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
chickpea
Posts: 440
Joined: Fri Nov 02, 2012 3:50 pm

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

Postby chickpea » Sat Jan 19, 2013 11:07 pm

shakespeare wrote: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. :/


I hope you're right! Recently submitted my application with a 168/3.9 and strong softs. Just hoping H doesn't autoreject me.

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 11:11 pm

a 10% boost would do wonders for me, i just refuse to believe fewer applicants would have that much impact on HLS, they always have their pick of the litter anyway

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 11:22 pm

shakespeare wrote: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. :/


Definitely not. Take pride in being held and hope for the best.

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

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

Postby 04102014 » Sat Jan 19, 2013 11:51 pm

wert3813 wrote:
shakespeare wrote: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. :/


Definitely not. Take pride in being held and hope for the best.


Seriously.

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

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

Postby Ling520 » Sun Jan 20, 2013 5:49 am

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.


Agreed. Overall, your chance is much better than in recent years simply because there are less competitors; however, and though applicants above both medians will have the greatest advantage in this down cycle, selection isn’t randomized so how the drop in applications will affect any particular applicant can’t be determined.

BUT, what I don’t think is happening is that HLS is thinking that they need to maintain their LSAT median come hell or high water, as some commenters here suggest. The drop in hiring resulting in a drop in applications to law school does not mean schools can’t afford to change their numbers-based-admission traditions, but rather, they can’t afford not to; that is because, increasingly employment outcomes are going to threaten rankings/prestige more than LSAT medians.

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

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

Postby bbsg » Sun Jan 20, 2013 7:03 am

Ack, just realized I made a stupid-stupid typo on my additional statement ("low-income" became "long-income" somehow). Multiple proof reads proved ineffective. Kicking self.

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

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

Postby wert3813 » Sun Jan 20, 2013 12:37 pm

Ling520 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.


Agreed. Overall, your chance is much better than in recent years simply because there are less competitors; however, and though applicants above both medians will have the greatest advantage in this down cycle, selection isn’t randomized so how the drop in applications will affect any particular applicant can’t be determined.

BUT, what I don’t think is happening is that HLS is thinking that they need to maintain their LSAT median come hell or high water, as some commenters here suggest. The drop in hiring resulting in a drop in applications to law school does not mean schools can’t afford to change their numbers-based-admission traditions, but rather, they can’t afford not to; that is because, increasingly employment outcomes are going to threaten rankings/prestige more than LSAT medians.


Put me strongly in the Harvard will not drop class sizes unless it takes a bunch of transfer students camp. Strongly.

nba101790
Posts: 475
Joined: Wed Jan 16, 2013 5:05 pm

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

Postby nba101790 » Sun Jan 20, 2013 12:37 pm

bbsg wrote:Ack, just realized I made a stupid-stupid typo on my additional statement ("low-income" became "long-income" somehow). Multiple proof reads proved ineffective. Kicking self.


Things happen;you did it. Don't worry.

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

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

Postby az21833 » Sun Jan 20, 2013 12:48 pm

wert, those in the "class sizes will drop to preserve lsat median camp" (ie me) strongly believe it will be compensated for by additional transfer admits which dont impact USNWR

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

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

Postby spyke123 » Sun Jan 20, 2013 1:09 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 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.



A couple of more points...

1. Isn't it a really obvious point that Harvard or any law school for that matter, will take someone who they "like"? I don't think anyone on this thread is arguing that the law school admission process is either 100% holistic or 100% number based. It is obviously somewhere in between and nobody is autoreject/autoadmit purely based on numbers at least within T10.

2. Please correct me if I am wrong but isn't your argument: there are fewer applicants with high numbers -> law schools will try to maintain their medians without drastically decreasing their class size-> thus applicants with given numbers will have a better chance of admittance than those from previous cycles. In essence, aren't you arguing that this year's cycle will be more number driven than before because schools will have to chase numbers to maintain medians?

