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

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

Postby NoodleyOne » Sat Jan 19, 2013 1:05 pm

The cycle isn't over yet. CC has yet to send out decisions, and I think everyone expected the "splitter love" to come late in the cycle rather than early. Someone should check and see if splitters were getting held, dinged, or wl this time last cycle to see if there was a behavior change.

User avatar
twinkletoes16
Posts: 1317
Joined: Mon Nov 19, 2012 11:14 pm

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

Postby twinkletoes16 » Sat Jan 19, 2013 1:06 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?



Just got as in on a Saturday? Or just got as in it was sent on Friday and you just checked your email?


Also FWIW I don't think it ever goes to "under review."

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

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

Postby shntn » Sat Jan 19, 2013 1:09 pm

People with my numbers (the relative handful that exist on LSN) had fairly tougher cycles im the past than I've had so far. But yeah, we'll have to see how the whole cycle shakes out.

User avatar
twinkletoes16
Posts: 1317
Joined: Mon Nov 19, 2012 11:14 pm

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

Postby twinkletoes16 » Sat Jan 19, 2013 1:11 pm

I remember reading the Harvard 2015 thread and SO MUCH MOVEMENT happened June/July. 20+ people got into H then. There is a long wait ahead for some people lucky enough to be held/waitlisted.

User avatar
ssanonymous
Posts: 513
Joined: Mon Nov 05, 2012 2:27 pm

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

Postby ssanonymous » Sat Jan 19, 2013 1:59 pm

Wormfather wrote:
twinkletoes16 wrote:I remember reading the Harvard 2015 thread and SO MUCH MOVEMENT happened June/July. 20+ people got into H then. There is a long wait ahead for some people lucky enough to be held/waitlisted.


Especially if you're a URM. They're notorious for being snagged at the very last minute.


Do you think this applies to non-traditional students as well?

User avatar
poichi
Posts: 102
Joined: Wed Sep 12, 2012 11:31 pm

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

Postby poichi » Sat Jan 19, 2013 2:06 pm

ssanonymous wrote:
Wormfather wrote:
twinkletoes16 wrote:I remember reading the Harvard 2015 thread and SO MUCH MOVEMENT happened June/July. 20+ people got into H then. There is a long wait ahead for some people lucky enough to be held/waitlisted.


Especially if you're a URM. They're notorious for being snagged at the very last minute.


Do you think this applies to non-traditional students as well?


I wouldn't bet on it since non-trad is not a statistical group (as far as I'm aware).

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 3:00 pm

twinkletoes16 wrote:
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?



Just got as in on a Saturday? Or just got as in it was sent on Friday and you just checked your email?


Also FWIW I don't think it ever goes to "under review."



Sorry about the confusion, the e-mail was sent on Friday and I just checked it. I was just totally out of it since the news came so unexpectedly.

I read over the e-mail and realized that i was in fact held, not waitlisted.
What exactly is the difference? Also, is my chance of getting in higher one way or the other?

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 4:07 pm

do many holds hear prior to that timeframe?

User avatar
jbagelboy
Posts: 9635
Joined: Thu Nov 29, 2012 7:57 pm

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

Postby jbagelboy » Sat Jan 19, 2013 4:10 pm

az21833 wrote:do many holds hear prior to that timeframe?


Holds hear in April. The same "rules" for providing you with an admissions decision before end of April still apply, since being held is not technically an admissions decision. From last years held thread, theres a huge reject batch, a moderately sized waitlist batch, and a few very lucky souls who sneak on in, all occurring in mid to late April.

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 5:03 pm

spyke123 wrote:
TripTrip wrote:
spyke123 wrote:
Ling520 wrote: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.


This is the problem. Mid-cycle these threads are always going to skew negative. It's fucking Harvard, not Oprah ("And you get a car, and you get a car, and you get a car"). It still going to be hard as hell to get into. Both TripTrip and I (and countless others) have demonstrated that qualitatively this cycle will be easier. Mid-cycle when no one except JS and KB can see the whole picture (and BTW I bet if you put them under oath Adcoms would admit that even they don't feel like they can see the whole picture) it's silly to freak out over antidotal evidence.

