HLS Admissions for College Juniors: Game Changer? Forum

[PRgradBYU]

The death of K-JD starts now

I sure hope so. There's nothing worse than kids who have lots of opinions but no experience to substantiate them.

[toothbrush]

The death of K-JD starts now

I sure hope so. There's nothing worse than K-JDs who have lots of opinions but no experience to substantiate them.

How about people with WE who think they're better than everyone else because of what they did in the past ?

[PRgradBYU]

The death of K-JD starts now

I sure hope so. There's nothing worse than K-JDs who have lots of opinions but no experience to substantiate them.

How about people with WE who think they're better than everyone else because of what they did in the past ?

How about a middle ground?

[sinfiery]

WE before a professional degree is a flame

/basically k-jd

[txdude45]

They should make a program like this for TTT schools. 3+1+?

You go to their crap school for 3 years. If you don't get a JD req. job within a year, the school must employ you at the median faculty salary until you do get a JD job.

[20141023]

.

[toothbrush]

Well... At least the University of Michigan was ahead of Harvard in this whole TTT business.

Even UChicago beat Harvard to the punch.

Gulc has a program too for their ug's. I think they don't have to take the lsat too.

[Blessedassurance]

Total TTT move.

Mean, but true. I will resort to euphemism here and say that this move is not one HLS is making from a position of strength.

Anyway, H knows it is losing the talent battle (or at least they aren't winning as much as they would like) to Y and maybe S, so it makes sense for them to try to fight the battle earlier when the information asymmetry is greater--a college junior won't know as much about where they might be able to go as a college senior would. Could work...for a period of time, but then once Y and S start doing the same thing the party is over.

s actually loses the cross-admit battle overwhelmingly. the s love is a tls thing. last time i checked, around 40% of s admits enroll.

edit: last year it was still in the 40's but closer to 50 percent.

[tirakon]

Total TTT move.

Mean, but true. I will resort to euphemism here and say that this move is not one HLS is making from a position of strength.

Anyway, H knows it is losing the talent battle (or at least they aren't winning as much as they would like) to Y and maybe S, so it makes sense for them to try to fight the battle earlier when the information asymmetry is greater--a college junior won't know as much about where they might be able to go as a college senior would. Could work...for a period of time, but then once Y and S start doing the same thing the party is over.

s actually loses the cross-admit battle overwhelmingly. the s love is a tls thing. last time i checked, around 40% of s admits enroll.

edit: last year it was still in the 40's but closer to 50 percent.

It has already been demonstrated on TLS that Harvard and Stanford split cross-admits.

Imagine that the schools are much smaller. 55 students attend H from 80 admits; 20 students attend S from 45 admits; and 25 students attend Y from, let's say for the sake of convenience, 25 admits - a 100% yield.

Y is very hard to get in to. So let's assume, again contrary to fact, that everyone who gets in to Y gets in to S and H as well.

We see from this that H and S have actually lost exactly the same admits. H has a much higher yield rate, but its yield rate is identical to S's among non-Y admits.

Now, these are fake numbers, but it's almost certain that a phenomenon like this obtains in the actual stats.

[Blessedassurance]

Total TTT move.

Mean, but true. I will resort to euphemism here and say that this move is not one HLS is making from a position of strength.

Anyway, H knows it is losing the talent battle (or at least they aren't winning as much as they would like) to Y and maybe S, so it makes sense for them to try to fight the battle earlier when the information asymmetry is greater--a college junior won't know as much about where they might be able to go as a college senior would. Could work...for a period of time, but then once Y and S start doing the same thing the party is over.

s actually loses the cross-admit battle overwhelmingly. the s love is a tls thing. last time i checked, around 40% of s admits enroll.

edit: last year it was still in the 40's but closer to 50 percent.

It has already been demonstrated on TLS that Harvard and Stanford split cross-admits.

Imagine that the schools are much smaller. 55 students attend H from 80 admits; 20 students attend S from 45 admits; and 25 students attend Y from, let's say for the sake of convenience, 25 admits - a 100% yield.

Y is very hard to get in to. So let's assume, again contrary to fact, that everyone who gets in to Y gets in to S and H as well.

We see from this that H and S have actually lost exactly the same admits. H has a much higher yield rate, but its yield rate is identical to S's among non-Y admits.

