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
d330
Posts: 155
Joined: Wed Dec 26, 2012 10:30 am

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

Postby d330 » Wed Mar 27, 2013 7:07 pm

bosmer88 wrote:Oh, okay. :)


Anyway - you survived another day. I'm hoping that bodes well for you. I still want to claim some unofficial record for longest time between JS1 and hold as a consolation prize, so I'm really rooting for your JS2.

BrickLi
Posts: 3
Joined: Wed Mar 27, 2013 8:40 pm

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

Postby BrickLi » Wed Mar 27, 2013 8:50 pm

trojandave wrote:I did. Lots of people on here did. It won't hurt you, so if it feels right, do it


Did you send the email directly to the interviewer or to Harvard JD Admission? My interview was invited by Harvard JD Admission so I don't know the email address of the interviewer. :|

MacB
Posts: 341
Joined: Fri Feb 15, 2013 12:26 pm

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

Postby MacB » Wed Mar 27, 2013 8:56 pm

BrickLi wrote:
trojandave wrote:I did. Lots of people on here did. It won't hurt you, so if it feels right, do it


Did you send the email directly to the interviewer or to Harvard JD Admission? My interview was invited by Harvard JD Admission so I don't know the email address of the interviewer. :|



...who interviewed you, JS or KB? Not that hard to find an email, brah.

User avatar
ph5354a
Posts: 1599
Joined: Thu Nov 01, 2012 7:40 pm

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

Postby ph5354a » Wed Mar 27, 2013 8:59 pm

MacB wrote: brah.

MacB
Posts: 341
Joined: Fri Feb 15, 2013 12:26 pm

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

Postby MacB » Wed Mar 27, 2013 9:06 pm

ph5354a wrote:
MacB wrote: brah.


Hahaha, I hope we both get in to H so we can be friends in real life, T. :)

User avatar
ph5354a
Posts: 1599
Joined: Thu Nov 01, 2012 7:40 pm

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

Postby ph5354a » Wed Mar 27, 2013 9:23 pm

MacB wrote:
ph5354a wrote:
MacB wrote: brah.


Hahaha, I hope we both get in to H so we can be friends in real life, T. :)


+1

User avatar
bosmer88
Posts: 417
Joined: Tue Jun 19, 2012 1:07 pm

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

Postby bosmer88 » Wed Mar 27, 2013 10:45 pm

d330 wrote:
bosmer88 wrote:Oh, okay. :)


Anyway - you survived another day. I'm hoping that bodes well for you. I still want to claim some unofficial record for longest time between JS1 and hold as a consolation prize, so I'm really rooting for your JS2.


Thanks. I have to admit that is one record you have. :)

redbrickwall
Posts: 6
Joined: Mon Mar 25, 2013 8:06 pm

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

Postby redbrickwall » Wed Mar 27, 2013 11:35 pm

MacB wrote:
redbrickwall wrote:Can you find out who you have before the interview?


No. Prepare for either.


Thanks, MacB.

User avatar
LexLeon
Posts: 400
Joined: Fri Oct 07, 2011 11:03 pm

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

Postby LexLeon » Thu Mar 28, 2013 12:18 am

cwid1391 wrote:
Lar-ties wrote:
wert3813 wrote:
vzapana wrote:Fyi:A js1 reported on the urm thread


Thanks. Larties are you a urm? Seems to be lots of urms in limbo at the moment.


Affirmative (get it?).

Hispanic (not M.A.), if anyone is keeping track.


I'm asking this because I legitimately don't know: but all Hispanics aren't URM's correct?

As I understood it URM consists of Mexican, Puerto Rican, Native American and African American only. Is that correct?


Edit: I'll phrase my original in positive language:

All data I've seen strongly suggest that there is reason to assume that all Hispanics are counted as underrepresented (because the data suggest they are all actually underrepresented).

I love learning. So please call my attention to any errors you think I've made.
Last edited by LexLeon on Thu Mar 28, 2013 10:22 pm, edited 1 time in total.

MacB
Posts: 341
Joined: Fri Feb 15, 2013 12:26 pm

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

Postby MacB » Thu Mar 28, 2013 12:20 am

Did anyone suggest that all Hispanics aren't URMs?

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 » Thu Mar 28, 2013 12:25 am

MacB wrote:Did anyone suggest that all Hispanics aren't URMs?


Yeah, Grutter. It's laid out as AA, NA, MA, and Puerto Rican. That's it. Don't know about any data regarding the non-URM designated Hispanics though.

MacB
Posts: 341
Joined: Fri Feb 15, 2013 12:26 pm

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

Postby MacB » Thu Mar 28, 2013 12:32 am

...Too drunk right now. Going to make this argument more clearly in the morning.
Last edited by MacB on Thu Mar 28, 2013 1:01 am, edited 1 time in total.

MacB
Posts: 341
Joined: Fri Feb 15, 2013 12:26 pm

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

Postby MacB » Thu Mar 28, 2013 12:50 am

Spoiler alert: it's the difference between "not all are," and "all are not."

lijun
Posts: 17
Joined: Sun Oct 03, 2010 1:06 am

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

Postby lijun » Thu Mar 28, 2013 1:01 am

Cool! Thanks for the answers!
Happy waiting~

User avatar
jselson
Posts: 6337
Joined: Sat Jan 05, 2013 3:51 am

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

Postby jselson » Thu Mar 28, 2013 3:27 am

MacB wrote:Spoiler alert: it's the difference between "not all are," and "all are not."


These are still the same thing. If you wanted to say "All Hispanics are not URMs" in the way you're implying, you would say "No Hispanics are URMs," otherwise "Some Hispanics are URMs" is consistent with "All Hispanics are not URMs" AND "Not all Hispanics are URMs."

