Top Law Schools

Would HLS be likely to not offer admissions to someone (who has LSAT and GPA between the median and the 75th percentile and would otherwise be admitted) simply because he/she underperformed during the JR1?

Thanks for all the responses.

what else would an interview be for? its another way to narrow the pool of applicants

Isn't a 5-15 minute interview too short, especially considering a person needs to go through 5 or 6 30-minute interviews just to get a finance internship?

thats something youd have to bring up with JR.. theres plenty of people who perform well during the interview so dont expect much.. its Harvard

Like nearly all of your non-numerical factors in law apps, it may make or break you if you're on the bubble. If Harvard would really like your numbers, it's merely a formality.

I wouldn't sweat it too much, i've heard a lot of people who thought their JR1 "sucked" (their words not mine), but still got in. I honestly can't really see it really making a huge difference in your application, barring an incredibly spectacular interview, or having a horrible interview (ie: putting JR on hold to feed your dog, answering "Why Harvard?" with, "I dunno" etc.).

My experience has been that 1-2 out of every 10 people in job interviews will be complete train wrecks. I think Harvard's phone interviews are set up to cull those people. Just have logical answers to "why law school?" and "why Harvard?" and you will be fine.

samsonyte16 wrote:My experience has been that 1-2 out of every 10 people in job interviews will be complete train wrecks. I think Harvard's phone interviews are set up to cull those people. Just have logical answers to "why law school?" and "why Harvard?" and you will be fine.

I would disagree. I've talked to a lot of people that have had JR1s and I just don't see a real correlation between their feelings on their JR1 and whether they get a JR2 or not. Now if you are a complete trainwreck, i'm sure that would hurt you, but just having a less than spectacular JR1 doesn't seem to destine you for a waitlist.

I agree with you - just don't be that one train wreck out of ten and you will be fine.

Knock wrote:

samsonyte16 wrote:My experience has been that 1-2 out of every 10 people in job interviews will be complete train wrecks. I think Harvard's phone interviews are set up to cull those people. Just have logical answers to "why law school?" and "why Harvard?" and you will be fine.

I would disagree. I've talked to a lot of people that have had JR1s and I just don't see a real correlation between their feelings on their JR1 and whether they get a JR2 or not. Now if you are a complete trainwreck, i'm sure that would hurt you, but just having a less than spectacular JR1 doesn't seem to destine you for a waitlist.

You're assuming the trainwrecks know who they are. In my experience, people who have terrible interviews with my company seem more self-assured than our average applicant (with the exception of the guy who has a terrible interview because his self-confidence is shot).

d34dluk3 wrote:

Knock wrote:

samsonyte16 wrote:My experience has been that 1-2 out of every 10 people in job interviews will be complete train wrecks. I think Harvard's phone interviews are set up to cull those people. Just have logical answers to "why law school?" and "why Harvard?" and you will be fine.

I would disagree. I've talked to a lot of people that have had JR1s and I just don't see a real correlation between their feelings on their JR1 and whether they get a JR2 or not. Now if you are a complete trainwreck, i'm sure that would hurt you, but just having a less than spectacular JR1 doesn't seem to destine you for a waitlist.

You're assuming the trainwrecks know who they are. In my experience, people who have terrible interviews with my company seem more self-assured than our average applicant (with the exception of the guy who has a terrible interview because his self-confidence is shot).

True, but I feel like people have been pretty accurate in their self-assessment of their JR1. Since it's only a 5 minute interview or so, it's not hard to hear all about their interview and gauge whether their self-assessment seems to be relatively accurate.

Not very important at all. It really felt like a psycho screen.

Knock wrote:

d34dluk3 wrote:

Knock wrote:

samsonyte16 wrote:My experience has been that 1-2 out of every 10 people in job interviews will be complete train wrecks. I think Harvard's phone interviews are set up to cull those people. Just have logical answers to "why law school?" and "why Harvard?" and you will be fine.

I would disagree. I've talked to a lot of people that have had JR1s and I just don't see a real correlation between their feelings on their JR1 and whether they get a JR2 or not. Now if you are a complete trainwreck, i'm sure that would hurt you, but just having a less than spectacular JR1 doesn't seem to destine you for a waitlist.