Now, these are fake numbers, but it's almost certain that a phenomenon like this obtains in the actual stats.

i don't understand why you think quoting someone else's opinion on tls is a demonstration of anything. the whole thing you quoted is a stupid hypothetical. i really don't understand you. can you please explain what you're trying to say in a clearer fashion? Try to think it through a little bit more. if you have to quote another poster's hypothetical opinion as a "demonstration" of truth, it's usually not a good sign.

ps: also, be mindful of the irony of the hypothetical trying to rely on "absolute" numbers when s relies on its small number and "per capita" literally everywhere else because harvard beats it by at least a 2 to 1 margin.

ps 2: why didn't the poster you're quoting use the actual figures to try to explain his point?

ps3: also be mindful of the silly number of assumptions inherent in the guy you're quoting's little gardening experiment.

[Elston Gunn]

I think the idea is that you can't just look at the matriculation rate to determine how they do with cross-admits. I'm not going to look up the numbers, but I assume H accepts about 800, S about 450 and Y about 250. Even if you assume that there are zero cross-admits between Y and S, and that everyone who got into Y or S got into H, H still has 100 admits that didn't get into Y or S. Of course the number is probably much higher--I'd guess there's probably at least 300 H admits that didn't get Y or S. Those 300 are probably very likely to choose H, bumping up it's overall matriculation rate. That said, Stanford probably has a sizeable group of students that didn't get H (their medians after all are lower), possibly as large as a percentage, so I'm not sure it's obvious that the analysis favors Stanford that much. Anyway, the point is, the matriculation rate doesn't prove who wins the cross-admits.

[BelugaWhale]

I think it's important to factor in that HLS also loses the invisible cross-admit battle, at least on paper.

I know A LOT of people here who had extraordinary numbers and would have been competitive for SLS or YLS but absolutely hated the Yale theme and so didn't even bother applying.

Simply put, I think a substantial number of people don't even bother applying to Yale or SLS because they are so focused on HLS, and this affects the calculus because it doesn't the hurt SLS or YLS's admission rate.

On the otherhand, those who really want to go to SLS or YLS know they have to apply to HLS as well, so when they do get into YLS, they ditch HLS. So this hurts HLS's admission rate.

[Elston Gunn]

I think it's important to factor in that HLS also loses the invisible cross-admit battle, at least on paper.

I know A LOT of people here who had extraordinary numbers and would have been competitive for SLS or YLS but absolutely hated the Yale theme and so didn't even bother applying.

Simply put, I think a substantial number of people don't even bother applying to Yale or SLS because they are so focused on HLS, and this affects the calculus because it doesn't the hurt SLS or YLS's admission rate.

On the otherhand, those who really want to go to SLS or YLS know they have to apply to HLS as well, so when they do get into YLS, they ditch HLS. So this hurts HLS's admission rate.

I know I wrote a decently long thing above, but I think it's important to factor in that none of this really matters to anyone except maybe the admissions officers/deans of these schools.

[tirakon]

i don't understand why you think quoting someone else's opinion on tls is a demonstration of anything. the whole thing you quoted is a stupid hypothetical. i really don't understand you. can you please explain what you're trying to say in a clearer fashion? Try to think it through a little bit more. if you have to quote another poster's hypothetical opinion as a "demonstration" of truth, it's usually not a good sign.

ps: also, be mindful of the irony of the hypothetical trying to rely on "absolute" numbers when s relies on its small number and "per capita" literally everywhere else because harvard beats it by at least a 2 to 1 margin.

ps 2: why didn't the poster you're quoting use the actual figures to try to explain his point?

ps3: also be mindful of the silly number of assumptions inherent in the guy you're quoting's little gardening experiment.

Just trying to give credit to work someone else took the time to do.

The point is that Harvard will always look like it has a higher yield than Stanford, because more than half of its admits were not accepted at Yale and Stanford.

To recap: Harvard yields 550 out of 850, Stanford yields 180 out of 400, Yale yields 200 out of 250.

I'm going to create a model based on several assumption. I know these assumptions are either exaggerations of the truth or definitely not true. But this model will show why Harvard has a huge built-in buffer to their yield that belies how it performs in cross-admit battles with Yale and Stanford.

I want to create a model where Harvard loses every single cross-admit battle with Yale and Stanford.

