Harvard Law School EIP 2010 Callback Thread Forum

[Anonymous User]

Congrats

[Anonymous User]

There are numerous indications of why this is so. First, the whole grades fiasco, which pretty conclusively indicates HLS's failure to spend even a tiny amount of time thinking through the consequences of its actions. The school instituted a mandatory system of LPs for a period, even though there are numerous obvious reasons why this was a bad idea: 1) The system is obviously copied from Yale, and everyone (employers, judges, fellowship programs) will treat it identically to Yale's, even though at Yale, from what I've heard, an LP demands an awe-inspiring level of badness. 2) The pedagogical justification for the system--encouraging people to take academic risks by enrolling in courses in areas with which they are not comfortable--is utterly destroyed if each course presents the risk of a serious black-eye on the transcript. 3) Some professors would simply refuse to give out the LPs, while others would not, leading to unfairness when students from various sections are compared with one another.

I may as well take the opportunity to ask--I've seen figures saying 30-40% of a typical class receives H's, 0.4% LPs and the rest P's. Anything to that?

In Section 5, there were at least 7 LPs given out in Civil Procedure, Legislation and Regulation, and in Legal Writing there were at least 4 for section A. So way more than .4%

Yeah, I think the problem is that some profs followed the "recommended" grade distribution and some didn't. Sucks for Section 5...

[Anonymous User]

Even if HLS gives considerably fewer LPs now, the point still stands: For a period of time, HLS had a policy under which a non-negligible percentage of each class had to receive a serious black mark on their transcripts. Even if HLS has effectively abandoned this policy (which may or may not be true), the fact that it had it for a period of time, and seemingly failed to grasp the obvious consequences of the policy, shows its dysfunction and its failure to work for the best interests of its students. I was not at HLS when the LP rule was in place, but I think the fact that it had this policy is representative of serious flaws in the administration.

But it wouldn't have been such a serious black mark if every prof had to give them. I mean, yeah, for a while we would look bad compared to Yale kids, but people who were comparing Harvard kids all the time would eventually figure out that an LP wasn't really such a horrible thing. (As a side note, Yale also doesn't have Latin honors for its graduates, which shows one other respect in which grades seriously don't matter at Yale but do at Harvard.)

As it is, there's a marked degree of inconsistentcy between profs about the LPs. Hopefully that'll settle down eventually, but the fact remains that there's a lot of luck involved in getting profs who give lots and lots of H's... I know at least a visiting prof I had 1L year was convinced that the curve was mandatory, at least for him.

I'm thinking maybe we should enroll HLS in PickAProf. Then we'd be able to have a better idea about grade distributions.

[Anonymous User]

There are numerous indications of why this is so. First, the whole grades fiasco, which pretty conclusively indicates HLS's failure to spend even a tiny amount of time thinking through the consequences of its actions. The school instituted a mandatory system of LPs for a period, even though there are numerous obvious reasons why this was a bad idea: 1) The system is obviously copied from Yale, and everyone (employers, judges, fellowship programs) will treat it identically to Yale's, even though at Yale, from what I've heard, an LP demands an awe-inspiring level of badness. 2) The pedagogical justification for the system--encouraging people to take academic risks by enrolling in courses in areas with which they are not comfortable--is utterly destroyed if each course presents the risk of a serious black-eye on the transcript. 3) Some professors would simply refuse to give out the LPs, while others would not, leading to unfairness when students from various sections are compared with one another.

I may as well take the opportunity to ask--I've seen figures saying 30-40% of a typical class receives H's, 0.4% LPs and the rest P's. Anything to that?

In Section 5, there were at least 7 LPs given out in Civil Procedure, Legislation and Regulation, and in Legal Writing there were at least 4 for section A. So way more than .4%

Yeah, I think the problem is that some profs followed the "recommended" grade distribution and some didn't. Sucks for Section 5...

You have no idea. This was also the section that had 9 people make law review. Several of our heavy hitters didn't make it. I'm talking 10 H's 4 DS, 8 H's 4 DS heavy hitters didn't make it. It was an insane curve. I feel for anyone who is in antitrust this semester.

[Anonymous User]

I feel for anyone who is in antitrust this semester.

Why?

[Anonymous User]

I feel for anyone who is in antitrust this semester.

Why?

It reads like a who's who directory for the Section 5 Super Gunners. The people in that class are the reason, we were known as "the intense" section. It's also being taught by a 2nd Circuit judge, and is filled with people who want clerkships. That's not going to be a pleasant environment.

[Anonymous User]

I feel for anyone who is in antitrust this semester.

Why?

Yeah, why? I count only 5 or 6 section 5 people in antitrust.

Plus, the section 5 curve wasn't that tight, I don't think. I say that as someone in section 5. I mean, c'mon, do you really trust someone who tells you he had 4 DS's? I mean, 2 people had 4 DS's, and those 2 people didn't make law review? So, that left 2 DS's for the rest of us (or, assuming that the 2 people got 2 of their DS's each from their "electives," it left 6 DS's for the rest of us, which I find equally implausible).

That's B.S. Having been in section 5, I have a much easier time believing that there are at least 2 uber-liars in the section who totally lied to you about thier grades.

[Anonymous User]

I feel for anyone who is in antitrust this semester.

Why?

Yeah, why? I count only 5 or 6 section 5 people in antitrust.

Plus, the section 5 curve wasn't that tight, I don't think. I say that as someone in section 5. I mean, c'mon, do you really trust someone who tells you he had 4 DS's? I mean, 2 people had 4 DS's, and those 2 people didn't make law review? So, that left 2 DS's for the rest of us (or, assuming that the 2 people got 2 of their DS's each from their "electives," it left 6 DS's for the rest of us, which I find equally implausible).

