Harvard 2012 applicants (class of 2015) Forum

[MumofCad]

Fair enough, I probably just came across as slightly cranky haha. It's just that Harvard cares very little about WE or other softs. Just by looking at similar applicants on LSN, you can figure out your chances pretty easily. The same cannot be said for Yale and Stanford, however.

You know, I was just thinking the opposite after looking up those numbers from the discussion. I know people say Harvard is all numbers, but I didn't realized it seemed so uniform because of the people I've known that have gotten in. Anyhow, I was thinking how nice and really, ultimately fair, the system is between HYS. With Y and S using pretty subjective measurements or "holistic" applications, people who might not have "the" numbers but are accomplished in other ways can get in. But then people who are just really smart and objectively do have "the" numbers can rest assured they will almost certainly get into H. So all in all, everyone in the range will most likely end up with an acceptance at HYS. I can't feel bad for anyone with even one as an option.

I know the "holistic" schools tend to be spoken up positively, but its sort of nice to just have an objective metric used. Creates a nice balance IMO.

[Curious1]

Why are there so many people with such high numbers

I am officially discouraged.

[thelawschoolproject]

I have <5% chance according to LSP . . . but, since it was free, I couldn't resist.

[Hawkeye Pierce]

Why are there so many people with such high numbers

I am officially discouraged.

If it makes you feel any better, I'm in the discouraged boat as well, haha.

With a GPA just below median and an LSAT at median... it's extremely difficult to gauge how I will do.

[MumofCad]

Neither of you should be discouraged. Its too early! And really, even in the worst case scenario you end up at CCN, probably with some money - gasp horror, die now. And you're facing down big money at UVA.

Lets just gain some perspective on this whole thing. I mean really. I know the economy is poor and all is doom and gloom, but getting into UVa with a huge scholarship is already a pretty frickin' amazing accomplishment. You guys are going to have amazing options that 99% of law applicants would cut off an arm to have - if Harvard can't see that, you'll have to slum it at Chicago or something - GASP! If I don't get into HYS, I'm most likely proudly going to Colorado and I'm sure I'll be just fine. Modern legal education may have begun at Harvard, but it certainly doesn't end there. Get your gunner hats back on!

[Curious1]

Get your gunner hats back on!

Nice. Thanks

But yeah, I know I'm in a great position as it is, but I really wish I worked harder freshman year/not taking that one class and gotten a B/won an Olympic gold medal...etc. You know.

I suppose Columbia/Chicago isn't the end of the world...

Also: I haven't gotten the call from UVA yet...dunno what's going on with that. Such a mystery. Seems like they're actually randomly admitting people regardless of the order of applications (people with a later completion date than me with similar stats have been getting in this week)

[Justdoingmybest]

Neither of you should be discouraged. Its too early! And really, even in the worst case scenario you end up at CCN, probably with some money - gasp horror, die now. And you're facing down big money at UVA.

Lets just gain some perspective on this whole thing. I mean really. I know the economy is poor and all is doom and gloom, but getting into UVa with a huge scholarship is already a pretty frickin' amazing accomplishment. You guys are going to have amazing options that 99% of law applicants would cut off an arm to have - if Harvard can't see that, you'll have to slum it at Chicago or something - GASP! If I don't get into HYS, I'm most likely proudly going to Colorado and I'm sure I'll be just fine. Modern legal education may have begun at Harvard, but it certainly doesn't end there. Get your gunner hats back on!

If i were an adcomm I would give you a JR1/KB1 just for this post. Your intelligence and maturity is appreciated.

[Hawkeye Pierce]

Neither of you should be discouraged. Its too early! And really, even in the worst case scenario you end up at CCN, probably with some money - gasp horror, die now. And you're facing down big money at UVA.

Lets just gain some perspective on this whole thing. I mean really. I know the economy is poor and all is doom and gloom, but getting into UVa with a huge scholarship is already a pretty frickin' amazing accomplishment. You guys are going to have amazing options that 99% of law applicants would cut off an arm to have - if Harvard can't see that, you'll have to slum it at Chicago or something - GASP! If I don't get into HYS, I'm most likely proudly going to Colorado and I'm sure I'll be just fine. Modern legal education may have begun at Harvard, but it certainly doesn't end there. Get your gunner hats back on!

