Harvard 2010! Forum

[r6_philly]

When did non-held people who still haven't gotten an answer submit their apps?

1/28, but complete late March.

[Sogui]

Now that I've got my hold, I have to sincerely wonder if there are any "big movements" left. Or if it's just going to be a continuous trickle of JR1/2, Holds, and Rejections throughout April.

(Submitted 12/22, UR 1/22, Complete 2/12, Held 4/2)

[mcm814]

When did non-held people who still haven't gotten an answer submit their apps?

Right before Christmas, and I went complete in the first week of February.

[mcdad]

late Jan. no JR1 no anything.

[blue5385]

so relatively late submitters?

Even though I don't think it's promising that there are still people who haven't heard anything into April, at least it isn't people who submitted in September. That makes me think that even though they're behind, they're getting close to finishing up non-held people so they can start on the holds...at least, I really hope so...

[buzal3]

Went complete in early november, held january 12, haven't heard anything since.

166/4.1... don't know how my numbers compare but from the correspondences I've received it appears they are looking more closely at softs with the holds to diversify the class. just a thought?

[r6_philly]

I just wish HLS (and YLS) would just do away with this non-sense of judging every application on its own merit, and if they'd ask me to drop my pants, look at my large dong and just let me in already!

That's still judging every application on its own merit as we are not all Peter North.

[blue5385]

Went complete in early november, held january 12, haven't heard anything since.

166/4.1... don't know how my numbers compare but from the correspondences I've received it appears they are looking more closely at softs with the holds to diversify the class. just a thought?

such as?

I know you said you haven't heard anything since 1/12, but did you ever hear anything other than the initial received email, complete email, and hold email? Just wondering because the hold email seemed pretty boilerplate to me--nothing to indicate they are taking softs into more account than usual.

[buzal3]

When I contacted them about how to send in updates they were quick to let me know that I should include any updates on the goings-on in my life since my application and any other "valuable" information that may be relevant. I am simply assuming that there is more "value" placed on softs following a hold.

Also, on another note, Harvard's endowment took a big hit over the last two years and I wonder if all these holds may be indicative of a slight over-enrollment for the upcoming year?

[lt0826]

Applied mid-Jan, went into review 2/24 - no hold or word of any sort since then. I am amazed I didn't get automatically dinged, so if they are seriously considering me at all I am thrilled and a believer that they really do look at softs.

[blue5385]

When I contacted them about how to send in updates they were quick to let me know that I should include any updates on the goings-on in my life since my application and any other "valuable" information that may be relevant. I am simply assuming that there is more "value" placed on softs following a hold.

That makes sense. I guess I would like them to focus more on the softs since I'm interested in a pretty narrow non-biglaw legal field I don't think lots of other people are interested in, so maybe they will find room in their class for me based on that.

In spite of what they are telling us, though, I think it's primarily going to be a numbers game as usual.

[Na_Swatch]

Also, on another note, Harvard's endowment took a big hit over the last two years and I wonder if all these holds may be indicative of a slight over-enrollment for the upcoming year?

This is an excellent question, actually.

Here's my (read: somewhat informed) take on this.

Will H increase enrollment? Perhaps. By how much? I don't think by a significant number. Typically, H targets an incoming class of around ~500-500, but in recent years they've exceeded that number by flirting around the 600 mark, but not reaching or exceeding it.

Sure, in light of the economic downtown, not only the HU endowment has taken a hit but also the HLS endowment as well, as you correctly pointed out. But I don't really think increasing the class size will impact the fund (even if you x3 those #'s). HLS has made amendments to many of thier long-standing polices which they have gotten rid-off (ie. no free 3L tuition for those entering public interest law, free coffee all day is a thing of past, etc. where many other "perks" have vanished).

Wow. A PN response that is reasonable, well thought out, and has actual information backing it up. I think a flying pig just went by my window.

