Top Law Schools

In addition to all of the other great TLS Dean interviews announced this week, I'm happy to say that we'll also be interviewing Josh Rubenstein, Dean for Admissions at Harvard Law!

Ken will send his interview questions to Josh next week; in the meantime, please feel free to contribute any questions you may have for "JR".

Thanks, all!

Hey, Josh, why don't you add some transparency to the process (à la Rangappa) by maintaining a non-worthless blog?

For the 2009 - 2010 cycle, there seemed to be an uptick in terms of the emphasis placed upon GPA for Harvard admissions.

a) How representative do you think LSN is for prospective applicants?
b) Have you made a conscious decision to place a little more emphasis on GPA than Toby Stock?
c) Can you give any advice to older/non-traditional applicants about what you like seeing in an application.
d) What are the kinds of things that sink applicants with high GPA/LSATs at Harvard?

On the Harvard Law website, it states that successful transfer applicants should have numerical quantifiers competitive enough for the wait list. However, for those of us who dream Crimson but underperformed on the LSAT, do we have a legitimate shot at transferring to HLS-- assuming impressive class rank at a Tier 1 school?

I would love to hear some detailed retellings of phone interviews gone awry.

How many more of us are you going to take off the waitlist this year?

bloodonthetracks wrote:How many more of us are you going to take off the waitlist this year?

+1

What is the date and time of the massive wave of WL rejections that is coming?

Will you have a regular presence here on TLS to support your school and be open about the application process? Please. You could disclaim at the onset of joining the community that you will not talk about specific applicants or applications, but would only talk in general. Dean Pless, from Illinois, has been doing it a while and has raised a great number of applicant’s impression of him and Illinois.

What criteria is used to select applicants to interview via phone?

will they be participating in the yellow ribbon program again?

notanumber wrote:I would love to hear some detailed retellings of phone interviews gone awry.

+1

What is your opinion regarding the future of US lawyers?

joekim1 wrote:What is your opinion regarding the future of US lawyers?

This is a good question, but I suggest we ask this to someone whose opinion on the matter carries some weight.

I'd love to hear how he feels about so many schools manipulating statistics to make employment prospects look better in an effort to recruit students. Also, I'd love to know how he feels about self-reporting of employment data vs. having an independent body collect the data.

how many transfer admissions are given out to tier 2 school students?

Why do you have a ridiculous 3.0 GPA floor?

I was at the median LSAT!!! and URM!!!

1) What is the lowest LSAT you have ever accepted, either URM or Non-URM?
2) How do you view international students who have completed their LLB from another country and want to go for a JD? And is that LSAT weighted slightly less since that student has completed law courses already? Some T10 schools I've talked to have varying opinions, would like to know Harvard's view on this?

Thanks.

.

War Cardinal wrote:Hey, Josh, why don't you add some transparency to the process (à la Rangappa) by maintaining a non-worthless blog?

The degree of disrespect online is sometimes quite stunning.

THe open secret among deans and professors is that they like the system the way it is--opaqueness, strict curve, lack of feedback, internecine warfare, you name it. The real challenge is to figure out why.

At least part of the reason is that law students, out of frustration and general orneriness, all but beg to be put down.

A word of caution . . . leak even a tiny bit of this disrepect to a judge, senior partner, junior partner, senior associate, more-senior associate, secretary, God forbid a client, passer-by . . . well, just about anyone . . . and you've just bumped yourself up on the list of those they actually don't mind firing. This really isn't too far from the truth. A single utterance like this will often be enough--that and the inevitable missteps of any new attorney.

Thane.

Thane Messinger wrote:

War Cardinal wrote:Hey, Josh, why don't you add some transparency to the process (à la Rangappa) by maintaining a non-worthless blog?

The degree of disrespect online is sometimes quite stunning.

THe open secret among deans and professors is that they like the system the way it is--opaqueness, strict curve, lack of feedback, internecine warfare, you name it. The real challenge is to figure out why.

At least part of the reason is that law students, out of frustration and general orneriness, all but beg to be put down.

A word of caution . . . leak even a tiny bit of this disrepect to a judge, senior partner, junior partner, senior associate, more-senior associate, secretary, God forbid a client, passer-by . . . well, just about anyone . . . and you've just bumped yourself up on the list of those they actually don't mind firing. This really isn't too far from the truth. A single utterance like this will often be enough--that and the inevitable missteps of any new attorney.

Thane.

I hope my thoughts weren't taken as disrespect. I just thought that since Harvard is reputation/placement secure, it might be beneficial to talk about the continual numbers manipulation by those who aren't.

