Harvard, C/O 2017, Applicants Thread (2013-2014) Forum

[NoDayButToday]

.

[Kimikho]

WTRC, I just noticed the poll says "WHEN I get my JS2."

My OCD is screaming at me to request you change that to "IF" because I can't delete my vote tyia.

But "when" is so much more optimistic!

It's all about the jinx

also, protip, don't google "jynx." Even with SafeSearch on.

[a.sleepyhead]

also, protip, don't google "jynx." Even with SafeSearch on.

+1

[lawlorbust]

has anyone completed the app in january and not gone complete yet? i sent everything in a few days before february, am still waiting for a change and have no idea whether it's been abnormally long or not.

[OnaFets]

Just putting my two cents into the mix: I find the request for stats, and the attempts to determine how many JS2s have been given, to be more harmful than helpful. In waiting for my JS2 I checked this thread regularly and all it did was add to my anxiety with the unwarranted speculations.

How is knowing the total JS2s to date going to help you? If its low you remain hopeful, and if it's high you still remain hopeful. No one is going to say "screw it, I better withdraw my app because there's only 10 spots left". Everyone knows the 25ths, medians, and 75ths. Not much is going to change. Even if someone with similar stats as you gets in or rejected it has no influence over your application.

What would be helpful is if JS2s would post what they think made their application strong, how they tailored their interview, and perhaps how they worded C&F issues. Anything stats other than outlier scores just creates unnecessary speculation and anxiety. I haven't posted what I said would be helpful but I plan to soon.

Now this is just my personal opinion and I would like to hear what others think. I'm sure for many the anxiety makes things a little fun so I can see that as a reason to continue the trend.

[NoDayButToday]

.

[Pneumonia]

Well I mean the HLS thread on TLS had never been anything but anxiety inducing. I ignored it for the entire time leading up to my JS2 for that very reason.

[lawschool22]

I think it's just a way of channeling our energy. If it just induces more anxiety then you can skim past it. I only try to do my best to provide whatever information I have to this thread. It's sort of like any other type of analysis and speculation that may be contrary to what we want to hear. I think that knowledge is power.

While we may be wrong, we may also be very right. Who knows? But thinking about it, while it won't change the outcome, at least furthers the overall knowledge of this process to current and future applicants both. I respect those who would rather not engage in the speculation, but I hope those folks can respect those of us who want to.

[The-Specs]

also, protip, don't google "jynx." Even with SafeSearch on.

Too curious i guess but all there was was stuff about pokémon.

[Quest4Knowledge]

Just putting my two cents into the mix: I find the request for stats, and the attempts to determine how many JS2s have been given, to be more harmful than helpful. In waiting for my JS2 I checked this thread regularly and all it did was add to my anxiety with the unwarranted speculations.

That's interesting, and I guess I can see why some may not like it. For me, the speculation/thinking about the numbers actually helps reduce my anxiety about the cycle. Even if there's a good possibility that the conclusions are wrong, through the process of figuring out/having a discussion on the stats, I feel that I am more knowledgable about the subject - and even though knowing these numbers has no meaning, it makes me feel more comfortable.

What would be helpful is if JS2s would post what they think made their application strong, how they tailored their interview, and perhaps how they worded C&F issues.

I agree that this would also definitely be helpful.

[NoDayButToday]

.

[OnaFets]

I think it's just a way of channeling our energy. If it just induces more anxiety then you can skim past it. I only try to do my best to provide whatever information I have to this thread. It's sort of like any other type of analysis and speculation that may be contrary to what we want to hear. I think that knowledge is power.

While we may be wrong, we may also be very right. Who knows? But thinking about it, while it won't change the outcome, at least furthers the overall knowledge of this process to current and future applicants both. I respect those who would rather not engage in the speculation, but I hope those folks can respect those of us who want to.

LS22, I hope you didn't take this the wrong way. You have done more for this community than anyone I can think of. While I disagree that speculation furthers the overall knowledge of this process, I can agree that the speculation has helped many to channel their energy. I respect what you do and your participation in this thread. As mostly a lurker, yours is one of the only names that I can remember off the top of my head because of how helpful and active you are in this thread.