Still yeah a pretty easy question to answer, Harvard is not going to suddenly start increasing class sizes just because its endownment has gone down. As for the emphasis on softs, I'm not quite as sure there is a strong movement in that direction. It seems from the majority of this cycle’s results that higher GPAs have been emphasized along with perhaps slightly more weight on softs, but, as per Anne Ivey’s information, when you call admissions offices they’re going to tell you what you want to hear (as in send in more stuff if you want, your softs will help you a lot, etc.)

[AdamatUCF]

Applied mid-Jan, went into review 2/24 - no hold or word of any sort since then. I am amazed I didn't get automatically dinged, so if they are seriously considering me at all I am thrilled and a believer that they really do look at softs.

I'm in the same boat, although you've got slightly better numbers than I do.

I was expecting a quick ding, and now I'm wondering if they're just flooded with applications, or if they like my softs.

If I somehow make it on the waitlist, I'm totally going to have a bag packed in the corner until the first week of classes in-case I get a last-minute magic phone call.

[big_blue79]

Submitted late January, UR 2/9 (Status Checker, complete e-mail 2/17), no word. I'm hoping to get my [strike]ding[/strike] decision this week so I can move on.

[r6_philly]

I just wish HLS (and YLS) would just do away with this non-sense of judging every application on its own merit, and if they'd ask me to drop my pants, look at my large dong and just let me in already!

That's still judging every application on its own merit as we are not all Peter North.

LOL!

Hey Philly,

I came across one of your posts:

--LinkRemoved--

You man-whore, you.

That's hilarious I don't post online to ask for computer help that much but you can find a couple if you really look, but it's not on a simple task like that.

[soonergirl]

This is why I suspect applicants like me (161 LSAT but with an engineering degree from an Ivy, MBA from a top 3 b-school and over 8 solid years of corporate work experience with a Fortune 500, in my late 20s) are still in the running (ie. no formal ding yet).

are you held?

[r6_philly]

This is why I suspect applicants like me (161 LSAT but with an engineering degree from an Ivy, MBA from a top 3 b-school and over 8 solid years of corporate work experience with a Fortune 500, in my late 20s) are still in the running (ie. no formal ding yet).

My other guess regarding soft is, it is safer to admit people with significant WE and other softs because they will be more competitive after graduation and will probably help in all aspects of school reputation and endowment. So maybe they are holding that many people so they can sift through the pile and pick and choose more carefully, and less based on strict numbers than the past. JR may also have a different admit philosophy anyway.

[adameus]

This is why I suspect applicants like me (161 LSAT but with an engineering degree from an Ivy, MBA from a top 3 b-school and over 8 solid years of corporate work experience with a Fortune 500, in my late 20s) are still in the running (ie. no formal ding yet).

My other guess regarding soft is, it is safer to admit people with significant WE and other softs because they will be more competitive after graduation and will probably help in all aspects of school reputation and endowment. So maybe they are holding that many people so they can sift through the pile and pick and choose more carefully, and less based on strict numbers than the past. JR may also have a different admit philosophy anyway.

just because you worked in the past I don't think it means it will make you a better or more successful lawyer than a person who hasn't. I think there is a good chance that a person headed to law school with a few years work experience feels like they aren't headed where they want with their current career and thus decides to go to law school. If a person is very sucessful and has a great career then it's unlikely they will be headed back to school...

[r6_philly]

just because you worked in the past I don't think it means it will make you a better or more successful lawyer than a person who hasn't. I think there is a good chance that a person headed to law school with a few years work experience feels like they aren't headed where they want with their current career and thus decides to go to law school. If a person is very sucessful and has a great career then it's unlikely they will be headed back to school...