I don't doubt that this year's cycle will be less competitive in a general sense of the term. It is a fact that there are fewer applicants and that naturally means there are fewer people to compete against. What I am skeptical at least for now, however, is your conclusion that this year's cycle will be more number driven (again correct me if I am wrong here). Others have brought up some points why your conclusion could be wrong; fewer applicants means admins can spend more time reading each application and thus increase the chance that mediocre numbers can be overlooked; hireability is becoming a bigger concern

3. Can you please enlighten me why it does not make any sense for HLS or any top law school to screen kids for whether they will get a job? bschools have done this forever. And with the legal market in the shit hole, it is increasingly becoming evident that going to a top law school is not a sure path towards a job. Step outside of the TLS box for a minute, don't you think the ability of its students to get a prestigious job (which will play a crucial role in determining the strength of its alumni and reputation) a big concern for these law schools? dare I say, more than USNEWS ranking or keeping medians?

User avatar
Audeamus
Posts: 430
Joined: Thu Nov 29, 2012 10:28 pm

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

Postby Audeamus » Sun Jan 20, 2013 1:41 pm

spyke123 wrote:Step outside of the TLS box for a minute, don't you think the ability of its students to get a prestigious job (which will play a crucial role in determining the strength of its alumni and reputation) a big concern for these law schools? dare I say, more than USNEWS ranking or keeping medians?


I was actually thinking this the other day when people were posting that Harvard wants the #2 spot back. I think that a large part of what makes Harvard so prestigious is the reputation of its alums. That being said, as long as they can maintain a spot in the top 3, I think they will probably go for people who have the best shot of making a name for themselves in their respective fields.

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

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

Postby shntn » Sun Jan 20, 2013 1:46 pm

Audeamus wrote:
spyke123 wrote:Step outside of the TLS box for a minute, don't you think the ability of its students to get a prestigious job (which will play a crucial role in determining the strength of its alumni and reputation) a big concern for these law schools? dare I say, more than USNEWS ranking or keeping medians?


I was actually thinking this the other day when people were posting that Harvard wants the #2 spot back. I think that a large part of what makes Harvard so prestigious is the reputation of its alums. That being said, as long as they can maintain a spot in the top 3, I think they will probably go for people who have the best shot of making a name for themselves in their respective fields.

I thought so too, which is why I really hammed up my current gig in biglaw (and the relevant connections) during the interview. We'll see.

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

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

Postby wert3813 » Sun Jan 20, 2013 1:53 pm

spyke123 wrote:
A couple of more points...

1. Isn't it a really obvious point that Harvard or any law school for that matter, will take someone who they "like"? I don't think anyone on this thread is arguing that the law school admission process is either 100% holistic or 100% number based.


You would think wouldn't you? And then yet people write something to the effect of, "I got in and I'm a splitter, therefore your whole theory is wrong." So I felt it necessary to say.

spyke123 wrote: It is obviously somewhere in between and nobody is autoreject/autoadmit purely based on numbers at least within T10.


Uhh. Doesn't get much more numbers based than this: http://nyu.lawschoolnumbers.com/stats/1112/

spyke123 wrote: 2. Please correct me if I am wrong but isn't your argument: there are fewer applicants with high numbers -> law schools will try to maintain their medians without drastically decreasing their class size-> thus applicants with given numbers will have a better chance of admittance that those from previous cycles. In essence, aren't you arguing that this year's cycle will be more number driven than before because schools will have to chase numbers to maintain medians?


That's kind of an interesting point but not really the one I'm making. My point was 170+ applicants are way down. I don't expect Harvard to cut class sizes therefore I think it will be easier to get into. I hadn't considered that the process would be more numbers driven, but I supposed that makes some sense. My two main points have been this:

1. What happened yesterday in no way proves that Harvard is "gunning for 2nd", "this cycle isn't that good", or "all this talk of 170's being golden is wrong". It's Harvard, this could be an amazing cycle and the majority of people ITT (which skew high in terms of quality applicants) won't get in. So, the first thing I have been trying to do is explain that what happened yesterday shouldn't change one's expectations, unless one's expectations were absurd. Which leads to my second point
2. This cycle is very good. So good that you can expect your chances of getting into a school to be marginally better (I attempted to quantify marginally at 10% on MyLSN, but this is just a guess). This doesn't mean that the whole world is completely different as some seemed to talk themselves into believing.

