Harvard 2012 applicants (class of 2015) Forum

[soj]

Long time lurker, first time poster. Held, below both medians. Wait is killing me, especially since I know people with my numbers don't get into Harvard.

Is anyone else below both medians wondering if Harvard held them just to prove that they're not REALLY the numbers whore everyone makes them out to be (especially when compared to Yale and Stanford)? Maybe they had a few sacrificial lambs earlier in the process with high numbers that they axed just to prove a point, when really they're only going to take the high numbers off the held pile anyway ? It just doesn't make sense to me that I was held, especially since Harvard is pretty predictable and really doesn't seem to care as much about soft factors like Stanford does.

That's pretty far-fetched. All schools want people below both medians to think they have a chance, but they wouldn't hold someone just to prove a point.

[snehpets]

Long time lurker, first time poster. Held, below both medians. Wait is killing me, especially since I know people with my numbers don't get into Harvard.

Is anyone else below both medians wondering if Harvard held them just to prove that they're not REALLY the numbers whore everyone makes them out to be (especially when compared to Yale and Stanford)? Maybe they had a few sacrificial lambs earlier in the process with high numbers that they axed just to prove a point, when really they're only going to take the high numbers off the held pile anyway ? It just doesn't make sense to me that I was held, especially since Harvard is pretty predictable and really doesn't seem to care as much about soft factors like Stanford does.

That's pretty far-fetched. All schools want people below both medians to think they have a chance, but they wouldn't hold someone just to prove a point.

I don't think they're holding people to prove they're not numbers whores. I think they might have done so because they got kind of behind on applications and wanted to make sure everyone got a fair shot in terms of their application being considered but also didn't want them to suffer in silence.

[Doorkeeper]

Long time lurker, first time poster. Held, below both medians. Wait is killing me, especially since I know people with my numbers don't get into Harvard.

Is anyone else below both medians wondering if Harvard held them just to prove that they're not REALLY the numbers whore everyone makes them out to be (especially when compared to Yale and Stanford)? Maybe they had a few sacrificial lambs earlier in the process with high numbers that they axed just to prove a point, when really they're only going to take the high numbers off the held pile anyway ? It just doesn't make sense to me that I was held, especially since Harvard is pretty predictable and really doesn't seem to care as much about soft factors like Stanford does.

That's pretty far-fetched. All schools want people below both medians to think they have a chance, but they wouldn't hold someone just to prove a point.

I don't think they're holding people to prove they're not numbers whores. I think they might have done so because they got kind of behind on applications and wanted to make sure everyone got a fair shot in terms of their application being considered but also didn't want them to suffer in silence.

Yea, I think especially this year with the transition that holds were used very loosely to make sure each applicant who wasn't an auto-reject got enough looks at their application.

[azgirl514]

Long time lurker, first time poster. Held, below both medians. Wait is killing me, especially since I know people with my numbers don't get into Harvard.

Is anyone else below both medians wondering if Harvard held them just to prove that they're not REALLY the numbers whore everyone makes them out to be (especially when compared to Yale and Stanford)? Maybe they had a few sacrificial lambs earlier in the process with high numbers that they axed just to prove a point, when really they're only going to take the high numbers off the held pile anyway ? It just doesn't make sense to me that I was held, especially since Harvard is pretty predictable and really doesn't seem to care as much about soft factors like Stanford does.

That's pretty far-fetched. All schools want people below both medians to think they have a chance, but they wouldn't hold someone just to prove a point.

I don't think they're holding people to prove they're not numbers whores. I think they might have done so because they got kind of behind on applications and wanted to make sure everyone got a fair shot in terms of their application being considered but also didn't want them to suffer in silence.

Yea, I think especially this year with the transition that holds were used very loosely to make sure each applicant who wasn't an auto-reject got enough looks at their application.

That's what I initially thought as well, but how does that explain all the people with amazing numbers that have been rejected already? They definitely weren't auto-rejects. I remember a lot of people with higher numbers than me being dinged on the same week in early January that I was held. Hmm. I guess we'll never fully understand how this process works.

[swingstate2012]

That's pretty far-fetched. All schools want people below both medians to think they have a chance, but they wouldn't hold someone just to prove a point.

I don't think they're holding people to prove they're not numbers whores. I think they might have done so because they got kind of behind on applications and wanted to make sure everyone got a fair shot in terms of their application being considered but also didn't want them to suffer in silence.

Yea, I think especially this year with the transition that holds were used very loosely to make sure each applicant who wasn't an auto-reject got enough looks at their application.

That's what I initially thought as well, but how does that explain all the people with amazing numbers that have been rejected already? They definitely weren't auto-rejects. I remember a lot of people with higher numbers than me being dinged on the same week in early January that I was held. Hmm. I guess we'll never fully understand how this process works.