Oh, I'd be perfectly happy attending CCN. It's just that Harvard has always been my dream school.

[Curious1]

Neither of you should be discouraged. Its too early! And really, even in the worst case scenario you end up at CCN, probably with some money - gasp horror, die now. And you're facing down big money at UVA.

Lets just gain some perspective on this whole thing. I mean really. I know the economy is poor and all is doom and gloom, but getting into UVa with a huge scholarship is already a pretty frickin' amazing accomplishment. You guys are going to have amazing options that 99% of law applicants would cut off an arm to have - if Harvard can't see that, you'll have to slum it at Chicago or something - GASP! If I don't get into HYS, I'm most likely proudly going to Colorado and I'm sure I'll be just fine. Modern legal education may have begun at Harvard, but it certainly doesn't end there. Get your gunner hats back on!

Oh, I'd be perfectly happy attending CCN. It's just that Harvard has always been my dream school.

+1

[MumofCad]

Get your gunner hats back on!

Nice. Thanks

But yeah, I know I'm in a great position as it is, but I really wish I worked harder freshman year/not taking that one class and gotten a B/won an Olympic gold medal...etc. You know.

I suppose Columbia/Chicago isn't the end of the world...

Also: I haven't gotten the call from UVA yet...dunno what's going on with that. Such a mystery. Seems like they're actually randomly admitting people regardless of the order of applications (people with a later completion date than me with similar stats have been getting in this week)

Olympic gold medal or B not-with-standing, you are already a gunner. Seriously, there are good things to come for you. Some adcom at Harvard isn't going to be the final determinant of that, whether you get in or not.

[annyong]

Neither of you should be discouraged. Its too early! And really, even in the worst case scenario you end up at CCN, probably with some money - gasp horror, die now. And you're facing down big money at UVA.

Lets just gain some perspective on this whole thing. I mean really. I know the economy is poor and all is doom and gloom, but getting into UVa with a huge scholarship is already a pretty frickin' amazing accomplishment. You guys are going to have amazing options that 99% of law applicants would cut off an arm to have - if Harvard can't see that, you'll have to slum it at Chicago or something - GASP! If I don't get into HYS, I'm most likely proudly going to Colorado and I'm sure I'll be just fine. Modern legal education may have begun at Harvard, but it certainly doesn't end there. Get your gunner hats back on!

+1

Don't get me wrong, I'm nervous about my chances too, and harvard is a dream for me as well, but honestly - if this were occupy wall street, we would literally be the 1%, it's easy to lose perspective, but seriously, it may be worth a brief break from the bubble of TLS to find some, and I'm including myself in that.

[jim-green]

Modern legal education may have begun at Harvard, but it certainly doesn't end there. Get your gunner hats back on!

Cambridge or Bologna?

[MumofCad]

Modern legal education may have begun at Harvard, but it certainly doesn't end there. Get your gunner hats back on![/quote-

Referring to the "Socratic case-study method" - otherwise known as 1 prof can teach 80 high paying students with very little prep.

[kulshan]

Modern legal education may have begun at Harvard, but it certainly doesn't end there. Get your gunner hats back on!

Cambridge or Bologna?

Referring to the "Socratic case-study method" - otherwise known as 1 prof can teach 80 high paying students with very little prep.

Do you think that's true? It probably requires less prep after a few years of doing it, but I teach my classes this way and I think it takes as much or more prep than just lecturing. Granted, mine are much smaller AND populated mostly by beginning undergrads, who typically aren't as prepared or thoughtful.

[Curious1]

Modern legal education may have begun at Harvard, but it certainly doesn't end there. Get your gunner hats back on!

Cambridge or Bologna?

Referring to the "Socratic case-study method" - otherwise known as 1 prof can teach 80 high paying students with very little prep.

Better than 1 prof talking at 80 high paying students...at least there's some interaction (or so I'm told).