That's B.S. Having been in section 5, I have a much easier time believing that there are at least 2 uber-liars in the section who totally lied to you about thier grades.

Multiple have vouched to me that these 2 people got those many Dean's Scholars.

[Anonymous User]

I feel for anyone who is in antitrust this semester.

Why?

Yeah, why? I count only 5 or 6 section 5 people in antitrust.

Plus, the section 5 curve wasn't that tight, I don't think. I say that as someone in section 5. I mean, c'mon, do you really trust someone who tells you he had 4 DS's? I mean, 2 people had 4 DS's, and those 2 people didn't make law review? So, that left 2 DS's for the rest of us (or, assuming that the 2 people got 2 of their DS's each from their "electives," it left 6 DS's for the rest of us, which I find equally implausible).

That's B.S. Having been in section 5, I have a much easier time believing that there are at least 2 uber-liars in the section who totally lied to you about thier grades.

Multiple have vouched to me that these 2 people got those many Dean's Scholars.

Again, I don't find that hard to believe. That's kind of how rumors work. Unless you've actually seen their transcripts, I'd call BS on them.

I'm not saying you're lying. Just that you're a bit credulous.

[Anonymous User]

I don't want to out those people, so we'll just have to leave it here. Although I'm now curious as to who you were in section 5.

[Anonymous User]

are callback waitlists real/common? when do you usually hear back if you are on one of them?

[Anonymous User]

I feel for anyone who is in antitrust this semester.

Why?

It reads like a who's who directory for the Section 5 Super Gunners. The people in that class are the reason, we were known as "the intense" section. It's also being taught by a 2nd Circuit judge, and is filled with people who want clerkships. That's not going to be a pleasant environment.

Also, I do believe he's a 1st Circuit judge. I know, not a huge difference, but, still, uber-gunners may not be as attracted to a "lowly" 1st Circuit judge as they would be to 2nd Circuit judge.

[Anonymous User]

I don't want to out those people, so we'll just have to leave it here. Although I'm now curious as to who you were in section 5.

Fair enough.

And, same to you on that second bit.

[Pablo Ramirez]

Damn, I thought Harvard was above all this anti-social gunner bullshit.

Glad to be in New Haven.

[Objection]

Damn, I thought Harvard was above all this anti-social gunner bullshit.

Glad to be in New Haven.

I'm glad you are in New Haven, as well.

[Anonymous User]

are callback waitlists real/common? when do you usually hear back if you are on one of them?

Consensus is that no one knows. OCS certainly implies that they're real. But it's all very mysterious.

[mightyaphrodite]

Damn, I thought Harvard was above all this anti-social gunner bullshit.

Glad to be in New Haven.

I'm glad you are in New Haven, as well.

+1

You have no idea. This was also the section that had 9 people make law review. Several of our heavy hitters didn't make it. I'm talking 10 H's 4 DS, 8 H's 4 DS heavy hitters didn't make it. It was an insane curve. I feel for anyone who is in antitrust this semester.

I find it really hard to believe that a super competitive section that might have had a rigidly enforced curve had multiple people with these credentials who didn't just grade on.

[Anonymous User]

HLR's grade-on policy is the top two grade-getters per section. No more, no less.

[Anonymous User]

Actually there is no complete grade on. There is 50% grades and 50% writing competition score. Those individuals could actually have the highest grades but mailed it in on the competition and therefore didn't get a spot

[Anonymous User]

yeah, frankly I'm tired of these section whatever whiners. 2 get on in each section. admittedly people with 5 DS or whatever might be better writers, but whatever it is, y'all are being judged by that writing, not by your section. To be the top 2 in Section 5 might have been difficult, but the rest of you...

[Anonymous User]

yeah, frankly I'm tired of these section whatever whiners. 2 get on in each section. admittedly people with 5 DS or whatever might be better writers, but whatever it is, y'all are being judged by that writing, not by your section. To be the top 2 in Section 5 might have been difficult, but the rest of you...

This is simplistic. First of all, the sub-cite counts for a significant portion of the competition, so it is simply not true that "y'all are being judged by that writing." Subciting is a pretty distinctive skill set, and it seems perfectly easy to imagine someone who tears up law school exams but is not a terribly good subciter. Furthermore, as is widely acknowledged by legal academics, 2Ls are not very good judges of what constitutes quality legal scholarship. So it seems perfectly reasonable that a professor could judge a student's work among the best in the class, while the law review could find that it does not contain a sufficient amount of inane, predictable prescriptivism.

The real issue here is that it is stupid that HLS, with a student body of 550 students, has a flagship LR that only has space for 7% of the school, whereas SLS and YLS have journals that are the same size or larger, but have radically smaller class sizes. Yet some employers still treat "law review" as if it has the same meaning across schools. This represents yet another instance of the way in which HLS screws over its students. A better system would be to have a basic skill test for participation in journals generally; once students pass this test, they could bid on which journals they most want to work on (akin to course selection). Students should force the school to make this change by boycotting the LR selection process; if almost nobody tries out, "making" it doesn't mean much.

[Anonymous User]

___________________

[Anonymous User]

Back on point... Alston Bird DC CB yesterday.

[Anonymous User]

McDermott Boston CB by phone.

Anyone have any sense how closely the callback/offer numbers will mirror last year? Looking at the spreadsheet for some of my CBs freaks me out a little...

[Anonymous User]

McDermott Boston CB by phone.

Anyone have any sense how closely the callback/offer numbers will mirror last year? Looking at the spreadsheet for some of my CBs freaks me out a little...

Not HLS here, another boston school. Our OCI doesn't give that kind of data -- just out of curiosity, can you share some of the numbers you're getting from HLS for boston firms? Obviously won't match up at my school, but might give me a sense of what to expect or not.

Thanks very much!