Milbank/Davis Polk/Cravath Scale: NYC to 215-415k Forum

[Anonymous User]

Due to the larger size, we do have our proportionately larger share of assholes. Looking at it this way, it's similar to the hate K&E often gets in this forum

Calling HLS the K&E of law schools is truly the sickest burn in this thread.

Yale= Top lit+Wachtell, Stanford=white shoe, Chicago= Skadden, Harvard= mega firms sounds reasonable to me

HLS is a lot more selective than that though. Acceptance rate of 7% these days? Median lsat of 173 and gpa of 3.95 or something. So many of my friends from various different firms lateraled to K&E or Latham. The megafirms accept anybody. HLS, however, is quite selective. I recall somebody said Wachtell is like Yale and Cravath is like Harvard. That's much more accurate.

Chicago is good school. But it's no better than Harvard. US News is just a magazine.

Last year was a fluke. Usually hovering around 15%. Takes anyone with 173/3.9. Hardly that selective..just like the megafirms. Cravath actually looks at fit.

It was 15% only in 2014, 2015 or so. From 2020, it's gotten quite low as the number of people applying to law school surged. Not even sure whether you ever applied to HLS. Back in my days they used to do interviews. In 2020, someone I know got rejected despite having graduated from Columbia for undergrad with 3.8 gpa and lsat of 176. I'm a sixth year at a V20, but getting into HLS several years ago was hardly a walk in the park back then. I don't think I would get in if I applied now.

Based on the caliber of those I know that lateraled to K&E or Latham last year, it just seems so easy lateraling to those firms given their huge hiring needs and expansion plans. For HLS, however, you do need to maintain a top gpa in college and do well on a standardized test to have a shot. K&E? Latham? Just last 2~3 years at a V20, V30, or what have you, in a transactional practice area and you automatically have a shot at K&E and Latham.

Comparing law schools to firms is quite a dumb exercise to begin with. The expansion of the mega firms is driven largely by laterals, and lateral decisions are based largely on hiring needs. Sometimes they just need a warm body with okay credentials.

No one is saying getting in HLS is a walk in the park. It is, just like lateraling to megafirms, not that hard. For laterally, you need to first of all get in a semi good law school, have good enough grades to get in biglaw, and then survive 2-3 years. It's not just cake walk either.

For HLS, you need a top GPA majoring in WHATEVER the easiest at your WHATEVER local college, and take a standardized test that practically allows INFINITE tries. There, you automatically have a shot at HLS. I have always believed the most unselective law schools are Harvard, Columbia, NYU and GULC, which because of their sheer sizes, are almost compelled to take anyone with the right numbers regardless softs.

As to your Columbia friend anecdote, first of all that is sample size of 1, and second, he didn't get in probably because he majored in something challenging in college which brought his gpa down to a 3.8. If his stats were 3.9 and lsat, he would have gotten in, regardless of whether he attended Columbia or not. For almost every year, a 3.9/173 is a shoo-in at HLS, and I think even the most HLS stan would not argue that.

I am glad you mentioned laterals. HLS also takes 50 transfers from TTT every year, much like the megafirms..

Lol, this doesn't even make sense, what % of HLS admits didn't get into at least most of the rest of the T-14 (other than Y/S)?

[Anonymous User]

Due to the larger size, we do have our proportionately larger share of assholes. Looking at it this way, it's similar to the hate K&E often gets in this forum

Calling HLS the K&E of law schools is truly the sickest burn in this thread.

Yale= Top lit+Wachtell, Stanford=white shoe, Chicago= Skadden, Harvard= mega firms sounds reasonable to me

HLS is a lot more selective than that though. Acceptance rate of 7% these days? Median lsat of 173 and gpa of 3.95 or something. So many of my friends from various different firms lateraled to K&E or Latham. The megafirms accept anybody. HLS, however, is quite selective. I recall somebody said Wachtell is like Yale and Cravath is like Harvard. That's much more accurate.

Chicago is good school. But it's no better than Harvard. US News is just a magazine.

Last year was a fluke. Usually hovering around 15%. Takes anyone with 173/3.9. Hardly that selective..just like the megafirms. Cravath actually looks at fit.