[AspiringAcademic]

Also: I haven't gotten the call from UVA yet...dunno what's going on with that. Such a mystery. Seems like they're actually randomly admitting people regardless of the order of applications (people with a later completion date than me with similar stats have been getting in this week)

I've been wondering about UVA as well. One possibility is that their tendency to include scholarship amounts in the acceptance email and their desire to yield protect add levels of complexity to their decisions, and that this brings other factors into play (like "Do we believe this person's Why UVA statement"). I hope we both hear soon.

Waiting sucks. You'd think that after this many years of education we'd be better at delayed gratification!

[euskadi]

I have no idea why you people with high numbers are worried. With those kinds of stats, you're auto-admit.

Sounds more like a subtle attempt at bragging to me.

Ah. I apologize if things came across this way. I'm fighting the feeling that numbers don't tell the whole story - and that they're not nearly as relevant (beyond a certain point) as I'd like to think. I simply have a hard time accepting that someone like you, whose GPA and LSAT score may be slightly lower than mine, has a lower chance of admission based merely off of those two factors. After having absorbed so much of the information you've shared - from the applicant threads to your commentary more generally - I can't imagine my résumé or background even comparing to yours. With the care and insight you've shown, your background ought to account for much more than the number on my LSAT score report. The application you put together must be extraordinary.

In any case, I can't help but assume that all of those who came before me, those with 3.9+/174+, have a non-academic profile that outshines my own by an order of magnitude. Perhaps I'm too cynical about my own background, and I likely underestimate the power of numbers. It still doesn't feel right, though. While it is true that part of my motive in posting my numbers lay in a desire for positive reassurance of my chances, the last thing I want from all of you in this thread - who are doubtless more accomplished than I - is a pat on the back for the good fortune of an easy UG institution and the ability to spend a fair amount of time studying for the LSAT. I feel extremely fortunate for both of these things. But at some point I feel like my GPA/LSAT must be less important than the things people do in reality.

I suppose this is just my attempt to keep my expectations low. Nothing in my background (personal or familial) would suggest that HLS could be a possibility for me, so I have a hard time allowing myself to believe I have a good chance.

[MumofCad]

Modern legal education may have begun at Harvard, but it certainly doesn't end there. Get your gunner hats back on!

-

Referring to the "Socratic case-study method" - otherwise known as 1 prof can teach 80 high paying students with very little prep.

Do you think that's true? It probably requires less prep after a few years of doing it, but I teach my classes this way and I think it takes as much or more prep than just lecturing. Granted, mine are much smaller AND populated mostly by beginning undergrads, who typically aren't as prepared or thoughtful.

It takes little prep. There are some interesting articles about this, but even Harvard scholars admit that it was largely the beginning of law schools becoming a big, profitable business. Most schools make alot of $$$ on their law schools that help support other post-grad programs. There is no doubt about it, the model was an innovation at Harvard near the end of the 19th century and became the standard across the nation.

Hence why Yale spends so much per student in comparison to others....smaller class sizes, one-on-one prof mentoring...its not exactly a money-making model.

There is alot of debate about whether this is the most effective way to actually teach the law or effective at all for that matter lol. I can point you to some interesting journal articles if education is your thing. They were forced on me by a Stanford Law grad on the origin of the legal education system in the US and its critiques, mainly by the Deans of Harvard, Berkeley and the like.

I know what you mean though about UG courses taught in a similar manner. My toughest UG class taught by "Flunkin Duncan" was run in a Socratic method, but it was very different from law school. When I first decided to attend law school, I made the mistake of mentioning to a US Ambassador who went to Yale, got his JD from Georgetown, and taught at a good number of Ivys in between that I was going to go back to get my JD - he decided to make a great example of how this system works to me and how worthlessly he viewed it. It was a grueling 5 minutes in which I felt like a total idiot. A usually nice guy, he turned into a commanding #$%& and I, who don't sweat anything...who prides myself on having a poker face, was seriously sweating and squirming. At the end, I asked if I had even answered a single question right. His response was, "How should I know? I don't know anything about that topic, but the key is, neither do you."

[jim-green]

Modern legal education may have begun at Harvard, but it certainly doesn't end there. Get your gunner hats back on!

Cambridge or Bologna?

Referring to the "Socratic case-study method" - otherwise known as 1 prof can teach 80 high paying students with very little prep.

Haha.

