Harvard, C/O 2017, Applicants Thread (2013-2014)

Share Your Experiences, Read About Other Experiences. Please keep posts organized by school and expected year of graduation.

Where are you in the Harvard application process?

I'm applying next year, just reading this thread to prepare
38
12%
Applying this year, I got an extension on my application
1
0%
I applied and haven't gotten a JS1 yet
64
20%
I applied and got a JS1, but haven't had it yet.
7
2%
I had my JS1 but I'm waiting for a magical phone call
43
13%
Already had my JS2, just here to help
62
19%
Waitlisted
61
19%
Dinged D:
49
15%
 
Total votes: 325

potterdam
Posts: 75
Joined: Thu Jan 09, 2014 7:27 am

Re: Harvard, C/O 2017, Applicants Thread (2013-2014)

Postby potterdam » Mon Mar 24, 2014 2:46 pm

.
Last edited by potterdam on Tue Oct 07, 2014 11:45 am, edited 1 time in total.

dreamerchic19
Posts: 234
Joined: Fri Feb 21, 2014 4:41 pm

Re: Harvard, C/O 2017, Applicants Thread (2013-2014)

Postby dreamerchic19 » Mon Mar 24, 2014 2:57 pm

it's 3:00pm!!!!

User avatar
bbkk
Posts: 728
Joined: Wed Dec 26, 2012 4:28 pm

Re: Harvard, C/O 2017, Applicants Thread (2013-2014)

Postby bbkk » Mon Mar 24, 2014 3:00 pm

potterdam wrote:
drawstring wrote:
illyria wrote:I've forgotten, but when do calls usually start? 3pm?


Usually reports start at around 3PM, but there have been a few waves that started a bit later.
And the converse, what's the latest people have been called? IE if there are calls today, what time can we assume everyone's gone home?


I think around 7ish, iirc.

User avatar
jasper09
Posts: 191
Joined: Sat Jan 18, 2014 1:03 pm

Re: Harvard, C/O 2017, Applicants Thread (2013-2014)

Postby jasper09 » Mon Mar 24, 2014 3:04 pm

Ahhh the anxious feeling in the pit of my stomach that begins around 2:45 each Thursday and Friday and (apparently starting today) Monday...this exercise in patience isn't working out so well for me :(

User avatar
jace8819
Posts: 52
Joined: Wed Nov 06, 2013 6:39 pm

Re: Harvard, C/O 2017, Applicants Thread (2013-2014)

Postby jace8819 » Mon Mar 24, 2014 3:15 pm

I saw the multiple posts of paranoia about high GPA/LSAT combinations and splitters losing hope, so I thought I would offer my theory. Every law school claims, and indeed seems to live out, a dedication to "diversity." While many think of this as a simple code word for URM/LGBT/hardship applicants, there is also a pretty convincing statistical case that this is too narrow of a view of the admissions process. I believe that admissions offices want to admit applicants from of varying LSAT/GPA combinations to ensure a heterogeneous student body. Now, the lower down the scale you go, you will have more applicants competing for fewer spots, but you have to imagine how boring and uniform a class of all 3.90+/175+ applicants would be. Sure, Harvard probably has enough applicants that it could fill its entire incoming class with candidates with that profile, but that wouldn't be very diverse and their student body would suffer as a result. So, I realize its late March and pretty much all of us on TLS suffer with differing but high degrees of neurosis, but don't lose heart.

yankihote
Posts: 52
Joined: Thu Sep 20, 2012 3:05 pm

Re: Harvard, C/O 2017, Applicants Thread (2013-2014)

Postby yankihote » Mon Mar 24, 2014 3:21 pm

jace8819 wrote:I saw the multiple posts of paranoia about high GPA/LSAT combinations and splitters losing hope, so I thought I would offer my theory. Every law school claims, and indeed seems to live out, a dedication to "diversity." While many think of this as a simple code word for URM/LGBT/hardship applicants, there is also a pretty convincing statistical case that this is too narrow of a view of the admissions process. I believe that admissions offices want to admit applicants from of varying LSAT/GPA combinations to ensure a heterogeneous student body. Now, the lower down the scale you go, you will have more applicants competing for fewer spots, but you have to imagine how boring and uniform a class of all 3.90+/175+ applicants would be. Sure, Harvard probably has enough applicants that it could fill its entire incoming class with candidates with that profile, but that wouldn't be very diverse and their student body would suffer as a result. So, I realize its late March and pretty much all of us on TLS suffer with differing but high degrees of neurosis, but don't lose heart.