It was 15% only in 2014, 2015 or so. From 2020, it's gotten quite low as the number of people applying to law school surged. Not even sure whether you ever applied to HLS. Back in my days they used to do interviews. In 2020, someone I know got rejected despite having graduated from Columbia for undergrad with 3.8 gpa and lsat of 176. I'm a sixth year at a V20, but getting into HLS several years ago was hardly a walk in the park back then. I don't think I would get in if I applied now.

Based on the caliber of those I know that lateraled to K&E or Latham last year, it just seems so easy lateraling to those firms given their huge hiring needs and expansion plans. For HLS, however, you do need to maintain a top gpa in college and do well on a standardized test to have a shot. K&E? Latham? Just last 2~3 years at a V20, V30, or what have you, in a transactional practice area and you automatically have a shot at K&E and Latham.

Comparing law schools to firms is quite a dumb exercise to begin with. The expansion of the mega firms is driven largely by laterals, and lateral decisions are based largely on hiring needs. Sometimes they just need a warm body with okay credentials.

No one is saying getting in HLS is a walk in the park. It is, just like lateraling to megafirms, not that hard. For laterally, you need to first of all get in a semi good law school, have good enough grades to get in biglaw, and then survive 2-3 years. It's not just cake walk either.

For HLS, you need a top GPA majoring in WHATEVER the easiest at your WHATEVER local college, and take a standardized test that practically allows INFINITE tries. There, you automatically have a shot at HLS. I have always believed the most unselective law schools are Harvard, Columbia, NYU and GULC, which because of their sheer sizes, are almost compelled to take anyone with the right numbers regardless softs.

As to your Columbia friend anecdote, first of all that is sample size of 1, and second, he didn't get in probably because he majored in something challenging in college which brought his gpa down to a 3.8. If his stats were 3.9 and lsat, he would have gotten in, regardless of whether he attended Columbia or not. For almost every year, a 3.9/173 is a shoo-in at HLS, and I think even the most HLS stan would not argue that.

I am glad you mentioned laterals. HLS also takes 50 transfers from TTT every year, much like the megafirms..

Lol, this doesn't even make sense, what % of HLS admits didn't get into at least most of the rest of the T-14 (other than Y/S)?

Including Stanford. Just a personal anecdote, but a significant majority of H-S cross-admits that I've known over the years ended up choosing H. So I've always been puzzled by the hype that S gets (and the disdain for H) on these online forums

[Anonymous User]

Not everyone with a 3.9/173 actually gets into HLS anymore. May be closer to a sure thing for female applicants, but not for men. The more interesting question to me is: to the extent HLS is selecting for softs, are they having any systematic success doing so? E.g., are the qualified people they're passing over any worse than the people they're accepting? Not a lot of people spend their interview talking about being a serial killer, or how bigoted they are, so it's not clear what they're actually filtering for.

[Anonymous User]

Not everyone with a 3.9/173 actually gets into HLS anymore. May be closer to a sure thing for female applicants, but not for men. The more interesting question to me is: to the extent HLS is selecting for softs, are they having any systematic success doing so? E.g., are the qualified people they're passing over any worse than the people they're accepting? Not a lot of people spend their interview talking about being a serial killer, or how bigoted they are, so it's not clear what they're actually filtering for.

Do t-14 law schools really get more male applicants?

[Sackboy]

Not everyone with a 3.9/173 actually gets into HLS anymore. May be closer to a sure thing for female applicants, but not for men. The more interesting question to me is: to the extent HLS is selecting for softs, are they having any systematic success doing so? E.g., are the qualified people they're passing over any worse than the people they're accepting? Not a lot of people spend their interview talking about being a serial killer, or how bigoted they are, so it's not clear what they're actually filtering for.

Do t-14 law schools really get more male applicants?

Here are the stats on enrollments, which correlate highly with applications:

Men > Women:

• Virginia (55-45), Chicago (53-47),
• Cornell (52-48),
• Columbia (50-48-2 (includes non-binary)), and
• Michigan (50-49-1 (includes non-binary)).

Women > Men

• Yale (51-49),
• GULC (54-46),
• Harvard (54-46),
• Duke (55-45),
• Penn (55-45),
• Northwestern (56-54),
• NYU (57-43), and
• Berkeley (62-36-2 (including non-binary)).

I could not find data quickly for Stanford, so I gave up.

