Harvard c/o 2016 Applicants (2012-2013) Forum

[Nala7892]

Good luck to everyone! FYI, I am a 1L and I got in last year with a 168 and 173. Crazy, I know, but I think they definitely took the highest for me. Shows that not everything is 100% numbers based (in my opinion at least)!

if you don't mind sharing, what was your GPA?

If they did average my scores, that means they let me in with a 3.76/168, and I'm non-URM K-JD. I feel like they probably took my highest, which is still only a 170

Wait, you're under both medians? You are one lucky SOB olympian

Haha seriously, tell me about it! I am more confused than anyone on the planet

[wert3813]

Alright, I've had some time so here is my attempt at rationalizing this...

Maybe H meant what they said in the hold e-mail. This is a weird cycle, and things aren't going to clear up until they've been through all the applications and see where everything lies. The numbers indicate that H needs to admit fewer people, admit more splitters, or let their medians slip, but maybe they're taking their time determining to what extent these three options will be weighed. I don't know how previous cycles went, but a lot of the people held were "borderline" candidates. Were splitters getting hold e-mails last year, or were they getting waitlisted?

Noodley, I'll just remind you what you were saying about your chances in November. If you get in it's gonna late. Don't give up hope; you knew this was going to be long and stressful.

[domino]

If they did average my scores, that means they let me in with a 3.76/168, and I'm non-URM K-JD. I feel like they probably took my highest, which is still only a 170

Wait, you're under both medians? You are one lucky SOB olympian

Haha seriously, tell me about it! I am more confused than anyone on the planet

I feel like if the person who's interviewing your file can walk away feeling impressed, that can do it for you. A great interview that reinforces your leadership potential or whatever other good stuff is suggested by your file and decent numbers could be more than enough.

[Nala7892]

If they did average my scores, that means they let me in with a 3.76/168, and I'm non-URM K-JD. I feel like they probably took my highest, which is still only a 170

Wait, you're under both medians? You are one lucky SOB olympian

Haha seriously, tell me about it! I am more confused than anyone on the planet

I feel like if the person who's interviewing your file can walk away feeling impressed, that can do it for you. A great interview that reinforces your leadership potential or whatever other good stuff is suggested by your file and decent numbers could be more than enough.

JS made it pretty clear that that's what it was, actually. She kept talking about how "passionate" and "impressive" I am (??), while I nervously looked around the room wondering if she was talking to someone behind me

[domino]

I feel like if the person who's interviewing your file can walk away feeling impressed, that can do it for you. A great interview that reinforces your leadership potential or whatever other good stuff is suggested by your file and decent numbers could be more than enough.

JS made it pretty clear that that's what it was, actually. She kept talking about how "passionate" and "impressive" I am (??), while I nervously looked around the room wondering if she was talking to someone behind me

That's awesome! I definitely have come across people who have not always had the top numbers so far fwiw, but who have that "it" factor and maturity that allow them to command the attention of a room, lead/motivate people, and just get things done--something like that is so impressive. It's great that it can be rewarded in this process.

Don't mean to monopolize the thread! Good, acceptance-oriented vibes toward everyone!

[Lavitz]

My condolences to everyone unceremoniously dinged today--especially Banjo. I read that post while at work and had to cover my mouth because I literally shouted "WHAT?!!" when I read it.

And while I appreciate everyone's concerns, I don't feel any different than I did yesterday. As soon as I didn't get a JS2 along with everyone else, I immediately assumed I'd be held in January. This just confirms what I already knew. I think too many people underestimated the weight given to the new interviews. I know I didn't do my best, and this is the simply the result. Nothing left to do but chill and draft a LOCI.

As I've said before, I've accepted that I may not get in, but it's not over yet. Good luck to my fellow holds--as well as the people dodging velociraptors.

[TexasAggie13]

Complete 11/15 still no news

[bbsg]

Submitted 1/7 and still not 'complete'...How long does it usually take?

[TripTrip]

Submitted 1/7 and still not 'complete'...How long does it usually take?

Don't fret, it's random. I submitted 1/2 and I'm not complete yet.

[bbsg]

Submitted 1/7 and still not 'complete'...How long does it usually take?