I agree with what you said. Still though, it struck me as odd that so many high-combo candidates were left that late in the game. I found myself checking the (apparently) mistaken assumption that they are more likely to wait list candidates with 25th/75th or 75th/25th, etc. combinations. Obviously TLS isn't necessarily a representative sample, but it was definitely surprising to see that many strong candidates still left in the game last year.

Just to add: I think you are probably right that filling their class with only strong numbers candidates would result in a less than ideal level of diversity, but I think we are well-served to accept the fact that it's quite possible, maybe even likely, that candidates with high numbers also have diverse and interesting backgrounds. Around 800 spots seems like a lot sometimes, but its also only around 800, you know?
Last edited by yankihote on Mon Mar 24, 2014 3:24 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
a.sleepyhead
Posts: 255
Joined: Mon Oct 21, 2013 1:33 pm

Re: Harvard, C/O 2017, Applicants Thread (2013-2014)

Postby a.sleepyhead » Mon Mar 24, 2014 3:23 pm

jace8819 wrote:I saw the multiple posts of paranoia about high GPA/LSAT combinations and splitters losing hope, so I thought I would offer my theory. Every law school claims, and indeed seems to live out, a dedication to "diversity." While many think of this as a simple code word for URM/LGBT/hardship applicants, there is also a pretty convincing statistical case that this is too narrow of a view of the admissions process. I believe that admissions offices want to admit applicants from of varying LSAT/GPA combinations to ensure a heterogeneous student body. Now, the lower down the scale you go, you will have more applicants competing for fewer spots, but you have to imagine how boring and uniform a class of all 3.90+/175+ applicants would be. Sure, Harvard probably has enough applicants that it could fill its entire incoming class with candidates with that profile, but that wouldn't be very diverse and their student body would suffer as a result. So, I realize its late March and pretty much all of us on TLS suffer with differing but high degrees of neurosis, but don't lose heart.


What is this convincing statistical case? I somehow don't see Harvard letting in people with 150ish LSATs for "diversity" or to keep things interesting.

User avatar
JWP1022
Posts: 269
Joined: Mon Dec 03, 2012 10:15 pm

Re: Harvard, C/O 2017, Applicants Thread (2013-2014)

Postby JWP1022 » Mon Mar 24, 2014 3:25 pm

a.sleepyhead wrote:
jace8819 wrote:I saw the multiple posts of paranoia about high GPA/LSAT combinations and splitters losing hope, so I thought I would offer my theory. Every law school claims, and indeed seems to live out, a dedication to "diversity." While many think of this as a simple code word for URM/LGBT/hardship applicants, there is also a pretty convincing statistical case that this is too narrow of a view of the admissions process. I believe that admissions offices want to admit applicants from of varying LSAT/GPA combinations to ensure a heterogeneous student body. Now, the lower down the scale you go, you will have more applicants competing for fewer spots, but you have to imagine how boring and uniform a class of all 3.90+/175+ applicants would be. Sure, Harvard probably has enough applicants that it could fill its entire incoming class with candidates with that profile, but that wouldn't be very diverse and their student body would suffer as a result. So, I realize its late March and pretty much all of us on TLS suffer with differing but high degrees of neurosis, but don't lose heart.


What is this convincing statistical case? I somehow don't see Harvard letting in people with 150ish LSATs for "diversity" or to keep things interesting.


No, but given their class size, it's not unreasonable to assume that they have more room to let in people on the margins (hopefully candidates like me!) than Stanford or Yale do.

