Harvard 2010! Forum

[crackberry]

So what's the latest UR date for which people have received the hold email?

1/19

I meant the UR date for people who got held Last week they were sending hold emails to people who went UR in Oct. if I remember correctly.

Not for me...

But I digress. For those of you who've been held, what is your status on the application status checker?

UR 1/15/2010. First time it updated since UR 9/28/2009.

[mockstar]

UR 1/15/2010. First time it updated since UR 9/28/2009.

And that's the day you were held, right?
See, mine reset to 1/6. I must have been held and they forgot to e-mail me or something. So freaking confuuuuuuuuuuused.

[crackberry]

UR 1/15/2010. First time it updated since UR 9/28/2009.

And that's the day you were held, right?
See, mine reset to 1/6. I must have been held and they forgot to e-mail me or something. So freaking confuuuuuuuuuuused.

Yes, that is the day I was held. The fact that you updated with no email is definitely strange. If you're losing sleep over it, you could always call/email admissions.

[somewhatwayward]

Held with a 180 and 3.7+? No JR1 either?

What the what!?!?

...and there's also another poster with a 180 and ~3.8 who had JR1 with no JR2

the only thing i can think of is maybe they thought you should've had a higher GPA given your LSAT?...not that a 3.8 isn't high, but it isn't really in terms of HLS

[MTC87]

Held with a 180 and 3.7+? No JR1 either?

What the what!?!?

...and there's also another poster with a 180 and ~3.8 who had JR1 with no JR2

the only thing i can think of is maybe they thought you should've had a higher GPA given your LSAT?...not that a 3.8 isn't high, but it isn't really in terms of HLS

e: to contribute, i heard about a friend of a friend with a 177/3.8 (H undergrad) who was dinged without JR1. supposedly he had some kind of disciplinary thing on his record, not sure what it was or if that made a difference.

[WhiskeyGuy]

Not being accepted is clearly unfortunate, especially for folks who have worked hard and have a sincere desire to attend. With that said, isn't it hypocritical for these forums to chastise law schools for being number whores (Harvard being one of the top targets) and then complain when an "auto admit" isn't admitted?

[Nom Sawyer]

Not being accepted is clearly unfortunate, especially for folks who have worked hard and have a sincere desire to attend. With that said, isn't it hypocritical for these forums to chastise law schools for being number whores (Harvard being one of the top targets) and then complain when an "auto admit" isn't admitted?

Being Hypocritical:

[Kulax22]

Not being accepted is clearly unfortunate, especially for folks who have worked hard and have a sincere desire to attend. With that said, isn't it hypocritical for these forums to chastise law schools for being number whores (Harvard being one of the top targets) and then complain when an "auto admit" isn't admitted?

+1. Do we really want it to solely be a numbers game? I like the fact that the adcomms take some time to consider people as possibly being individuals .

[englawyer]

Not being accepted is clearly unfortunate, especially for folks who have worked hard and have a sincere desire to attend. With that said, isn't it hypocritical for these forums to chastise law schools for being number whores (Harvard being one of the top targets) and then complain when an "auto admit" isn't admitted?

+1. Do we really want it to solely be a numbers game? I like the fact that the adcomms take some time to consider people as possibly being individuals .

-1. numbers-based admissions is very transparent, and in a way fair. if the process was dominated by non-number factors, people "in the know" would have a huge advantage. it would also mean hiring expensive admissions consultants to have a fair shot. at least this way, you can see quite clearly what LSAT is needed for X school.

[CoaltoNewCastle]

I think most if not all of the people with what seem like guaranteed admission numbers who have been held will be admitted eventually, so don't assume yet that it's a much tougher cycle. Harvard may be as unsure about this cycle as we are and I think that's why they're waiting until more people have their apps in before they start accepting 3.75-3.8/179-180 people. I still think they'll all get in.

Edit: Obviously I'm biased because those are my numbers, but I still believe this!

[DoubleChecks]

Not being accepted is clearly unfortunate, especially for folks who have worked hard and have a sincere desire to attend. With that said, isn't it hypocritical for these forums to chastise law schools for being number whores (Harvard being one of the top targets) and then complain when an "auto admit" isn't admitted?

+1. Do we really want it to solely be a numbers game? I like the fact that the adcomms take some time to consider people as possibly being individuals .

-1. numbers-based admissions is very transparent, and in a way fair. if the process was dominated by non-number factors, people "in the know" would have a huge advantage. it would also mean hiring expensive admissions consultants to have a fair shot. at least this way, you can see quite clearly what LSAT is needed for X school.

lol i hope that was sarcasm, or else you're just really skewing words. poster never said the process should be "dominated" by non-number factors, just that "adcomms take some time to consider people as possibly being individuals" and not let it devolve into solely a numbers game

there's a lot more to being a qualified applicant than simply the numbers haha. this whole process w/ HLS has been a lot more personalized than i thought it would be, leading me to think they may actually read your PS and LORs to get a better feel of you as a person...and if those are off, even w/ seemingly auto admit numbers, they may hold or ding you. not saying those held or dinged were for those reasons

[englawyer]

lol i hope that was sarcasm, or else you're just really skewing words. poster never said the process should be "dominated" by non-number factors, just that "adcomms take some time to consider people as possibly being individuals" and not let it devolve into solely a numbers game

there's a lot more to being a qualified applicant than simply the numbers haha. this whole process w/ HLS has been a lot more personalized than i thought it would be, leading me to think they may actually read your PS and LORs to get a better feel of you as a person...and if those are off, even w/ seemingly auto admit numbers, they may hold or ding you. not saying those held or dinged were for those reasons

no sarcasm, i guess i was overly defensive about that point. i think 1/3 GPA, 1/3 LSAT, 1/3 other makes plenty of sense and wouldn't want to see it changed. i can go on a whole tirade about my view in PMs if you want, but I don't want to distract from this thread.

