Harvard Waitlist 2010 Forum

[roundabout]

Ha! You got me. I sure screwed up. Really though I'm actually happy with my cycle and I don't need to keep hearing the same impractical advice over and over again. Maybe I shouldn't have said that I would literally kill or die to go to Harvard though...

No, you're right. Congrats on the Northwestern scholarship! That is an amazing opportunity to have in your back pocket, particularly because it will allow you to ride the Harvard wait-list a lot longer than most (including me).

Thank you. Good luck on the waitlist. How long are most people here planning to ride the waitlist out?

[chanchito]

you mean until the bitter end?

[pocketwatcher]

Question for you guys:
So, right now I'm on the Harvard waitlist and if I don't get in I will just reapply in the fall.

Went to a top 10 private, have a GPA of 3.89 and an LSAT of 168. Should I retake the LSAT in the fall if I don't get in off the waitlist? I'm not 100% confident I will do that much better, but I also want to do what it takes to get into Harvard.

I want to go there so badly it's pathetic. Meh.

[jdcballer]

Question for you guys:
So, right now I'm on the Harvard waitlist and if I don't get in I will just reapply in the fall.

Went to a top 10 private, have a GPA of 3.89 and an LSAT of 168. Should I retake the LSAT in the fall if I don't get in off the waitlist? I'm not 100% confident I will do that much better, but I also want to do what it takes to get into Harvard.

I want to go there so badly it's pathetic. Meh.

I would definitely recommend retaking the LSAT in the fall--or even June if you're up for it. If you do the earlier LSAT you could already have a new score when get your application in early next year.

[of Benito Cereno]

Question for you guys:
So, right now I'm on the Harvard waitlist and if I don't get in I will just reapply in the fall.

Went to a top 10 private, have a GPA of 3.89 and an LSAT of 168. Should I retake the LSAT in the fall if I don't get in off the waitlist? I'm not 100% confident I will do that much better, but I also want to do what it takes to get into Harvard.

I want to go there so badly it's pathetic. Meh.

what schools have you already been admitted to that you're so set on waiting a year?

[pocketwatcher]

I just applied to the big three this year--I am open to taking time off between undergrad and law school so I didn't want to settle for less than anywhere I really want to go. So I'm just on the waitlist at Harvard right now and that's it.

I'm really torn about this LSAT thing. It would be great to bring my score up, but I also kind of feel like I did my best the last time. It would obviously not be great to retake it and barely improve at all.

[lta]

Totally just an uninformed opinion, but it seems that you will not be a particularly different candidate next year than you were last year. Unless you land some incredible job/fellowship/whatever. So you are taking a chance either way.

[of Benito Cereno]

I just applied to the big three this year--I am open to taking time off between undergrad and law school so I didn't want to settle for less than anywhere I really want to go. So I'm just on the waitlist at Harvard right now and that's it.

I'm really torn about this LSAT thing. It would be great to bring my score up, but I also kind of feel like I did my best the last time. It would obviously not be great to retake it and barely improve at all.

unless you retake the lsat you really dont stand a chance at getting ton hys, you'd be luck to get into columbia or chicago, for the most part hysc don't take non-urms with sub 169-lsats. at hls they seem to only take about half of the 170 and 171 applicants with 3.9+ gpas.
so it seems you're really going to need to retake or aim lower next year.

[ryszard]

Are applicants who have received JR1s prior to being waitlisted more likely to be admitted than those applicants who are JR1-less at the time of being waitlisted?

[of Benito Cereno]

Are applicants who have received JR1s prior to being waitlisted more likely to be admitted than those applicants who are JR1-less at the time of being waitlisted?

you might as well be asking what day of the week the big bang took place on.

[pocketwatcher]

pocketwatcher wrote:
I just applied to the big three this year--I am open to taking time off between undergrad and law school so I didn't want to settle for less than anywhere I really want to go. So I'm just on the waitlist at Harvard right now and that's it.

I'm really torn about this LSAT thing. It would be great to bring my score up, but I also kind of feel like I did my best the last time. It would obviously not be great to retake it and barely improve at all.

unless you retake the lsat you really dont stand a chance at getting ton hys, you'd be luck to get into columbia or chicago, for the most part hysc don't take non-urms with sub 169-lsats. at hls they seem to only take about half of the 170 and 171 applicants with 3.9+ gpas.
so it seems you're really going to need to retake or aim lower next year.

Hmm. I guess I'm not quite as fatalistic about the LSAT as some of the folks on this thread. There is actually a decent chance that I will have either a cool job or a fellowship this fall, so I'm hoping that will help strengthen my application and make up for the weaker LSAT. Thanks so much for your input though.

