Harvard Law c/o 2020 Applicants (2016-2017)

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

Next JS2 wave(s) will be...

Monday 3/27
2
2%
Tuesday 3/28
18
17%
Wednesday 3/29
35
33%
Thursday 3/30
13
12%
Friday 3/31
29
27%
Saturday 4/1
10
9%
 
Total votes: 107

bloomsday

Bronze
Posts: 106
Joined: Sat Apr 13, 2013 2:56 pm

.

Postby bloomsday » Wed Mar 08, 2017 9:00 pm

.
Last edited by bloomsday on Mon Jun 12, 2017 3:31 pm, edited 1 time in total.

janereacher

New
Posts: 52
Joined: Fri Dec 30, 2016 4:12 am

Re: Harvard Law c/o 2020 Applicants (2016-2017)

Postby janereacher » Wed Mar 08, 2017 9:05 pm

Mikey wrote:
LBJ's Hair wrote:Feel like this only matters if you're primarily applying to other grad programs and want to toss in HLS as a lark. Like if you're "applying to law school," you're...gonna have to take the LSAT. Because all the other schools want it. So who cares about the GRE?

Maybe I'm missing something here?

or you can be someone who just says fuck the LSAT, takes the GRE, applies only to Harvard and gets in


Raising my hand here! And, it's not because I'm obsessed with Harvard. It's just that having taken both tests (dual degree applicant), I am not at all a believer in the LSAT as being a superior assessment of readiness for law school. While I found the GRE "easier," that was mainly because I felt that it measured my mastery of specific skills while the LSAT is far more about mastery of the exam. So, Harvard doing this (and perhaps setting a new trend) raises them in my estimation even if their motives aren't completely pure.

User avatar
R. Jeeves

Gold
Posts: 1980
Joined: Tue May 14, 2013 7:54 pm

Re: Harvard Law c/o 2020 Applicants (2016-2017)

Postby R. Jeeves » Wed Mar 08, 2017 9:05 pm

bloomsday wrote:
R. Jeeves wrote:
goldenbear2020 wrote:
R. Jeeves wrote:what do ppl mean by the gre is easier/harder than the lsat? like its easier/harder to get a X percentile on the gre than it is to get X percentile on the LSAT?

It's much less time pressure (less of the "training for a marathon" aspect of LSAT prep), so anyone with a good grasp of reading comprehension and test taking skills (e.g., SAT) can brush up on vocab and math and get top 1-2%.

but the actual content and format of the test shouldnt mean anything here if we're talking about percentiles right? you can only compare the pools of test takers to say anything about one being easier or harder. if a much greater proportion of GRE takers are dumbs as compared to LSAT takers, then yeah you could say the LSAT is harder because it would be more difficult for you to be get a 99%tile score when the pool of test takers is smarter.

now if someone is going to point out that they test different skills and therefore you cant really compare the two in terms of difficulty, then ok thats valid. but also a different debate.


But the target audiences of the two tests are very different, so the percentiles shouldn't be exactly comparable. LSAT matters a whole fucking lot for law school admissions, so (some/many) people study accordingly. For the vast vast majority of programs requiring the GRE, the exact score doesn't matter so much, as long as you pass a certain threshold to demonstrate general competence. I don't know anyone who studied seriously for the GRE (just the subject tests), while I know plenty of people who did for the LSAT.

I think it is a lot easier to get 99%ile on the GRE than it is on the LSAT, maybe for the above reason. Purely anecdotally, the mean LSAT score from students my elite undergrad was ~168 (~96%ile, and everyone I know studied), while everyone I knew taking the GRE was getting 98/99%ile scores without studying.


ok so then we are comparing the pools of test takers. but in terms of the effort that's put in as opposed to dumb/smart

eta: im assuming HLS is going to shoot for the same median %tile for its GRE admits as it is for its LSAT admits

addie1412

Silver
Posts: 559
Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2016 7:43 pm

Re: Harvard Law c/o 2020 Applicants (2016-2017)

Postby addie1412 » Wed Mar 08, 2017 10:58 pm

Couldn't be happier I chose to apply this cycle instead of taking another year off

MagnumLifeStyle

Bronze
Posts: 110
Joined: Sat Mar 13, 2010 9:53 pm

Re: Harvard Law c/o 2020 Applicants (2016-2017)

Postby MagnumLifeStyle » Wed Mar 08, 2017 11:08 pm

.
Last edited by MagnumLifeStyle on Wed Mar 08, 2017 11:15 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Rigo

Diamond
Posts: 16642
Joined: Sun Jul 06, 2014 3:19 pm

Re: Harvard Law c/o 2020 Applicants (2016-2017)

Postby Rigo » Wed Mar 08, 2017 11:16 pm

I wonder how the reporting for rankings purposes will work now.