Regarding splitters. There is zero incentive for Harvard to take a 176 3.7 in January. This is not to say they won't, if they know 100% they want that person to come, but what is that 176 3.7 person gonna do if they get in in April? Turn them down? Doubtful.

I think the problem is that a lot of people have assumed this SUPER EPIC LEGENDARY (TM) cycle means Harvard is gonna start grabbing 4.0 169s and 3.72 173s or every single person above median. No. In my mind you have perhaps a 10% better chance than your LSN numbers suggest.

Oh and I still haven't seen a single person who is above both medians with a ding. Banjo was 176 3.76. LSN puts these numbers at a 44% chance. As in more likely not to get in.

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 5:06 pm

Furthermore, I haven't seen a hold for anyone who is above or at (assuming median is 173) both medians without a JS1. I bet that almost certainly wasn't the case last year.

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 6:04 pm

a 10% boost over previous mylsn #s would be gigantic Wert - that is a gamechanger. I expect it to be nowhere near that high. That's like a full point LSAT boost if not more

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 6:17 pm

az21833 wrote:a 10% boost over previous mylsn #s would be gigantic Wert - that is a gamechanger. I expect it to be nowhere near that high. That's like a full point LSAT boost if not more

That's exactly where the word "epic" came from.

My main points were not hypothesis or even educated guesses. There's a statistically significant drop in LSAT test takers, and an even bigger drop in 175+ scores. That much is already proven, and it makes the cycle statically easier for people who do have those numbers. However, that won't help you if you bomb your JS1!

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 6:20 pm

have heard of people not being surprised by holds/dings since they had gone complete a while ago and passed the "hot period" for JS1s without a peep. Can someone, pray tell, explain what the bingo zone is for JS1's following completion, after which it is more likely you are headed for hold/ding territory. One week? Two weeks? One month? Two months?

many thanks

sincerely,
severly late applicant

User avatar
sinfiery
Posts: 3308
Joined: Thu Jul 14, 2011 2:55 am

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

Postby sinfiery » Sat Jan 19, 2013 6:27 pm

Wormfather wrote:In lean times its the lions and the lords who are the last to starve.

This.



This cycle is definitely one of the better cycles to apply in. That will become more and more evident as we near the end, (Look at UVA and Mich already throwing out the $$$ they are.) but HYS is still HYS and you won't see the dramatic change that you will most definitely see with TTTs/lower T1s and possibly lower T14s.

az21833 wrote:have heard of people not being surprised by holds/dings since they had gone complete a while ago and passed the "hot period" for JS1s without a peep. Can someone, pray tell, explain what the bingo zone is for JS1's following completion, after which it is more likely you are headed for hold/ding territory. One week? Two weeks? One month? Two months?

many thanks

sincerely,
severly late applicant


There is no set time, but the general rule is to start freaking out when others on LSN get offered JS1s who submitted/went complete roughly a week after you did.

Even then there is hope, as evident by the JS1s that came early January (mine included) relative to their submission/completion date

User avatar
trojandave
Posts: 389
Joined: Sun Jun 17, 2012 5:25 pm

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

Postby trojandave » Sat Jan 19, 2013 6:31 pm

az21833 wrote:have heard of people not being surprised by holds/dings since they had gone complete a while ago and passed the "hot period" for JS1s without a peep. Can someone, pray tell, explain what the bingo zone is for JS1's following completion, after which it is more likely you are headed for hold/ding territory. One week? Two weeks? One month? Two months?

many thanks

sincerely,
severly late applicant


Last year's graph should give you some idea - http://www.top-law-schools.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=191773&start=2209

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 7:42 pm

thanks, it fluctuates but it looks like (roughly) a month. ie i sent in beginning of jan so the auto admits will start to hear beginning of february

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 » Sat Jan 19, 2013 8:40 pm

wert3813 wrote:Regarding splitters. There is zero incentive for Harvard to take a 176 3.7 in January.


