead/motivate people, and just get things done--something like that is so impressive. It's great that it can be rewarded in this process.

Don't mean to monopolize the thread! Good, acceptance-oriented vibes toward everyone!

User avatar
Lavitz
Posts: 3098
Joined: Mon May 31, 2010 1:39 am

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

Postby Lavitz » Fri Jan 18, 2013 10:45 pm

My condolences to everyone unceremoniously dinged today--especially Banjo. I read that post while at work and had to cover my mouth because I literally shouted "WHAT?!!" when I read it.

And while I appreciate everyone's concerns, I don't feel any different than I did yesterday. As soon as I didn't get a JS2 along with everyone else, I immediately assumed I'd be held in January. This just confirms what I already knew. I think too many people underestimated the weight given to the new interviews. I know I didn't do my best, and this is the simply the result. Nothing left to do but chill and draft a LOCI.

As I've said before, I've accepted that I may not get in, but it's not over yet. Good luck to my fellow holds--as well as the people dodging velociraptors. :lol:
Last edited by Lavitz on Sat Jan 19, 2013 5:23 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
TexasAggie13
Posts: 120
Joined: Fri Mar 02, 2012 4:42 pm

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

Postby TexasAggie13 » Sat Jan 19, 2013 12:27 am

Complete 11/15 still no news :(

bbsg
Posts: 272
Joined: Wed Jun 13, 2012 3:07 am

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

Postby bbsg » Sat Jan 19, 2013 12:40 am

Submitted 1/7 and still not 'complete'...How long does it usually take?

User avatar
TripTrip
Posts: 2739
Joined: Fri Sep 07, 2012 9:52 am

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

Postby TripTrip » Sat Jan 19, 2013 12:45 am

bbsg wrote:Submitted 1/7 and still not 'complete'...How long does it usually take?

Don't fret, it's random. I submitted 1/2 and I'm not complete yet.

bbsg
Posts: 272
Joined: Wed Jun 13, 2012 3:07 am

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

Postby bbsg » Sat Jan 19, 2013 12:46 am

TripTrip wrote:
bbsg wrote:Submitted 1/7 and still not 'complete'...How long does it usually take?

Don't fret, it's random. I submitted 1/2 and I'm not complete yet.


Thanks. :) I'd rather be incomplete than dinged, so there's the silver lining.

shakespeare
Posts: 174
Joined: Sat Dec 01, 2012 7:13 pm

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

Postby shakespeare » Sat Jan 19, 2013 12:48 am

Thoughts on people who were held today without interviews?

shakespeare
Posts: 174
Joined: Sat Dec 01, 2012 7:13 pm

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

Postby shakespeare » Sat Jan 19, 2013 1:08 am

I tend to think: LOCI = more chances of making a typo or not catching a grammatical error (or realizing a grammatical error exists in your LOCI)...thoughts?

User avatar
wert3813
Posts: 1408
Joined: Sat Oct 06, 2012 6:29 pm

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

Postby wert3813 » Sat Jan 19, 2013 1:28 am

shakespeare wrote:I tend to think: LOCI = more chances of making a typo or not catching a grammatical error (or realizing a grammatical error exists in your LOCI)...thoughts?


wat?

shakespeare
Posts: 174
Joined: Sat Dec 01, 2012 7:13 pm

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

Postby shakespeare » Sat Jan 19, 2013 1:44 am

wert3813 wrote:
shakespeare wrote:I tend to think: LOCI = more chances of making a typo or not catching a grammatical error (or realizing a grammatical error exists in your LOCI)...thoughts?


wat?


Sorry. Meant that for the Held @ Harvard page.

User avatar
Ling520
Posts: 56
Joined: Thu Aug 09, 2012 11:53 am

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

Postby Ling520 » Sat Jan 19, 2013 2:52 am

az21833 wrote:
wert3813 wrote:Best as I can tell LSATPrepGuy is the person with the best numbers (3.99; 172) to get a hold pre JS1. Anyone have better or see someone with better?


this also is a travesty. H is being way more picky this cycle than expected. its clear they are not going to let those medians slip further and will take the hit in enrollment if necessary. i bet they want that 2 spot from stanford hard. definately staying at 173, minimum. have enough $ in enrollment.