My statements stemmed from the notion, one which is prevalent on this thread, that those who don't post stats after a JS2 are somehow withholding crucial information from this community. This sentiment implies a selfishness on behalf of those who don't post such stats, and I have given a reason why some may feel it may be more beneficial to withhold such information.

I believe this community would greatly benefit from people talking about the other variables of their application rather than just giving GPA and LSAT (for rejects, waitlists, JS1s, and JS2s). We already know the reoccurring themes of GPA and LSAT info, but I bet that there are many reoccurring themes among the other variables.

For example almost everyone I have read about, myself included, that has gotten a JS2 has talked in their interview about a professor that they wish to study under. In addition they probably talked about some of their work which interested them and why. This reoccurring theme is helpful for future applicants to know. I'm sure there are many others that will appear if people started focusing their energy on other variables rather than just numbers.

[HorseThief]

What would be helpful is if JS2s would post what they think made their application strong, how they tailored their interview, and perhaps how they worded C&F issues.

I had good numbers (>50% for each), but I think I lucked out with my softs. None of them are prestigious, but they are all somewhat unusual, especially since I'm only 2 years out. My interview was a bit of a wash and is mostly unremarkable. I certainly didn't 'tailor' it, JS was driving that train. I think it must have been *just* good enough. No C&F issues.

http://lawschoolnumbers.com/HorseThief

[politics89]

I think it's just a way of channeling our energy. If it just induces more anxiety then you can skim past it. I only try to do my best to provide whatever information I have to this thread. It's sort of like any other type of analysis and speculation that may be contrary to what we want to hear. I think that knowledge is power.

While we may be wrong, we may also be very right. Who knows? But thinking about it, while it won't change the outcome, at least furthers the overall knowledge of this process to current and future applicants both. I respect those who would rather not engage in the speculation, but I hope those folks can respect those of us who want to.

LS22, I hope you didn't take this the wrong way. You have done more for this community than anyone I can think of. While I disagree that speculation furthers the overall knowledge of this process, I can agree that the speculation has helped many to channel their energy. I respect what you do and your participation in this thread. As mostly a lurker, yours is one of the only names that I can remember off the top of my head because of how helpful and active you are in this thread.

My statements stemmed from the notion, one which is prevalent on this thread, that those who don't post stats after a JS2 are somehow withholding crucial information from this community. This sentiment implies a selfishness on behalf of those who don't post such stats, and I have given a reason why some may feel it may be more beneficial to withhold such information.

I believe this community would greatly benefit from people talking about the other variables of their application rather than just giving GPA and LSAT (for rejects, waitlists, JS1s, and JS2s). We already know the reoccurring themes of GPA and LSAT info, but I bet that there are many reoccurring themes among the other variables.

For example almost everyone I have read about, myself included, that has gotten a JS2 has talked in their interview about a professor that they wish to study under. In addition they probably talked about some of their work which interested them and why. This reoccurring theme is helpful for future applicants to know. I'm sure there are many others that will appear if people started focusing their energy on other variables rather than just numbers.

Not trying to get involved in the debate, but fwiw I didn't discuss any of that in my interview. Mine was very straightforward interview style. I did have what I thought of as a strong personal statement if that helps anyone.

[HorseThief]

For example almost everyone I have read about, myself included, that has gotten a JS2 has talked in their interview about a professor that they wish to study under. In addition they probably talked about some of their work which interested them and why. This reoccurring theme is helpful for future applicants to know. I'm sure there are many others that will appear if people started focusing their energy on other variables rather than just numbers.

Oh hai new post. I didn't talk about professors at all, and thank goodness because I don't know any of the professors by name. In my PS, I mentioned clinics that I wanted to work with, so we talked about that for a bit.

[OnaFets]

What would be helpful is if JS2s would post what they think made their application strong, how they tailored their interview, and perhaps how they worded C&F issues.