I don't know about this. I'm 175 3.7 and they took me in December. I think it's a little more holistic than we're making it out to be in this thread. That's why the boost from reduced applicants (and reduced 170+ applicants) is so hard to quantify. It's not the only factor in play here. They may be performing a more holistic review to ensure, as somebody mentioned earlier, more hire-ability in their student body, and IN ADDITION, because application numbers are down, they are looking more closely at apps that they usually wouldn't. This doesn't mean that people will certain numbers will definitely get a boost, just that they will be looked at more closely and taken more seriously.

User avatar
twinkletoes16
Posts: 1317
Joined: Mon Nov 19, 2012 11:14 pm

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

Postby twinkletoes16 » Sat Jan 19, 2013 8:56 pm

Mr. Elshal wrote:
wert3813 wrote:Regarding splitters. There is zero incentive for Harvard to take a 176 3.7 in January.


I don't know about this. I'm 175 3.7 and they took me in December. I think it's a little more holistic than we're making it out to be in this thread. That's why the boost from reduced applicants (and reduced 170+ applicants) is so hard to quantify. It's not the only factor in play here. They may be performing a more holistic review to ensure, as somebody mentioned earlier, more hire-ability in their student body, and IN ADDITION, because application numbers are down, they are looking more closely at apps that they usually wouldn't. This doesn't mean that people will certain numbers will definitely get a boost, just that they will be looked at more closely and taken more seriously.



you're also a URM though, and those numbers make you a phenomenal admit- don't underestimate that.

User avatar
John_rizzy_rawls
Posts: 3477
Joined: Sun Nov 18, 2012 2:44 pm

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

Postby John_rizzy_rawls » Sat Jan 19, 2013 9:10 pm

Mr. Elshal wrote:
wert3813 wrote:Regarding splitters. There is zero incentive for Harvard to take a 176 3.7 in January.


I don't know about this. I'm 175 3.7 and they took me in December. I think it's a little more holistic than we're making it out to be in this thread.


URM 3.5+/172+ is 100% auto-admit at Harvard on LSN. You're .2 and 3 points, respectively, above that. You may be one of the top 5-10 URM candidates this cycle. Your acceptance can't be compared to Banjo's ding.

User avatar
facile princeps
Posts: 421
Joined: Tue Jun 12, 2012 8:51 pm

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

Postby facile princeps » Sat Jan 19, 2013 9:45 pm

Wormfather wrote:Three words facile: Roe vs. Wade.

Also, nice ninja edit.

:lol:

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 10:11 pm

Mr. Elshal wrote:
wert3813 wrote:Regarding splitters. There is zero incentive for Harvard to take a 176 3.7 in January.


I don't know about this. I'm 175 3.7 and they took me in December. I think it's a little more holistic than we're making it out to be in this thread. That's why the boost from reduced applicants (and reduced 170+ applicants) is so hard to quantify. It's not the only factor in play here. They may be performing a more holistic review to ensure, as somebody mentioned earlier, more hire-ability in their student body, and IN ADDITION, because application numbers are down, they are looking more closely at apps that they usually wouldn't. This doesn't mean that people will certain numbers will definitely get a boost, just that they will be looked at more closely and taken more seriously.


1. You are a URM. You know that the example I gave was not for URM applicants.
2. In the very next sentence I say that if they love a 175 3.7 and are 100% sure they will take them. I didn't imply it doesn't happen, in fact I suggested it does. This doesn't change the fact there is no incentive to take someone they aren't in love with.
3. Next point, this girl got into Harvard http://lawschoolnumbers.com/Nala7892/jd By her own admission she has no special softs and is a K-JD. How? They decided they liked her a lot. They took her. There seems to be some confusion about how a process can be both numbers based and holistic. Harvard is always looking to take people with high numbers, but if they want someone to come or maybe aren't as impressed with someone they have always responded accordingly. Look at previous year LSN graphs. There are red dots where there shouldn't be and green dots where there shouldn't be. Outliers don't change the fact that the process is numbers driven.
4. You actually say a lot of stuff that I agree with generally. It's foolish to think JS1 don't matter for anyone and that they don't read a 4.0 179's application. Remember a 90% chance of getting in with ones numbers mean that multiple people with those numbers have not gotten in.

az:

5. 10% is not an equivalent of an LSAT point for you. As you no doubt I know your chances with your current LSAT and with a one point bump. Without rechecking an extra point goes from like 66%-->75%. That said, 10% is just a guess. I only quantified it because I feel like some people are giving themselves much bigger chances.