[ryszard]

Are applicants who have received JR1s prior to being waitlisted more likely to be admitted than those applicants who are JR1-less at the time of being waitlisted?

you might as well be asking what day of the week the big bang took place on.

You really think it’s entirely irrelevant? You don’t think a JR1 suggests that the admissions committee has a greater interest in your application than another that they, say, sent straight to the waitlist without so much as a “hold” status?

[Sakura3210]

Are applicants who have received JR1s prior to being waitlisted more likely to be admitted than those applicants who are JR1-less at the time of being waitlisted?

you might as well be asking what day of the week the big bang took place on.

You really think it’s entirely irrelevant? You don’t think a JR1 suggests that the admissions committee has a greater interest in your application than another that they, say, sent straight to the waitlist without so much as a “hold” status?

I don't think he's saying it's irrelevant. It's that we can't tell. Your scenario is possible, but so is this one - They thought you were interesting, gave you a JR1, and decided there was something so off about you that they couldn't flat-out accept you. Meanwhile, someone with similar numbers may not have looked as compelling as you at first, but they decided to give them a shot anyway. After going through the waitlist, that person is given a JR1, aces it, and gets in over you.

[of Benito Cereno]

pocketwatcher wrote:
I just applied to the big three this year--I am open to taking time off between undergrad and law school so I didn't want to settle for less than anywhere I really want to go. So I'm just on the waitlist at Harvard right now and that's it.

I'm really torn about this LSAT thing. It would be great to bring my score up, but I also kind of feel like I did my best the last time. It would obviously not be great to retake it and barely improve at all.

unless you retake the lsat you really dont stand a chance at getting ton hys, you'd be luck to get into columbia or chicago, for the most part hysc don't take non-urms with sub 169-lsats. at hls they seem to only take about half of the 170 and 171 applicants with 3.9+ gpas.
so it seems you're really going to need to retake or aim lower next year.

Hmm. I guess I'm not quite as fatalistic about the LSAT as some of the folks on this thread. There is actually a decent chance that I will have either a cool job or a fellowship this fall, so I'm hoping that will help strengthen my application and make up for the weaker LSAT. Thanks so much for your input though.

a huge percentage of applicants have cool jobs, fellowships, and graduate degrees. less than 20 % of harvard and yale admits have below a 169 and the vast, vast majority of those admits are to URMs, combat veterans or people with really very very very unique profiles. the truth is, harvard and yale turn down hundreds of ivy league alums with fantastic CVs (often phds, fullbrights, jobs and mckinsey or the senate) because they have sub 3.7 gpas or sub 170 lsats. at the end of the day the whole process turns out to be fairly predictable because all of us are not really unique snowflakes. thousands of people apply year in and year out and basic rules become apparent. take a look at law school numbers and you'll find that in the past 5 years basically nobody gets in with a 168 who isn't a urm, rhodes/marshall scholar, harvard/yale alum, combat veteran, or olympian. this year tons of applicants with 170s or 171s and 3.9x gpas from great schools combined with MAs, work experience, etc got waitlisted and rejected. Its not a question of being fatalistic. 3 points more on the lsat could make a world of difference but if you really don't think taking the lsat again is worth it (which leads one to wonder if you care enough to put in the effort of going through law school in the first place) you really should think about applying to other top 10 schools. otherwise, I'm 99% you're really just going to have waited a year for nothing. it sucks but the game is pretty damn predictable and at harvard and yale a 168 is a 168.

[of Benito Cereno]

Are applicants who have received JR1s prior to being waitlisted more likely to be admitted than those applicants who are JR1-less at the time of being waitlisted?

you might as well be asking what day of the week the big bang took place on.

You really think it’s entirely irrelevant? You don’t think a JR1 suggests that the admissions committee has a greater interest in your application than another that they, say, sent straight to the waitlist without so much as a “hold” status?

I don't think he's saying it's irrelevant. It's that we can't tell. Your scenario is possible, but so is this one - They thought you were interesting, gave you a JR1, and decided there was something so off about you that they couldn't flat-out accept you. Meanwhile, someone with similar numbers may not have looked as compelling as you at first, but they decided to give them a shot anyway. After going through the waitlist, that person is given a JR1, aces it, and gets in over you.

this.

[ryszard]

Are applicants who have received JR1s prior to being waitlisted more likely to be admitted than those applicants who are JR1-less at the time of being waitlisted?

you might as well be asking what day of the week the big bang took place on.

You really think it’s entirely irrelevant? You don’t think a JR1 suggests that the admissions committee has a greater interest in your application than another that they, say, sent straight to the waitlist without so much as a “hold” status?