I had good numbers (>50% for each), but I think I lucked out with my softs. None of them are prestigious, but they are all somewhat unusual, especially since I'm only 2 years out. My interview was a bit of a wash and is mostly unremarkable. I certainly didn't 'tailor' it, JS was driving that train. I think it must have been *just* good enough. No C&F issues.

http://lawschoolnumbers.com/HorseThief

That nightclub EC was probably helpful to projects a sense that you're pretty social. I'm sure that networking ability is one of the things HLS looks for.

[lawschool22]

I think it's just a way of channeling our energy. If it just induces more anxiety then you can skim past it. I only try to do my best to provide whatever information I have to this thread. It's sort of like any other type of analysis and speculation that may be contrary to what we want to hear. I think that knowledge is power.

While we may be wrong, we may also be very right. Who knows? But thinking about it, while it won't change the outcome, at least furthers the overall knowledge of this process to current and future applicants both. I respect those who would rather not engage in the speculation, but I hope those folks can respect those of us who want to.

LS22, I hope you didn't take this the wrong way. You have done more for this community than anyone I can think of. While I disagree that speculation furthers the overall knowledge of this process, I can agree that the speculation has helped many to channel their energy. I respect what you do and your participation in this thread. As mostly a lurker, yours is one of the only names that I can remember off the top of my head because of how helpful and active you are in this thread.

My statements stemmed from the notion, one which is prevalent on this thread, that those who don't post stats after a JS2 are somehow withholding crucial information from this community. This sentiment implies a selfishness on behalf of those who don't post such stats, and I have given a reason why some may feel it may be more beneficial to withhold such information.

I believe this community would greatly benefit from people talking about the other variables of their application rather than just giving GPA and LSAT (for rejects, waitlists, JS1s, and JS2s). We already know the reoccurring themes of GPA and LSAT info, but I bet that there are many reoccurring themes among the other variables.

For example almost everyone I have read about, myself included, that has gotten a JS2 has talked in their interview about a professor that they wish to study under. In addition they probably talked about some of their work which interested them and why. This reoccurring theme is helpful for future applicants to know. I'm sure there are many others that will appear if people started focusing their energy on other variables rather than just numbers.

Nope don't worry I didn't take any offense. Thank you for the kind comments! I agree w/ you that some of that info is pretty helpful. I think people are reluctant to post more than the basics for fear of outing themselves. Some of this can hopefully be gleaned from the spreadsheets. But if you're curious, I have found people are pretty willing to give more specific info via PM.

[OnaFets]

Oh hai new post. I didn't talk about professors at all, and thank goodness because I don't know any of the professors by name. In my PS, I mentioned clinics that I wanted to work with, so we talked about that for a bit.

I also talked about clinics and journals. I think it's the portrayal of a true interest in Harvard which grabs the interviewer's attention. Knowledge of one or more of professors, clinics, journals, and/or classes should do it.

I do wonder if you got a signed book though seeing as how you didn't talk about a professor.

[HorseThief]

What would be helpful is if JS2s would post what they think made their application strong, how they tailored their interview, and perhaps how they worded C&F issues.

I had good numbers (>50% for each), but I think I lucked out with my softs. None of them are prestigious, but they are all somewhat unusual, especially since I'm only 2 years out. My interview was a bit of a wash and is mostly unremarkable. I certainly didn't 'tailor' it, JS was driving that train. I think it must have been *just* good enough. No C&F issues.

http://lawschoolnumbers.com/HorseThief

That nightclub EC was probably helpful to projects a sense that you're pretty social. I'm sure that networking ability is one of the things HLS looks for.

Lol, jokes on them! I'm actually horribly introverted. Running a nightclub was a way to 'appear' social while actually working; I never genuinely attended a dance.

/PleaseDon'tTakeAwayMyJS2

[HorseThief]

Oh hai new post. I didn't talk about professors at all, and thank goodness because I don't know any of the professors by name. In my PS, I mentioned clinics that I wanted to work with, so we talked about that for a bit.

I also talked about clinics and journals. I think it's the portrayal of a true interest in Harvard which grabs the interviewer's attention. Knowledge of one or more of professors, clinics, journals, and/or classes should do it.