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 » Thu Mar 28, 2013 3:29 am

jselson wrote:
MacB wrote:Spoiler alert: it's the difference between "not all are," and "all are not."


These are still the same thing. If you wanted to say "All Hispanics are not URMs" in the way you're implying, you would say "No Hispanics are URMs," otherwise "Some Hispanics are URMs" is consistent with "All Hispanics are not URMs" AND "Not all Hispanics are URMs."


Yup, this.

Also said I don't know what the data is on Hispanic URMs not outlined by Grutter, LSAC, TLS, etc so I just won't make any conclusion about a boost.

User avatar
cwid1391
Posts: 475
Joined: Wed Feb 15, 2012 10:41 pm

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

Postby cwid1391 » Thu Mar 28, 2013 9:49 am

John_rizzy_rawls wrote:
jselson wrote:
MacB wrote:Spoiler alert: it's the difference between "not all are," and "all are not."


These are still the same thing. If you wanted to say "All Hispanics are not URMs" in the way you're implying, you would say "No Hispanics are URMs," otherwise "Some Hispanics are URMs" is consistent with "All Hispanics are not URMs" AND "Not all Hispanics are URMs."


Yup, this.

Also said I don't know what the data is on Hispanic URMs not outlined by Grutter, LSAC, TLS, etc so I just won't make any conclusion about a boost.


Agreed. Nobody made the argument that "all hispanics are not URM." The question was whether Hispanics outside of MA and Puerto Rican - who nobody seems to dispute are URM - get the URM boost as well. The common answer seems to be that they get a boost, but not the full URM boost. Some people claimed they get the full boost regardless. The TLS FAQ page seemed to indicate that only MA, NA, AA, and PR get the boost. So who knows.

MacB
Posts: 341
Joined: Fri Feb 15, 2013 12:26 pm

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

Postby MacB » Thu Mar 28, 2013 10:47 am

jselson wrote:
MacB wrote:Spoiler alert: it's the difference between "not all are," and "all are not."


These are still the same thing. If you wanted to say "All Hispanics are not URMs" in the way you're implying, you would say "No Hispanics are URMs," otherwise "Some Hispanics are URMs" is consistent with "All Hispanics are not URMs" AND "Not all Hispanics are URMs."


FINE. Apparently it's a good thing I didn't take the lsat drunk at 1am. :P

User avatar
Searchparty
Posts: 193
Joined: Fri Mar 01, 2013 3:22 pm

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

Postby Searchparty » Thu Mar 28, 2013 10:52 am

MacB wrote:
jselson wrote:
MacB wrote:Spoiler alert: it's the difference between "not all are," and "all are not."


These are still the same thing. If you wanted to say "All Hispanics are not URMs" in the way you're implying, you would say "No Hispanics are URMs," otherwise "Some Hispanics are URMs" is consistent with "All Hispanics are not URMs" AND "Not all Hispanics are URMs."


FINE. Apparently it's a good thing I didn't take the lsat drunk at 1am. :P


To be fair, I think
Not all are: Some
All are not: None

So, I see the difference

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

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

Postby wert3813 » Thu Mar 28, 2013 10:54 am

Searchparty wrote:
MacB wrote:
jselson wrote:
MacB wrote:Spoiler alert: it's the difference between "not all are," and "all are not."


These are still the same thing. If you wanted to say "All Hispanics are not URMs" in the way you're implying, you would say "No Hispanics are URMs," otherwise "Some Hispanics are URMs" is consistent with "All Hispanics are not URMs" AND "Not all Hispanics are URMs."


FINE. Apparently it's a good thing I didn't take the lsat drunk at 1am. :P


To be fair, I think
Not all are: Some
All are not: None

So, I see the difference


OMG EVERYONE STOP THIS RIGHT NOW OR I SWEAR TO GOD I WILL PULL THIS CAR OVER!!!!

User avatar
TripTrip
Posts: 2740
Joined: Fri Sep 07, 2012 9:52 am

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

Postby TripTrip » Thu Mar 28, 2013 10:55 am

wert3813 wrote:OMG EVERYONE STOP THIS RIGHT NOW OR I SWEAR TO GOD I WILL PULL THIS CAR OVER!!!!

Dissecting argument structure and logical equivalence is far more fun than debating the outlook of holds vs forgottens!

Searchparty wrote:Not all are: At least some are not
All are not: None

MacB
Posts: 341
Joined: Fri Feb 15, 2013 12:26 pm

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

Postby MacB » Thu Mar 28, 2013 10:59 am

TripTrip wrote:
Searchparty wrote:Not all are: At least some are not
All are not: None


This is exactly how it struck me.

ETA: lol@wert :lol:

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

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

Postby az21833 » Thu Mar 28, 2013 11:03 am

lol! love you guys

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

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

Postby az21833 » Thu Mar 28, 2013 11:14 am

wert3813 wrote:Not to state the obvious, but as long as Harvard is still holding people, there is a difference between being held and not being held. If people were basically just defacto held they would stop actually holding people.


yah, completely agreed wert. by "nearing the point" i had in mind something like 3 weeks when essentially all the pools will merge into admit/waitlist/deny but i bet a ton of pre-js2 non holds will get in before then (like yourself :D )

User avatar
Lar-ties
Posts: 122
Joined: Wed Mar 06, 2013 11:57 pm

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

Postby Lar-ties » Thu Mar 28, 2013 11:23 am

You guys are ridiculous.

It's hardly early enough to be explaining tides to my students; it's WAY too early to discuss syntax/grammar/logic.




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

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Baby Gaga and 11 guests