you can find me at www.top-law-schools.com! Forum

[RSN]

Apparently this year's Turkey Day Surprise was... that there's no Turkey Day Surprise. Whomp whomp.

My money's on the week of 12/15, on no basis whatsoever.

[GreenTee]

Baseless speculation:

I think it's possible that H decided to delay its decision timeline this year because the number and overall quality of early applicants is lower than it had been in previous cycles. Anyone think that's the case?

I know there are plenty of people above both medians in this thread who have had JS1s and could have potentially been admitted before Thanksgiving. But maybe they're holding out to get a better picture of the entire pool because they just don't have enough applicants yet.

The Turkey Day Delay might be a really great sign for everyone applying this cycle.

[Dr. Nefario]

Baseless speculation:

I think it's possible that H decided to delay its decision timeline this year because the number and overall quality of early applicants is lower than it had been in previous cycles. Anyone think that's the case?

I know there are plenty of people above both medians in this thread who have had JS1s and could have potentially been admitted before Thanksgiving. But maybe they're holding out to get a better picture of the entire pool because they just don't have enough applicants yet.

The Turkey Day Delay might be a really great sign for everyone applying this cycle.

not applying to Harvard cause ha, but if this was the case for all schools, maybe I should apply to some higher ups and this would be the year for lower LSAT scores to sneak into T14s

[RSN]

Baseless speculation:

I think it's possible that H decided to delay its decision timeline this year because the number and overall quality of early applicants is lower than it had been in previous cycles. Anyone think that's the case?

I know there are plenty of people above both medians in this thread who have had JS1s and could have potentially been admitted before Thanksgiving. But maybe they're holding out to get a better picture of the entire pool because they just don't have enough applicants yet.

The Turkey Day Delay might be a really great sign for everyone applying this cycle.

Interesting line of thinking. To add an ineffective empirical element to your analysis, let's compare this year's thread and last year's thread as a proxy for the number of applicants. Last year's thread was started 7/31/13, and on the Monday after Thanksgiving (12/2/13) was up to about 2000 posts (81 pages). This year's thread started on 7/27/14, and here we are at the post-Thanksgiving Monday, and we're only at a measly 46 pages.

All other things being equal, that could indicate that the volume of applications is lower this year than last year.

Of course, there were JS2s last year during the previous week, so that adds a huge number of posts that we would have had this year if people had started to get calls. Jumping back to the Sunday night before the JS2s started last year, there were about 1345 posts, or 54 pages, by the end of Sunday night. This year, the total at that time was about 1035, about 42 pages.

This is likely entirely meaningless. But nice procrastination from work.

[GreenTee]

Mets -- I was thinking about the page count too. But, as you suggested, the low count could just be an effect of the decision timeline, independent of the size of the applicant pool. More movement = more posts. Do we know how many JS1s were reported so far this cycle compared to previous cycles?

[pylon]

Interesting line of thinking. To add an ineffective empirical element to your analysis, let's compare this year's thread and last year's thread as a proxy for the number of applicants. Last year's thread was started 7/31/13, and on the Monday after Thanksgiving (12/2/13) was up to about 2000 posts (81 pages). This year's thread started on 7/27/14, and here we are at the post-Thanksgiving Monday, and we're only at a measly 46 pages.

Haha creative thinking.

I have a feeling that the TLS General Applicants thread has something to do with the lack of 'action' on the HLS thread.

[pylon]

So... JS2s today?

I'm just hoping for JS1 :/

I'm just hoping for "Complete" :/ :/

[BillsFan9907]

Id like to add to the above speculation. Today, there is only one 180 applicant to HLS on LSN. By this time last year there were at least 6. This is suggestive of a weaker applicant pool.

[RSN]

Interesting line of thinking. To add an ineffective empirical element to your analysis, let's compare this year's thread and last year's thread as a proxy for the number of applicants. Last year's thread was started 7/31/13, and on the Monday after Thanksgiving (12/2/13) was up to about 2000 posts (81 pages). This year's thread started on 7/27/14, and here we are at the post-Thanksgiving Monday, and we're only at a measly 46 pages.

Haha creative thinking.

I have a feeling that the TLS General Applicants thread has something to do with the lack of 'action' on the HLS thread.

There wasn't one of those last year? Man, this would be so much easier without xylocarp and her aggressive creation of helpful and informative threads.