Fair enough! Thanks guys. I guess I just wish they'd make SOME sort of decision already because I was really thrown off

[Geneva]

i haven't been asked for an interview or seen any movement since i first went under review. i guess this means i should expect a ding any day now?

[snehpets]

That's what I initially thought as well, but how does that explain all the people with amazing numbers that have been rejected already? They definitely weren't auto-rejects. I remember a lot of people with higher numbers than me being dinged on the same week in early January that I was held. Hmm. I guess we'll never fully understand how this process works.

A lot of them were earlier applicants which suggests they had time to review their applications. Also the trend seems to be that K-JDs are not doing well and a lot of them with good numbers got rejected.

[abba12]

A lot of them were earlier applicants which suggests they had time to review their applications. Also the trend seems to be that K-JDs are not doing well and a lot of them with good numbers got rejected.

As a K-JD, that's what's worrying me the most. I didn't even get asked "why law" or "why Harvard" questions, which means I probably missed out on the biggest opportunity to make it clear I actually had good reasons for applying. I don't think I buy the notion that once you get a JS1 invite, admission is yours to lose; I think it's a lot more precarious that that. (Numbers are probably borderline in any case.)

[Geneva]

how is harvard's waitlist shaping up?
i'm starting to think that no updates or interview request is an almost certain ding for those of us still waiting. do people get on the waitlist w/o an interview?

[AtticusJimbo]

Dude, it's an Internet forum.

+ it's late--people are tired.

Whatever. I can't have been the only person who cringed at that. In my eyes, it being an Internet forum/late/etc. excuses careless typos ofthis natuer, but it doesn't excuse a guy who doesn't know the difference between accept and except. Or between illusive and elusive, or affect and effect, or other mistakes of that kind. Any of those (along with their more basic and more painful relatives, then/than, your/you're, and their/there/they're) would make me cringe, and wonder for a second how the writer ended up with a 4.0.

[StrictlyBusiness]

i haven't been asked for an interview or seen any movement since i first went under review. i guess this means i should expect a ding any day now?

I'm in the same position, though my complete email came 3/1 so if you applied much earlier we may not be in the same boat.

A lot of them were earlier applicants which suggests they had time to review their applications. Also the trend seems to be that K-JDs are not doing well and a lot of them with good numbers got rejected.

Has anyone actually compiled numbers about K-JDs vs. those with work experience or is this just something you've noticed? Not doubting you at all, just curious whether Harvard seems to making a move towards more WE

[Davidbentley]

Dude, it's an Internet forum.

+ it's late--people are tired.

Whatever. I can't have been the only person who cringed at that. In my eyes, it being an Internet forum/late/etc. excuses careless typos ofthis natuer, but it doesn't excuse a guy who doesn't know the difference between accept and except. Or between illusive and elusive, or affect and effect, or other mistakes of that kind. Any of those (along with their more basic and more painful relatives, then/than, your/you're, and their/there/they're) would make me cringe, and wonder for a second how the writer ended up with a 4.0.

A cringe? Yes. Summoning the motivation to post an admonishing reply? No. As to your broader point --that of questioning the academic prowess of folks based on their postings here -- well, success at writing, like success in any other pursuit, is indicative only of one's ability to write. Extrapolating intellectual merit from hastily assembled internet posts is lazy at best and objectionable at worst. Using your argument, I would have to conclude that you are likely to be an ornery and combustible sort, as it is clear from your post that you lack a sense of proportion. But, that would be foolhardy, and I have no doubt that, in reality, you are pleasant and serene.

[JF215]

i haven't been asked for an interview or seen any movement since i first went under review. i guess this means i should expect a ding any day now?

I'm in the same position, though my complete email came 3/1 so if you applied much earlier we may not be in the same boat.

A lot of them were earlier applicants which suggests they had time to review their applications. Also the trend seems to be that K-JDs are not doing well and a lot of them with good numbers got rejected.

Has anyone actually compiled numbers about K-JDs vs. those with work experience or is this just something you've noticed? Not doubting you at all, just curious whether Harvard seems to making a move towards more WE

Seems like this is happening across the board.

[AtticusJimbo]

Dude, it's an Internet forum.

+ it's late--people are tired.

Whatever. I can't have been the only person who cringed at that. In my eyes, it being an Internet forum/late/etc. excuses careless typos ofthis natuer, but it doesn't excuse a guy who doesn't know the difference between accept and except. Or between illusive and elusive, or affect and effect, or other mistakes of that kind. Any of those (along with their more basic and more painful relatives, then/than, your/you're, and their/there/they're) would make me cringe, and wonder for a second how the writer ended up with a 4.0.