That is not necessarily true. If you can show a natural progression then it is a different case. I guess I should qualify that if you have relevant and applicable WE. People who has a successful career may not always want to stay at that career for whatever reason - lack of new challenges, upward opportunities, personal satisfaction, intellectual curiosity, etc. Don't assume that everyone who wishes to change career and apply to law school are flunking out of current careers. It may be the case for a majority of candidates with WE (may, I don't know), I do however suspect that people with high enough numbers to have a shot at Harvard could well be successful at WHATEVER career they choose. Edit to add: at least the ones that Harvard ends up taking

[soonergirl]

just because you worked in the past I don't think it means it will make you a better or more successful lawyer than a person who hasn't. I think there is a good chance that a person headed to law school with a few years work experience feels like they aren't headed where they want with their current career and thus decides to go to law school. If a person is very sucessful and has a great career then it's unlikely they will be headed back to school...

Especially when the economy is bad, older applicants are at risk of giving the appearance of, "I got laid off and couldn't get a job and decided to go to law school." Even if they can disprove that, they're at risk of looking like, "I still haven't figured out what I want to do when I grow up." This is something I've been thinking about regarding my own applications.

IMO, as an NT you have to have a pretty clearly mapped out plan/objective and a pretty impressive statement to overcome low numbers.

[mcm814]

How old/how many years out of school are we talking when you say "older"?

[soonergirl]

How old/how many years out of school are we talking when you say "older"?

5+, but especially once you get to 7-10+.

[adameus]

just because you worked in the past I don't think it means it will make you a better or more successful lawyer than a person who hasn't. I think there is a good chance that a person headed to law school with a few years work experience feels like they aren't headed where they want with their current career and thus decides to go to law school. If a person is very sucessful and has a great career then it's unlikely they will be headed back to school...

That is not necessarily true. If you can show a natural progression then it is a different case. I guess I should qualify that if you have relevant and applicable WE. People who has a successful career may not always want to stay at that career for whatever reason - lack of new challenges, upward opportunities, personal satisfaction, intellectual curiosity, etc. Don't assume that everyone who wishes to change career and apply to law school are flunking out of current careers. It may be the case for a majority of candidates with WE (may, I don't know), I do however suspect that people with high enough numbers to have a shot at Harvard could well be successful at WHATEVER career they choose. Edit to add: at least the ones that Harvard ends up taking

I don't disagree with you. I condsider myself to be in the boat you describe. I am doing quite well at my current job, but I don't see a lot of upward opportunities that I am interested in (the nature of my company and my industry). Anyways, I think it's just hard to distinguish between these people that actually are good workers and those that aren't, based on a resume. If work experience was such a key indicator of success I think it would be a larger component to law school admissions.

[r6_philly]

I don't disagree with you. I condsider myself to be in the boat you describe. I am doing quite well at my current job, but I don't see a lot of upward opportunities that I am interested in (the nature of my company and my industry). Anyways, I think it's just hard to distinguish between these people that actually are good workers and those that aren't, based on a resume. If work experience was such a key indicator of success I think it would be a larger component to law school admissions.

Then it is your job to show it. Most applicants are straight out of UG or took a break without pursuing a serious career, so it doesn't make sense to weigh the WE more for most. In our cases where we had significant careers, it is important for us to present it as such so they will understand our abilities. It is absolutely achievable to present your success as a worker in whatever career you chose. It is the same as a professional resume, it needs to show upward movement. It needs to show that you took on more responsibilities over time and your achievements/recognition have increased over time as well. It may be hard for the average applicant to show it, but if you have it, it is unmistakable. Ask PN, he will probably say the same thing because he has a decent career going from what he says. My career took me to an intersection with law, and I am fascinated by the study of it so that's why I looked at law. My current field/career is just not challenging.

[soonergirl]

just because you worked in the past I don't think it means it will make you a better or more successful lawyer than a person who hasn't. I think there is a good chance that a person headed to law school with a few years work experience feels like they aren't headed where they want with their current career and thus decides to go to law school. If a person is very sucessful and has a great career then it's unlikely they will be headed back to school...

my goodness I am so slow. I only just now got your user name. lol. Guess it's a good thing word games aren't on the LSAT.