Harvard 2010! Forum

[Sogui]

HLS doesn't care about LOCIs. Ditto for YLS.

If anything, LOCIs will peak the adcomms' interest, look at your file again - and ding you.

There was a poster a few pages back who got un-held and accepted in early March thanks (in all likelyhood) to a strong LOCI.

I think with my GPA hovering right near their median, moving up even .01 could be a big deal.

.01? I don't know if I'm in a pissy mood today or what, but some of you guys are over thinking this waaaay too much. Please don't write a LOCI to tell them that your GPA moved from 3.81 to 3.82, I think they would be more inclined to laugh and decline than to change their mind and accept you.

I think I was misinterpreted.

I've added a few nice things to my resume since I applied. The GPA lift certainly won't be the centerpiece, I would probably even pass it off jokingly near the end, but with all the talk about Harvard focusing more on GPA, raising its GPA median, etc... it certainly wouldn't hurt. I also got my GPA rocked on the very last semester of my transcript, it might be reassuring for them to know I did much better in the Fall and that it isn't the sign of some massive downward trend or me not being able to handle upper-division stuff.

But some of the comments here might make me reconsider a LOCI. Does Harvard really not want to hear interest expressed in an LOCI? I mean JR does ask "Why Harvard?" in the calls right?

[gatordude94]

I think I was misinterpreted.

I've added a few nice things to my resume since I applied. The GPA lift certainly won't be the centerpiece, I would probably even pass it off jokingly near the end, but with all the talk about Harvard focusing more on GPA, raising its GPA median, etc... it certainly wouldn't hurt. I also got my GPA rocked on the very last semester of my transcript, it might be reassuring for them to know I did much better in the Fall and that it isn't the sign of some massive downward trend or me not being able to handle upper-division stuff.

But some of the comments here might make me reconsider a LOCI. Does Harvard really not want to hear interest expressed in an LOCI? I mean JR does ask "Why Harvard?" in the calls right?

The hold email says, "If you have a special interest in attending Harvard, please feel free to tell us about that as well. Any new information that you feel might be helpful is appropriate."

In my opinion, additions to your resume will be good for the adcomm to see. Not sure I'd mention the GPA thing though.

[eattrucks]

We got a couple of rejections of low GPA splitters this morning on LSN.

Maybe some movement today.

Edit: Oh wait, there's another one that is a high GPA splitter.

[JohnnyTrojan08]

JohnnyTrojan08 wrote:
Since Harvard averages...

Harvard definitely does not average.

Maybe not strictly average, but they certainly take all scores into account, not just the highest. To my knowledge, there isn't a school in the T14 that literally "averages" the scores and only looks at that number for the LSAT, is there?

From the HLS site (and this might have been beaten to death before and refuted, IDK):
If you take the test more than once, all scores and their average will be reported and taken into account.

The first part is standard LSAC, and I read "taken into account" to imply that HLS doesn't just consider the highest score. Which was my point in my 172-180 case, but I should be careful when discussing such a sensitive topic as literally averaging LSAT scores.

I did not apply to Yale for several reasons, but the most salient is that YSM is not at the same level as HBS or SGSB and I want a joint JD/MBA.

All things being equal, Harvard wins out right now for personal reasons, but I would have to visit both before I'd let myself make a decision. First step, first though: news from Stanford before I worry about such things.

[DoubleChecks]

JohnnyTrojan08 wrote:
Since Harvard averages...

Harvard definitely does not average.

Maybe not strictly average, but they certainly take all scores into account, not just the highest. To my knowledge, there isn't a school in the T14 that literally "averages" the scores and only looks at that number for the LSAT, is there?

From the HLS site (and this might have been beaten to death before and refuted, IDK):
If you take the test more than once, all scores and their average will be reported and taken into account.

The first part is standard LSAC, and I read "taken into account" to imply that HLS doesn't just consider the highest score. Which was my point in my 172-180 case, but I should be careful when discussing such a sensitive topic as literally averaging LSAT scores.

i do agree that they prob take all scores into account, but they def. dont outright avg them...so i mean, i wouldnt say your numbers are "actually a 3.85 GPA with 176 LSAT." it is more like they saw oh he had a 172 (great LSAT score) and then got a 180 after (a perfect LSAT score)...i would say this is very diff from a 3.85/176 lol.

a person w/ a 164/176 LSAT would have more reason to worry...even though HLS wouldnt outright avg, the 162, imo, is like a negative soft

[crackberry]

If Harvard averaged, there's no way I woulda gotten a JR1.