[pylon]

Baseless speculation:

I think it's possible that H decided to delay its decision timeline this year because the number and overall quality of early applicants is lower than it had been in previous cycles. Anyone think that's the case?

It could also be that there's a lot more early applicants this year compared to years past, which is why it's taking longer to release decisions.

These baseless speculation exercises are fun. Also though, we don't have anything to worry about. The decisions will come.

[smile0751]

Baseless speculation:

I think it's possible that H decided to delay its decision timeline this year because the number and overall quality of early applicants is lower than it had been in previous cycles. Anyone think that's the case?

I know there are plenty of people above both medians in this thread who have had JS1s and could have potentially been admitted before Thanksgiving. But maybe they're holding out to get a better picture of the entire pool because they just don't have enough applicants yet.

The Turkey Day Delay might be a really great sign for everyone applying this cycle.

+1 for hopeful rationalization

As a September applicant without a JS1, I'm feeling pretty down regarding HLS. But I guess the game is not over till the reject notice comes...

[fra]

Id like to add to the above speculation. Today, there is only one 180 applicant to HLS on LSN. By this time last year there were at least 6. This is suggestive of a weaker applicant pool.

Some of us are set to private because the 180 makes us very identifiable. I'm planning on making my LSN acct public after all decisions are out. I might be the only one doing that though.

[RSN]

Id like to add to the above speculation. Today, there is only one 180 applicant to HLS on LSN. By this time last year there were at least 6. This is suggestive of a weaker applicant pool.

The overall number of LSN HLS applicants this year versus last year may actually be useful information, and it's striking. There are 135 active applicants for this cycle on LSN (there are 143 total, but I excluded 8 that have decisions and/or haven't been updated in >4 months, meaning they're from last cycle). Last year at this time there were 245, and that's only including the ones that listed their Sent date (and there are dozens that didn't, so the number is probably even higher). Assuming LSN participation is roughly the same year over year, that actually shows a pretty incredible decline in early apps.

[Kobaine51]

Id like to add to the above speculation. Today, there is only one 180 applicant to HLS on LSN. By this time last year there were at least 6. This is suggestive of a weaker applicant pool.

The overall number of LSN HLS applicants this year versus last year may actually be useful information, and it's striking. There are 135 active applicants for this cycle on LSN (there are 143 total, but I excluded 8 that have decisions and/or haven't been updated in >4 months, meaning they're from last cycle). Last year at this time there were 245, and that's only including the ones that listed their Sent date (and there are dozens that didn't, so the number is probably even higher). Assuming LSN participation is roughly the same year over year, that actually shows a pretty incredible decline in early apps.

What is the theory that would explain a decline? The value of a Harvard Law degree, if anything, has been reaffirmed during this cycle.

[RSN]

Id like to add to the above speculation. Today, there is only one 180 applicant to HLS on LSN. By this time last year there were at least 6. This is suggestive of a weaker applicant pool.

The overall number of LSN HLS applicants this year versus last year may actually be useful information, and it's striking. There are 135 active applicants for this cycle on LSN (there are 143 total, but I excluded 8 that have decisions and/or haven't been updated in >4 months, meaning they're from last cycle). Last year at this time there were 245, and that's only including the ones that listed their Sent date (and there are dozens that didn't, so the number is probably even higher). Assuming LSN participation is roughly the same year over year, that actually shows a pretty incredible decline in early apps.

What is the theory that would explain a decline? The value of a Harvard Law degree, if anything, has been reaffirmed during this cycle.

Well we'd have to go through the full T14 on LSN to see if this trend is consistent across all the schools, and I would bet that it is, though I don't have the time to do the analysis during the work day. I would bet that it's across the board though, not just HLS.

[XKCD386]

Id like to add to the above speculation. Today, there is only one 180 applicant to HLS on LSN. By this time last year there were at least 6. This is suggestive of a weaker applicant pool.

Some of us are set to private because the 180 makes us very identifiable. I'm planning on making my LSN acct public after all decisions are out. I might be the only one doing that though.

I did the same. (I don't have a 180, but thought that my 177 + GPA + public school + years out of school made me readily identifiable.) Will fill out all the details when decisions are out.

[suppy183]

Id like to add to the above speculation. Today, there is only one 180 applicant to HLS on LSN. By this time last year there were at least 6. This is suggestive of a weaker applicant pool.