[fidesverita]

Not being accepted is clearly unfortunate, especially for folks who have worked hard and have a sincere desire to attend. With that said, isn't it hypocritical for these forums to chastise law schools for being number whores (Harvard being one of the top targets) and then complain when an "auto admit" isn't admitted?

+1. Do we really want it to solely be a numbers game? I like the fact that the adcomms take some time to consider people as possibly being individuals .

+ 1^10000

[DoubleChecks]

lol i hope that was sarcasm, or else you're just really skewing words. poster never said the process should be "dominated" by non-number factors, just that "adcomms take some time to consider people as possibly being individuals" and not let it devolve into solely a numbers game

there's a lot more to being a qualified applicant than simply the numbers haha. this whole process w/ HLS has been a lot more personalized than i thought it would be, leading me to think they may actually read your PS and LORs to get a better feel of you as a person...and if those are off, even w/ seemingly auto admit numbers, they may hold or ding you. not saying those held or dinged were for those reasons

no sarcasm, i guess i was overly defensive about that point. i think 1/3 GPA, 1/3 LSAT, 1/3 other makes plenty of sense and wouldn't want to see it changed. i can go on a whole tirade about my view in PMs if you want, but I don't want to distract from this thread.

yeah that definitely makes the most sense to me as well and i think that system generally works

[CardinalRules]

Not being accepted is clearly unfortunate, especially for folks who have worked hard and have a sincere desire to attend. With that said, isn't it hypocritical for these forums to chastise law schools for being number whores (Harvard being one of the top targets) and then complain when an "auto admit" isn't admitted?

+1. Do we really want it to solely be a numbers game? I like the fact that the adcomms take some time to consider people as possibly being individuals .

+ 1^10000

1 raised to the 100000th power is still 1.

[APimpNamedSlickback]

Not being accepted is clearly unfortunate, especially for folks who have worked hard and have a sincere desire to attend. With that said, isn't it hypocritical for these forums to chastise law schools for being number whores (Harvard being one of the top targets) and then complain when an "auto admit" isn't admitted?

+1. Do we really want it to solely be a numbers game? I like the fact that the adcomms take some time to consider people as possibly being individuals .

+ 1^10000

1 raised to the 100000th power is still 1.

i laughed

[02082010]

+ 1^10000

1 raised to the 100000th power is still 1.

i laughed

I go to every thread talib is in bc there will either be an argument or something funny has happened.

[crackberry]

I go to every thread talib is in bc there will either be an argument or something funny has happened.

I just bit my tongue re. the incredible array of ibanking/consulting dropouts/layoffs who are applying this cycle and making it way way way harder for the rest of us pithy "humanities" types because they can take the LSAT with their eyes closed in 20 minutes and get 178s apparently.

[APimpNamedSlickback]

I go to every thread talib is in bc there will either be an argument or something funny has happened.

I just bit my tongue re. the incredible array of ibanking/consulting dropouts/layoffs who are applying this cycle and making it way way way harder for the rest of us pithy "humanities" types because they can take the LSAT with their eyes closed in 20 minutes and get 178s apparently.

i am utterly no joke stunned. do you realize that you've just picked up and carried on an argument that we had several months ago like nothing happened?

[02082010]

Ran here.



Summary of argument?


And crackberry, if that was some kind of dig, you got into Stanford so...

[APimpNamedSlickback]

...

[02082010]

Ran here.



Summary of argument?


And crackberry, if that was some kind of dig, you got into Stanford so...

i'm just glad i can keep you entertained. its the only reason i'm on here.

we were argued in like october about how much tougher this cycle was going to be. then we finished, i got laid a few times, watched a few movies, ect ect....basically went on with my life thinking we were done.

now low an behold, he or she fires another salvo as though we've been arguing this entire time.

He. Stanford UG, most likely SLS in his future.

Crackberry, what do you have to say?

[DoubleChecks]

Ran here.



Summary of argument?


And crackberry, if that was some kind of dig, you got into Stanford so...

i'm just glad i can keep you entertained. its the only reason i'm on here.

we were argued in like october about how much tougher this cycle was going to be. i got laid a few times, then i finished, watched a few movies, ect ect....basically went on with my life thinking we were done.

now low an behold, he or she fires another salvo as though we've been arguing this entire time.

FTFY

[crackberry]

Ran here.



Summary of argument?


And crackberry, if that was some kind of dig, you got into Stanford so...

i'm just glad i can keep you entertained. its the only reason i'm on here.

we were argued in like october about how much tougher this cycle was going to be. then we finished, i got laid a few times, watched a few movies, ect ect....basically went on with my life thinking we were done.

now low an behold, he or she fires another salvo as though we've been arguing this entire time.

He. Stanford UG, most likely SLS in his future.

Crackberry, what do you have to say?

Haha, I love TLS. I was making fun of talib for fear-mongering about his ibanking and consulting friends who apparently decided to take the LSAT on a whim, get 175+s and screw the rest of us out of spots at HYS. Nearly every one of my friends from Stanford went into ibanking and consulting, some much smarter than others. I just thought it was ridiculous to assume that a job at Morgan Stanley, etc. somehow qualifies as a great soft and one that is some sort of magic bullet for law school admissions.

Not trying to reignite an argument.

[02082010]

talib hiding under a rock?