Let's assume:

1. There are only 3 schools: Yale, Harvard, and Stanford.
2. These schools are competing for a pool of 850 students.
3. All 850 accepted students are accepted at Harvard. 400 out of the 850 students are accepted at Stanford and Harvard. 250 of these students are accepted at Yale, Stanford, and Harvard.
4.Yale has a 100% yield.
5. Among those who do not get in to Yale, Stanford has a 100% yield.


In this scenario:

250 out of 250 go to Yale. Yale's yield equals 100%.

150 out of 400 go to Stanford. Stanford's yield is 37.5%.

450 out of 850 go to Harvard. Harvard's yield is 53%.

Obviously, Harvard does not lose every single cross-admit battle with Stanford and Yale. But this model demonstrates the huge built-in advantage Harvard has by virtue of the fact that a very significant number of its accepted students were not accepted at Stanford or Yale.

Even if Stanford and Yale had no cross admits with each other (400+250), that would still leave 200 students accepted to Harvard that have no better option.

[Dr. Dre]

WE before a professional degree is a flame

/basically k-jd

[Blessedassurance]

Just trying to give credit to work someone else took the time to do.

The point is that Harvard will always look like it has a higher yield than Stanford, because more than half of its admits were not accepted at Yale and Stanford.

To recap: Harvard yields 550 out of 850, Stanford yields 180 out of 400, Yale yields 200 out of 250.

I'm going to create a model based on several assumption. I know these assumptions are either exaggerations of the truth or definitely not true. But this model will show why Harvard has a huge built-in buffer to their yield that belies how it performs in cross-admit battles with Yale and Stanford.

I want to create a model where Harvard loses every single cross-admit battle with Yale and Stanford.

Let's assume:

1. There are only 3 schools: Yale, Harvard, and Stanford.
2. These schools are competing for a pool of 850 students.
3. All 850 accepted students are accepted at Harvard. 400 out of the 850 students are accepted at Stanford and Harvard. 250 of these students are accepted at Yale, Stanford, and Harvard.
4.Yale has a 100% yield.
5. Among those who do not get in to Yale, Stanford has a 100% yield.


In this scenario:

250 out of 250 go to Yale. Yale's yield equals 100%.

150 out of 400 go to Stanford. Stanford's yield is 37.5%.

450 out of 850 go to Harvard. Harvard's yield is 53%.

Obviously, Harvard does not lose every single cross-admit battle with Stanford and Yale. But this model demonstrates the huge built-in advantage Harvard has by virtue of the fact that a very significant number of its accepted students were not accepted at Stanford or Yale.

Even if Stanford and Yale had no cross admits with each other (400+250), that would still leave 200 students accepted to Harvard that have no better option.

the thing is, the whole model is based on conjecture. with an imaginative assumption underlying a hypothesis, you can argue anything and nothing.

people like to wax poetic on how stanford is harder to get into than HLS but that depends on one's definition of "hard." it is "hard" in the sense that berkeley is "harder" compared to its peers and schools way ahead of berkeley (see e.g., berkeley v. nyu). that is merely a function of "arbitrariness" in its process. the "hardness" is more accurately described as "arbitrariness" or better, a "black box" because it's not particularly "hard" (in the sense of what most people imagine when talking about "hardness" of getting into a school) but because they rely on measures besides numbers which are themselves fraught with problems.

stanford has the lowest medians of the three mind you. a candidate with inferior numbers' best chance at getting into hys is stanford by conjuring some went-to-africa-for-two-weeks-and-discovered-inalienable-truths bullshit. hell, the urms hys admit are (with certain exceptions, i admit) are overwhelmingly whitewashed as fuck. the whole thing is a facade.

[AllTheLawz]

This is to encourage work experience more than anything. School wants to move to a Northwestern/B-school model where pretty much everyone has work experience. EIP results this year showed people without Work experience were at a significant disadvantage even compared to those with worse grades.

[Dr. Dre]

School wants to move to a Northwestern/B-school model

yuck

[toothbrush]

This is to encourage work experience more than anything. School wants to move to a Northwestern/B-school model where pretty much everyone has work experience. EIP results this year showed people without Work experience were at a significant disadvantage even compared to those with worse grades.

Do you have data to back that up? Significant, really? I was under the impression that all P at HLS with no WE still landed you a big law job.

[Blessedassurance]

This is to encourage work experience more than anything. School wants to move to a Northwestern/B-school model where pretty much everyone has work experience. EIP results this year showed people without Work experience were at a significant disadvantage even compared to those with worse grades.