It’s odd to me that people are saying this because SLS has always had inferior numbers to HLS. HLS’s median LSAT was way above SLS’s (the lowest in the T6) last year when they fell to third place so I doubt HLS is looking at maintaining its median as the key to rising above SLS. SLS, like Berkeley, is one of the few schools that is not bullshiting when it says it is using a holistic approach and this does not seem to negatively affect its ranking.

One possibility for changes this cycle is that top schools realize all the negative press about law students without jobs is affecting their reputations; they see the writing on the wall and are anticipating that salary and hiring outcomes of their students will come under greater scrutiny in the future and will play a greater role in the ranking schemes. Further, if even a handful of HLS grads have trouble getting jobs, the negative press that could produce has the potential to tarnish HLS’s prestige much more than a drop in LSAT median.

This being the case, HLS and other like-schools are going to look closer at resumes and PSs, conduct more interviews, and assess students by “hire-ability” and other holistic measures. I’m betting that schools have even studied which factors are common to the students from their classes that have the most difficulty getting hired. Factors that in the past might have made applicants automatic admits might turn out to be less desirable this cycle. Schools want to avoid accepting that applicant with good numbers --who has a great GPA in an easy major at a nonselective UG and who took a 1000 lsat practice tests-- but is going to bomb OCI/Clerkships and bring down the strength of the school's prestige in hiring.

az21833
Posts: 1403
Joined: Mon Jun 18, 2012 4:57 pm

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

Postby az21833 » Sat Jan 19, 2013 3:31 am

If true, that is bad bad news for k-jds

User avatar
wert3813
Posts: 1408
Joined: Sat Oct 06, 2012 6:29 pm

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

Postby wert3813 » Sat Jan 19, 2013 3:39 am

Ling520 wrote:
az21833 wrote:
wert3813 wrote:Best as I can tell LSATPrepGuy is the person with the best numbers (3.99; 172) to get a hold pre JS1. Anyone have better or see someone with better?


this also is a travesty. H is being way more picky this cycle than expected. its clear they are not going to let those medians slip further and will take the hit in enrollment if necessary. i bet they want that 2 spot from stanford hard. definately staying at 173, minimum. have enough $ in enrollment.


It’s odd to me that people are saying this because SLS has always had inferior numbers to HLS. HLS’s median LSAT was way above SLS’s (the lowest in the T6) last year when they fell to third place so I doubt HLS is looking at maintaining its median as the key to rising above SLS. SLS, like Berkeley, is one of the few schools that is not bullshiting when it says it is using a holistic approach and this does not seem to negatively affect its ranking.

One possibility for changes this cycle is that top schools realize all the negative press about law students without jobs is affecting their reputations; they see the writing on the wall and are anticipating that salary and hiring outcomes of their students will come under greater scrutiny in the future and will play a greater role in the ranking schemes. Further, if even a handful of HLS grads have trouble getting jobs, the negative press that could produce has the potential to tarnish HLS’s prestige much more than a drop in LSAT median.

This being the case, HLS and other like-schools are going to look closer at resumes and PSs, conduct more interviews, and assess students by “hire-ability” and other holistic measures. I’m betting that schools have even studied which factors are common to the students from their classes that have the most difficulty getting hired. Factors that in the past might have made applicants automatic admits might turn out to be less desirable this cycle. Schools want to avoid accepting that applicant with good numbers --who has a great GPA in an easy major at a nonselective UG and who took a 1000 lsat practice tests-- but is going to bomb OCI/Clerkships and bring down the strength of the school's prestige in hiring.


Meh. Anyone lowly ranked isn't doing this because they just need the money. HYS isn't doing this because they are safe (if they aren't safe I highly doubt they feel like they aren't safe). The highlighted part is where the argument doesn't quite hold water. Duke ish schools probably aren't doing this because they can't afford to not keep playing the game. And because (and this goes for all schools)...

...you are leaving out that the people who have the most trouble getting jobs are the ones at the bottom of the class. Grades are the number 1 determining factor in getting a job compared to your peers. The bottom twenty is gonna struggle at most schools.

Edit: B schools are starting to due this per WSJ. The difference is getting a job out of B school is heavily dependent on what you did before B school.

User avatar
bettercallsaul91
Posts: 187
Joined: Thu Oct 04, 2012 6:23 pm

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

Postby bettercallsaul91 » Sat Jan 19, 2013 7:02 am

Dinged as expected Friday morning. Nicest rejection letter I've ever read. Even gave me fuzzy feels.

