Late HLS Application Forum

[lsat_180]

Thanks for all the replies, any other takes on this would be great though the general point being made here is more than clear. In general this is much more negative than I was expecting. I was anticipating a response along the lines of "50/50" depends on your written materials. Given the difference between a 168 and a 172, for instance, is possibly 3-5 questions, it seems so ridiculous that it makes such a large difference in admissions.

[DoubleChecks]

Thanks for all the replies, any other takes on this would be great though the general point being made here is more than clear. In general this is much more negative than I was expecting. I was anticipating a response along the lines of "50/50" depends on your written materials. Given the difference between a 168 and a 172, for instance, is possibly 3-5 questions, it seems so ridiculous that it makes such a large difference in admissions.

Yes, it does tend to be a bit silly in a way...but that's by and large how law schools sort. Until you can come up with a better sorting mechanism (which takes into account costs, time, and "accuracy"), this is the name of the game. All this really means though is that, if you're mostly just looking at numbers, many (though not all) students at HYS are probably of the same "caliber" (however you want to define that within the confines of this argument) as students of any other T10 school.

And I am still a bit unsure why you were banking on the notion that your softs would be so amazing. I mean, even if softs were weighed about as equally as the numbers (they aren't, but let's suppose)...to have a 50/50 shot wouldn't you need softs well above median? Considering your GPA is below median and your LSAT is below the 25%...any secret crazy softs you not telling us about?

[pupshaw]

Thanks for all the replies, any other takes on this would be great though the general point being made here is more than clear. In general this is much more negative than I was expecting. I was anticipating a response along the lines of "50/50" depends on your written materials. Given the difference between a 168 and a 172, for instance, is possibly 3-5 questions, it seems so ridiculous that it makes such a large difference in admissions.

You have to understand that it's not that the school necessarily thinks that someone with a 172 is a huge amount better than someone with a 168, but rather that the GPA and LSAT scores of the incoming class have a big influence on rankings. HLS needs to maintain its medians, so if you're very low for one number, then you'll be a lot more attractive if you're very high for the other, so that you have a positive numerical influence on at least one aspect of the incoming class.

If you really want HLS, your best bet is to wait until next cycle, spend the next six months studying hard for a June retake, and apply very early.

[curiouscat]

I agree with the point you're making but the bolded part was uncalled for.

Even life changing events wont be able to overcome this. For instance, if you grew up in a broken home, was raped repeatedly by your 5 uncles until you were 17, then pulled yourself through high school and college by yourself while working and being a D1 athlete while at the same time being involved in campus events..that still wouldn't help you enough.

[WSJ_Law]

Even life changing events wont be able to overcome this. For instance, if you grew up in a broken home, was raped repeatedly by your 5 uncles until you were 17, then pulled yourself through high school and college by yourself while working and being a D1 athlete while at the same time being involved in campus events..that still wouldn't help you enough.

180

[amc987]

I don't think that the OP has no chance at HLS as it is, especially if the 3.8 GPA is from a top undergrad school. The Jan/Feb app won't help, though. FWIW, I know someone who had a 3.7/178, applied in late Jan, and was straight up rejected at HLS. I also know a guy who is a non-URM and was accepted at HLS with a 3.75 GPA from HYPS and a 170 LSAT. I think he applied in October and had a strong resume to supplement his numbers. However, I think that case demonstrates that getting in to HLS is possible with numbers similar to yours.

We don't know you and we don't know what you bring to the table apart from your numbers. The general wisdom is that applying that late isn't good for your chances. I will say that your numbers seem like they'd make you a borderline candidate at best. But it's your time, your money, and your life. If you're set on applying in Jan/Feb and rolling the dice, then good luck to you. I hope it works out! And I apologize for the rudeness too. I think some posters use their online anonymity to justify their lack of manners. They should behave better.

[FantasticMrFox]

I will say that your numbers seem like they'd make you a borderline candidate at best.