6. I refuse to believe that Harvard Fucking Law is screening kids for whether they can get a job when they graduate. Sorry doesn't make sense.


wormfather wrote: In lean times its the lions and the lords who are the last to starve.

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 10:16 pm

wert3813 wrote:
Mr. Elshal wrote:
wert3813 wrote:Regarding splitters. There is zero incentive for Harvard to take a 176 3.7 in January.


I don't know about this. I'm 175 3.7 and they took me in December. I think it's a little more holistic than we're making it out to be in this thread. That's why the boost from reduced applicants (and reduced 170+ applicants) is so hard to quantify. It's not the only factor in play here. They may be performing a more holistic review to ensure, as somebody mentioned earlier, more hire-ability in their student body, and IN ADDITION, because application numbers are down, they are looking more closely at apps that they usually wouldn't. This doesn't mean that people will certain numbers will definitely get a boost, just that they will be looked at more closely and taken more seriously.


1. You are a URM. You know that the example I gave was not for URM applicants.
2. In the very next sentence I say that if they love a 175 3.7 and are 100% sure they will take them. I didn't imply it doesn't happen, in fact I suggested it does. This doesn't change the fact there is no incentive to take someone they aren't in love with.
3. Next point, this girl got into Harvard http://lawschoolnumbers.com/Nala7892/jd By her own admission she has no special softs and is a K-JD. How? They decided they liked her a lot. They took her. There seems to be some confusion about how a process can be both numbers based and holistic. Harvard is always looking to take people with high numbers, but if they want someone to come or maybe aren't as impressed with someone they have always responded accordingly. Look at previous year LSN graphs. There are red dots where there shouldn't be and green dots where there shouldn't be. Outliers don't change the fact that the process is numbers driven.
4. You actually say a lot of stuff that I agree with generally. It's foolish to think JS1 doesn't matter for everyone and that they don't read a 4.0 179's application. Remember a 90% chance of getting in with ones numbers mean that multiple people with those numbers have not gotten in.

az:

5. 10% is not an equivalent of an LSAT point for you. As you no doubt I know your chances with your current LSAT and with a one point bump. Without rechecking an extra point goes from like 66%-->75%. That said, 10% is just a guess. I only quantified it because I feel like some people are giving themselves much bigger chances.

6. I refuse to believe that Harvard Fucking Law is screening kids for whether they can get a job when they graduate. Sorry doesn't make sense.


wormfather wrote: In lean times its the lions and the lords who are the last to starve.

User avatar
John_rizzy_rawls
Posts: 3477
Joined: Sun Nov 18, 2012 2:44 pm

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

Postby John_rizzy_rawls » Sat Jan 19, 2013 10:32 pm

Wormfather wrote:
John_rizzy_rawls wrote:
Mr. Elshal wrote:
wert3813 wrote:Regarding splitters. There is zero incentive for Harvard to take a 176 3.7 in January.


I don't know about this. I'm 175 3.7 and they took me in December. I think it's a little more holistic than we're making it out to be in this thread.


URM 3.5+/172+ is 100% auto-admit at Harvard on LSN. You're .2 and 3 points, respectively, above that. You may be one of the top 5-10 URM candidates this cycle. Your acceptance can't be compared to Banjo's ding.


So I probably wont be the first AA with 170+/3.9x to be dinged after a JS1. Thanks for that.


You're not getting rejected Worm, don't even.
Especially if Wert's likability theory holds any weight.

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 11:04 pm

Do I have the lowest LSAT here? lower end of the 160s...non-URM, but 3.9x gpa...what does this all meannnnn??? Been tearing myself apart with that question the past 24 hours...Bloodbath indeed.

It might indeed be a cycle for softs...that's probably why I got held instead of outright rejected. Heh. :/




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

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: hopes&dreams, lillawyer2, Long shot hero, mav1993 and 20 guests