User avatar
Ling520
Posts: 56
Joined: Thu Aug 09, 2012 11:53 am

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

Postby Ling520 » Sat Jan 19, 2013 9:21 am

wert3813 wrote:...you are leaving out that the people who have the most trouble getting jobs are the ones at the bottom of the class. Grades are the number 1 determining factor in getting a job compared to your peers. The bottom twenty is gonna struggle at most schools.


It’s probably true, based on strong anecdotal evidence, that grades are the leading determiner in biglaw hiring; however, the threshold differs by school (hypo: bottom 20% T6 vs bottom 40% T25) and that is a cause and effect of certain factors like prestige, student quality, etc. There is going to be more scrutiny of school’s hiring/salary data and even the top schools will not be immune to a prestige knock if their ratio of un-hirable graduates increases at higher rate than peer schools (in fact people relish the chance to proclaim that a king has no clothes).

I don’t think JD programs will ever adopt the MBA model simply because MBAs are not required to “practice” business. But there may be more focus on hire-ability and other holistic factors, and I’d say we’re already seeing this with the increased use of interviews at top schools. This doesn’t necessarily mean that K-JDs are at a disadvantage—just certain K-JDs.

spyke123
Posts: 341
Joined: Tue May 19, 2009 2:41 am

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

Postby spyke123 » Sat Jan 19, 2013 10:36 am

Ling520 wrote:
wert3813 wrote:...you are leaving out that the people who have the most trouble getting jobs are the ones at the bottom of the class. Grades are the number 1 determining factor in getting a job compared to your peers. The bottom twenty is gonna struggle at most schools.


It’s probably true, based on strong anecdotal evidence, that grades are the leading determiner in biglaw hiring; however, the threshold differs by school (hypo: bottom 20% T6 vs bottom 40% T25) and that is a cause and effect of certain factors like prestige, student quality, etc. There is going to be more scrutiny of school’s hiring/salary data and even the top schools will not be immune to a prestige knock if their ratio of un-hirable graduates increases at higher rate than peer schools (in fact people relish the chance to proclaim that a king has no clothes).

I don’t think JD programs will ever adopt the MBA model simply because MBAs are not required to “practice” business. But there may be more focus on hire-ability and other holistic factors, and I’d say we’re already seeing this with the increased use of interviews at top schools. This doesn’t necessarily mean that K-JDs are at a disadvantage—just certain K-JDs.


I agree completely. I feel that applicants especially TLSers seem to put too much emphasis on numbers... even going to proclaim that this cycle will be "epic" and "schools will do whatever it takes to maintain medians" just because there are fewer applicants.

Evidence so far however... does not seem to confirm this....(it is true the cycle is far from over but.. its not starting as epic as many have thought.)

User avatar
TripTrip
Posts: 2739
Joined: Fri Sep 07, 2012 9:52 am

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

Postby TripTrip » Sat Jan 19, 2013 11:48 am

spyke123 wrote:
Ling520 wrote:
wert3813 wrote:...you are leaving out that the people who have the most trouble getting jobs are the ones at the bottom of the class. Grades are the number 1 determining factor in getting a job compared to your peers. The bottom twenty is gonna struggle at most schools.


It’s probably true, based on strong anecdotal evidence, that grades are the leading determiner in biglaw hiring; however, the threshold differs by school (hypo: bottom 20% T6 vs bottom 40% T25) and that is a cause and effect of certain factors like prestige, student quality, etc. There is going to be more scrutiny of school’s hiring/salary data and even the top schools will not be immune to a prestige knock if their ratio of un-hirable graduates increases at higher rate than peer schools (in fact people relish the chance to proclaim that a king has no clothes).

I don’t think JD programs will ever adopt the MBA model simply because MBAs are not required to “practice” business. But there may be more focus on hire-ability and other holistic factors, and I’d say we’re already seeing this with the increased use of interviews at top schools. This doesn’t necessarily mean that K-JDs are at a disadvantage—just certain K-JDs.


I agree completely. I feel that applicants especially TLSers seem to put too much emphasis on numbers... even going to proclaim that this cycle will be "epic" and "schools will do whatever it takes to maintain medians"ust because there are fewer applicants.
Evidence so far however... does not seem to confirms....(it is true the cycle is far from over but.. its not starting as epic as many have thought.)

That's because you're thinking of "epic" qualitatively. Quantitatively, it is a good cycle for applicants over at least one of the medians (especially LSAT) because there are fewer of those people. That doesn't mean there won't be rejections above the medians... There most certainly will. All that it means is that there will have to be fewer rejections above both medians.