A cringe? Yes. Summoning the motivation to post an admonishing reply? No. As to your broader point --that of questioning the academic prowess of folks based on their postings here -- well, success at writing, like success in any other pursuit, is indicative only of one's ability to write. Extrapolating intellectual merit from hastily assembled internet posts is lazy at best and objectionable at worst. Using your argument, I would have to conclude that you are likely to be an ornery and combustible sort, as it is clear from your post that you lack a sense of proportion. But, that would be foolhardy, and I have no doubt that, in reality, you are pleasant and serene.

I agree with the bolded. And the whole point was that the lack of writing skill that's revealed by an error like that is likely to be picked up on by adcomms, and might explain why his degree in art isn't being taken as seriously as he'd like. Writing skill is, needless to say, of critical importance in law school.

[suspicious android]

Whatever. I can't have been the only person who cringed at that.

Nope, just the only person who thought it was worth mentioning.

[bernaldiaz]

Whatever. I can't have been the only person who cringed at that.

Nope, just the only person who thought it was worth mentioning.

Idk that is sort of an egregious error. It's not like mistyping there or their, a mistake like that sort of shows a fundamental deficiency in language comprehension, and if there was something like that in a PS I think it might be auto-ding territory.

[jvon]

I can't believe this is actually being discussed.

[soj]

lol

[WhiteGuy5]

Whatever. I can't have been the only person who cringed at that.

Nope, just the only person who thought it was worth mentioning.

Idk that is sort of an egregious error. It's not like mistyping there or their, a mistake like that sort of shows a fundamental deficiency in language comprehension, and if there was something like that in a PS I think it might be auto-ding territory.

jfc. late-night post on TLS should NOT be equated with the final draft of your personal statement.

can we stop now?

[bernaldiaz]

Whatever. I can't have been the only person who cringed at that.

Nope, just the only person who thought it was worth mentioning.

Idk that is sort of an egregious error. It's not like mistyping there or their, a mistake like that sort of shows a fundamental deficiency in language comprehension, and if there was something like that in a PS I think it might be auto-ding territory.

jfc. late-night post on TLS should NOT be equated with the final draft of your personal statement.

can we stop now?

Yes, sorry. If you can forgive his/her late night errors, can you forgive my shallow pedantry?

[WhiteGuy5]

Yes, sorry. If you can forgive his/her late night errors, can you forgive my shallow pedantry?

No, your all stupid. Their, I said it, know go too sleep!

[suspicious android]

Idk that is sort of an egregious error. It's not like mistyping there or their, a mistake like that sort of shows a fundamental deficiency in language comprehension

No it does't. You really think someone who switches homophones like accept/except doesn't comprehend the meaning behind the two words? That's essentially impossible for someone who can construct even basic English paragraphs. People just mentally switch the words used to refer to a given concept, not the concepts the words refer to. Inferring a comprehension deficiency is, frankly, a ridiculous leap.

[yepyepyep]

A lot of them were earlier applicants which suggests they had time to review their applications. Also the trend seems to be that K-JDs are not doing well and a lot of them with good numbers got rejected.

As a K-JD, that's what's worrying me the most. I didn't even get asked "why law" or "why Harvard" questions, which means I probably missed out on the biggest opportunity to make it clear I actually had good reasons for applying. I don't think I buy the notion that once you get a JS1 invite, admission is yours to lose; I think it's a lot more precarious that that. (Numbers are probably borderline in any case.)

Yeah, so I think the later we get in the cycle, the more the interview starts to become serious. If Harvard gives out 1000 interviews and accepts 800 (numbers that have been thrown around, not sure if it's true), the 200 that don't get in are probably from the late bunch, not the auto-admit early bunch (who will be auto-admitted and their interviews are just a formality b/c of their numbers unless they did something terrible in the interview). Even if 50 of the 200 are just dinged b/c of some egregious interview error, that still leaves 150.

But as with all my posts, I don't know anything, and have not gotten a JS1...so, perhaps these should just be taken as random late-night musings...

[Geneva]

i haven't been asked for an interview or seen any movement since i first went under review. i guess this means i should expect a ding any day now?

i went UR the last week of january. am wondering if it is ridic to hold out hope for an interview or waitlist...

[Chiller303]

Idk that is sort of an egregious error. It's not like mistyping there or their, a mistake like that sort of shows a fundamental deficiency in language comprehension

No it does't. You really think someone who switches homophones like accept/except doesn't comprehend the meaning behind the two words? That's essentially impossible for someone who can construct even basic English paragraphs. People just mentally switch the words used to refer to a given concept, not the concepts the words refer to. Inferring a comprehension deficiency is, frankly, a ridiculous leap.

This!