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

[lester]

My intuition would be that, because those with work experience can be evaluated, for the most part, on other more substantive measures of fitness than K-JDs can, we should think of it not that K-JD need higher numbers, but that those with work experience have leeway for lower numbers.

This would not explain K-JDs possibly doing worse after JS1s, but maybe the higher degree of differentiation that work experience lends is advantageous when they sort through the pool after a JS1.

I'm sorry but I'm not sure I follow this line of thinking... Isn't it the same thing?

Not quite.

To get into the JS1 pool, those with work experience can compensate more for lower numbers than K-JDs, which explains their lower medians. But when reviewing the pool of JS1s, what I'm suggesting is that the next steps in the admissions process "double down" on work experience, if K-JDs do indeed have a lower rate of acceptance given JS1.

The other explanation could be that K-JD JS1s are heavily number based, and HLS casts a wide net and decides later which ones they want. When WE receives a JS1, it reflects a more calculated decision by admissions.

[lashley]

What happened to the table? It looks like someone screwed with it.

Also, to anyone freaking out over not having a JS2 yet, there are very few people in the HLS 18 Facebook group (like less than 30 admits from what I can tell). There are hundreds more of JS2s to come, friends!

[antiworldly]

What happened to the table? It looks like someone screwed with it.

Also, to anyone freaking out over not having a JS2 yet, there are very few people in the HLS 18 Facebook group (like less than 30 admits from what I can tell). There are hundreds more of JS2s to come, friends!

That's really annoying. This is one of the few that I don't have a saved copy of to play with, did anyone download it recently before it was vandalized?

[musedreverie]

Oh for god's sake that prank/mistake on the spreadsheet's annoying. And unfortunately I don't have a copy of it does anyone else?

[antiworldly]

Took a bit, but I figured out how to restore the file. Everything done yesterday was erased, so if you input your stats yesterday, please put them in again.

[musedreverie]

Took a bit, but I figured out how to restore the file. Everything done yesterday was erased, so if you input your stats yesterday, please put them in again.

Oh that's great! Well done and thanks for that

[kadyevna]

i graduated last summer, so technically i'm not a K-JD but i don't have much more experience than most K-JDs, so am i considered as someone with WE or more am I more in the K-JD category?

[ikethegremlin]

i graduated last summer, so technically i'm not a K-JD but i don't have much more experience than most K-JDs, so am i considered as someone with WE or more am I more in the K-JD category?

It's exactly this kind of question that reveals the weak thinking behind the whole 'K-JDs are at a massive disadvantage' trope.

And I don't mean to pick on you, kadyevna, because it's a reasonable question to ask given the thread's contents.

But Harvard is not throwing applications out just because someone is a K-JD, nor are you greenlit because you graduated last year and spent the next 6 months bumming around on your parents money before finally submitting an application to law school.

Sensibly, Harvard wants people who will a) succeed in law school and b) get hired to good jobs afterwards.

You could absolutely be a K-JD and fulfill this requirement, and clearly people are being given ample opportunity to do so in their interviews. Alternatively, you could have 2 years out of school and NOT fulfill this requirement.

Your K-JDness is a symptom, not a cause, of Harvard's suspicion.

TL;DR: Harvard is looking for of maturity, a well-thought-through decision process, and people likely to be hired post JD. Work Experience is one way, but not the only way, of showing this. Nor does being a K-JD rule out the above assets.

[pylon]

i graduated last summer, so technically i'm not a K-JD but i don't have much more experience than most K-JDs, so am i considered as someone with WE or more am I more in the K-JD category?

My understanding is that you would not be considered in the "KJD category". By the time you matriculate, you would have had 16 months out of undergrad, compared to 4 for KJDs. Also, on the Entering Class Profile, they mention:

76% at least 1 year out of college

[pylon]

TL;DR: Harvard is looking for of maturity, a well-thought-through decision process, and people likely to be hired post JD. Work Experience is one way, but not the only way, of showing this. Nor does being a K-JD rule out the above assets.

Of course. Although it doesn't discredit the idea that HLS probably prefers individuals with quality work experience (because it's a concrete way of showing this) - and I don't think it hurts to discuss and try and determine whether there is a quantifiable difference.

[kadyevna]

i graduated last summer, so technically i'm not a K-JD but i don't have much more experience than most K-JDs, so am i considered as someone with WE or more am I more in the K-JD category?

It's exactly this kind of question that reveals the weak thinking behind the whole 'K-JDs are at a massive disadvantage' trope.

And I don't mean to pick on you, kadyevna, because it's a reasonable question to ask given the thread's contents.

But Harvard is not throwing applications out just because someone is a K-JD, nor are you greenlit because you graduated last year and spent the next 6 months bumming around on your parents money before finally submitting an application to law school.