[johndonne]

Here are the stats on enrollments, which correlate highly with applications:

Men > Women:

• Virginia (55-45), Chicago (53-47),
• Cornell (52-48),
• Columbia (50-48-2 (includes non-binary)), and
• Michigan (50-49-1 (includes non-binary)).

Women > Men

• Yale (51-49),
• GULC (54-46),
• Harvard (54-46),
• Duke (55-45),
• Penn (55-45),
• Northwestern (56-54),
• NYU (57-43), and
• Berkeley (62-36-2 (including non-binary)).

I could not find data quickly for Stanford, so I gave up.

This is super interesting (and totally off-topic, but that may be a lost cause by now). Any idea why Berkeley in particular skews so much towards women? I remember this being the case a few years ago when I was looking at law schools too.

[Anonymous User]

Not everyone with a 3.9/173 actually gets into HLS anymore. May be closer to a sure thing for female applicants, but not for men. The more interesting question to me is: to the extent HLS is selecting for softs, are they having any systematic success doing so? E.g., are the qualified people they're passing over any worse than the people they're accepting? Not a lot of people spend their interview talking about being a serial killer, or how bigoted they are, so it's not clear what they're actually filtering for.

Do t-14 law schools really get more male applicants?

Here are the stats on enrollments, which correlate highly with applications:

Men > Women:

• Virginia (55-45), Chicago (53-47),
• Cornell (52-48),
• Columbia (50-48-2 (includes non-binary)), and
• Michigan (50-49-1 (includes non-binary)).

Women > Men

• Yale (51-49),
• GULC (54-46),
• Harvard (54-46),
• Duke (55-45),
• Penn (55-45),
• Northwestern (56-54),
• NYU (57-43), and
• Berkeley (62-36-2 (including non-binary)).

I could not find data quickly for Stanford, so I gave up.

Enrollment =/= applicants, but I think the key point is that men are disproportionately represented in the upper echelons of LSAT scores (170+). So for Harvard to hold its medians steady and not become a total sausage fest, it can't afford to pass on many 173+ women.

[Joachim2017]

Re Berkley skewing towards women, specifically, I think part of that is a self-perpetuating perception of its political slant (very left of center), and all that that facilitates.

[Anonymous User]

Due to the larger size, we do have our proportionately larger share of assholes. Looking at it this way, it's similar to the hate K&E often gets in this forum

Calling HLS the K&E of law schools is truly the sickest burn in this thread.

Yale= Top lit+Wachtell, Stanford=white shoe, Chicago= Skadden, Harvard= mega firms sounds reasonable to me

HLS is a lot more selective than that though. Acceptance rate of 7% these days? Median lsat of 173 and gpa of 3.95 or something. So many of my friends from various different firms lateraled to K&E or Latham. The megafirms accept anybody. HLS, however, is quite selective. I recall somebody said Wachtell is like Yale and Cravath is like Harvard. That's much more accurate.

Chicago is good school. But it's no better than Harvard. US News is just a magazine.

Last year was a fluke. Usually hovering around 15%. Takes anyone with 173/3.9. Hardly that selective..just like the megafirms. Cravath actually looks at fit.

It was 15% only in 2014, 2015 or so. From 2020, it's gotten quite low as the number of people applying to law school surged. Not even sure whether you ever applied to HLS. Back in my days they used to do interviews. In 2020, someone I know got rejected despite having graduated from Columbia for undergrad with 3.8 gpa and lsat of 176. I'm a sixth year at a V20, but getting into HLS several years ago was hardly a walk in the park back then. I don't think I would get in if I applied now.

Based on the caliber of those I know that lateraled to K&E or Latham last year, it just seems so easy lateraling to those firms given their huge hiring needs and expansion plans. For HLS, however, you do need to maintain a top gpa in college and do well on a standardized test to have a shot. K&E? Latham? Just last 2~3 years at a V20, V30, or what have you, in a transactional practice area and you automatically have a shot at K&E and Latham.

Comparing law schools to firms is quite a dumb exercise to begin with. The expansion of the mega firms is driven largely by laterals, and lateral decisions are based largely on hiring needs. Sometimes they just need a warm body with okay credentials.