[jim-green]

he decided to make a great example of how this system works to me and how worthlessly he viewed it. It was a grueling 5 minutes in which I felt like a total idiot. A usually nice guy, he turned into a commanding #$%& and I, who don't sweat anything...who prides myself on having a poker face, was seriously sweating and squirming. At the end, I asked if I had even answered a single question right. His response was, "How should I know? I don't know anything about that topic, but the key is, neither do you."

Sounds like my dad.

[kulshan]

I know what you mean though about UG courses taught in a similar manner. My toughest UG class taught by "Flunkin Duncan" was run in a Socratic method, but it was very different from law school. When I first decided to attend law school, I made the mistake of mentioning to a US Ambassador who went to Yale, got his JD from Georgetown, and taught at a good number of Ivys in between that I was going to go back to get my JD - he decided to make a great example of how this system works to me and how worthlessly he viewed it. It was a grueling 5 minutes in which I felt like a total idiot. A usually nice guy, he turned into a commanding #$%& and I, who don't sweat anything...who prides myself on having a poker face, was seriously sweating and squirming. At the end, I asked if I had even answered a single question right. His response was, "How should I know? I don't know anything about that topic, but the key is, neither do you."

Okay, I think I see why we had different views about how much prep is required to teach a course via the Socratic Method. Namely, we were thinking of different interpretations of what that method is. I agree that if the questioner has no particular goal it won't take much (if any) prep. I was thinking of the SM as questioning with a goal in mind. That is, questioning with the aim of getting someone to convince themselves of some point, or to at least question what they might believe. This is what I take Socrates to be doing in Plato's dialogues, and what I take myself to do (rather poorly, usually!) in my courses. I want my students to come to understand the positions on offer, to present objections, to see why their objections succeed or fail, etc. So, I could lecture for 50 minutes about an argument for why eating meat is wrong. That would take some prep, but not very much. Or, I could ask my students what they think, question their answers, force them to refine their positions, give objections, and so on, in which case I have to be prepared for all manner of responses, for weird digressions, I want to have strong examples in mind for common objections, and so on. That takes longer to prepare for precisely because it's unpredictable. I said that it gets easier after a few years just because these discussions do tend to focus on a finite number of ideas, and once you've done it a few times you can see them coming.

At any rate, I'm not sure whether law profs tend to see themselves as simply asking questions to be argumentative or whether they have goals in mind. Certainly the two aren't exclusive, for one thing. But I hadn't considered your interpretation when I was thinking about the SM.

[MumofCad]

I know what you mean though about UG courses taught in a similar manner. My toughest UG class taught by "Flunkin Duncan" was run in a Socratic method, but it was very different from law school. When I first decided to attend law school, I made the mistake of mentioning to a US Ambassador who went to Yale, got his JD from Georgetown, and taught at a good number of Ivys in between that I was going to go back to get my JD - he decided to make a great example of how this system works to me and how worthlessly he viewed it. It was a grueling 5 minutes in which I felt like a total idiot. A usually nice guy, he turned into a commanding #$%& and I, who don't sweat anything...who prides myself on having a poker face, was seriously sweating and squirming. At the end, I asked if I had even answered a single question right. His response was, "How should I know? I don't know anything about that topic, but the key is, neither do you."

Okay, I think I see why we had different views about how much prep is required to teach a course via the Socratic Method. Namely, we were thinking of different interpretations of what that method is. I agree that if the questioner has no particular goal it won't take much (if any) prep. I was thinking of the SM as questioning with a goal in mind. That is, questioning with the aim of getting someone to convince themselves of some point, or to at least question what they might believe. This is what I take Socrates to be doing in Plato's dialogues, and what I take myself to do (rather poorly, usually!) in my courses. I want my students to come to understand the positions on offer, to present objections, to see why their objections succeed or fail, etc. So, I could lecture for 50 minutes about an argument for why eating meat is wrong. That would take some prep, but not very much. Or, I could ask my students what they think, question their answers, force them to refine their positions, give objections, and so on, in which case I have to be prepared for all manner of responses, for weird digressions, I want to have strong examples in mind for common objections, and so on. That takes longer to prepare for precisely because it's unpredictable. I said that it gets easier after a few years just because these discussions do tend to focus on a finite number of ideas, and once you've done it a few times you can see them coming.