Sensibly, Harvard wants people who will a) succeed in law school and b) get hired to good jobs afterwards.

You could absolutely be a K-JD and fulfill this requirement, and clearly people are being given ample opportunity to do so in their interviews. Alternatively, you could have 2 years out of school and NOT fulfill this requirement.

Your K-JDness is a symptom, not a cause, of Harvard's suspicion.

TL;DR: Harvard is looking for of maturity, a well-thought-through decision process, and people likely to be hired post JD. Work Experience is one way, but not the only way, of showing this. Nor does being a K-JD rule out the above assets.

no no i like your thinking very much, and it makes more sense

[kadyevna]

TL;DR: Harvard is looking for of maturity, a well-thought-through decision process, and people likely to be hired post JD. Work Experience is one way, but not the only way, of showing this. Nor does being a K-JD rule out the above assets.

Of course. Although it doesn't discredit the idea that HLS probably prefers individuals with quality work experience (because it's a concrete way of showing this) - and I don't think it hurts to discuss and try and determine whether there is a quantifiable difference.

hmm, i agree that, at least in principal, WE is what should matter instead of this K-JD distinction

[pylon]

This interview is with Dean Soban and is really interesting; I would highly recommend it.

http://www.admissionsdean.com/researchi ... sica-soban

There's even a question that specifically talks about WE:

Q: The Class of 2015 profile indicates that more than ¾ of those admitted were at least one year out of college (and more than ½ had 2+ years out of college). Is there a conscious preference for applicants who may have some post-college work experience, or is that simply how the applicant pool shaped up?

A: Yes, we do have a conscious preference for having the majority of our class entering with work experience. That said, I think we are comfortable with the composition we have had in the past few years, and we don’t have any plans to increase the percentage of people entering with post-college work experience to more than roughly three-quarters of the class. So, in the hypothetical case of two otherwise “identical” files, the person who had work experience would be more likely to get a spot than one who did not. BUT, here’s a very important distinction that I’m not sure everyone notices: Our class profile focuses on the enrolling class, not the admitted students. We have a liberal deferral policy at HLS. Students are very often admitted straight from college, then choose to take time off before enrolling. I think that’s a very exciting option. College seniors who are ready to apply now, but not necessarily ready to enter next fall, should certainly still apply.

There's more on the topic too, it's a good read.

[DetroitRed]

Really hoping to see a JS2 wave tomorrow.

HLS got me like:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ug88HO2mg44

[GordonFreeman]

Really hoping to see a JS2 wave tomorrow.

I'd be surprised if they didn't start admitting people this week. It does seem like they wanted to compare their current pool to some December LSAT applicants. But by now, they should have a solid idea of the type of numbers they're working with.

[BillsFan9907]

Really hoping to see a JS2 wave tomorrow.

I'd be surprised if they didn't start admitting people this week. It does seem like they wanted to compare their current pool to some December LSAT applicants. But by now, they should have a solid idea of the type of numbers they're working with.

Wasn't in the Dec. Thread. Did they do better than Sept. Thread? 178s? 179s? 180s?

[LSCHI]

Anyone who is willing to share some quick info regarding their JS1 I would love to get some more information, if only to calm my own nerves. PM me if willing

[qgprhtnf]

Bump! Does anyone predict a significant JS2 movement today?

[ChemEng1642]

Bump! Does anyone predict a significant JS2 movement today?

Sure hope so!

[pylon]

This cycle seems to be so different from last that it's hard to guess with any insight. For example, last cycle there would have already been 5 waves of JS2s up until now: 11/25, 11/26, 12/18, 12/19, and 12/23 (from LSN). This cycle, we've had one: 12/15.

Hopefully there are some this week though!

[qgprhtnf]

This cycle seems to be so different from last that it's hard to guess with any insight. For example, last cycle there would have already been 5 waves of JS2s up until now: 11/25, 11/26, 12/18, 12/19, and 12/23 (from LSN). This cycle, we've had one: 12/15.

Hopefully there are some this week though!

As some of the previous posts have mentioned, no JS1 interview slots were opened for today and tomorrow. On top of that, it just seems like a good day for Harvard to give out JS2s today, date wise. Let's hope that JS2s happen today .

ETA: The inactivity of this thread leads me to suspect that everyone has given up on the hope of JS2s any time soon T, T

[pylon]

As some of the previous posts have mentioned, no JS1 interview slots were opened for today and tomorrow. On top of that, it just seems like a good day for Harvard to give out JS2s today, date wise. Let's hope that JS2s happen today .

Oooh good point - I must have missed that. Am crossing my fingers!

[RSN]

On 12/15, first JS2 was reported just after 3 pm EST.

[jawsjawsjaws]

Lol guess today's not the day then

[psychmusic]

.