UG institution doesn't matter (at least, not to the point that your example intimates) and he is not a borderline candidate, even at his best.

OP, if HLS is a must for you, then apply next cycle with a stronger LSAT

[lsat_180]

Again, thanks for the replies. I have been considering a retake but decided against it because I do not think I can do better. In the event I retake and my score goes down (let's say by a lot to 150s/160s even), can a school that has already accepted me rescind my offer (this is a hypothetical, I have not applied to schools yet). For instance, if I apply next year and get into Columbia for instance but get held at Harvard and retake in December and get a 150, will/can Columbia withdraw my acceptance and do I have to report it even though I have already been admitted? Does it vary across schools?

[amc987]

I will say that your numbers seem like they'd make you a borderline candidate at best.

UG institution doesn't matter (at least, not to the point that your example intimates) and he is not a borderline candidate, even at his best.

OP, if HLS is a must for you, then apply next cycle with a stronger LSAT

What numbers make an applicant a borderline candidate at HLS in your opinion? Would a 3.8/174 or a 3.9/172 or a 3.75/177 qualify?? Those all seem like people with pretty solid odds to me. I agree that his chances aren't great based on numbers alone.

[JasonR]

Anyone else? I have to ask, are people just being mean or rude on purpose at this point? First of all, a 3.8 is around Harvard's median so half the people they admit are below this range and a quarter of the people they admit have lsats below 170. So my chances are definitely not zero (or are they just zero if I apply at the latest point in the cycle)?

They're not being rude. They're getting to the point. You truly have 0% chance. Numbers are almost everything, and LSAT score is much more important than your 3.8.

[snailio]

Your odds would have been around 5% with an early application, since Harvard does rolling admissions you have really a very slim chance, sorry man.

[PDaddy]

You were just wasting $50 either way.

How in hell would anyone besides an adcom or OP know THAT? It kills me when TLSers hear a GPA/LSAT and think they are qualified to assess whether an applicant has a shot at a school.

Have you looked at his transcript? What was his major? What school did he attend? How difficult is the major at his school? Is his school known for grade inflation, or is his school stingy with the A's? What is his major-GPA? What is his grade trend? Have you read his essays? How about his resume and LOR's, have you examined those? What are his softs, and how do they compare to those of the other HLS applicants this cycle? How unique are his softs? Does OP have a unique soft? Do you even know whether or not OP received a fee waiver?

Granted that his chances are probably diminished by a great deal, but that doesn't mean he has absolutely no chance, even at this late juncture.

I agree that OP should take a look at an LSAT retake, but NOBODY has the right to tell him he has no chance as it stands.

If he were 3.0/160 I could see it, but...

[ahnhub]

You have to understand that it's not that the school necessarily thinks that someone with a 172 is a huge amount better than someone with a 168, but rather that the GPA and LSAT scores of the incoming class have a big influence on rankings. HLS needs to maintain its medians, so if you're very low for one number, then you'll be a lot more attractive if you're very high for the other, so that you have a positive numerical influence on at least one aspect of the incoming class.

Actually, I think even if Harvard all of a sudden decided to re-think its admissions process and its median LSAT fell to 170 or 169, it would still be ranked the #2 or #3 school in the country.

What we overlook is that schools themselves might just feel that a numbers-based admissions process is both the most "fair" and the best option of the available ones (and all of the options are shitty) to pick good candidates to become lawyers. It's crappy that a 167 LSAT score, which is awesome, pretty much disqualifies you to get into Harvard. But would it be better to pick the 167 over someone who got a 175 because the 167 person volunteered a lot or had a bunch of Washington internships or went to Yale for undergrad? To me it's almost heartening to know Harvard would take a 175/4.0 who went to a TTT undergrad and whose only work experience is waitering or retail, over a 173/3.9 who went to HYP undergrad and worked for Goldman Sachs.

[thederangedwang]

You were just wasting $50 either way.

How in hell would anyone besides an adcom or OP know THAT? It kills me when TLSers hear a GPA/LSAT and think they are qualified to assess whether an applicant has a shot at a school.