Don't fret, it's random. I submitted 1/2 and I'm not complete yet.

Thanks. I'd rather be incomplete than dinged, so there's the silver lining.

[shakespeare]

Thoughts on people who were held today without interviews?

[shakespeare]

I tend to think: LOCI = more chances of making a typo or not catching a grammatical error (or realizing a grammatical error exists in your LOCI)...thoughts?

[wert3813]

I tend to think: LOCI = more chances of making a typo or not catching a grammatical error (or realizing a grammatical error exists in your LOCI)...thoughts?

wat?

[shakespeare]

I tend to think: LOCI = more chances of making a typo or not catching a grammatical error (or realizing a grammatical error exists in your LOCI)...thoughts?

wat?

Sorry. Meant that for the Held @ Harvard page.

[Ling520]

Best as I can tell LSATPrepGuy is the person with the best numbers (3.99; 172) to get a hold pre JS1. Anyone have better or see someone with better?

this also is a travesty. H is being way more picky this cycle than expected. its clear they are not going to let those medians slip further and will take the hit in enrollment if necessary. i bet they want that 2 spot from stanford hard. definately staying at 173, minimum. have enough $ in enrollment.

It’s odd to me that people are saying this because SLS has always had inferior numbers to HLS. HLS’s median LSAT was way above SLS’s (the lowest in the T6) last year when they fell to third place so I doubt HLS is looking at maintaining its median as the key to rising above SLS. SLS, like Berkeley, is one of the few schools that is not bullshiting when it says it is using a holistic approach and this does not seem to negatively affect its ranking.

One possibility for changes this cycle is that top schools realize all the negative press about law students without jobs is affecting their reputations; they see the writing on the wall and are anticipating that salary and hiring outcomes of their students will come under greater scrutiny in the future and will play a greater role in the ranking schemes. Further, if even a handful of HLS grads have trouble getting jobs, the negative press that could produce has the potential to tarnish HLS’s prestige much more than a drop in LSAT median.

This being the case, HLS and other like-schools are going to look closer at resumes and PSs, conduct more interviews, and assess students by “hire-ability” and other holistic measures. I’m betting that schools have even studied which factors are common to the students from their classes that have the most difficulty getting hired. Factors that in the past might have made applicants automatic admits might turn out to be less desirable this cycle. Schools want to avoid accepting that applicant with good numbers --who has a great GPA in an easy major at a nonselective UG and who took a 1000 lsat practice tests-- but is going to bomb OCI/Clerkships and bring down the strength of the school's prestige in hiring.

[az21833]

If true, that is bad bad news for k-jds

[wert3813]

Best as I can tell LSATPrepGuy is the person with the best numbers (3.99; 172) to get a hold pre JS1. Anyone have better or see someone with better?

this also is a travesty. H is being way more picky this cycle than expected. its clear they are not going to let those medians slip further and will take the hit in enrollment if necessary. i bet they want that 2 spot from stanford hard. definately staying at 173, minimum. have enough $ in enrollment.

It’s odd to me that people are saying this because SLS has always had inferior numbers to HLS. HLS’s median LSAT was way above SLS’s (the lowest in the T6) last year when they fell to third place so I doubt HLS is looking at maintaining its median as the key to rising above SLS. SLS, like Berkeley, is one of the few schools that is not bullshiting when it says it is using a holistic approach and this does not seem to negatively affect its ranking.

One possibility for changes this cycle is that top schools realize all the negative press about law students without jobs is affecting their reputations; they see the writing on the wall and are anticipating that salary and hiring outcomes of their students will come under greater scrutiny in the future and will play a greater role in the ranking schemes. Further, if even a handful of HLS grads have trouble getting jobs, the negative press that could produce has the potential to tarnish HLS’s prestige much more than a drop in LSAT median.

This being the case, HLS and other like-schools are going to look closer at resumes and PSs, conduct more interviews, and assess students by “hire-ability” and other holistic measures. I’m betting that schools have even studied which factors are common to the students from their classes that have the most difficulty getting hired. Factors that in the past might have made applicants automatic admits might turn out to be less desirable this cycle. Schools want to avoid accepting that applicant with good numbers --who has a great GPA in an easy major at a nonselective UG and who took a 1000 lsat practice tests-- but is going to bomb OCI/Clerkships and bring down the strength of the school's prestige in hiring.