Some people yesterday needed to hear number 1 some number 2 and some needed to hear number 1 because they didn't understand number 2.

spyke123 wrote: I don't doubt that this year's cycle will be less competitive in a general sense of the term. It is a fact that there are fewer applicants and that naturally means there are fewer people to compete against.


Good.

spyke123 wrote: What I am skeptical at least for now, however, is your conclusion that this year's cycle will be more number driven (again correct me if I am wrong here).


Again, not exactly what I was saying, although it's an interesting theory. The central point is this: for basically any school but Stanford you can go to LSN and draw a negative sloping line which will generally correlate to ding, acceptance, and waitlist (these being on or near the line). That line is going to slide a bit leftward. Not a ton. But noticeable. Insert #1 from above here.

spyke123 wrote: Others have brought up some points why your conclusion could be wrong; fewer applicants means admins can spend more time reading each application and thus increase the chance that mediocre numbers can be overlooked


LOL. Come'on man.


spyke123 wrote:; hireability is becoming a bigger concern

3. Can you please enlighten me why it does not make any sense for HLS or any top law school to screen kids for whether they will get a job? bschools have done this forever. And with the legal market in the shit hole, it is increasingly becoming evident that going to a top law school is not a sure path towards a job. Step outside of the TLS box for a minute, don't you think the ability of its students to get a prestigious job (which will play a crucial role in determining the strength of its alumni and reputation) a big concern for these law schools? (yes but I still stand by my point below) dare I say, more than USNEWS ranking (no) or keeping medians (same thing as unn&wr rankings)?


I feel like I've already articulated this as best I can, so we may soon be in agree to disagree territory but I'll try one more time. Basically two reasons:

1. With B school 80% of you getting a job after B school is what you've done before B school, 20% is what you did in B school. With law school the percentages are reversed (and perhaps even higher). NOTE: to be clear I'm pulling these percentages out of my ass, but the point is the same regardless of what the percentages are.
2. You know which B school doesn't screen applicants to see if they can get a job? Harvard Fucking Business School. You know why? Because it's fucking HBS so they only take people who shit golden bricks. They don't have to screen--you get in, you get a job, both because you're brilliant and because you have HBS on your resume. It's the same thing with HLS. If you get in it's because someone believes you are capable of shitting golden bricks. Put it this way. There isn't anyone that Harvard thinks, "Jeez, I'd love to take this person but I'm not sure they can get a job." Anyone Harvard would want, is capable of getting a job. Because, well, it's fucking Harvard.

HTH
Last edited by wert3813 on Sun Jan 20, 2013 1:59 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Audeamus
Posts: 430
Joined: Thu Nov 29, 2012 10:28 pm

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

Postby Audeamus » Sun Jan 20, 2013 1:59 pm

wert3813 wrote:
spyke123 wrote:
A couple of more points...

1. Isn't it a really obvious point that Harvard or any law school for that matter, will take someone who they "like"? I don't think anyone on this thread is arguing that the law school admission process is either 100% holistic or 100% number based.


You would think wouldn't you? And then yet people write something to the effect of, "I got in and I'm a splitter, therefore your whole theory is wrong." So I felt it necessary to say.

spyke123 wrote: It is obviously somewhere in between and nobody is autoreject/autoadmit purely based on numbers at least within T10.


Uhh. Doesn't get much more numbers based than this: http://nyu.lawschoolnumbers.com/stats/1112/

spyke123 wrote: 2. Please correct me if I am wrong but isn't your argument: there are fewer applicants with high numbers -> law schools will try to maintain their medians without drastically decreasing their class size-> thus applicants with given numbers will have a better chance of admittance that those from previous cycles. In essence, aren't you arguing that this year's cycle will be more number driven than before because schools will have to chase numbers to maintain medians?


That's kind of an interesting point but not really the one I'm making. My point was 170+ applicants are way down. I don't expect Harvard to cut class sizes therefore I think it will be easier to get into. I hadn't considered that the process would be more numbers driven, but I supposed that makes some sense. My two main points have been this:

1. What happened yesterday in no way proves that Harvard is "gunning for 2nd", "this cycle isn't that good", or "all this talk of 170's being golden is wrong". It's Harvard, this could be an amazing cycle and the majority of people ITT (which skew high in terms of quality applicants) won't get in. So, the first thing I have been trying to do is explain that what happened yesterday shouldn't change one's expectations, unless one's expectations were absurd. Which leads to my second point
2. This cycle is very good. So good that you can expect your chances of getting into a school to be marginally better (I attempted to quantify marginally at 10% on MyLSN, but this is just a guess). This doesn't mean that the whole world is completely different as some seemed to talk themselves into believing.