[JohnnyTrojan08]

If Harvard averaged, there's no way I woulda gotten a JR1.

Blatant anti-crack trolling.

[$1.99]

shouldnt you be reading over yale applications peter north and making phone calls than wasting your time here

[crackberry]

shouldnt you be reading over yale applications peter north and making phone calls than wasting your time here

Yeah come on Peter, please admit me to Yale.

[$1.99]

if JR did that it would be embarrassing, it would not have the same effect YLS's calls make

i would say 90-95% of the class is full by now

[Na_Swatch]

i would say 90-95% of the class is full by now

Not even close. HLS is notorious for dragging the process all the way into the summer. Even JR says that on the blog.

While it might not be at 90%, the number is probably much closer to 80~90% then 50~60%. Just look at the volume of calls/ LSN activity/ and JR emails earlier in the cycle compared to what is going on now.

Also extrapolation of the LSN numbers show that the majority of spots are likely full by now.

[r6_philly]

What is Harvard's Yield? When would you think the latest admission offers not from hold/waitlist will be made?

[Na_Swatch]

What is Harvard's Yield? When would you think the latest admission offers not from hold/waitlist will be made?

Harvard's yield is usually right around 70% which is derived from the annual amount of 800 accepted and 550 matriculating to HLS. No one knows for sure about your second question tho, especially as JR is the new dean this year.

[crackberry]

Yield rates:

Yale - 76 percent
Harvard - 67 percent
Stanford - 43 percent

[r6_philly]

Yield rates:

Yale - 76 percent
Harvard - 67 percent
Stanford - 43 percent

Why is Stanford much lower?

[BioEBear2010]

Yield rates:

Yale - 76 percent
Harvard - 67 percent
Stanford - 43 percent

Why is Stanford much lower?

One could ask the same thing about Columbia (yield rate = 34%). More cross-admits choose Yale/Harvard over Stanford, for whatever reason.

[r6_philly]

Yield rates:

Yale - 76 percent
Harvard - 67 percent
Stanford - 43 percent

Why is Stanford much lower?

One could ask the same thing about Columbia (yield rate = 34%). More cross-admits choose Yale/Harvard over Stanford, for whatever reason.

I expect CLS to be lower because all the stiff competition starting cross town. Stanford seems to be different, with only 1 decent competition in the area/region/coast. I expect (don't konw for sure) Stanford to be strong in technology programs and industry placement, it is surprising that people would chose east coast counterparts over it.

[BioEBear2010]

Yield rates:

Yale - 76 percent
Harvard - 67 percent
Stanford - 43 percent

Why is Stanford much lower?

One could ask the same thing about Columbia (yield rate = 34%). More cross-admits choose Yale/Harvard over Stanford, for whatever reason.

I expect CLS to be lower because all the stiff competition starting cross town. Stanford seems to be different, with only 1 decent competition in the area/region/coast. I expect (don't konw for sure) Stanford to be strong in technology programs and industry placement, it is surprising that people would chose east coast counterparts over it.

Yes, Stanford is very strong in technology; however, there aren't all that many students interested in technology law. Many of the Y/S cross-admits that do end up choosing Stanford happen to be interested in IP, though.

If I were to venture a guess, I would say Yale and Harvard (aside from being arguably more prestigious) have larger niches for most law students than Stanford. Many Harvard students want to practice biglaw or enter politics, and many Yale students want to clerk, go into academia, or do government work. Stanford, however, seems to have a relative advantage in a smaller number of areas, most notably IP and immigration (I'm not even sure about this). The fact that Y/H place very well in California removes some of Stanford's West Coast appeal, as well.

[notanumber]

Yes, Stanford is very strong in technology; however, there aren't all that many students interested in technology law. Many of the Y/S cross-admits that do end up choosing Stanford happen to be interested in IP, though.

If I were to venture a guess, I would say Yale and Harvard (aside from being arguably more prestigious) have larger niches for most law students than Stanford. Many Harvard students want to practice biglaw or enter politics, and many Yale students want to clerk, go into academia, or do government work. Stanford, however, seems to have a relative advantage in a smaller number of areas, most notably IP and immigration (I'm not even sure about this). The fact that Y/H place very well in California removes some of Stanford's West Coast appeal, as well.

Seems to me that when I look at the programs there really isn't much of a substantive difference in the curriculum between Stanford, Harvard, and Yale and the difference in placement also seems to be marginal-at-best.