User avatar
appind

Gold
Posts: 2258
Joined: Mon Nov 12, 2012 3:07 am

Re: Harvard Law c/o 2020 Applicants (2016-2017)

Postby appind » Wed Mar 08, 2017 11:35 pm

KateMcKitten wrote:
goldenbear2020 wrote:
R. Jeeves wrote:what do ppl mean by the gre is easier/harder than the lsat? like its easier/harder to get a X percentile on the gre than it is to get X percentile on the LSAT?

It's much less time pressure (less of the "training for a marathon" aspect of LSAT prep), so anyone with a good grasp of reading comprehension and test taking skills (e.g., SAT) can brush up on vocab and math and get top 1-2%.

+170 (the GRE max)


have taken both GRE and LSAT and can attest that GRE is a joke compared to LSAT. The only issue that I think some people might find a little difficult about GRE is the quant portion, but the quant in GRE is of the most basic kind and with a little prep most people should be able to sail through. the same can't be said about LSAT.

User avatar
dwall1121

New
Posts: 96
Joined: Wed Jan 18, 2017 12:55 am

Re: Harvard Law c/o 2020 Applicants (2016-2017)

Postby dwall1121 » Wed Mar 08, 2017 11:37 pm

Whoever had the magic powers of quoting themselves in order to get a JS1/JS2 wave going (can't remember which it was) can you pull that shit again? I can't take this wait any longer!!!!

User avatar
appind

Gold
Posts: 2258
Joined: Mon Nov 12, 2012 3:07 am

Re: Harvard Law c/o 2020 Applicants (2016-2017)

Postby appind » Wed Mar 08, 2017 11:44 pm

bloomsday wrote:
R. Jeeves wrote:
goldenbear2020 wrote:
R. Jeeves wrote:what do ppl mean by the gre is easier/harder than the lsat? like its easier/harder to get a X percentile on the gre than it is to get X percentile on the LSAT?

It's much less time pressure (less of the "training for a marathon" aspect of LSAT prep), so anyone with a good grasp of reading comprehension and test taking skills (e.g., SAT) can brush up on vocab and math and get top 1-2%.

but the actual content and format of the test shouldnt mean anything here if we're talking about percentiles right? you can only compare the pools of test takers to say anything about one being easier or harder. if a much greater proportion of GRE takers are dumbs as compared to LSAT takers, then yeah you could say the LSAT is harder because it would be more difficult for you to be get a 99%tile score when the pool of test takers is smarter.

now if someone is going to point out that they test different skills and therefore you cant really compare the two in terms of difficulty, then ok thats valid. but also a different debate.


But the target audiences of the two tests are very different, so the percentiles shouldn't be exactly comparable. LSAT matters a whole fucking lot for law school admissions, so (some/many) people study accordingly. For the vast vast majority of programs requiring the GRE, the exact score doesn't matter so much, as long as you pass a certain threshold to demonstrate general competence. I don't know anyone who studied seriously for the GRE (just the subject tests), while I know plenty of people who did for the LSAT.

I think it is a lot easier to get 99%ile on the GRE than it is on the LSAT, maybe for the above reason. Purely anecdotally, the mean LSAT score from students my elite undergrad was ~168 (~96%ile, and everyone I know studied), while everyone I knew taking the GRE was getting 98/99%ile scores without studying.


i really don't get how HLS is going to use GRE to evaluate what it evaluates in an applicant through his or her LSAT score. LSAT is much much harder test of english comprehension ability overall. GRE doesn't test for any of the very subtle issues that LSAT tests for. HLS and LSs in general have always used LSAT score so heavily in their admission criteria under the implicit assumption that it helps them judge one's potential ability as a lawyer. GRE doesn't test for any of that.

also, GRE is scored in a way that doesn't allow much differentiation at the top of the scoring range. in other words, 99% belongs to only to the perfect score and only a few points less than perfect score, whereas 8 point range in LSAT (172 -180) is 99%.

User avatar
Sarastro

Bronze
Posts: 389
Joined: Tue Jun 14, 2016 3:25 pm

Re: Harvard Law c/o 2020 Applicants (2016-2017)

Postby Sarastro » Wed Mar 08, 2017 11:47 pm

R. Jeeves wrote:
Sarastro wrote:As a STEM kid, I don't really get how accepting GRE's will alleviate the financial burden for anyone. Like, "Oh, cool, I save the $500 I spent on taking the LSAT. Now tell me again where I sign for my $250,000 in loans?"

well the point in time at which youre getting financially shafted matters. I could see a situation in which in which someone cant come up with the money to prep for and take the LSAT (not like you can get a loan for it) but is ok taking a 6 fig loan at hls knowing that theyll be financially secure on the other side. that being said my cynical suspicion is that this isnt really about financial burden, but at least it works as an ostensible reason.

although I was a STEMer who was on the fence between going to LS and STEM grad school and was going to take both the GRE and the LSAT so i can kind of see the "we want to recruit more stem kids" argument being a legit thing here maybe.