No one is saying getting in HLS is a walk in the park. It is, just like lateraling to megafirms, not that hard. For laterally, you need to first of all get in a semi good law school, have good enough grades to get in biglaw, and then survive 2-3 years. It's not just cake walk either.

For HLS, you need a top GPA majoring in WHATEVER the easiest at your WHATEVER local college, and take a standardized test that practically allows INFINITE tries. There, you automatically have a shot at HLS. I have always believed the most unselective law schools are Harvard, Columbia, NYU and GULC, which because of their sheer sizes, are almost compelled to take anyone with the right numbers regardless softs.

As to your Columbia friend anecdote, first of all that is sample size of 1, and second, he didn't get in probably because he majored in something challenging in college which brought his gpa down to a 3.8. If his stats were 3.9 and lsat, he would have gotten in, regardless of whether he attended Columbia or not. For almost every year, a 3.9/173 is a shoo-in at HLS, and I think even the most HLS stan would not argue that.

I am glad you mentioned laterals. HLS also takes 50 transfers from TTT every year, much like the megafirms..

Bro wtf is your deal, this is just dumb. I'm sorry you didn't get into HLS but move on.

Sorry to break your ego, but I went to one of the vastly more superior YSC

[Anonymous User]

Yale= Top lit+Wachtell, Stanford=white shoe, Chicago= Skadden, Harvard= mega firms sounds reasonable to me

HLS is a lot more selective than that though. Acceptance rate of 7% these days? Median lsat of 173 and gpa of 3.95 or something. So many of my friends from various different firms lateraled to K&E or Latham. The megafirms accept anybody. HLS, however, is quite selective. I recall somebody said Wachtell is like Yale and Cravath is like Harvard. That's much more accurate.

Chicago is good school. But it's no better than Harvard. US News is just a magazine.

How dare you compare S to a non YSC school. Blasphemy!

Last year was a fluke. Usually hovering around 15%. Takes anyone with 173/3.9. Hardly that selective..just like the megafirms. Cravath actually looks at fit.

It was 15% only in 2014, 2015 or so. From 2020, it's gotten quite low as the number of people applying to law school surged. Not even sure whether you ever applied to HLS. Back in my days they used to do interviews. In 2020, someone I know got rejected despite having graduated from Columbia for undergrad with 3.8 gpa and lsat of 176. I'm a sixth year at a V20, but getting into HLS several years ago was hardly a walk in the park back then. I don't think I would get in if I applied now.

Based on the caliber of those I know that lateraled to K&E or Latham last year, it just seems so easy lateraling to those firms given their huge hiring needs and expansion plans. For HLS, however, you do need to maintain a top gpa in college and do well on a standardized test to have a shot. K&E? Latham? Just last 2~3 years at a V20, V30, or what have you, in a transactional practice area and you automatically have a shot at K&E and Latham.

Comparing law schools to firms is quite a dumb exercise to begin with. The expansion of the mega firms is driven largely by laterals, and lateral decisions are based largely on hiring needs. Sometimes they just need a warm body with okay credentials.

No one is saying getting in HLS is a walk in the park. It is, just like lateraling to megafirms, not that hard. For laterally, you need to first of all get in a semi good law school, have good enough grades to get in biglaw, and then survive 2-3 years. It's not just cake walk either.

For HLS, you need a top GPA majoring in WHATEVER the easiest at your WHATEVER local college, and take a standardized test that practically allows INFINITE tries. There, you automatically have a shot at HLS. I have always believed the most unselective law schools are Harvard, Columbia, NYU and GULC, which because of their sheer sizes, are almost compelled to take anyone with the right numbers regardless softs.

As to your Columbia friend anecdote, first of all that is sample size of 1, and second, he didn't get in probably because he majored in something challenging in college which brought his gpa down to a 3.8. If his stats were 3.9 and lsat, he would have gotten in, regardless of whether he attended Columbia or not. For almost every year, a 3.9/173 is a shoo-in at HLS, and I think even the most HLS stan would not argue that.

I am glad you mentioned laterals. HLS also takes 50 transfers from TTT every year, much like the megafirms..

Lol, this doesn't even make sense, what % of HLS admits didn't get into at least most of the rest of the T-14 (other than Y/S)?