User avatar
a.sleepyhead
Posts: 255
Joined: Mon Oct 21, 2013 1:33 pm

Re: Harvard, C/O 2017, Applicants Thread (2013-2014)

Postby a.sleepyhead » Mon Mar 24, 2014 3:27 pm

JWP1022 wrote:
a.sleepyhead wrote:
jace8819 wrote:I saw the multiple posts of paranoia about high GPA/LSAT combinations and splitters losing hope, so I thought I would offer my theory. Every law school claims, and indeed seems to live out, a dedication to "diversity." While many think of this as a simple code word for URM/LGBT/hardship applicants, there is also a pretty convincing statistical case that this is too narrow of a view of the admissions process. I believe that admissions offices want to admit applicants from of varying LSAT/GPA combinations to ensure a heterogeneous student body. Now, the lower down the scale you go, you will have more applicants competing for fewer spots, but you have to imagine how boring and uniform a class of all 3.90+/175+ applicants would be. Sure, Harvard probably has enough applicants that it could fill its entire incoming class with candidates with that profile, but that wouldn't be very diverse and their student body would suffer as a result. So, I realize its late March and pretty much all of us on TLS suffer with differing but high degrees of neurosis, but don't lose heart.


What is this convincing statistical case? I somehow don't see Harvard letting in people with 150ish LSATs for "diversity" or to keep things interesting.


No, but given their class size, it's not unreasonable to assume that they have more room to let in people on the margins (hopefully candidates like me!) than Stanford or Yale do.


Oh I totally agree, and I hope you're right for my own sake as well, but I definitely think that's more of a function of having room at the margins (as you said) than doing it for "diversity".

yankihote
Posts: 52
Joined: Thu Sep 20, 2012 3:05 pm

Re: Harvard, C/O 2017, Applicants Thread (2013-2014)

Postby yankihote » Mon Mar 24, 2014 3:28 pm

JWP1022 wrote:
a.sleepyhead wrote:
jace8819 wrote:I saw the multiple posts of paranoia about high GPA/LSAT combinations and splitters losing hope, so I thought I would offer my theory. Every law school claims, and indeed seems to live out, a dedication to "diversity." While many think of this as a simple code word for URM/LGBT/hardship applicants, there is also a pretty convincing statistical case that this is too narrow of a view of the admissions process. I believe that admissions offices want to admit applicants from of varying LSAT/GPA combinations to ensure a heterogeneous student body. Now, the lower down the scale you go, you will have more applicants competing for fewer spots, but you have to imagine how boring and uniform a class of all 3.90+/175+ applicants would be. Sure, Harvard probably has enough applicants that it could fill its entire incoming class with candidates with that profile, but that wouldn't be very diverse and their student body would suffer as a result. So, I realize its late March and pretty much all of us on TLS suffer with differing but high degrees of neurosis, but don't lose heart.


What is this convincing statistical case? I somehow don't see Harvard letting in people with 150ish LSATs for "diversity" or to keep things interesting.


No, but given their class size, it's not unreasonable to assume that they have more room to let in people on the margins (hopefully candidates like me!) than Stanford or Yale do.


Around the margins yes, but much less range across those margins than I was expecting (hoping for) as a splitter.

User avatar
JWP1022
Posts: 269
Joined: Mon Dec 03, 2012 10:15 pm

Re: Harvard, C/O 2017, Applicants Thread (2013-2014)

Postby JWP1022 » Mon Mar 24, 2014 3:28 pm

a.sleepyhead wrote:Oh I totally agree, and I hope you're right for my own sake as well, but I definitely think that's more of a function of having room at the margins (as you said) than doing it for "diversity".


I think having room on the margins gives them more leeway to build a class around a diversity of experiences versus basing it purely on numbers, so they aren't mutually exclusive.

I generally think admissions decisions are much more complicated than folks around here think. Numbers obviously play a huge role, but having unique, substantive experiences outside of your stats helps a lot more than I think many of us think it does.

sup_stan
Posts: 93
Joined: Tue Dec 10, 2013 3:08 am

Re: Harvard, C/O 2017, Applicants Thread (2013-2014)

Postby sup_stan » Mon Mar 24, 2014 3:32 pm

jace8819 wrote:I saw the multiple posts of paranoia about high GPA/LSAT combinations and splitters losing hope, so I thought I would offer my theory. Every law school claims, and indeed seems to live out, a dedication to "diversity." While many think of this as a simple code word for URM/LGBT/hardship applicants, there is also a pretty convincing statistical case that this is too narrow of a view of the admissions process. I believe that admissions offices want to admit applicants from of varying LSAT/GPA combinations to ensure a heterogeneous student body. Now, the lower down the scale you go, you will have more applicants competing for fewer spots, but you have to imagine how boring and uniform a class of all 3.90+/175+ applicants would be. Sure, Harvard probably has enough applicants that it could fill its entire incoming class with candidates with that profile, but that wouldn't be very diverse and their student body would suffer as a result. So, I realize its late March and pretty much all of us on TLS suffer with differing but high degrees of neurosis, but don't lose heart.