I get that. And I don't know if I really want to put myself in the position to have to argue that the LSAT is a better gauge of law school success than the GRE or text X is. I just think if they really were interested in alleviating the financial burdens of law school, they could maybe divert some of that endowment towards incoming students or do any of 100 other things than simply accepting a different $500 test. Perhaps I'm underestimating the number of people that have taken the GRE and would apply to HLS, but the extra $500 and exam prep are the deal breaker, but it seems like if taking the LSAT would really make it not worth applying, you probably weren't that committed to the idea in the first place? But maybe I'm projecting a bit too much- clearly I'm not the target of this new policy.

User avatar
ood's_brother

Bronze
Posts: 111
Joined: Mon Feb 13, 2017 1:23 pm

Re: Harvard Law c/o 2020 Applicants (2016-2017)

Postby ood's_brother » Thu Mar 09, 2017 12:11 am

Who cares about all these GRE shit. So long as we all jump the sinking ship that is LS admissions, IDGAF. JS2s for everyone!!!!!!!

User avatar
dwall1121

New
Posts: 96
Joined: Wed Jan 18, 2017 12:55 am

Re: Harvard Law c/o 2020 Applicants (2016-2017)

Postby dwall1121 » Thu Mar 09, 2017 12:13 am

ood's_brother wrote:Who cares about all these GRE shit. So long as we all jump the sinking ship that is LS admissions, IDGAF. JS2s for everyone!!!!!!!


+1

User avatar
calpolisci2016

Bronze
Posts: 391
Joined: Mon Apr 04, 2016 1:42 am

Re: Harvard Law c/o 2020 Applicants (2016-2017)

Postby calpolisci2016 » Thu Mar 09, 2017 1:39 am

Can anyone confirm whether there are any js1 interviews scheduled for march 9 and 10?

curry1

Silver
Posts: 877
Joined: Fri May 15, 2015 11:41 am

Re: Harvard Law c/o 2020 Applicants (2016-2017)

Postby curry1 » Thu Mar 09, 2017 2:09 am

calpolisci2016 wrote:Can anyone confirm whether there are any js1 interviews scheduled for march 9 and 10?


yes on 3/9, no interviews on the 10th

User avatar
taxman14

Bronze
Posts: 499
Joined: Sun Mar 08, 2015 8:04 pm

Re: Harvard Law c/o 2020 Applicants (2016-2017)

Postby taxman14 » Thu Mar 09, 2017 7:40 am

Thoughts on JS2 possibilities today?

User avatar
R. Jeeves

Gold
Posts: 1980
Joined: Tue May 14, 2013 7:54 pm

Re: Harvard Law c/o 2020 Applicants (2016-2017)

Postby R. Jeeves » Thu Mar 09, 2017 8:11 am

Sarastro wrote:
R. Jeeves wrote:
Sarastro wrote:As a STEM kid, I don't really get how accepting GRE's will alleviate the financial burden for anyone. Like, "Oh, cool, I save the $500 I spent on taking the LSAT. Now tell me again where I sign for my $250,000 in loans?"

well the point in time at which youre getting financially shafted matters. I could see a situation in which in which someone cant come up with the money to prep for and take the LSAT (not like you can get a loan for it) but is ok taking a 6 fig loan at hls knowing that theyll be financially secure on the other side. that being said my cynical suspicion is that this isnt really about financial burden, but at least it works as an ostensible reason.

although I was a STEMer who was on the fence between going to LS and STEM grad school and was going to take both the GRE and the LSAT so i can kind of see the "we want to recruit more stem kids" argument being a legit thing here maybe.

I get that. And I don't know if I really want to put myself in the position to have to argue that the LSAT is a better gauge of law school success than the GRE or text X is.

tbh it proabably is

I just think if they really were interested in alleviating the financial burdens of law school, they could maybe divert some of that endowment towards incoming students or do any of 100 other things than simply accepting a different $500 test.


i think the goal* is only to remove financial barriers. they dont really care about your post LS debt load as long as its at least barely affordable for everyone - which with LIPP and need based grants and the career prospects it probably is

Perhaps I'm underestimating the number of people that have taken the GRE and would apply to HLS, but the extra $500 and exam prep are the deal breaker, but it seems like if taking the LSAT would really make it not worth applying, you probably weren't that committed to the idea in the first place? But maybe I'm projecting a bit too much- clearly I'm not the target of this new policy.


yeah it might bring in more apps from people who are on the fence and i dont know if thats desirable

*idk what the real goal is

pragmaticpoet

New
Posts: 70
Joined: Thu Mar 09, 2017 6:46 am

Re: Harvard Law c/o 2020 Applicants (2016-2017)

Postby pragmaticpoet » Thu Mar 09, 2017 8:50 am

taxman14 wrote:Thoughts on JS2 possibilities today?