Some people yesterday needed to hear number 1 some number 2 and some needed to hear number 1 because they didn't understand number 2.

spyke123 wrote: I don't doubt that this year's cycle will be less competitive in a general sense of the term. It is a fact that there are fewer applicants and that naturally means there are fewer people to compete against.


Good.

spyke123 wrote: What I am skeptical at least for now, however, is your conclusion that this year's cycle will be more number driven (again correct me if I am wrong here).


Again, not exactly what I was saying, although it's an interesting theory. The central point is this: for basically in school but Stanford you can go to LSN and draw a negative sloping line which will generally correlate to ding, acceptance, and waitlist (these being on or near the line). That line is going to slide a bit leftward. Not a ton. But noticeable. Insert #1 from above here.

spyke123 wrote: Others have brought up some points why your conclusion could be wrong; fewer applicants means admins can spend more time reading each application and thus increase the chance that mediocre numbers can be overlooked


LOL. Come'on man.


spyke123 wrote:; hireability is becoming a bigger concern

3. Can you please enlighten me why it does not make any sense for HLS or any top law school to screen kids for whether they will get a job? bschools have done this forever. And with the legal market in the shit hole, it is increasingly becoming evident that going to a top law school is not a sure path towards a job. Step outside of the TLS box for a minute, don't you think the ability of its students to get a prestigious job (which will play a crucial role in determining the strength of its alumni and reputation) a big concern for these law schools? dare I say, more than USNEWS ranking or keeping medians?


I feel like I've already articulated this as best I can, so we may soon be in agree to disagree territory but I'll try one more time. Basically two reasons:

1. With B school 80% of you getting a job after B school is what you've done before B school, 20% is what you did in B school. With law school the percentages are reversed (and perhaps even higher). NOTE: to be clear I'm pulling these percentages out of my ass, but the point is the same regardless of what the percentages are.
2. You know which B school doesn't screen applicants to see if they can get a job? Harvard Fucking Business School. You know why? Because it's fucking HBS so they only take people who shit golden bricks. They don't have to screen--you get in, you get a job, both because you're brilliant and because you have HBS on your resume. It's the same thing with HLS. If you get in it's because someone believes you are capable of shitting golden bricks. Put it this way. There isn't anyone that Harvard thinks, "Jeez, I'd love to take this person but I'm not sure they can get a job." Anyone Harvard would want, is capable of getting a job. Because, well, it's fucking Harvard.

HTH


There is a difference between just getting/maintaining a job and going on to be a leader in your field. That being said, don't you think they specifically look for people who will go on to bring positive publicity to the school through their endeavors - people who they can envision as leading politicians, activists, scholars, etc.?

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

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

Postby wert3813 » Sun Jan 20, 2013 2:01 pm

Audeamus wrote:
There is a difference between just getting/maintaining a job and going on to be a leader in your field. That being said, don't you think they specifically look for people who will go on to bring positive publicity to the school through their endeavors - people who they can envision as leading politicians, activists, scholars, etc.?


Of course. Exactly as they have in every other cycle other. The point that I'm knocking down is that this is somehow a new consideration since the legal market is so bad. Harvard is always going to be looking to take the best. Every year.

harvardboy24
Posts: 32
Joined: Fri Jan 18, 2013 3:12 pm

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

Postby harvardboy24 » Sun Jan 20, 2013 2:07 pm

Anyone know how long after JS1/KB1 one can expect a response?

User avatar
Audeamus
Posts: 430
Joined: Thu Nov 29, 2012 10:28 pm

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

Postby Audeamus » Sun Jan 20, 2013 2:08 pm

wert3813 wrote:
Audeamus wrote:
There is a difference between just getting/maintaining a job and going on to be a leader in your field. That being said, don't you think they specifically look for people who will go on to bring positive publicity to the school through their endeavors - people who they can envision as leading politicians, activists, scholars, etc.?