I do wonder if you got a signed book though seeing as how you didn't talk about a professor.

Don't worry, you still get a book even if you didn't talk about specific profs. I've also gotten e-mails from profs, including the director of the aforementioned clinic.

[neprep]

Oh hai new post. I didn't talk about professors at all, and thank goodness because I don't know any of the professors by name. In my PS, I mentioned clinics that I wanted to work with, so we talked about that for a bit.

I also talked about clinics and journals. I think it's the portrayal of a true interest in Harvard which grabs the interviewer's attention. Knowledge of one or more of professors, clinics, journals, and/or classes should do it.

I do wonder if you got a signed book though seeing as how you didn't talk about a professor.

Don't worry, you still get a book even if you didn't talk about specific profs. I've also gotten e-mails from profs, including the director of the aforementioned clinic.

I didn't talk about a professor in my interview either, and while I haven't received a book yet ( ), I have received emails from professors.

While speaking about a professor might be helpful to some, as a caution to those with upcoming JS1s: Do NOT try to force the name of a professor into the interview and then also try to force in a reason that his or her scholarship is relevant to your interests unless this topic emerges organically. Having any sort of agenda that you want to push through during the interview is a pretty bad idea. So while you can learn from the experiences of the successful JS1s, don't try to replicate those things unnaturally in your own interview; it will probably seem rehearsed and disingenuous.

[Kimikho]

[OnaFets]

Scoobers,

While it can be taken as advice, it's not advice. What I am talking about is stating what one thought was helpful in their application process. Saying what I did in my application is not advice, it's simply my stating my experience. If over time others share similar experiences and get similar results then another applicant may want to use those experiences like advice.

I was commenting on the anxiety that number speculation creates. Your case with the similar applicants from your school is probably quite unique. There are just too many variables for numbers to do much more than create a narrow window of anxiety. Now, if people were to list all their ECs, their interview questions and such, along with numbers that would be a different story. That's not happening for various reasons.

We don't need a thread filled with numbers, LS22 made a nice spreadsheet for that, dates included.

I also never condoned coming in and just saying "JS2!". I can see how your hypo "JS2! No softs" would be aggravating and I don't suggest anyone do that.

I agree that TLS is a place to get and give information rather than just to get likes from strangers. I'm giving criticism on what I believe is too great a focus on numbers, and information like how many JS2s have been given out already, and not enough focus on other aspects of the process.

The "talk is cheap" comment was unnecessary btw.

Edit: Saw you edited your comment. I didn't mean for this to be a mean comment. I respect your opinion and just now upon rereading this I can see how it might sound bad. Sorry Scoobs , didn't mean it that way at all

[Kimikho]

Scoobers,

While it can be taken as advice, it's not advice. What I am talking about is stating what one thought was helpful in their application process. Saying what I did in my application is not advice, it's simply my stating my experience. If over time others share similar experiences and get similar results then another applicant may want to use those experiences like advice.

I was commenting on the anxiety that number speculation creates. Your case with the similar applicants from your school is probably quite unique. There are just too many variables for numbers to do much more than create a narrow window of anxiety. Now, if people were to list all their ECs, their interview questions and such, along with numbers that would be a different story. That's not happening for various reasons.

We don't need a thread filled with numbers, LS22 made a nice spreadsheet for that, dates included.

I also never condoned coming in and just saying "JS2!". I can see how your hypo "JS2! No softs" would be aggravating and I don't suggest anyone do that.

I agree that TLS is a place to get and give information rather than just to get likes from strangers. I'm giving criticism on what I believe is too great a focus on numbers, and information like how many JS2s have been given out already, and not enough focus on other aspects of the process.

The "talk is cheap" comment was unnecessary btw.

By "talk is cheap," I meant that numbers are quantitative and softs are extremely qualitative.

[cesium]

So... anyone predict no more JS1s until the February LSAT scores come out? I imagine HLS wants to see what it has to work with before moving forward with folks who submitted after the New Year.