I don't think he's saying it's irrelevant. It's that we can't tell. Your scenario is possible, but so is this one - They thought you were interesting, gave you a JR1, and decided there was something so off about you that they couldn't flat-out accept you. Meanwhile, someone with similar numbers may not have looked as compelling as you at first, but they decided to give them a shot anyway. After going through the waitlist, that person is given a JR1, aces it, and gets in over you.

Sure that second scenario you described is possible, but I don’t think you've addressed my question. I’m not really concerned with possible reasons for admissions decisions regarding JR1s or WL-ing in individual cases. The question I originally posed was essentially empirical: does the lsn data from years past show that, of those applicants ultimately accepted from the waitlist, a majority had had JR1s prior to being waitlisted initially? I don’t see what’s so opaque about that; it certainly doesn’t require speculating about the reasons for any admissions decisions, only sorting through the profiles.

Not that it matters, but I personally haven’t received a JR1. I was wondering whether this put me at a disadvantage on the waitlist.

[Sakura3210]

Sure that second scenario you described is possible, but I don’t think you've addressed my question. I’m not really concerned with possible reasons for admissions decisions regarding JR1s or WL-ing in individual cases. The question I originally posed was essentially empirical: does the lsn data from years past show that, of those applicants ultimately accepted from the waitlist, a majority had had JR1s prior to being waitlisted initially? I don’t see what’s so opaque about that; it certainly doesn’t require speculating about the reasons for any admissions decisions, only sorting through the profiles.

Not that it matters, but I personally haven’t received a JR1. I was wondering whether this put me at a disadvantage on the waitlist.

The lsn data isn't helpful for this info, because: 1. It doesn't list who got JR1s (some people mention it in their summaries, but not all), 2. Most people don't update their status after being placed on waitlist (esp. if they've been rejected), 3. The lsn pool is relatively small and is self-reporting - for all we know, every person who posted waitlist--> acceptance could be lying, etc.

Really, all we can do is speculate. But hey, if you'd like to go through every lsn profile to find out who got a JR1/waitlist, who didn't, and compile all that info, be my guest.

[jdcballer]

pocketwatcher wrote:
I just applied to the big three this year--I am open to taking time off between undergrad and law school so I didn't want to settle for less than anywhere I really want to go. So I'm just on the waitlist at Harvard right now and that's it.

I'm really torn about this LSAT thing. It would be great to bring my score up, but I also kind of feel like I did my best the last time. It would obviously not be great to retake it and barely improve at all.

unless you retake the lsat you really dont stand a chance at getting ton hys, you'd be luck to get into columbia or chicago, for the most part hysc don't take non-urms with sub 169-lsats. at hls they seem to only take about half of the 170 and 171 applicants with 3.9+ gpas.
so it seems you're really going to need to retake or aim lower next year.

Hmm. I guess I'm not quite as fatalistic about the LSAT as some of the folks on this thread. There is actually a decent chance that I will have either a cool job or a fellowship this fall, so I'm hoping that will help strengthen my application and make up for the weaker LSAT. Thanks so much for your input though.

a huge percentage of applicants have cool jobs, fellowships, and graduate degrees. less than 20 % of harvard and yale admits have below a 169 and the vast, vast majority of those admits are to URMs, combat veterans or people with really very very very unique profiles. the truth is, harvard and yale turn down hundreds of ivy league alums with fantastic CVs (often phds, fullbrights, jobs and mckinsey or the senate) because they have sub 3.7 gpas or sub 170 lsats. at the end of the day the whole process turns out to be fairly predictable because all of us are not really unique snowflakes. thousands of people apply year in and year out and basic rules become apparent. take a look at law school numbers and you'll find that in the past 5 years basically nobody gets in with a 168 who isn't a urm, rhodes/marshall scholar, harvard/yale alum, combat veteran, or olympian. this year tons of applicants with 170s or 171s and 3.9x gpas from great schools combined with MAs, work experience, etc got waitlisted and rejected. Its not a question of being fatalistic. 3 points more on the lsat could make a world of difference but if you really don't think taking the lsat again is worth it (which leads one to wonder if you care enough to put in the effort of going through law school in the first place) you really should think about applying to other top 10 schools. otherwise, I'm 99% you're really just going to have waited a year for nothing. it sucks but the game is pretty damn predictable and at harvard and yale a 168 is a 168.

Sorry to rain on the parade pocketwatcher, but this advice is dead on. You don't have to agree with the huge emphasis on LSAT scores to recognize that it is real. Unless there is something amazing that you're withholding, it is extremely likely that you'll be disappointed next year unless you give a retake a try. There are tons of prep resources out there so it seems like if you put the time and effort in you could certainly improve a few more points--especially given the fact that you scored well in the first place (so it's evident the concepts aren't totally foreign to you).

