Harvard 2010! Forum

[soonergirl]

If it was purely a numbers game, HLS/YLS would've humoured me with a courtesy wait, and would've dinged me months ago. So let's see where things go. Good luck to everyone in anticipation!

I'm just confused. Did you really only apply to the two schools? Nobody does that. Is that out of sheer hubris, or just that you simply have no interest in law school if you can't go 1 or 2?

And yes, I did see your theory about the economy lowering the numbers (or to summarize more accurately, widening the range), but I don't really buy into it. In the past economic decline has resulted in higher numbers and a narrower range. OTOH, past performance is not always an indicator of future results. or whatever they say in the mutual fund ads.

[adameus]

Peter North, it is quite difficult to tell whether or not you are real. If you are, you are delusional. If not, then you are a damn good troll.

[Jrugg88]

Chances are they just haven't gotten to you yet (person who is UR 2/24). I am UR as of 2/16 and expected to be instantaneously rejected (my LSAT and GPA are both just slightly below their 25th percentile and I'm not a URM) and I haven't heard back yet. Though I have decent softs (I think - summer internships at prestigious IBDs, Big-Law in family, good extracurriculars and recommendation from HLS grad who is a professor and lawyer), I have 0 years full-time work experience. I can't imagine they are actually considering me and would guess they just haven't gotten around to sending the rejections - though I have been trying to figure out why it's taking so long...? Has anyone else UR before 2/16 or shortly after heard back negatively - e.g. rejected?

[adameus]

I'm just confused. Did you really only apply to the two schools? Nobody does that. Is that out of sheer hubris, or just that you simply have no interest in law school if you can't go 1 or 2?

HLS and YLS are my main targets.

From a geographic/vicinity standpoint, I've applied to 5 other Tier 1 schools and have been accepted to 3 (one a T14 btw), Held/WL'd at one and a decision pending at another. No rejections, yet. I'm going to remain committed to my mantra: I will not attend any school but HLS or YLS. (Juts not worth it for me to take a leave of absence from my job or spend $$$ and get myself in debt).

And yes, I did see your theory about the economy lowering the numbers (or to summarize more accurately, widening the range), but I don't really buy into it. In the past economic decline has resulted in higher numbers and a narrower range. OTOH, past performance is not always an indicator of future results. or whatever they say in the mutual fund ads.

Well, with all due respect, we can respectfully agree to disagree on this one

IMO, reality is a far cry from their official 'white paper' policy on attractive candidates, numbers included. Even JR stated in one of his latest blogs that he is looking for "future leaders", where he went on to justify as to why he wouldn't hesitate to deny a 178/3.9. Likewise, YLS' Asha (or should I say ME!!! ) said something to a similar tune, when she admitted a promising applicant who convincingly illustrated as to why he had subpar grades/LSAT score(s).

Can you convincingly illustrate why you have a subpar LSAT score? By the sounds of one of your posts a few up from here, your reason for a low LSAT is that you were "out of study mode" and couldn't commit yourself to studying for it. Do you think an adcomm will accept those as valid illustrations?

[notanumber]

Life would be so much more interesting if "Peter North" really was Peter North.

Edit: And the point he makes about employed older students being much more choosy about law schools is probably accurate. I'd have likely not attended law school for anything but H/Y or T-10 school with a full-ride. . . It's just not worth the debt/opportunity costs.

[adameus]

Life would be so much more interesting if "Peter North" really was Peter North.

Edit: And the point he makes about employed older students being much more choosy about law schools is probably accurate. I'd have likely not attended law school for anything but H/Y or T-10 school with a full-ride. . . It's just not worth the debt/opportunity costs.

If I'm setting odds, I'd put him being really Peter North equal with him actually being a law school applicant.

[notanumber]

If I'm setting odds, I'd put him being really Peter North equal with him actually being a law school applicant.

What's the payout if he's both?

[clintonius]

If I'm setting odds, I'd put him being really Peter North equal with him actually being a law school applicant.

What's the payout if he's both?

Big money (shot).

[r6_philly]

Life would be so much more interesting if "Peter North" really was Peter North.