Including Stanford. Just a personal anecdote, but a significant majority of H-S cross-admits that I've known over the years ended up choosing H. So I've always been puzzled by the hype that S gets (and the disdain for H) on these online forums

How dare you compare S to a non YSC school.

[Anonymous User]

Not everyone with a 3.9/173 actually gets into HLS anymore. May be closer to a sure thing for female applicants, but not for men. The more interesting question to me is: to the extent HLS is selecting for softs, are they having any systematic success doing so? E.g., are the qualified people they're passing over any worse than the people they're accepting? Not a lot of people spend their interview talking about being a serial killer, or how bigoted they are, so it's not clear what they're actually filtering for.

Only because of the LSAT inflation. Not gonna get in with a 173 when the median is 174. HLS is Harvard's biggest cash cow. All they care about is to keep the money rolling in while maintaining a top 3 spot on the rankings. They can't do that without keeping the medians at 173/3.9, but they still want more cash, so they take the highest number of transfers each year. It's just business.

[Anonymous User]

Yale= Top lit+Wachtell, Stanford=white shoe, Chicago= Skadden, Harvard= mega firms sounds reasonable to me

HLS is a lot more selective than that though. Acceptance rate of 7% these days? Median lsat of 173 and gpa of 3.95 or something. So many of my friends from various different firms lateraled to K&E or Latham. The megafirms accept anybody. HLS, however, is quite selective. I recall somebody said Wachtell is like Yale and Cravath is like Harvard. That's much more accurate.

Chicago is good school. But it's no better than Harvard. US News is just a magazine.

Last year was a fluke. Usually hovering around 15%. Takes anyone with 173/3.9. Hardly that selective..just like the megafirms. Cravath actually looks at fit.

It was 15% only in 2014, 2015 or so. From 2020, it's gotten quite low as the number of people applying to law school surged. Not even sure whether you ever applied to HLS. Back in my days they used to do interviews. In 2020, someone I know got rejected despite having graduated from Columbia for undergrad with 3.8 gpa and lsat of 176. I'm a sixth year at a V20, but getting into HLS several years ago was hardly a walk in the park back then. I don't think I would get in if I applied now.

Based on the caliber of those I know that lateraled to K&E or Latham last year, it just seems so easy lateraling to those firms given their huge hiring needs and expansion plans. For HLS, however, you do need to maintain a top gpa in college and do well on a standardized test to have a shot. K&E? Latham? Just last 2~3 years at a V20, V30, or what have you, in a transactional practice area and you automatically have a shot at K&E and Latham.

Comparing law schools to firms is quite a dumb exercise to begin with. The expansion of the mega firms is driven largely by laterals, and lateral decisions are based largely on hiring needs. Sometimes they just need a warm body with okay credentials.

No one is saying getting in HLS is a walk in the park. It is, just like lateraling to megafirms, not that hard. For laterally, you need to first of all get in a semi good law school, have good enough grades to get in biglaw, and then survive 2-3 years. It's not just cake walk either.

For HLS, you need a top GPA majoring in WHATEVER the easiest at your WHATEVER local college, and take a standardized test that practically allows INFINITE tries. There, you automatically have a shot at HLS. I have always believed the most unselective law schools are Harvard, Columbia, NYU and GULC, which because of their sheer sizes, are almost compelled to take anyone with the right numbers regardless softs.

As to your Columbia friend anecdote, first of all that is sample size of 1, and second, he didn't get in probably because he majored in something challenging in college which brought his gpa down to a 3.8. If his stats were 3.9 and lsat, he would have gotten in, regardless of whether he attended Columbia or not. For almost every year, a 3.9/173 is a shoo-in at HLS, and I think even the most HLS stan would not argue that.

I am glad you mentioned laterals. HLS also takes 50 transfers from TTT every year, much like the megafirms..

Bro wtf is your deal, this is just dumb. I'm sorry you didn't get into HLS but move on.

Sorry to break your ego, but I went to one of the vastly more superior YSC

Okay Chicago then

[Anonymous User]

HLS is a lot more selective than that though. Acceptance rate of 7% these days? Median lsat of 173 and gpa of 3.95 or something. So many of my friends from various different firms lateraled to K&E or Latham. The megafirms accept anybody. HLS, however, is quite selective. I recall somebody said Wachtell is like Yale and Cravath is like Harvard. That's much more accurate.