You're assuming the trainwrecks know who they are. In my experience, people who have terrible interviews with my company seem more self-assured than our average applicant (with the exception of the guy who has a terrible interview because his self-confidence is shot).

True, but I feel like people have been pretty accurate in their self-assessment of their JR1. Since it's only a 5 minute interview or so, it's not hard to hear all about their interview and gauge whether their self-assessment seems to be relatively accurate.

You're killing my already limited street cred here Knock


In all seriousness though, I thought I did pretty poorly, but I got in. It really does seem to just make sure you're not a psycho or completely socially inept.

icpb wrote:Isn't a 5-15 minute interview too short, especially considering a person needs to go through 5 or 6 30-minute interviews just to get a finance internship?

5-6 interviews for a finance internship? An M&A fulltime job at Goldman Sachs only takes 3-4.

Most superdays I attended for summer internships had at least 4 30-minute interviews, adding the 1 or 2 30-minute interviews from the first round, you get 5 or 6.

Patriot1208 wrote:

icpb wrote:Isn't a 5-15 minute interview too short, especially considering a person needs to go through 5 or 6 30-minute interviews just to get a finance internship?

5-6 interviews for a finance internship? An M&A fulltime job at Goldman Sachs only takes 3-4.

add me to the "thought my JR1 bombed" camp. it was a little over 5 minutes long, and as soon as we were finished, i was certain i had ruined any chances of getting in. then a week later i was in. so if i were to guess, i'd say the JR1 is meaningful only if you do something totally insane--effectively begging JR for the ding-hammer.

Patriot1208 wrote:

icpb wrote:Isn't a 5-15 minute interview too short, especially considering a person needs to go through 5 or 6 30-minute interviews just to get a finance internship?

5-6 interviews for a finance internship? An M&A fulltime job at Goldman Sachs only takes 3-4.

I did 3 interviews of 30 minutes each for my current gig at a fortune 500 and that was described as the abbreviated version of what my boss faced at Bain(consulting). I can def see some high-end finance jobs going beyond that.

But yeah. My JR1 was almost exactly 5 minutes.

icpb wrote:Isn't a 5-15 minute interview too short, especially considering a person needs to go through 5 or 6 30-minute interviews just to get a finance internship?

If this is the logic you used on the LSAT, you probably won't have to worry about having the chance to underperform on the JR1.

tkgrrett wrote:

Patriot1208 wrote:

icpb wrote:Isn't a 5-15 minute interview too short, especially considering a person needs to go through 5 or 6 30-minute interviews just to get a finance internship?

5-6 interviews for a finance internship? An M&A fulltime job at Goldman Sachs only takes 3-4.

I did 3 interviews of 30 minutes each for my current gig at a fortune 500 and that was described as the abbreviated version of what my boss faced at Bain(consulting). I can def see some high-end finance jobs going beyond that.

But yeah. My JR1 was almost exactly 5 minutes.

I know several people of Bain and none of them went through more than 3 interviews.

ETA though from what I understand consulting interviews can last up to an hour.

Knock wrote:

d34dluk3 wrote:

Knock wrote:

samsonyte16 wrote:My experience has been that 1-2 out of every 10 people in job interviews will be complete train wrecks. I think Harvard's phone interviews are set up to cull those people. Just have logical answers to "why law school?" and "why Harvard?" and you will be fine.

I would disagree. I've talked to a lot of people that have had JR1s and I just don't see a real correlation between their feelings on their JR1 and whether they get a JR2 or not. Now if you are a complete trainwreck, i'm sure that would hurt you, but just having a less than spectacular JR1 doesn't seem to destine you for a waitlist.

You're assuming the trainwrecks know who they are. In my experience, people who have terrible interviews with my company seem more self-assured than our average applicant (with the exception of the guy who has a terrible interview because his self-confidence is shot).