Meh. Anyone lowly ranked isn't doing this because they just need the money. HYS isn't doing this because they are safe (if they aren't safe I highly doubt they feel like they aren't safe). The highlighted part is where the argument doesn't quite hold water. Duke ish schools probably aren't doing this because they can't afford to not keep playing the game. And because (and this goes for all schools)...

...you are leaving out that the people who have the most trouble getting jobs are the ones at the bottom of the class. Grades are the number 1 determining factor in getting a job compared to your peers. The bottom twenty is gonna struggle at most schools.

Edit: B schools are starting to due this per WSJ. The difference is getting a job out of B school is heavily dependent on what you did before B school.

[bettercallsaul91]

Dinged as expected Friday morning. Nicest rejection letter I've ever read. Even gave me fuzzy feels.

[Ling520]

...you are leaving out that the people who have the most trouble getting jobs are the ones at the bottom of the class. Grades are the number 1 determining factor in getting a job compared to your peers. The bottom twenty is gonna struggle at most schools.

It’s probably true, based on strong anecdotal evidence, that grades are the leading determiner in biglaw hiring; however, the threshold differs by school (hypo: bottom 20% T6 vs bottom 40% T25) and that is a cause and effect of certain factors like prestige, student quality, etc. There is going to be more scrutiny of school’s hiring/salary data and even the top schools will not be immune to a prestige knock if their ratio of un-hirable graduates increases at higher rate than peer schools (in fact people relish the chance to proclaim that a king has no clothes).

I don’t think JD programs will ever adopt the MBA model simply because MBAs are not required to “practice” business. But there may be more focus on hire-ability and other holistic factors, and I’d say we’re already seeing this with the increased use of interviews at top schools. This doesn’t necessarily mean that K-JDs are at a disadvantage—just certain K-JDs.

[spyke123]

...you are leaving out that the people who have the most trouble getting jobs are the ones at the bottom of the class. Grades are the number 1 determining factor in getting a job compared to your peers. The bottom twenty is gonna struggle at most schools.

It’s probably true, based on strong anecdotal evidence, that grades are the leading determiner in biglaw hiring; however, the threshold differs by school (hypo: bottom 20% T6 vs bottom 40% T25) and that is a cause and effect of certain factors like prestige, student quality, etc. There is going to be more scrutiny of school’s hiring/salary data and even the top schools will not be immune to a prestige knock if their ratio of un-hirable graduates increases at higher rate than peer schools (in fact people relish the chance to proclaim that a king has no clothes).

I don’t think JD programs will ever adopt the MBA model simply because MBAs are not required to “practice” business. But there may be more focus on hire-ability and other holistic factors, and I’d say we’re already seeing this with the increased use of interviews at top schools. This doesn’t necessarily mean that K-JDs are at a disadvantage—just certain K-JDs.

I agree completely. I feel that applicants especially TLSers seem to put too much emphasis on numbers... even going to proclaim that this cycle will be "epic" and "schools will do whatever it takes to maintain medians" just because there are fewer applicants.

Evidence so far however... does not seem to confirm this....(it is true the cycle is far from over but.. its not starting as epic as many have thought.)

[TripTrip]

...you are leaving out that the people who have the most trouble getting jobs are the ones at the bottom of the class. Grades are the number 1 determining factor in getting a job compared to your peers. The bottom twenty is gonna struggle at most schools.

It’s probably true, based on strong anecdotal evidence, that grades are the leading determiner in biglaw hiring; however, the threshold differs by school (hypo: bottom 20% T6 vs bottom 40% T25) and that is a cause and effect of certain factors like prestige, student quality, etc. There is going to be more scrutiny of school’s hiring/salary data and even the top schools will not be immune to a prestige knock if their ratio of un-hirable graduates increases at higher rate than peer schools (in fact people relish the chance to proclaim that a king has no clothes).

I don’t think JD programs will ever adopt the MBA model simply because MBAs are not required to “practice” business. But there may be more focus on hire-ability and other holistic factors, and I’d say we’re already seeing this with the increased use of interviews at top schools. This doesn’t necessarily mean that K-JDs are at a disadvantage—just certain K-JDs.