Really hoping for it

Is there any chance of someone with a JS1 done on 2/23 hearing back in this wave or no?

User avatar
chasima

Bronze
Posts: 238
Joined: Sat May 09, 2015 11:03 pm

Re: Harvard Law c/o 2020 Applicants (2016-2017)

Postby chasima » Thu Mar 09, 2017 8:55 am

ood's_brother wrote:Who cares about all these GRE shit. So long as we all jump the sinking ship that is LS admissions, IDGAF. JS2s for everyone!!!!!!!


I feel you. :?

User avatar
R. Jeeves

Gold
Posts: 1980
Joined: Tue May 14, 2013 7:54 pm

Re: Harvard Law c/o 2020 Applicants (2016-2017)

Postby R. Jeeves » Thu Mar 09, 2017 9:17 am

appind wrote:also, GRE is scored in a way that doesn't allow much differentiation at the top of the scoring range. in other words, 99% belongs to only to the perfect score and only a few points less than perfect score, whereas 8 point range in LSAT (172 -180) is 99%.

ah ok this could make it a bit weird then

User avatar
hellohalo

Silver
Posts: 516
Joined: Fri Jun 17, 2016 3:53 pm

Re: Harvard Law c/o 2020 Applicants (2016-2017)

Postby hellohalo » Thu Mar 09, 2017 9:53 am

And ABA is cool with GRE?

anonperson2017

New
Posts: 77
Joined: Mon Jan 23, 2017 9:05 pm

Re: Harvard Law c/o 2020 Applicants (2016-2017)

Postby anonperson2017 » Thu Mar 09, 2017 10:23 am

If anything, I think this will help Harvard be more holistically selective and move more towards a black box approach. HLS' larger class size has always made them more numbers targeted than Y/S, and drops in the number of high test scorers hurt them more than Y/S, so alleviating part of the LSAT-focused burden gives them more flexibility to not just chase high LSATs.

anonperson2017

New
Posts: 77
Joined: Mon Jan 23, 2017 9:05 pm

Re: Harvard Law c/o 2020 Applicants (2016-2017)

Postby anonperson2017 » Thu Mar 09, 2017 10:30 am

.
Last edited by anonperson2017 on Thu Mar 09, 2017 5:43 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
R. Jeeves

Gold
Posts: 1980
Joined: Tue May 14, 2013 7:54 pm

Re: Harvard Law c/o 2020 Applicants (2016-2017)

Postby R. Jeeves » Thu Mar 09, 2017 10:37 am

anonperson2017 wrote:If anything, I think this will help Harvard be more holistically selective and move more towards a black box approach. HLS' larger class size has always made them more numbers targeted than Y/S, and drops in the number of high test scorers hurt them more than Y/S, so alleviating part of the LSAT-focused burden gives them more flexibility to not just chase high LSATs.

I think that this is actually what theyre trying to do.

I would believe that it's a cheap ploy to raise/ hold medians and keep the acceptance rate low, but Im not that convinced that HLS is really that worried about falling in the rankings and losing their ~prestige~.

Pozzo

Gold
Posts: 1907
Joined: Mon Sep 28, 2015 3:36 pm

Re: Harvard Law c/o 2020 Applicants (2016-2017)

Postby Pozzo » Thu Mar 09, 2017 10:47 am

dwall1121 wrote:Whoever had the magic powers of quoting themselves in order to get a JS1/JS2 wave going (can't remember which it was) can you pull that shit again? I can't take this wait any longer!!!!

Sure thing.

Alright H, let's do this.

enitar

New
Posts: 14
Joined: Thu Jan 05, 2017 1:17 pm

Re: Harvard Law c/o 2020 Applicants (2016-2017)

Postby enitar » Thu Mar 09, 2017 10:56 am

Pozzo wrote:
dwall1121 wrote:Whoever had the magic powers of quoting themselves in order to get a JS1/JS2 wave going (can't remember which it was) can you pull that shit again? I can't take this wait any longer!!!!

Sure thing.

Alright H, let's do this.

lets do it!!



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

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 9 guests