At any rate, I'm not sure whether law profs tend to see themselves as simply asking questions to be argumentative or whether they have goals in mind. Certainly the two aren't exclusive, for one thing. But I hadn't considered your interpretation when I was thinking about the SM.

From what I've garnered from philosophers that have attended law school, they don't generally see it as being very Socratic in the true sense of the word. Its a pretty broad definition of a practice. And to be fair to current law professors, I think since both of the people I've referenced, law school has changed quite a bit.

What I thought was interesting is that 1L was written about the time both of these men went to or taught in law schools. It too is highly critical at points of the method of instruction at law schools, yet they both hated the book, specifically mentioned what a heap of crap it is, and then proceeded to present very similar frustrations with law school as were presented between the lines in the book. Admittedly, both were much better minds than I so perhaps I was just missing something lol. It seems to me, their generation in general was very critical, perhaps because they were the first to really have careers before entering and less appreciative of condescension from people they had previously considered equals or just the general restlessness of the times (I'd say the widening of admission to more diverse classes and socio-economic backgrounds, but both these guys came from the typical elite law school class and both their Dads had JDs from Harvard so - shrug). Who knows. I'd tell you that one of them, the philosopher, said that he thought law school had nothing to do with Socrates and everything to do with the Sophists.

I could pretend to be really smart and know what that means (because I'm sure you would have lol), but I had no idea what he was referring to at the time. He also said he thought I'd be a terrific law student and a terrific attorney, because I could clearly differentiate between law school as an intellectual endeavor versus a trade school. He thought his insult went over my head too, but I got that one. It was a clear bazing. I was fine with it though lol (especially given that he hated law school so much he never used his law degree and considered it a huge waste of time). This was two different people btw. Both plenty disillusioned with law school. I think everyone was pretty set against me going to law school now that I look back over the summer.....I had my own personal Mtals.

[amc987]

Sorry to interrupt this discussion about the origins of the modern legal education, but I am officially under review as of 11/2. AHHHHH!!!

[kulshan]

From what I've garnered from philosophers that have attended law school, they don't generally see it as being very Socratic in the true sense of the word. Its a pretty broad definition of a practice. And to be fair to current law professors, I think since both of the people I've referenced, law school has changed quite a bit.

What I thought was interesting is that 1L was written about the time both of these men went to or taught in law schools. It too is highly critical at points of the method of instruction at law schools, yet they both hated the book, specifically mentioned what a heap of crap it is, and then proceeded to present very similar frustrations with law school as were presented between the lines in the book. Admittedly, both were much better minds than I so perhaps I was just missing something lol. It seems to me, their generation in general was very critical, perhaps because they were the first to really have careers before entering and less appreciative of condescension from people they had previously considered equals or just the general restlessness of the times (I'd say the widening of admission to more diverse classes and socio-economic backgrounds, but both these guys came from the typical elite law school class and both their Dads had JDs from Harvard so - shrug). Who knows. I'd tell you that one of them, the philosopher, said that he thought law school had nothing to do with Socrates and everything to do with the Sophists.

I could pretend to be really smart and know what that means (because I'm sure you would have lol), but I had no idea what he was referring to at the time. He also said he thought I'd be a terrific law student and a terrific attorney, because I could clearly differentiate between law school as an intellectual endeavor versus a trade school. He thought his insult went over my head too, but I got that one. It was a clear bazing. I was fine with it though lol (especially given that he hated law school so much he never used his law degree and considered it a huge waste of time). This was two different people btw. Both plenty disillusioned with law school. I think everyone was pretty set against me going to law school now that I look back over the summer.....I had my own personal Mtals.

Ah, yes. This makes perfect sense. I've had several philosophers (profs and other grad students with JDs) warn me off of doing the law thing for related reasons, but I guess I'm too thick-headed to listen to them . I haven't read One L yet, but I was thinking of reading it over the summer. The only exposure I've had to the Socratic Method as it relates to law school is watching The Paper Chase on Netflix, lol.

[jim-green]

Isn't the paper chase the movie version of 1L?