Have you looked at his transcript? What was his major? What school did he attend? How difficult is the major at his school? Is his school known for grade inflation, or is his school stingy with the A's? What is his major-GPA? What is his grade trend? Have you read his essays? How about his resume and LOR's, have you examined those? What are his softs, and how do they compare to those of the other HLS applicants this cycle? How unique are his softs? Does OP have a unique soft? Do you even know whether or not OP received a fee waiver?

Granted that his chances are probably diminished by a great deal, but that doesn't mean he has absolutely no chance, even at this late juncture.

I agree that OP should take a look at an LSAT retake, but NOBODY has the right to tell him he has no chance as it stands.

If he were 3.0/160 I could see it, but...

obviously if he applies he stands "a chance", but now we are just splitting hairs.

If he has a 1-5% of getting admitted, that is effectively 0.

Lets take a look at everything you listed

Have you looked at his transcript?
What was his major?
What school did he attend?
How difficult is the major at his school?
Is his school known for grade inflation, or is his school stingy with the A's?
What is his major-GPA?
What is his grade trend?
Have you read his essays?
How about his resume and LOR's, have you examined those?
What are his softs, and how do they compare to those of the other HLS applicants this cycle? How unique are his softs?
Does OP have a unique soft?
Do you even know whether or not OP received a fee waiver?

In order for the OP to get admission, he would need to have a legitimate, credible, and great answer to ALL these questions. Meaning, he would have needed to have a tough major at a tough school with low A giving with a great resume with great LOR with great softs with awesome PS etc etc

What are the chances that the OP has all of that? Effectively 0. People like that do exist, but the chances the OP is one of these people is basically 0. Chances are the OP is just a regular OL with decent softs and decent grades.

That is the pt we are all trying to make. He would need to have amazing softs to make up for his numbers and that is simply improbable

OP, feel free to enlighten us about your softs and maybe I will readjust my assesment. But just going by your numbers, and the probability of you having amazing softs, you stand very very very little chance of getting into Harvard

[delusional]

If he has a 1-5% of getting admitted, that is effectively 0.

What does "effectively" mean?

[thederangedwang]

If he has a 1-5% of getting admitted, that is effectively 0.

What does "effectively" mean?

people are not wrong to say "he has no chance" since his chances for admission are very very very very small

when people say you are wasting money, you stand no chance etc, these phrases shouldnt be taken literally...obviously if you apply you stand a chance.

[dontTazemeBrah]

is this thread for real? you have no shot buddy. i am sorry you came here looking for hope but the fact is that your 168 will not get you into HLS. it won't even get you in at CCN. don't waste the 100 bucks and buy yourself something nice.

[WSJ_Law]

What a shit show of a thread. Op has no chance at hls. And people suggesting he does are idiots too.

[Elston Gunn]

What we overlook is that schools themselves might just feel that a numbers-based admissions process is both the most "fair" and the best option of the available ones (and all of the options are shitty) to pick good candidates to become lawyers. It's crappy that a 167 LSAT score, which is awesome, pretty much disqualifies you to get into Harvard. But would it be better to pick the 167 over someone who got a 175 because the 167 person volunteered a lot or had a bunch of Washington internships or went to Yale for undergrad? To me it's almost heartening to know Harvard would take a 175/4.0 who went to a TTT undergrad and whose only work experience is waitering or retail, over a 173/3.9 who went to HYP undergrad and worked for Goldman Sachs.

I think this is a really good point. No one's saying it here, but I find it hilarious when people say things like Harvard/Yale/Stanford doesn't care if you have 158 or a 170 because they're both below their medians. Obviously, most schools are gaming the rankings. Maybe even HYS are to a certain extent, but they don't need to. Their reputations are not at risk. The reasonable conclusion is that they actually believe the numbers are one of the most important indicators of applicant quality. That is to say, LSAT/GPA totally sucks as a measure of applicant quality, but it's the best they have.