Chicago is good school. But it's no better than Harvard. US News is just a magazine.

Last year was a fluke. Usually hovering around 15%. Takes anyone with 173/3.9. Hardly that selective..just like the megafirms. Cravath actually looks at fit.

It was 15% only in 2014, 2015 or so. From 2020, it's gotten quite low as the number of people applying to law school surged. Not even sure whether you ever applied to HLS. Back in my days they used to do interviews. In 2020, someone I know got rejected despite having graduated from Columbia for undergrad with 3.8 gpa and lsat of 176. I'm a sixth year at a V20, but getting into HLS several years ago was hardly a walk in the park back then. I don't think I would get in if I applied now.

Based on the caliber of those I know that lateraled to K&E or Latham last year, it just seems so easy lateraling to those firms given their huge hiring needs and expansion plans. For HLS, however, you do need to maintain a top gpa in college and do well on a standardized test to have a shot. K&E? Latham? Just last 2~3 years at a V20, V30, or what have you, in a transactional practice area and you automatically have a shot at K&E and Latham.

Comparing law schools to firms is quite a dumb exercise to begin with. The expansion of the mega firms is driven largely by laterals, and lateral decisions are based largely on hiring needs. Sometimes they just need a warm body with okay credentials.

No one is saying getting in HLS is a walk in the park. It is, just like lateraling to megafirms, not that hard. For laterally, you need to first of all get in a semi good law school, have good enough grades to get in biglaw, and then survive 2-3 years. It's not just cake walk either.

For HLS, you need a top GPA majoring in WHATEVER the easiest at your WHATEVER local college, and take a standardized test that practically allows INFINITE tries. There, you automatically have a shot at HLS. I have always believed the most unselective law schools are Harvard, Columbia, NYU and GULC, which because of their sheer sizes, are almost compelled to take anyone with the right numbers regardless softs.

As to your Columbia friend anecdote, first of all that is sample size of 1, and second, he didn't get in probably because he majored in something challenging in college which brought his gpa down to a 3.8. If his stats were 3.9 and lsat, he would have gotten in, regardless of whether he attended Columbia or not. For almost every year, a 3.9/173 is a shoo-in at HLS, and I think even the most HLS stan would not argue that.

I am glad you mentioned laterals. HLS also takes 50 transfers from TTT every year, much like the megafirms..

Bro wtf is your deal, this is just dumb. I'm sorry you didn't get into HLS but move on.

Sorry to break your ego, but I went to one of the vastly more superior YSC

Okay Chicago then

No but is that supposed to be less impressive than the 4th best law school in the country or something?

[Anonymous User]

Lol @ the notion that HLS would consider cutting down class size to compete with ysc. Law school is a major cash cow for universities, and they don't even bother giving merit scholarships. I'm sure they're crying all the way to the bank over their post prestige.

Plus it's not like they aren't doing right by their students (like eg GULC and arguably Fordham). HLS kids at the median are getting biglaw, gasp, not clerkships. And the bottom of the class is too. And they still have enough clerks and judges and SCOTUS to parade around their successes. So why should they care about a magazine or a handful of ppl on the internet?

I think HLS itself always knows it is the backdoor to Harvard (or the pariah of Harvard). They never even bothered to appear super-selective and exclusive like the other Harvard schools, or even to compete with YLS. It had always been very content sitting at 3, churning out 600 Harvard-stamped diplomas while counting money. It's the students that somehow got the wrong idea to think that they are part of the Harvard lineage and the best law school...

Good luck convincing Harvard admissions that your kids are legacy because you went to HLS, and see if they see you as an alum when they don't need money out of your pocket.

[Anonymous User]

Good luck convincing Harvard admissions that your kids are legacy because you went to HLS, and see if they see you as an alum when they don't need money out of your pocket.

Serious questions in response to this interesting point I've never thought about before: Do children of HLS alumni get legacy-admission benefits when applying to Harvard College? Is this the same or different for children of other non-Harvard-undergrad alumni (M.D., Master's/Ph.D. programs, etc.)? Is Harvard's practice on these questions the same as for other elite universities that provide some legacy-admissions boosts to undergrad applicants?

[Anonymous User]

Good luck convincing Harvard admissions that your kids are legacy because you went to HLS, and see if they see you as an alum when they don't need money out of your pocket.