When an applicant is granted a phone interview, is the admissions offer his to lose? What can sink him? Or are you still looking for reasons to accept an applicant during the phone interview, rather than reasons to reject him?

Thane Messinger wrote:

War Cardinal wrote:Hey, Josh, why don't you add some transparency to the process (à la Rangappa) by maintaining a non-worthless blog?

The degree of disrespect online is sometimes quite stunning.

THe open secret among deans and professors is that they like the system the way it is--opaqueness, strict curve, lack of feedback, internecine warfare, you name it. The real challenge is to figure out why.

At least part of the reason is that law students, out of frustration and general orneriness, all but beg to be put down.

A word of caution . . . leak even a tiny bit of this disrepect to a judge, senior partner, junior partner, senior associate, more-senior associate, secretary, God forbid a client, passer-by . . . well, just about anyone . . . and you've just bumped yourself up on the list of those they actually don't mind firing. This really isn't too far from the truth. A single utterance like this will often be enough--that and the inevitable missteps of any new attorney.

Thane.

Thane, I don't really have a dog in this fight but I'm slightly curious as to why you feel the need to soapbox here? Even if what he said was snarky, and I supect it might have been, is it necessarily appropriate for you to weigh in -- if not outrightly assume -- the loathsome distinction as the "mouthpiece" for the establishment?

I get it: you teach law (or business of law) or something to that effect somewhere. I'm just not convinced that entitles you to play preacher and otherwise talk down to people who haven't solicited your teachable moments. This is TLS; this isn't a classroom or a law firm or a place of worship. I suspect (or hope) the poster will exercise more restraint in the future but I think it shows equally poor form on your part to assume the dais whenever you so choose.

BaiAilian2013 wrote:When an applicant is granted a phone interview, is the admissions offer his to lose? What can sink him? Or are you still looking for reasons to accept an applicant during the phone interview, rather than reasons to reject him?

+1

SaintClarence27 wrote:
I hope my thoughts weren't taken as disrespect. I just thought that since Harvard is reputation/placement secure, it might be beneficial to talk about the continual numbers manipulation by those who aren't.

Aloha, and no problem from my side. I too wasn't trying to be too over-the-top, but it struck me and, after seeing it a few times, I decided that it was better to post and make the point than not: It's all too easy and natural in law school (and in admissions) to get stuck in the many frustrations.

As to your point, actually I agree. There ought to be more transparency. (Believe it or not, this was one of my frustrations, and it's one of the reasons I wrote the law school book.) Here's the secret: there is no secret. The focus on numbers creates a near-obsession about the ways in which top schools (especially) operate, and to a large degree the final decisions are made for reasons that we really wouldn't care to know, or at least reasons we just don't like. But, much of this is out in the open. Curll's book speaks to several of these points, and my own book talks about this at length.

It's natural to want more clarity, but sometimes the answer just isn't what we want to hear: even with an LSAT dead center for Harvard, the chances for most are fairly low. The reasons are spelled out in any number of resources, and much as we might not like to hear it, even if the deans came out and said that they tossed a coin (which, ahem, they do not), in the end this is primarily a numbers game. The good news? Reset that LSAT pacer, and you might find yourself in a different, higher stack . . . and then to that Accept bin.

I wish you the very best,

Thane.

miamiman wrote: Thane, I don't really have a dog in this fight but I'm slightly curious as to why you feel the need to soapbox here? Even if what he said was snarky, and I supect it might have been, is it necessarily appropriate for you to weigh in -- if not outrightly assume -- the loathsome distinction as the "mouthpiece" for the establishment?

I get it: you teach law (or business of law) or something to that effect somewhere. I'm just not convinced that entitles you to play preacher and otherwise talk down to people who haven't solicited your teachable moments. This is TLS; this isn't a classroom or a law firm or a place of worship. I suspect (or hope) the poster will exercise more restraint in the future but I think it shows equally poor form on your part to assume the dais whenever you so choose.

Point taken. I too did not mean to overstep, and I am only too aware of my status as the party-pooper. (The irony is that, not all that long ago, it was I who was the renegade. = : )

Perhaps that fuels the desire to point these things out, as was not usually there for me. I especially apologize if the tone is that of talking down. I see this as a forum of equals. Clearly I have been there and done that, at all phases and at a fairly high level, but that is not where I'm coming from. I'm in the rather unique position of having written a book some years ago for new attorneys, and after a decade or so of conversations (and disagreements) with the author of Planet Law School, I wrote a book to filter these points out for the prelaw and law student. So, I hope my comments here and elsewhere are taken in the helpful spirit intended.

With aloha,

Thane.