I believe the "diversity" you referred to was not based on LSAT/GPA combos, but on softs, such as a wide range of work experiences, making sure to include more undergrad institutions than just the ivies, making sure the class does not have too many people focused in one area (PI vs. patent vs. business, etc), etc.

There was a wave on March 29 last year as well, which included some long waiters. If today sees no action, then Friday/Thursday would be more likely.

User avatar
a.sleepyhead
Posts: 255
Joined: Mon Oct 21, 2013 1:33 pm

Re: Harvard, C/O 2017, Applicants Thread (2013-2014)

Postby a.sleepyhead » Mon Mar 24, 2014 3:35 pm

sup_stan wrote:I believe the "diversity" you referred was not based on LSAT/GPA combos, but on softs, such as a wide range of work experiences, making sure to include more undergrad institutions than just the ivies, making sure the class does not have too many people focused in one area (PI vs. patent vs. business, etc), etc.


+1, exactly what I was trying to get at

User avatar
Mack.Hambleton
Posts: 5417
Joined: Mon Jan 13, 2014 2:09 am

Re: Harvard, C/O 2017, Applicants Thread (2013-2014)

Postby Mack.Hambleton » Mon Mar 24, 2014 3:36 pm

They do admit people below median who are diverse - URMs, who show up on LSN and in the data. I would guess the only non URM diverse/interesting applicants who get accepted are those still very close to median but not a given, like say a 3.90 170.

User avatar
AFP
Posts: 91
Joined: Fri Jan 17, 2014 3:20 pm

Re: Harvard, C/O 2017, Applicants Thread (2013-2014)

Postby AFP » Mon Mar 24, 2014 3:43 pm

james.bungles wrote:They do admit people below median who are diverse - URMs, who show up on LSN and in the data. I would guess the only non URM diverse/interesting applicants who get accepted are those still very close to median but not a given, like say a 3.90 170.


Mort and Chneyo got accepted this cycle, and they're both non-URMs significantly below at least one median. Harvard has room for nontraditional non-URM applicants.

User avatar
drawstring
Posts: 1933
Joined: Tue Apr 09, 2013 4:52 pm

Re: Harvard, C/O 2017, Applicants Thread (2013-2014)

Postby drawstring » Mon Mar 24, 2014 3:56 pm

Still time for today, but if not today then maybe Friday will be the day. There was a big wave then last year and if they really do want to get decisions out by April (although I'm not sure how much truth there is to that) that would be the second to last weekday to do so.

User avatar
a.sleepyhead
Posts: 255
Joined: Mon Oct 21, 2013 1:33 pm

Re: Harvard, C/O 2017, Applicants Thread (2013-2014)

Postby a.sleepyhead » Mon Mar 24, 2014 3:59 pm

drawstring wrote:Still time for today, but if not today then maybe Friday will be the day. There was a big wave then last year and if they really do want to get decisions out by April (although I'm not sure how much truth there is to that) that would be the second to last weekday to do so.


Argh, the idea of waiting this whole week is so painful.

User avatar
fleurdelis2
Posts: 112
Joined: Sat Feb 01, 2014 1:22 pm

Re: Harvard, C/O 2017, Applicants Thread (2013-2014)

Postby fleurdelis2 » Mon Mar 24, 2014 4:04 pm

.
Last edited by fleurdelis2 on Sat Apr 12, 2014 4:06 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
kkdk
Posts: 136
Joined: Fri Jun 15, 2012 8:03 am

Re: Harvard, C/O 2017, Applicants Thread (2013-2014)

Postby kkdk » Mon Mar 24, 2014 4:10 pm

a.sleepyhead wrote:
Leo wrote:
fivestarfolds wrote:
ShrimpToastMasters wrote:AHHH. So much waiting. In one week, it will be day 100 since my JS1...

Day 61 for me

109 here


Image


lol'd.