Of course. Exactly as they have in every other cycle other. The point that I'm knocking down is that this is somehow a new consideration since the legal market is so bad. Harvard is always going to be looking to take the best. Every year.


We're in total agreement then :) My bad for not clearly understanding that facet of your argument earlier.

User avatar
Audeamus
Posts: 430
Joined: Thu Nov 29, 2012 10:28 pm

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

Postby Audeamus » Sun Jan 20, 2013 2:09 pm

Audeamus wrote:
wert3813 wrote:
Audeamus wrote:
There is a difference between just getting/maintaining a job and going on to be a leader in your field. That being said, don't you think they specifically look for people who will go on to bring positive publicity to the school through their endeavors - people who they can envision as leading politicians, activists, scholars, etc.?


Of course. Exactly as they have in every other cycle other. The point that I'm knocking down is that this is somehow a new consideration since the legal market is so bad. Harvard is always going to be looking to take the best. Every year.


We're in total agreement then :) My bad for not clearly understanding that facet of your argument earlier.


On a totally different note, that's the first time I've used the "smile" icon. Does it look sort of evil and mischievous to anyone else?

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

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

Postby wert3813 » Sun Jan 20, 2013 2:10 pm

harvardboy24 wrote:Anyone know how long after JS1/KB1 one can expect a response?


4 days to 2 months. In April it can be as soon at the next day.

harvardboy24
Posts: 32
Joined: Fri Jan 18, 2013 3:12 pm

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

Postby harvardboy24 » Sun Jan 20, 2013 2:12 pm

wert3813 wrote:
harvardboy24 wrote:Anyone know how long after JS1/KB1 one can expect a response?


4 days to 2 months. In April it can be as soon at the next day.


That's encouraging.

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

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

Postby wert3813 » Sun Jan 20, 2013 2:17 pm

On a totally different note, that's the first time I've used the "smile" icon. Does it look sort of evil and mischievous to anyone else?[/quote]

It just looks like something I would only send to a girl I'm flirting with so I feel weird when I type it on here.

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

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

Postby wert3813 » Sun Jan 20, 2013 2:18 pm

harvardboy24 wrote:
wert3813 wrote:
harvardboy24 wrote:Anyone know how long after JS1/KB1 one can expect a response?


4 days to 2 months. In April it can be as soon at the next day.


That's encouraging.


No need to get ancy until people who JS1'ed the same day are getting accepted.

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

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

Postby wert3813 » Sun Jan 20, 2013 2:22 pm

az21833 wrote:wert, those in the "class sizes will drop to preserve lsat median camp" (ie me) strongly believe it will be compensated for by additional transfer admits which dont impact USNWR


Well some of you do and some of you don't. Just keep in mind that taking a bunch of transfers isn't exactly perfect either. If a school is built for 3 classes of 500--500 625 and 375 isn't ideal (class sizes, professors teach certain things, trying to OCI a class of 625, career & academic resources stretched thinner). But, yeah, someone is going to try it I think.

WalkingPlato
Posts: 171
Joined: Mon Jul 02, 2012 10:51 pm

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

Postby WalkingPlato » Sun Jan 20, 2013 2:39 pm

Why are you guys speculating how things will turn out? It's practically inevitable now. You submitted your app, and so did (and will) all others that have planned to apply. Whatever the decision making process is at HLS, that's what it is, and based on that process, you're going to be accepted or rejected. You don't want to spend days and weeks pulling your hair out thinking about what's going on in the HLS admission office when it won't affect your decision in any way possible.

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

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

Postby wert3813 » Sun Jan 20, 2013 2:44 pm

WalkingPlato wrote:Why are you guys speculating how things will turn out? It's practically inevitable now. You submitted your app, and so did (and will) all others that have planned to apply. Whatever the decision making process is at HLS, that's what it is, and based on that process, you're going to be accepted or rejected. You don't want to spend days and weeks pulling your hair out thinking about what's going on in the HLS admission office when it won't affect your decision in any way possible.


Okay, but this is true for a huge amount of all human thought and speech.




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

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: KeYe88, MSNbot Media, notsolawful, TudoBem, Yahoo [Bot] and 11 guests