I'd venture to guess that most of the yield difference can be explained by East Coast bias and people chasing the "Ivy" prestige.

It would be fascinating to see what the yield rates for each of these schools is from students who live on the West Coast, where Stanford is held-up as at least the equal and often the better school of the three.

[r6_philly]

Yes, Stanford is very strong in technology; however, there aren't all that many students interested in technology law. Many of the Y/S cross-admits that do end up choosing Stanford happen to be interested in IP, though.

If I were to venture a guess, I would say Yale and Harvard (aside from being arguably more prestigious) have larger niches for most law students than Stanford. Many Harvard students want to practice biglaw or enter politics, and many Yale students want to clerk, go into academia, or do government work. Stanford, however, seems to have a relative advantage in a smaller number of areas, most notably IP and immigration (I'm not even sure about this). The fact that Y/H place very well in California removes some of Stanford's West Coast appeal, as well.

Seems to me that when I look at the programs there really isn't much of a substantive difference in the curriculum between Stanford, Harvard, and Yale and the difference in placement also seems to be marginal-at-best.

I'd venture to guess that most of the yield difference can be explained by East Coast bias and people chasing the "Ivy" prestige.

It would be fascinating to see what the yield rates for each of these schools is from students who live on the West Coast, where Stanford is held-up as at least the equal and often the better school of the three.

I admit I didn't look too closely at Stanford since they were unwilling to take my Feb score. However what I did see tend to have more of a technology focus. It isn't really overt but I can just sense it perhaps due to my own background. I think I might have a better chance our of the top 3 at Stanford then.

That said, it is interesting how Standford is not more selective of their acceptances. I can imagine the 43% is a huge thorn in its side. Maybe a little merit aid would help them improve...

[notanumber]

Yes, Stanford is very strong in technology; however, there aren't all that many students interested in technology law. Many of the Y/S cross-admits that do end up choosing Stanford happen to be interested in IP, though.

If I were to venture a guess, I would say Yale and Harvard (aside from being arguably more prestigious) have larger niches for most law students than Stanford. Many Harvard students want to practice biglaw or enter politics, and many Yale students want to clerk, go into academia, or do government work. Stanford, however, seems to have a relative advantage in a smaller number of areas, most notably IP and immigration (I'm not even sure about this). The fact that Y/H place very well in California removes some of Stanford's West Coast appeal, as well.

Seems to me that when I look at the programs there really isn't much of a substantive difference in the curriculum between Stanford, Harvard, and Yale and the difference in placement also seems to be marginal-at-best.

I'd venture to guess that most of the yield difference can be explained by East Coast bias and people chasing the "Ivy" prestige.

It would be fascinating to see what the yield rates for each of these schools is from students who live on the West Coast, where Stanford is held-up as at least the equal and often the better school of the three.

I admit I didn't look too closely at Stanford since they were unwilling to take my Feb score. However what I did see tend to have more of a technology focus. It isn't really overt but I can just sense it perhaps due to my own background. I think I might have a better chance our of the top 3 at Stanford then.

That said, it is interesting how Standford is not more selective of their acceptances. I can imagine the 43% is a huge thorn in its side. Maybe a little merit aid would help them improve...

I dunno, especially now that Lessig is at Harvard and they're active building their IP program it seems that much of what may have been a previous advantage has dulled. I guess their big IP advantage would still be the connections to industry and to the Stanford engineering schools. But then again, if you're IP focused and coming out of Yale you'll not be competing with many (any?) other folk for your jobs while Stanford may have a few dozen "competitors" (and I use the word "competitors" loosely because everybody out of Yale and Stanford is going to get a damn good job even ITE).

I still suspect that the majority of the yield difference is B.S. prestige seeking done by people who really want to "win." Or so says notanumber who only applied to Yale and Harvard (hey, I have good non-prestige related reasons!)

[BioEBear2010]

Yes, Stanford is very strong in technology; however, there aren't all that many students interested in technology law. Many of the Y/S cross-admits that do end up choosing Stanford happen to be interested in IP, though.

If I were to venture a guess, I would say Yale and Harvard (aside from being arguably more prestigious) have larger niches for most law students than Stanford. Many Harvard students want to practice biglaw or enter politics, and many Yale students want to clerk, go into academia, or do government work. Stanford, however, seems to have a relative advantage in a smaller number of areas, most notably IP and immigration (I'm not even sure about this). The fact that Y/H place very well in California removes some of Stanford's West Coast appeal, as well.