Edit: And the point he makes about employed older students being much more choosy about law schools is probably accurate. I'd have likely not attended law school for anything but H/Y or T-10 school with a full-ride. . . It's just not worth the debt/opportunity costs.

I don't have your numbers so my goals are a little bit lower. I decided the only place I would go sticker is T6. I would not go to anything below T14 without a full ride (and even then I would only do so if I have no other choice). If it is strictly about financials, my current career path will lead to a starter big-law salaries by the time I would have graduated law school, and I would have made good salary in the 3 years until then. I want to go to law school because the other opportunities that it will afford me, and I am willing to pay/give up pay for it. But those opportunities are likely only possible in the T6-T10 range.

If I simply want to be a lawyer, I would apply to a lot of T30 schools and take the best full ride. But I don't know if I want to give up 3 years of my life simply just to pass the bar...

PN is not delusional, it actually make sense to all of us with a career to only want to attend the top schools.

[soonergirl]

I don't have your numbers so my goals are a little bit lower. I decided the only place I would go sticker is T6. I would not go to anything below T14 without a full ride (and even then I would only do so if I have no other choice). If it is strictly about financials, my current career path will lead to a starter big-law salaries by the time I would have graduated law school, and I would have made good salary in the 3 years until then. I want to go to law school because the other opportunities that it will afford me, and I am willing to pay/give up pay for it. But those opportunities are likely only possible in the T6-T10 range.

If I simply want to be a lawyer, I would apply to a lot of T30 schools and take the best full ride. But I don't know if I want to give up 3 years of my life simply just to pass the bar...

PN is not delusional, it actually make sense to all of us with a career to only want to attend the top schools.

Yeah. I think we take the risk-reward analysis a lot more seriously. Me, I had a very narrowly defined set of schools I was considering, and decided ahead of time which ones it was worth moving/acquiringdebt/etc for, and then I made sure I had an LSAT that was at least in the ballpark before applying. In the end I'll probably go to the lowest ranked school I got into, but it's worth the financial solvency to me.

It's a trade off, I think - solvency versus career potential - and there's going to be a different balancing point for everybody.

Incidentally, I think the problem with assuming that they'll overlook low LSATs just because you're older is that there are so many older applicants that do manage to score in the 170s.

[soonergirl]

I think the problem with assuming that they'll overlook low LSATs just because you're older is that there are so many older applicants that do manage to score in the 170s.

I don't think you really have a full grasp of HLS'/YLS' approach towards admissions, which is often holistic. You need to read JR's blog on why he'd reject a 178/3.9 and also Asha's blog on a very similar note.

your presumption and condescension is truly staggering. And this is coming from someone surrounded by the perennially self-absorbed and chronically narcissistic.

But more power to you, Peter. What was it Kansas used to sing? Carry on.

[CoaltoNewCastle]

Of course, anything can happen. This is also JR's first-term as Dean...

This is also, by most accounts, the most competitive applicant pool in the history of law school admissions. Honestly, assuming you're not just some fictitious internet persona invented for strictly rhetorical purposes, if you're admitted with those numbers in this economy you'll inspire reachers for generations.

Fair enough.

If I was some fictitious internet personality (aka. troll/flame/whatever), then I must be a dedicated troll given that I have been posting exclusively in the HLS/YLS threads and participating in meaningful discussions (and *gasp* even asking questions!), for the past few months now since the beginning of this cycle. Pssss.... I enjoy the troll-esque posts, but I usually post them in the Social Networking and Admissions forum, just to create some excitement and fanfare for shits & giggles, just to lighten up an already vapid, tense and hostile atmosphere around. My posts in the HLS/YLS threads are 99.99% of a serious nature.

In regards to your point about the economy and my "low-numbers", it's actually quite the contrary. If anything, it'll be the opposite. As I have noted earlier today few pages down in the endowment chatter, if anything, when it comes to borderline yet promising applicants, HLS will seek to admit those who have a serious possibility of being gainfully employed. A good chunk of the HLS 3L class doesn't have any jobs lined up, and clerkships/big law have dried up. The fact that any school (especially top ones like HLS/YLS) can successfully place their alumnis in the judicial realm, in academia or in the corporate sector, itself is something adcoms do take in to account in diversifying the incoming class. Especially for non-trads with relevant work experience.