Do you have data to back that up? Significant, really? I was under the impression that all P at HLS with no WE still landed you a big law job.

the eip process at hls can be pretty random. there are straight p non-urm students without work experience who end up at v5's (see the last couple of pages here: http://www.top-law-schools.com/forums/v ... 1&start=25).

[Dr. Dre]

what about URM's (think AA) without WE?

[AllTheLawz]

This is to encourage work experience more than anything. School wants to move to a Northwestern/B-school model where pretty much everyone has work experience. EIP results this year showed people without Work experience were at a significant disadvantage even compared to those with worse grades.

Do you have data to back that up? Significant, really? I was under the impression that all P at HLS with no WE still landed you a big law job.

It isn't the type of thing the school releases data on. I just know from experience. All Ps with no work experience CAN land you big law but its no guarantee. If you don't have fairly strong interview skills you are at risk of striking out (and this is true at all of HYS). I know of people striking out at all of HYS. Grades alone won't drop you out of the biglaw running but if you don't have decent grades AND you have nothing else going for you, you might be in trouble.

what about URM's (think AA) without WE?

URMs at HYS strike out too.

[tirakon]

Just trying to give credit to work someone else took the time to do.

The point is that Harvard will always look like it has a higher yield than Stanford, because more than half of its admits were not accepted at Yale and Stanford.

To recap: Harvard yields 550 out of 850, Stanford yields 180 out of 400, Yale yields 200 out of 250.

I'm going to create a model based on several assumption. I know these assumptions are either exaggerations of the truth or definitely not true. But this model will show why Harvard has a huge built-in buffer to their yield that belies how it performs in cross-admit battles with Yale and Stanford.

I want to create a model where Harvard loses every single cross-admit battle with Yale and Stanford.

Let's assume:

1. There are only 3 schools: Yale, Harvard, and Stanford.
2. These schools are competing for a pool of 850 students.
3. All 850 accepted students are accepted at Harvard. 400 out of the 850 students are accepted at Stanford and Harvard. 250 of these students are accepted at Yale, Stanford, and Harvard.
4.Yale has a 100% yield.
5. Among those who do not get in to Yale, Stanford has a 100% yield.


In this scenario:

250 out of 250 go to Yale. Yale's yield equals 100%.

150 out of 400 go to Stanford. Stanford's yield is 37.5%.

450 out of 850 go to Harvard. Harvard's yield is 53%.

Obviously, Harvard does not lose every single cross-admit battle with Stanford and Yale. But this model demonstrates the huge built-in advantage Harvard has by virtue of the fact that a very significant number of its accepted students were not accepted at Stanford or Yale.

Even if Stanford and Yale had no cross admits with each other (400+250), that would still leave 200 students accepted to Harvard that have no better option.

the thing is, the whole model is based on conjecture. with an imaginative assumption underlying a hypothesis, you can argue anything and nothing.

people like to wax poetic on how stanford is harder to get into than HLS but that depends on one's definition of "hard." it is "hard" in the sense that berkeley is "harder" compared to its peers and schools way ahead of berkeley (see e.g., berkeley v. nyu). that is merely a function of "arbitrariness" in its process. the "hardness" is more accurately described as "arbitrariness" or better, a "black box" because it's not particularly "hard" (in the sense of what most people imagine when talking about "hardness" of getting into a school) but because they rely on measures besides numbers which are themselves fraught with problems.

stanford has the lowest medians of the three mind you. a candidate with inferior numbers' best chance at getting into hys is stanford by conjuring some went-to-africa-for-two-weeks-and-discovered-inalienable-truths bullshit. hell, the urms hys admit are (with certain exceptions, i admit) are overwhelmingly whitewashed as fuck. the whole thing is a facade.

I realize the model is built on arbitrary assumptions, but I think that on the whole the model still is indicative of something that is true: that Harvard's yield has a built-in advantage.

If it's so easy to conjecture a model of whatever you want, I invite you to create a model where Harvard doesn't have a huge advantage in overall yield because of its non cross-admitted accepted students.

Also, I never suggested it was harder to get into Stanford than Harvard, nor did anyone else in this thread as far as I can tell. I only said that Harvard and Stanford's respective overall yields are completely unreflective of how they performs in cross-admit battles. You are creating a straw man argument.