Serious questions in response to this interesting point I've never thought about before: Do children of HLS alumni get legacy-admission benefits when applying to Harvard College? Is this the same or different for children of other non-Harvard-undergrad alumni (M.D., Master's/Ph.D. programs, etc.)? Is Harvard's practice on these questions the same as for other elite universities that provide some legacy-admissions boosts to undergrad applicants?

Back when I applied to college, no. Legacy = one or both parents attended Harvard College. But at other schools (like Penn), they counted grandparents and grad programs.

[Anonymous User]

Not that this bizarre immature pissing contest matters, I got a full merit ride to CCN (and have done quite well there) with the "shoe-in" stats listed above but got WL at HLS (and SLS). Go figure.

[Anonymous User]

Lol @ the notion that HLS would consider cutting down class size to compete with ysc. Law school is a major cash cow for universities, and they don't even bother giving merit scholarships. I'm sure they're crying all the way to the bank over their post prestige.

Plus it's not like they aren't doing right by their students (like eg GULC and arguably Fordham). HLS kids at the median are getting biglaw, gasp, not clerkships. And the bottom of the class is too. And they still have enough clerks and judges and SCOTUS to parade around their successes. So why should they care about a magazine or a handful of ppl on the internet?

I think HLS itself always knows it is the backdoor to Harvard (or the pariah of Harvard). They never even bothered to appear super-selective and exclusive like the other Harvard schools, or even to compete with YLS. It had always been very content sitting at 3, churning out 600 Harvard-stamped diplomas while counting money. It's the students that somehow got the wrong idea to think that they are part of the Harvard lineage and the best law school...

Good luck convincing Harvard admissions that your kids are legacy because you went to HLS, and see if they see you as an alum when they don't need money out of your pocket.

There are tons of former Harvard College students at Harvard Law. There are also plenty of Harvard College students who get rejected from Harvard Law (most, actually). I truly do not think anyone at Harvard University would refer to the law school as a "pariah." That would probably be the Kennedy School, honestly.
Edit: I'm not serious about the Kennedy School, fyi. It's also fine.

[Anonymous User]

Lol @ the notion that HLS would consider cutting down class size to compete with ysc. Law school is a major cash cow for universities, and they don't even bother giving merit scholarships. I'm sure they're crying all the way to the bank over their post prestige.

Plus it's not like they aren't doing right by their students (like eg GULC and arguably Fordham). HLS kids at the median are getting biglaw, gasp, not clerkships. And the bottom of the class is too. And they still have enough clerks and judges and SCOTUS to parade around their successes. So why should they care about a magazine or a handful of ppl on the internet?

I think HLS itself always knows it is the backdoor to Harvard (or the pariah of Harvard). They never even bothered to appear super-selective and exclusive like the other Harvard schools, or even to compete with YLS. It had always been very content sitting at 3, churning out 600 Harvard-stamped diplomas while counting money. It's the students that somehow got the wrong idea to think that they are part of the Harvard lineage and the best law school...

Good luck convincing Harvard admissions that your kids are legacy because you went to HLS, and see if they see you as an alum when they don't need money out of your pocket.

LOL why do we even need legacy status to Harvard College? HLS has more prestige than all the other Harvard schools combined. You see Harvard undergrads regret not going to HLS. How often do you see HLS students regret not going to Harvard undergrad? We go on and become CEOs, entrepreneurs, senators, supreme courts justices, and presidents. Every corner of the world has been and continues to be shaped by HLS students. Students from other law schools (or schools in general) work for the political/business empires HLS students build and own.

[Anonymous User]

Lol @ the notion that HLS would consider cutting down class size to compete with ysc. Law school is a major cash cow for universities, and they don't even bother giving merit scholarships. I'm sure they're crying all the way to the bank over their post prestige.

Plus it's not like they aren't doing right by their students (like eg GULC and arguably Fordham). HLS kids at the median are getting biglaw, gasp, not clerkships. And the bottom of the class is too. And they still have enough clerks and judges and SCOTUS to parade around their successes. So why should they care about a magazine or a handful of ppl on the internet?