It's been 84 years, and I can still smell the fresh ink on my statement. The resume had never been read. The scores had never been averaged. Harvard was called the School of Dreams, and it was. It really was.

User avatar
jasper09
Posts: 191
Joined: Sat Jan 18, 2014 1:03 pm

Re: Harvard, C/O 2017, Applicants Thread (2013-2014)

Postby jasper09 » Mon Mar 24, 2014 4:13 pm

Also lol'd. I'm at 39 days so this puts things in perspective and I suppose I can't actually complain.

User avatar
jace8819
Posts: 52
Joined: Wed Nov 06, 2013 6:39 pm

Re: Harvard, C/O 2017, Applicants Thread (2013-2014)

Postby jace8819 » Mon Mar 24, 2014 4:30 pm

My strong statistical case would be rooted primarily in the fact that you can look at any LSN applicant year and there is a distinctive curve showing a statistically significant number of admits at or below one median or both. LSN numbers don't come anywhere close to encompassing the entirety of the incoming class, but, based on the number of data points over the years and eschewing the obvious problem of self-reporting, we can assume this curve accurately represents the overall ratio of acceptances and extrapolate the probable percentages of at/below median applicants who will be admitted, and in so doing it becomes clear there is a minority, but still significant, number of spots reserved for incoming students without strong numerical profiles.

What I am saying is it would be overly jaded, and likely foolish, for people to write off all of these admits as URMs, engineering students, student body presidents, and ivy undergrads while then looking at the number of numerically strong candidates without decisions / on wait lists and spiral into ice-cream and chocolate-coated depressions (if their depression expresses itself as mine does at least...). Expressed potential and latent potential are not as numerically measurable as many on TLS think, nor can you capture everything you need to know about a person in a 1-2 page résumé, which is why there is an exhaustive applicant review process in place that includes interviews. That is why I am saying people shouldn't be despondent and people with strong numerical profiles shouldn't be overly confident, at institutions like Harvard Law School strong numerical applicants aren't rare and, as a result, aren't going to be valued quite as highly as they would be at lesser schools -- not that they will not still enjoy much stronger consideration, as they should by virtue of their hard work. With an acceptance rate hovering around 17%, almost no one has an absolute probability of admission, we just have relative strengths and weaknesses -- assuming they haven't already admitted 30 applicants who have accepted their seats that are just like you.

User avatar
lawschool22
Posts: 3875
Joined: Thu Jul 25, 2013 5:47 pm

Re: Harvard, C/O 2017, Applicants Thread (2013-2014)

Postby lawschool22 » Mon Mar 24, 2014 4:34 pm

fleurdelis2 wrote:past 4pm now.


I'm so glad that I have this thread to keep me apprised of what time it is. There aren't really any other devices on my computer, wrist, wall, or phone that do such a good job at this task.

:lol: FYI just having some fun. It's Monday :cry:

User avatar
MT Cicero
Posts: 574
Joined: Sun Oct 14, 2012 7:40 pm

Re: Harvard, C/O 2017, Applicants Thread (2013-2014)

Postby MT Cicero » Mon Mar 24, 2014 4:37 pm

lawschool22 wrote:
fleurdelis2 wrote:past 4pm now.


I'm so glad that I have this thread to keep me apprised of what time it is. There aren't really any other devices on my computer, wrist, wall, or phone that do such a good job at this task.

:lol: FYI just having some fun. It's Monday :cry:


Fleur's just hooking up we weird time zone folks who don't want to convert and sometimes feel that the time on our watch permeates throughout the world!

User avatar
PotenC
Posts: 241
Joined: Wed Jul 18, 2012 11:13 pm

Re: Harvard, C/O 2017, Applicants Thread (2013-2014)

Postby PotenC » Mon Mar 24, 2014 4:42 pm

Image....................... Image

dreamerchic19
Posts: 234
Joined: Fri Feb 21, 2014 4:41 pm

Re: Harvard, C/O 2017, Applicants Thread (2013-2014)

Postby dreamerchic19 » Mon Mar 24, 2014 4:48 pm

PotenC wrote:Image....................... Image


:mrgreen: hopefully NEWS will come sometime this week!




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

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google Adsense [Bot], SweetTort and 9 guests