True, but I feel like people have been pretty accurate in their self-assessment of their JR1. Since it's only a 5 minute interview or so, it's not hard to hear all about their interview and gauge whether their self-assessment seems to be relatively accurate.

really? i find people are overly pessimistic about their interviews. i was -- though in (super) hindsight, it was a pretty good and smooth one. i thought it was meh right after it though.

either way, JR1 doesnt matter as much as most other interviews imo. it really is to cull for the extremes. or maybe if your numbers are really iffy (think 'wow im surprised i got a JR1!")...then you might need to not just be bleh.

I don't know much about Bain, but Oliver Wyman's first round consists of 2 30-minute interviews, and second round consists of 3 30-minute interviews for summer internships. The top prop-trading shop Jane Street conducts 5 rounds of 30-minute interviews for summer internships. Blackstone conducts 5 rounds of 30-minute interviews for summer internships. Morgan Stanley's superday for summer IB analyst positions consisted of 5 30-minute interviews. Though I do know people who get into BB IB and MBB with 3 or fewer interviews, but they are not the norm. I'm trying to understand what JR can learn in 5 minutes other than 1. you are just not into law and/or HLS, and 2. you cannot sustain a 5 minute conversation.

Patriot1208 wrote:

tkgrrett wrote:

Patriot1208 wrote:

icpb wrote:Isn't a 5-15 minute interview too short, especially considering a person needs to go through 5 or 6 30-minute interviews just to get a finance internship?

5-6 interviews for a finance internship? An M&A fulltime job at Goldman Sachs only takes 3-4.

I did 3 interviews of 30 minutes each for my current gig at a fortune 500 and that was described as the abbreviated version of what my boss faced at Bain(consulting). I can def see some high-end finance jobs going beyond that.

But yeah. My JR1 was almost exactly 5 minutes.

I know several people of Bain and none of them went through more than 3 interviews.

icpb wrote:I don't know much about Bain, but Oliver Wyman's first round consists of 2 30-minute interviews, and second round consists of 3 30-minute interviews for summer internships. The top prop-trading shop Jane Street conducts 5 rounds of 30-minute interviews for summer internships. Blackstone conducts 5 rounds of 30-minute interviews for summer internships. Morgan Stanley's superday for summer IB analyst positions consisted of 5 30-minute interviews. Though I do know people who get into BB IB and MBB with 3 or fewer interviews, but they are not the norm. I'm trying to understand what JR can learn in 5 minutes other than 1. you are just not into law and/or HLS, and 2. you cannot sustain a 5 minute conversation.

Ya, we are off subject anyways. I don't know much about the internship recruiting because I was never looking for those types of internships, but it just seems to me that the full time hiring is done with much less than that. Anyways, I think I saw that around 1100 people get JR1's and there are around 800 people per class. So, clearly they are weeding out someone. But I think it has more to do with making sure you aren't crazy or a complete aspie.

Just because we know that 1100 people interview and 850 or so get in does not tell us how important the interview is. Maybe they interview and turn away 250 people with borderline numbers, or maybe once you get the interview everyone's equal. How would anyone know the answer to that, aside from JR?

delusional wrote:Just because we know that 1100 people interview and 850 or so get in does not tell us how important the interview is. Maybe they interview and turn away 250 people with borderline numbers, or maybe once you get the interview everyone's equal. How would anyone know the answer to that, aside from JR?

well there is a way to extrapolate that information without asking JR...though it would not be a perfect method. if we got a large enough sample pool (few hundred?) of people who got JR1s...found out their numbers...and then compared that to the group who did not get a JR2 (and their numbers)...we could probably answer that question to a reasonable certainty.

if someone had the time and inclination to go through the last 2 HLS threads and compiled a list of every JR1 applicant (with known numbers) and every one of those people who did not get a JR2, we'd be able to start getting a small picture of the truthz.

delusional wrote:Just because we know that 1100 people interview and 850 or so get in does not tell us how important the interview is. Maybe they interview and turn away 250 people with borderline numbers, or maybe once you get the interview everyone's equal. How would anyone know the answer to that, aside from JR?

This doesn't take into account how many people were interviewed, then WLed, then withdrawn. I could imagine a chunk of those 250 not waiting around until the summer to see if they were admitted.