Seems to me that when I look at the programs there really isn't much of a substantive difference in the curriculum between Stanford, Harvard, and Yale and the difference in placement also seems to be marginal-at-best.

I'd venture to guess that most of the yield difference can be explained by East Coast bias and people chasing the "Ivy" prestige.

It would be fascinating to see what the yield rates for each of these schools is from students who live on the West Coast, where Stanford is held-up as at least the equal and often the better school of the three.

Just because the curricula and placement numbers are very similar does not mean that the schools have not created niches. Stanford, as a result of its location within the silicon valley and the strength of its engineering and entrepreneurship, will attract more students interested in technology law.

Also, the size of each law school is worth mentioning. Harvard is enormous, with far more resources and professors (and students) than Yale or Stanford. That will attract a certain type of student -- if someone wants access to more professors, or if he/she wants to network with more people, then it would make sense to choose H over Y/S.

Yale and Stanford are more similar to one another than either is to Harvard. Or at least this is how it appears to me, and to many prospective law students with whom I have spoken. It sort of makes sense, then, that a student will either desire (a), (b), and (c) in a law school, and thus prefer Yale/Stanford, or prefer (d), (e), and (f) in a law school, and thus prefer Harvard. And the large majority of Y/S cross-admits will choose Yale, for whatever reason (prestige, fit, location, etc -- I'm not going to dive into the specifics, because I don't know which one I prefer). Hence Y/H's higher yields than S's (talking out of my ass )

[crackberry]

I actually think BioE is on to something with that last post, if only given the preferences of myself, BioE himself, BenJ, etc. Granted, he is the only one in that group who has been admitted to Yale AND Stanford, but I know that if all three of us were admitted to all of HYS, we'd all be choosing between Y and S. H isn't really in the picture for any of us. CardinalRules is an exception to this rule, though, deciding between H and S, and not really considering Y.

I do agree that because Y and S are more similar to each other than either is to H, that people are often making the Y v. S decision (and overwhelmingly choosing Y), and other people are making the H v. Y/S decision and a lot of them choose H.

You could also argue (though some late applicants this cycle would argue differently) that virtually anyone with a 175+, 3.8+ gets into H and those people (esp. if they are straight from UG) often get turned down by both Y and S. They will almost undoubtedly choose to go to H (excepting a Hamilton or Darrow). That definitely helps H's yield rate.

I also think East Coast bias / the fact that more people on the East Coast go to law school / DC/NYC both being on the East Coast helps H and Y.

I would also be interested to see the yield rates among these three schools for students who get the HYS sweep. I'd imagine it's the same ranking (Y, H, S) but I bet H and S are much closer together, with Y overwhelmingly on top.

[r6_philly]

You could also argue (though some late applicants this cycle would argue differently) that virtually anyone with a 175+, 3.8+ gets into H and those people (esp. if they are straight from UG) often get turned down by both Y and S. They will almost undoubtedly choose to go to H (excepting a Hamilton or Darrow). That definitely helps H's yield rate.

I also think East Coast bias / the fact that more people on the East Coast go to law school / DC/NYC both being on the East Coast helps H and Y.

I would also be interested to see the yield rates among these three schools for students who get the HYS sweep. I'd imagine it's the same ranking (Y, H, S) but I bet H and S are much closer together, with Y overwhelmingly on top.

But if you argue along the same line, then people who makes an effort to apply to Stanford would probably not favor east over west. If Stanford became a little more selective in handing out acceptances, maybe they can accept more people who doesn't seem to favor the east coast and big law on the east coast. If the east bias is that apparent to law students then it should make more sense for them to do more to try to attract people out west. Give money, recruit heavily, take the Feb score (:)) etc.

People turn down H for Darrow? Is Michigan that good?

[crackberry]

But if you argue along the same line, then people who makes an effort to apply to Stanford would probably not favor east over west. If Stanford became a little more selective in handing out acceptances, maybe they can accept more people who doesn't seem to favor the east coast and big law on the east coast. If the east bias is that apparent to law students then it should make more sense for them to do more to try to attract people out west. Give money, recruit heavily, take the Feb score (:)) etc.

People turn down H for Darrow? Is Michigan that good?

1) Michigan is that good.
2) No debt is very alluring to a lot of people.
3) If you want BigLaw, Darrow at Michigan seems to be TCR over Harvard.

Also, Stanford can't be that much more selective with who they admit. Their acceptance rate is already the second lowest in the country (behind only Yale).