Peter North wrote:soonergirl wrote:Peter North wrote:Of course, anything can happen. This is also JR's first-term as Dean...
This is also, by most accounts, the most competitive applicant pool in the history of law school admissions. Honestly, assuming you're not just some fictitious internet persona invented for strictly rhetorical purposes, if you're admitted with those numbers in this economy you'll inspire reachers for generations.
If I was some fictitious internet personality (aka. troll/flame/whatever), then I must be a dedicated troll given that I have been posting exclusively in the HLS/YLS threads and participating in meaningful discussions (and *gasp* even asking questions!), for the past few months now since the beginning of this cycle. Pssss.... I enjoy the troll-esque posts, but I usually post them in the Social Networking and Admissions forum, just to create some excitement and fanfare for shits & giggles, just to lighten up an already vapid, tense and hostile atmosphere around. My posts in the HLS/YLS threads are 99.99% of a serious nature.
In regards to your point about the economy and my "low-numbers", it's actually quite the contrary. If anything, it'll be the opposite. As I have noted earlier today few pages down in the endowment chatter, if anything, when it comes to borderline yet promising applicants, HLS will seek to admit those who have a serious possibility of being gainfully employed. A good chunk of the HLS 3L class doesn't have any jobs lined up, and clerkships/big law have dried up. The fact that any school (especially top ones like HLS/YLS) can successfully place their alumnis in the judicial realm, in academia or in the corporate sector, itself is something adcoms do take in to account in diversifying the incoming class. Especially for non-trads with relevant work experience.
If it was purely a numbers game, HLS/YLS would've humoured me with a courtesy wait, and would've dinged me months ago. So let's see where things go. Good luck to everyone in anticipation!
I would still vote you reach of the yr; i mean if your LSAT were 166, all else being equal, id say your argument would hold some merit. 161 just makes it a bit of a stretch imo. i could be wrong of course haha; in fact, feel free to prove me wrong!