If it was purely a numbers game, HLS/YLS would've humoured me with a courtesy wait, and would've dinged me months ago. So let's see where things go. Good luck to everyone in anticipation!

I would still vote you reach of the yr; i mean if your LSAT were 166, all else being equal, id say your argument would hold some merit. 161 just makes it a bit of a stretch imo. i could be wrong of course haha; in fact, feel free to prove me wrong!

Plus his posts are very sloppily written, with many typos, spelling mistakes, and simple grammatical errors. And so many of the things he says make me want to reply angrily before I remind myself that he's a troll and probably, hopefully isn't actually real. All this in two threads that realistically may be read by the people who would have to take a tremendous, gigantic leap of faith in order to admit him.

[Na_Swatch]

Both YLS/HLS is on record for making exceptions by way of breaking the traditional mold. And they will do it again. And again. And again.

I agree with you perfectly North. YLS and HLS will break the mold and except a sub 160 Avg. LSAT taker. And they will do it again. And again. And again. And then stop right there.

By my count that is 4 acceptances from YLS/HLS over 2 or 3 years, averaging out at 1.33 spots a year. But I'm rooting for you to get that 1 spot in this cycle, if only to see what kind of person you are in real life. I expect major entertainment value.*


*Disclaimer: any and all posts from me concerning PN are, like his own, considered metaphorical and for illustrative purposes only, bearing no actual relation to reality in any size, shape or form.

[Kronk]

I think the problem with assuming that they'll overlook low LSATs just because you're older is that there are so many older applicants that do manage to score in the 170s.

I don't think you really have a full grasp of HLS'/YLS' approach towards admissions, which is often holistic. You need to read JR's blog on why he'd reject a 178/3.9 and also Asha's blog on a very similar note.

No one's overlooking anything. URMs, the disabled, the fiscally and culturally disadvantaged, mature applicants, those with work experience, foreign/international applicants, etc,. all get "special considerations" because of either their inherent, historical or other form of disadvantage from traditional applicants (ie. a typical 22 year old kid coming out of UG).

If it was all about numbers, then adcomms could just put all 10,000 applications in a computer and go take a nap. We'd let the computer spit out "qualified applicants".

Anyway, no point in quibbling about this. r6_philly and I are in more or less the same predicament (albeit he's a 170 scorer), and we have similar a background (I don't want to say personal stuff about him in the public forums). But my point really is: if we weren't competitive, we'd have been dinged months ago. Both YLS/HLS is on record for making exceptions by way of breaking the traditional mold. And they will do it again. And again. And again.

lmao @ Harvard being holistic.

[DoubleChecks]

I think the problem with assuming that they'll overlook low LSATs just because you're older is that there are so many older applicants that do manage to score in the 170s.

I don't think you really have a full grasp of HLS'/YLS' approach towards admissions, which is often holistic. You need to read JR's blog on why he'd reject a 178/3.9 and also Asha's blog on a very similar note.

No one's overlooking anything. URMs, the disabled, the fiscally and culturally disadvantaged, mature applicants, those with work experience, foreign/international applicants, etc,. all get "special considerations" because of either their inherent, historical or other form of disadvantage from traditional applicants (ie. a typical 22 year old kid coming out of UG).

If it was all about numbers, then adcomms could just put all 10,000 applications in a computer and go take a nap. We'd let the computer spit out "qualified applicants".

Anyway, no point in quibbling about this. r6_philly and I are in more or less the same predicament (albeit he's a 170 scorer), and we have similar a background (I don't want to say personal stuff about him in the public forums). But my point really is: if we weren't competitive, we'd have been dinged months ago. Both YLS/HLS is on record for making exceptions by way of breaking the traditional mold. And they will do it again. And again. And again.

lmao @ Harvard being holistic.

could just be relative

[Na_Swatch]

By my count that is 4 acceptances from YLS/HLS over 2 or 3 years, averaging out at 1.33 spots a year. But I'm rooting for you to get that 1 spot in this cycle, if only

YLS routinely admits people in the low 150s (try looking at their website).