[BenJ]

pocketwatcher wrote:
I just applied to the big three this year--I am open to taking time off between undergrad and law school so I didn't want to settle for less than anywhere I really want to go. So I'm just on the waitlist at Harvard right now and that's it.

I'm really torn about this LSAT thing. It would be great to bring my score up, but I also kind of feel like I did my best the last time. It would obviously not be great to retake it and barely improve at all.

unless you retake the lsat you really dont stand a chance at getting ton hys, you'd be luck to get into columbia or chicago, for the most part hysc don't take non-urms with sub 169-lsats. at hls they seem to only take about half of the 170 and 171 applicants with 3.9+ gpas.
so it seems you're really going to need to retake or aim lower next year.

Hmm. I guess I'm not quite as fatalistic about the LSAT as some of the folks on this thread. There is actually a decent chance that I will have either a cool job or a fellowship this fall, so I'm hoping that will help strengthen my application and make up for the weaker LSAT. Thanks so much for your input though.

This is simply wrong. The difference between a 168 and a 170 in admissions at Harvard (and to a lesser extent Stanford and Yale) is enormous. This isn't true of just any two-point jump, but it is true of that particular one. HYS very rarely admit anyone below a 170, and when they do it's either people with 4.0+ GPAs or superb work experience lasting five years or more. A "cool job" can make a difference with regards to GPA (of course, most people a year or two out of undergrad applying will have a "cool job"), but it does very little to change their opinion of your LSAT score, especially at Harvard.

Without a perfect GPA, you're going to need to retake the LSAT if you ever want to get into Harvard. (Stanford and Yale are a somewhat different story, but a 168/3.89 better be doing something "cool" for at least five years before they have a shot at either.)

[blue5385]

Just saw a post in the UVA thread saying Harvard is rumored to be over-enrolled. Anyone heard anything corroborating this? I guess this is the kiss of death for us if it's true.

[someones alt]

Just saw a post in the UVA thread saying Harvard is rumored to be over-enrolled. Anyone heard anything corroborating this? I guess this is the kiss of death for us if it's true.

I looked at the post you're referring to, and I doubt anyone could know for sure. Although, I know if I was Dean of Admissions at Harvard I wouldn't still be waitlisting people if the school was overenrolled, because the waitlist is certainly big enough already.

[blue5385]

Just saw a post in the UVA thread saying Harvard is rumored to be over-enrolled. Anyone heard anything corroborating this? I guess this is the kiss of death for us if it's true.

I looked at the post you're referring to, and I doubt anyone could know for sure. Although, I know if I was Dean of Admissions at Harvard I wouldn't still be waitlisting people if the school was overenrolled, because the waitlist is certainly big enough already.

Good point. The post wasn't substantiated, and the HLS LSN data isn't too different from last year, so hopefully it's just that -- a rumor. (Not that I have a great chance of getting in regardless... )

[lta]

Just saw a post in the UVA thread saying Harvard is rumored to be over-enrolled. Anyone heard anything corroborating this? I guess this is the kiss of death for us if it's true.

I looked at the post you're referring to, and I doubt anyone could know for sure. Although, I know if I was Dean of Admissions at Harvard I wouldn't still be waitlisting people if the school was overenrolled, because the waitlist is certainly big enough already.

Good point. The post wasn't substantiated, and the HLS LSN data isn't too different from last year, so hopefully it's just that -- a rumor. (Not that I have a great chance of getting in regardless... )

This one's my fault. I clarified in a pm but forgot to do so publicly. Not over enrolled, just much higher yield than in previous years. Not particularly surprising, really.

[CoaltoNewCastle]

Just saw a post in the UVA thread saying Harvard is rumored to be over-enrolled. Anyone heard anything corroborating this? I guess this is the kiss of death for us if it's true.

I looked at the post you're referring to, and I doubt anyone could know for sure. Although, I know if I was Dean of Admissions at Harvard I wouldn't still be waitlisting people if the school was overenrolled, because the waitlist is certainly big enough already.

Good point. The post wasn't substantiated, and the HLS LSN data isn't too different from last year, so hopefully it's just that -- a rumor. (Not that I have a great chance of getting in regardless... )

This one's my fault. I clarified in a pm but forgot to do so publicly. Not over enrolled, just much higher yield than in previous years. Not particularly surprising, really.

Where did you get this information from though?

[lta]

Where did you get this information from though?[/quote]

A friend at HLS. Was more a comment on the year as a whole than on our chances of admission...which, let's be honest, are not THAT great. (Though yours are significantly better with that lovely LSAT, I would imagine.)