Some of us are set to private because the 180 makes us very identifiable. I'm planning on making my LSN acct public after all decisions are out. I might be the only one doing that though.

I did the same. (I don't have a 180, but thought that my 177 + GPA + public school + years out of school made me readily identifiable.) Will fill out all the details when decisions are out.

I don't even have an account yet but plan on creating one after the cycle is over for similar reasons. I'm willing to bet that the effect of this kind of behavior is large enough that we have no way of accurately assessing applicant volume based off of current LSN numbers.

[RSN]

Id like to add to the above speculation. Today, there is only one 180 applicant to HLS on LSN. By this time last year there were at least 6. This is suggestive of a weaker applicant pool.

Some of us are set to private because the 180 makes us very identifiable. I'm planning on making my LSN acct public after all decisions are out. I might be the only one doing that though.

I did the same. (I don't have a 180, but thought that my 177 + GPA + public school + years out of school made me readily identifiable.) Will fill out all the details when decisions are out.

I don't even have an account yet but plan on creating one after the cycle is over for similar reasons. I'm willing to bet that the effect of this kind of behavior is large enough that we have no way of accurately assessing applicant volume based off of current LSN numbers.

But don't you think it's fair to assume that it's roughly consistent year to year, the number of people choosing not to make accounts because they're concerned about being identified (or are too lazy, in my case)?

[fra]

But don't you think it's fair to assume that it's roughly consistent year to year, the number of people choosing not to make accounts because they're concerned about being identified (or are too lazy, in my case)?

The issue is people creating accounts or making their info public after the cycle is over. These people would be counted in retrospective data collection (such as looking at the previous cycle) but not in current data collection. So comparing this cycle to last cycle on LSN is invalid because of people who wait to create accounts.

[presser610]

Id like to add to the above speculation. Today, there is only one 180 applicant to HLS on LSN. By this time last year there were at least 6. This is suggestive of a weaker applicant pool.

The overall number of LSN HLS applicants this year versus last year may actually be useful information, and it's striking. There are 135 active applicants for this cycle on LSN (there are 143 total, but I excluded 8 that have decisions and/or haven't been updated in >4 months, meaning they're from last cycle). Last year at this time there were 245, and that's only including the ones that listed their Sent date (and there are dozens that didn't, so the number is probably even higher). Assuming LSN participation is roughly the same year over year, that actually shows a pretty incredible decline in early apps.

What is the theory that would explain a decline? The value of a Harvard Law degree, if anything, has been reaffirmed during this cycle.

Well we'd have to go through the full T14 on LSN to see if this trend is consistent across all the schools, and I would bet that it is, though I don't have the time to do the analysis during the work day. I would bet that it's across the board though, not just HLS.

Just to add some insight, I went through the same analysis for Columbia's applicants on LSN and at this point last year there were 258, this year there are only 153. So that does seem to follow the same trend.

[RSN]

But don't you think it's fair to assume that it's roughly consistent year to year, the number of people choosing not to make accounts because they're concerned about being identified (or are too lazy, in my case)?

The issue is people creating accounts or making their info public after the cycle is over. These people would be counted in retrospective data collection (such as looking at the previous cycle) but not in current data collection. So comparing this cycle to last cycle on LSN is invalid because of people who wait to create accounts.

Oh, well that clears it up then. We'd have to have an actual snapshot of the applicants list on this date last year to remove the retroactive accounts who applied in Sep/Oct/Nov but didn't end up listing their Sent and Complete dates publicly until after decisions. Good call -- guessing this is how you got that 180.

[90convoy]

Could the difference in applicants on LSN be that many people don't report their "sent" and "decision" dates until after the cycle is over. I, for example, haven't updated much on LSN.

NVM someone already said this

[BillsFan9907]

I suggest we play around with archive.org for the various T5 or T14. Unfortunately, the only useful archived date for HLS is February 9, 2014. There aren't any snapshots of this time of year. I'm sure there might be for some of the other schools.

I plugged this into archive:

http://harvard.lawschoolnumbers.com/applicants

[Kobaine51]

Just to add some insight, I went through the same analysis for Columbia's applicants on LSN and at this point last year there were 258, this year there are only 153. So that does seem to follow the same trend.

It definitely seems that there is less online activity this year, but we know there is no way that T6 schools are going to experience a 40% drop in application volume this year, so I am just wondering what might explain the observation.

[lawschoolplease1]

are there new open interview slots?
praying that today is the day....