Even in this cycle (per TLN) several applicants with low 160s have gotten offers from HLS.

Haha I've looked at both YLS and HLS websites and their class profiles only display the very lowest LSAT score. Thus Median is at 172 with probably one sub-160 scorer being their bottom.

As per LSN, (I dunno what TLN is, maybe Top Law School Numbers? Somebody needs to get started on that), there is just one, count them one, acceptance of a sub 162 scorer over the past 4 years that is not an outright flame. Thus multiply by say 4 ~ 6 (the usual multiplier) and you have my 1.33 average as I stated before.*


*Disclaimer: any and all posts from me concerning PN are, like his own, considered metaphorical and for illustrative purposes only, bearing no actual relation to reality in any size, shape or form.

[soonergirl]

Okay there. Whatever makes you happy. Trying to reason with you by way of offering facts and figures that are readily available is rather futile. My bad.

Keep living in your soothing self-delusion. Seems to me that you're tense, intimidated and rather envious of non-trad applicants that have made it in and those that still stand a good chance. Good luck to you in the cycle!

See, I applied when everybody else did, so my cycle is nearly done, Pete. I'm thrilled with how it's turned out.

I admit that I hold no illusions that a PBK with a masters degree, who teaches autistic children, who wants to go into disability advocacy, but who only has an LSAT in the low 170s, will be admitted to Harvard in the most competitive admissions cycle ever. But I love my life and where I'm headed, and I'm happy with my law school options, and that's good enough for me.

I likely won't be there, but I hope you make it to Harvard and find the validation that you seek.

And now if you'll excuse me, I have a basketball game to watch.

[r6_philly]

As per LSN, (I dunno what TLN is, maybe Top Law School Numbers? Somebody needs to get started on that), there is just one, count them one, acceptance of a sub 162 scorer over the past 4 years that is not an outright flame. Thus multiply by say 4 ~ 6 (the usual multiplier) and you have my 1.33 average as I stated before.*

I have done the research before, posted in the Yale thread months ago:

from LSAC 2008 data

lsat / GPA : number admits/percentage (out of 275)
155-159/3.75-4.33: 1/0.4%
160-164/3.75-4.33: 6/2.2%
160-164/3.50-3.74: 6/2.2%
165-169/3.75-4.33: 37/13.5%
165-169/3.50-3.75: 9/3.3%
165-169/3.25-3.49: 2/0.7%

Total 61/22.2% (Sub 170)
Total 13 sub 165 in one year.

[r6_philly]

I admit that I hold no illusions that a PBK with a masters degree, who teaches autistic children, who wants to go into disability advocacy, but who only has an LSAT in the low 170s, will be admitted to Harvard in the most competitive admissions cycle ever. But I love my life and where I'm headed, and I'm happy with my law school options, and that's good enough for me.

I wonder if there is a soft quota at H for NT applicants and if we are trying to get the same seat. In the OAS (Old Ass Section).

[legalnoeagle]

As per LSN, (I dunno what TLN is, maybe Top Law School Numbers? Somebody needs to get started on that), there is just one, count them one, acceptance of a sub 162 scorer over the past 4 years that is not an outright flame. Thus multiply by say 4 ~ 6 (the usual multiplier) and you have my 1.33 average as I stated before.*

I have done the research before, posted in the Yale thread months ago:

from LSAC 2008 data

lsat / GPA : number admits/percentage (out of 275)
155-159/3.75-4.33: 1/0.4%
160-164/3.75-4.33: 6/2.2%
160-164/3.50-3.74: 6/2.2%
165-169/3.75-4.33: 37/13.5%
165-169/3.50-3.75: 9/3.3%
165-169/3.25-3.49: 2/0.7%

Total 61/22.2% (Sub 170)
Total 13 sub 165 in one year.

What are the numbers for Harvard?