[Blessedassurance]

This is to encourage work experience more than anything. School wants to move to a Northwestern/B-school model where pretty much everyone has work experience. EIP results this year showed people without Work experience were at a significant disadvantage even compared to those with worse grades.

Do you have data to back that up? Significant, really? I was under the impression that all P at HLS with no WE still landed you a big law job.

It isn't the type of thing the school releases data on. I just know from experience. All Ps with no work experience CAN land you big law but its no guarantee. If you don't have fairly strong interview skills you are at risk of striking out (and this is true at all of HYS). I know of people striking out at all of HYS. Grades alone won't drop you out of the biglaw running but if you don't have decent grades AND you have nothing else going for you, you might be in trouble.

what about URM's (think AA) without WE?

URMs at HYS strike out too.

AA? I find that hard to believe (not urm as a whole but specifically AA, especially AA males). yeah, that's not happening (re: AA males) but if you have anecdotes, please share.

[Elston Gunn]

Just trying to give credit to work someone else took the time to do.

The point is that Harvard will always look like it has a higher yield than Stanford, because more than half of its admits were not accepted at Yale and Stanford.

To recap: Harvard yields 550 out of 850, Stanford yields 180 out of 400, Yale yields 200 out of 250.

I'm going to create a model based on several assumption. I know these assumptions are either exaggerations of the truth or definitely not true. But this model will show why Harvard has a huge built-in buffer to their yield that belies how it performs in cross-admit battles with Yale and Stanford.

I want to create a model where Harvard loses every single cross-admit battle with Yale and Stanford.

Let's assume:

1. There are only 3 schools: Yale, Harvard, and Stanford.
2. These schools are competing for a pool of 850 students.
3. All 850 accepted students are accepted at Harvard. 400 out of the 850 students are accepted at Stanford and Harvard. 250 of these students are accepted at Yale, Stanford, and Harvard.
4.Yale has a 100% yield.
5. Among those who do not get in to Yale, Stanford has a 100% yield.


In this scenario:

250 out of 250 go to Yale. Yale's yield equals 100%.

150 out of 400 go to Stanford. Stanford's yield is 37.5%.

450 out of 850 go to Harvard. Harvard's yield is 53%.

Obviously, Harvard does not lose every single cross-admit battle with Stanford and Yale. But this model demonstrates the huge built-in advantage Harvard has by virtue of the fact that a very significant number of its accepted students were not accepted at Stanford or Yale.

Even if Stanford and Yale had no cross admits with each other (400+250), that would still leave 200 students accepted to Harvard that have no better option.

the thing is, the whole model is based on conjecture. with an imaginative assumption underlying a hypothesis, you can argue anything and nothing.

people like to wax poetic on how stanford is harder to get into than HLS but that depends on one's definition of "hard." it is "hard" in the sense that berkeley is "harder" compared to its peers and schools way ahead of berkeley (see e.g., berkeley v. nyu). that is merely a function of "arbitrariness" in its process. the "hardness" is more accurately described as "arbitrariness" or better, a "black box" because it's not particularly "hard" (in the sense of what most people imagine when talking about "hardness" of getting into a school) but because they rely on measures besides numbers which are themselves fraught with problems.

stanford has the lowest medians of the three mind you. a candidate with inferior numbers' best chance at getting into hys is stanford by conjuring some went-to-africa-for-two-weeks-and-discovered-inalienable-truths bullshit. hell, the urms hys admit are (with certain exceptions, i admit) are overwhelmingly whitewashed as fuck. the whole thing is a facade.

I realize the model is built on arbitrary assumptions, but I think that on the whole the model still is indicative of something that is true: that Harvard's yield has a built-in advantage.

If it's so easy to conjecture a model of whatever you want, I invite you to create a model where Harvard doesn't have a huge advantage in overall yield because of its non cross-admitted accepted students.

Also, I never suggested it was harder to get into Stanford than Harvard, nor did anyone else in this thread as far as I can tell. I only said that Harvard and Stanford's respective overall yields are completely unreflective of how they performs in cross-admit battles. You are creating a straw man argument.

If you assume Stanford accepts 100 people that don't get into Harvard, than it stops looking like Stanford wins the cross-admit battle. 50% of S students then wouldn't have gotten H or Y, and also about 50% for H. That's really not that implausible.