Saying we were wrong about the "epic ness" of the cycle because a few splitters got held or dinged is like saying that the Mars rover was useless because we haven't found life there: it's missing the point.

I already demonstrated that ~40% of splitters won't get in to Harvard.

spyke123
Posts: 341
Joined: Tue May 19, 2009 2:41 am

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

Postby spyke123 » Sat Jan 19, 2013 12:34 pm

TripTrip wrote:
spyke123 wrote:
Ling520 wrote:
wert3813 wrote:...you are leaving out that the people who have the most trouble getting jobs are the ones at the bottom of the class. Grades are the number 1 determining factor in getting a job compared to your peers. The bottom twenty is gonna struggle at most schools.


It’s probably true, based on strong anecdotal evidence, that grades are the leading determiner in biglaw hiring; however, the threshold differs by school (hypo: bottom 20% T6 vs bottom 40% T25) and that is a cause and effect of certain factors like prestige, student quality, etc. There is going to be more scrutiny of school’s hiring/salary data and even the top schools will not be immune to a prestige knock if their ratio of un-hirable graduates increases at higher rate than peer schools (in fact people relish the chance to proclaim that a king has no clothes).

I don’t think JD programs will ever adopt the MBA model simply because MBAs are not required to “practice” business. But there may be more focus on hire-ability and other holistic factors, and I’d say we’re already seeing this with the increased use of interviews at top schools. This doesn’t necessarily mean that K-JDs are at a disadvantage—just certain K-JDs.


I agree completely. I feel that applicants especially TLSers seem to put too much emphasis on numbers... even going to proclaim that this cycle will be "epic" and "schools will do whatever it takes to maintain medians"ust because there are fewer applicants.
Evidence so far however... does not seem to confirms....(it is true the cycle is far from over but.. its not starting as epic as many have thought.)

That's because you're thinking of "epic" qualitatively. Quantitatively, it is a good cycle for applicants over at least one of the medians (especially LSAT) because there are fewer of those people. That doesn't mean there won't be rejections above the medians... There most certainly will. All that it means is that there will have to be fewer rejections above both medians.

Saying we were wrong about the "epic ness" of the cycle because a few splitters got held or dinged is like saying that the Mars rover was useless because we haven't found life there: it's missing the point.

I already demonstrated that ~40% of splitters won't get in to Harvard.


I certianly see your point but I still believe there is no evidence yet to confirm the "epicness" of the cycle quantitatively.

First , I don't think we are talking about "a few splitters getting held or dinged", rather Harvard just held a plenty of people with very solid numbers and nyu seems to be also holding a decent number of people with above median numbers in the limbo.

Second, there hasn't been a meaningful increase in splitter love from top schools either.

In conclusion, I believe your analysis is a solid one but will just remain a hypothesis unless we see more evidence that people with similar numbers are faring relaively better than those from previous cycles i.e. we see an increase in acceptances for people with borderline or/and splitter numbers on tls/lsn

Of course I don't have hard data to back up my claims and the cycle is still early but these are the impressions I get actively browsing through this cycles application hreads.

TrustInMusic
Posts: 222
Joined: Tue Jan 01, 2013 4:39 pm

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

Postby TrustInMusic » Sat Jan 19, 2013 12:47 pm

JS and KB must be having such a kick seeing TLS freak out. :roll:

nodame
Posts: 21
Joined: Thu Nov 01, 2012 8:42 pm

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

Postby nodame » Sat Jan 19, 2013 1:02 pm

Just got an e-mail from Soban saying that I am waitlisted. I wasn't offered an interview and my status checker never updated to application under review either (complete mid-November), so it was really a surprise.

What's my chance of actually getting off this waitlist? Or rather, how many people (or what percentage) get off the waitlist every year?

User avatar
Cicero76
Posts: 1276
Joined: Mon Aug 13, 2012 9:41 pm

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

Postby Cicero76 » Sat Jan 19, 2013 1:04 pm

nodame wrote:Just got an e-mail from Soban saying that I am waitlisted. I wasn't offered an interview and my status checker never updated to application under review either (complete mid-November), so it was really a surprise.

What's my chance of actually getting off this waitlist? Or rather, how many people (or what percentage) get off the waitlist every year?


Waitlisted or held? There's a difference.




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

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: dala77, Thomas Hagan, ESQ. and 9 guests