I think HLS itself always knows it is the backdoor to Harvard (or the pariah of Harvard). They never even bothered to appear super-selective and exclusive like the other Harvard schools, or even to compete with YLS. It had always been very content sitting at 3, churning out 600 Harvard-stamped diplomas while counting money. It's the students that somehow got the wrong idea to think that they are part of the Harvard lineage and the best law school...

Good luck convincing Harvard admissions that your kids are legacy because you went to HLS, and see if they see you as an alum when they don't need money out of your pocket.

There are tons of former Harvard College students at Harvard Law. There are also plenty of Harvard College students who get rejected from Harvard Law (most, actually). I truly do not think anyone at Harvard University would refer to the law school as a "pariah." That would probably be the Kennedy School, honestly.
Edit: I'm not serious about the Kennedy School, fyi. It's also fine.

Harvard College students have so many better options: IB, Consulting, Quant, Tech, etc., each more lucrative than a career in law. Other than those who actually have the passion and connections to bring their political ambitions to fruition, those who apply to law school out of Harvard College already tend to be the least well-informed group. And out of those who do apply, the best ones go to YLS.

Just an idea about selectivity: No one can say, no matter how great their credentials are, that he is more likely than not going to get in Harvard College (or Harvard Med or HBS). On the other hand, anyone with the right numbers feels like an auto-admit at HLS and will get pissed if they don't.

[Anonymous User]

Not that this bizarre immature pissing contest matters, I got a full merit ride to CCN (and have done quite well there) with the "shoe-in" stats listed above but got WL at HLS (and SLS). Go figure.

Easy: Yield protection at HLS, but just not good enough for SLS (and possibly Chicago)

[Anonymous User]

Lol @ the notion that HLS would consider cutting down class size to compete with ysc. Law school is a major cash cow for universities, and they don't even bother giving merit scholarships. I'm sure they're crying all the way to the bank over their post prestige.

Plus it's not like they aren't doing right by their students (like eg GULC and arguably Fordham). HLS kids at the median are getting biglaw, gasp, not clerkships. And the bottom of the class is too. And they still have enough clerks and judges and SCOTUS to parade around their successes. So why should they care about a magazine or a handful of ppl on the internet?

I think HLS itself always knows it is the backdoor to Harvard (or the pariah of Harvard). They never even bothered to appear super-selective and exclusive like the other Harvard schools, or even to compete with YLS. It had always been very content sitting at 3, churning out 600 Harvard-stamped diplomas while counting money. It's the students that somehow got the wrong idea to think that they are part of the Harvard lineage and the best law school...

Good luck convincing Harvard admissions that your kids are legacy because you went to HLS, and see if they see you as an alum when they don't need money out of your pocket.

LOL why do we even need legacy status to Harvard College? HLS has more prestige than all the other Harvard schools combined. You see Harvard undergrads regret not going to HLS. How often do you see HLS students regret not going to Harvard undergrad? We go on and become CEOs, entrepreneurs, senators, supreme courts justices, and presidents. Every corner of the world has been and continues to be shaped by HLS students. Students from other law schools (or schools in general) work for the political/business empires HLS students build and own.

flame? You realize HLS accepts plenty of folks whose families are already rich, or stars like Obama who were clearly going to be successful anyway. Doesn't mean you'll get the same opportunities by showing up on campus, then flaming out at Skadden in 2 years.

[becodalapa]

LOL why do we even need legacy status to Harvard College? HLS has more prestige than all the other Harvard schools combined. You see Harvard undergrads regret not going to HLS. How often do you see HLS students regret not going to Harvard undergrad? We go on and become CEOs, entrepreneurs, senators, supreme courts justices, and presidents. Every corner of the world has been and continues to be shaped by HLS students. Students from other law schools (or schools in general) work for the political/business empires HLS students build and own.

Never mind what I said about this discussion before. This makes this whole thing worth it.

[Anonymous User]

Not that this bizarre immature pissing contest matters, I got a full merit ride to CCN (and have done quite well there) with the "shoe-in" stats listed above but got WL at HLS (and SLS). Go figure.

Easy: Yield protection at HLS, but just not good enough for SLS (and possibly Chicago)

OMG ENOUGH WITH THAT DAMN CHICAGO LMAO

[Anonymous User]

This hardcore anti-Harvard thing is a weird schtick, honestly. Troll on though, dude.