[Na_Swatch]

As per LSN, (I dunno what TLN is, maybe Top Law School Numbers? Somebody needs to get started on that), there is just one, count them one, acceptance of a sub 162 scorer over the past 4 years that is not an outright flame. Thus multiply by say 4 ~ 6 (the usual multiplier) and you have my 1.33 average as I stated before.*

I have done the research before, posted in the Yale thread months ago:

from LSAC 2008 data

lsat / GPA : number admits/percentage (out of 275)
155-159/3.75-4.33: 1/0.4%
160-164/3.75-4.33: 6/2.2%
160-164/3.50-3.74: 6/2.2%
165-169/3.75-4.33: 37/13.5%
165-169/3.50-3.75: 9/3.3%
165-169/3.25-3.49: 2/0.7%

Total 61/22.2% (Sub 170)
Total 13 sub 165 in one year.

Ah, but I'm talking about a sub 162 (average sub 160).. which, as shown above, is 1.

Talking to you, a reasonable applicant with an actual chance at HYS, also means I don't need a disclaimer.

[soonergirl]

I wonder if there is a soft quota at H for NT applicants and if we are trying to get the same seat. In the OAS (Old Ass Section).

exactly. Peter's totally right that they're holistic. They've got a hole in their class reserved for one little old lady and one little old man.

[r6_philly]

I wonder if there is a soft quota at H for NT applicants and if we are trying to get the same seat. In the OAS (Old Ass Section).

exactly. Peter's totally right that they're holistic. They've got a hole in their class reserved for one little old lady and one little old man.

Adameus already took the one Computer Science seat, so now I am left to fight for the old man seat. I am older than PN so I should have a better chance

[legalnoeagle]

Life would be so much more interesting if "Peter North" really was Peter North.

Edit: And the point he makes about employed older students being much more choosy about law schools is probably accurate. I'd have likely not attended law school for anything but H/Y or T-10 school with a full-ride. . . It's just not worth the debt/opportunity costs.

I don't have your numbers so my goals are a little bit lower. I decided the only place I would go sticker is T6. I would not go to anything below T14 without a full ride (and even then I would only do so if I have no other choice). If it is strictly about financials, my current career path will lead to a starter big-law salaries by the time I would have graduated law school, and I would have made good salary in the 3 years until then. I want to go to law school because the other opportunities that it will afford me, and I am willing to pay/give up pay for it. But those opportunities are likely only possible in the T6-T10 range.

If I simply want to be a lawyer, I would apply to a lot of T30 schools and take the best full ride. But I don't know if I want to give up 3 years of my life simply just to pass the bar...

PN is not delusional, it actually make sense to all of us with a career to only want to attend the top schools.

Ditto here. I'm five years out of undergrad, and I'm switching to law from finance. I came into this cycle T6 or bust, and even then, I didn't apply to Yale or Stanford because of their locations. Any school that I applied to outside of the T6 I did so because of a fee waiver. We old folk are a picky breed, it seems.

[r6_philly]

I can understand people who are number driven though. People are proud of their accomplishments. If your best accomplishment is to score a 180 and have a 4.0, by all means flaunt it. However I wouldn't go around telling everyone because you have a low LSAT you will not get in. On the flip side, I don't really think that you or anyone else should go and say "good softs will get you in". There are too many factors in the admission process that we know nothing about.

LSAT has to be indictive of one's aptitude somewhat. To what degree is to be debated, because all standarized tests are biased somewhat. A low score need not to preclude anyone from be able to achieve. There are other parts of your candidacy that can overcome that deficiency. However we don't know how schools decide on candidates. As a matter of fact, we don't even know if seats are given out under a consistent policy, or some sort of seat by seat policy. That's why I made fun of the old/NT seat. They have an idea of diversity they want to achieve, and maybe we are all segmented into seperate pools they can choose from. Remember they used to have racial quotas which was struck down because race is a suspected classification, but age, major, WE, background are not. They can absolutely have a soft quota based on categories. Maybe that's the "holistic" process.

Now if there is any truth in that, then maybe one should not give up if you don't get in this year, because the quota and the class make up and the pools will be different next year.

I just want to be lucky enough that there is still a seat left for me - a seat they plan to fill by someone with my attributes.