I agree completely. I feel that applicants especially TLSers seem to put too much emphasis on numbers... even going to proclaim that this cycle will be "epic" and "schools will do whatever it takes to maintain medians"ust because there are fewer applicants.
Evidence so far however... does not seem to confirms....(it is true the cycle is far from over but.. its not starting as epic as many have thought.)

That's because you're thinking of "epic" qualitatively. Quantitatively, it is a good cycle for applicants over at least one of the medians (especially LSAT) because there are fewer of those people. That doesn't mean there won't be rejections above the medians... There most certainly will. All that it means is that there will have to be fewer rejections above both medians.

Saying we were wrong about the "epic ness" of the cycle because a few splitters got held or dinged is like saying that the Mars rover was useless because we haven't found life there: it's missing the point.

I already demonstrated that ~40% of splitters won't get in to Harvard.

[spyke123]

...you are leaving out that the people who have the most trouble getting jobs are the ones at the bottom of the class. Grades are the number 1 determining factor in getting a job compared to your peers. The bottom twenty is gonna struggle at most schools.

It’s probably true, based on strong anecdotal evidence, that grades are the leading determiner in biglaw hiring; however, the threshold differs by school (hypo: bottom 20% T6 vs bottom 40% T25) and that is a cause and effect of certain factors like prestige, student quality, etc. There is going to be more scrutiny of school’s hiring/salary data and even the top schools will not be immune to a prestige knock if their ratio of un-hirable graduates increases at higher rate than peer schools (in fact people relish the chance to proclaim that a king has no clothes).

I don’t think JD programs will ever adopt the MBA model simply because MBAs are not required to “practice” business. But there may be more focus on hire-ability and other holistic factors, and I’d say we’re already seeing this with the increased use of interviews at top schools. This doesn’t necessarily mean that K-JDs are at a disadvantage—just certain K-JDs.

I agree completely. I feel that applicants especially TLSers seem to put too much emphasis on numbers... even going to proclaim that this cycle will be "epic" and "schools will do whatever it takes to maintain medians"ust because there are fewer applicants.
Evidence so far however... does not seem to confirms....(it is true the cycle is far from over but.. its not starting as epic as many have thought.)

That's because you're thinking of "epic" qualitatively. Quantitatively, it is a good cycle for applicants over at least one of the medians (especially LSAT) because there are fewer of those people. That doesn't mean there won't be rejections above the medians... There most certainly will. All that it means is that there will have to be fewer rejections above both medians.

Saying we were wrong about the "epic ness" of the cycle because a few splitters got held or dinged is like saying that the Mars rover was useless because we haven't found life there: it's missing the point.

I already demonstrated that ~40% of splitters won't get in to Harvard.

I certianly see your point but I still believe there is no evidence yet to confirm the "epicness" of the cycle quantitatively.

First , I don't think we are talking about "a few splitters getting held or dinged", rather Harvard just held a plenty of people with very solid numbers and nyu seems to be also holding a decent number of people with above median numbers in the limbo.

Second, there hasn't been a meaningful increase in splitter love from top schools either.

In conclusion, I believe your analysis is a solid one but will just remain a hypothesis unless we see more evidence that people with similar numbers are faring relaively better than those from previous cycles i.e. we see an increase in acceptances for people with borderline or/and splitter numbers on tls/lsn

Of course I don't have hard data to back up my claims and the cycle is still early but these are the impressions I get actively browsing through this cycles application hreads.

[TrustInMusic]

JS and KB must be having such a kick seeing TLS freak out.

[nodame]

Just got an e-mail from Soban saying that I am waitlisted. I wasn't offered an interview and my status checker never updated to application under review either (complete mid-November), so it was really a surprise.

What's my chance of actually getting off this waitlist? Or rather, how many people (or what percentage) get off the waitlist every year?

[Cicero76]

Just got an e-mail from Soban saying that I am waitlisted. I wasn't offered an interview and my status checker never updated to application under review either (complete mid-November), so it was really a surprise.

What's my chance of actually getting off this waitlist? Or rather, how many people (or what percentage) get off the waitlist every year?

Waitlisted or held? There's a difference.