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.
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.