<p>what would you say are someone’s chances at havard with about 3.9 172, 50%, higher, lower?</p>
<p>no such thing as 50% to harvard 
15% or under always!</p>
<p>Post #2 is not correct; there are some scores at which the probability of admissions to HLS is 50% or greater. The scores listed, however, don’t do the trick. (EDIT: CORRECTION.) Your friend is on a cusp where anything could happen, however – with the odds in favor of a waitlist accompanied by subsequent chaos.</p>
<p>Last cycle, it seemed like numbers in the 3.92/173 area were sitting relatively pretty, while those just below sweated it out. I presented a 3.88/172 and was WLed and then more-or-less rejected by pocket veto.Now, I didn’t craft a Harvard-specific personal statement or send in a letter of continuing interest, so I wasn’t doing myself many favors.</p>
<p>A 3.9/172 has a decent shot at HLS if the applicant brands him/herself well and shows interest, and is willing to sweat out a WL, but those numbers seem to be more likely to land an applicant in the CCN range.</p>
<p>3.9/172 is a waitlist?!</p>
<p>the median GPA / LSAT for Harvard seem to be 3.86 and 172 according to lawschoonumbers.com </p>
<p>wouldn’t 3.9/172 be at least one foot in?</p>
<p>You can’t use LSN to derive means and medians. Its only purpose (which is an important one) is to use any given data point to try and assess odds.</p>
<p>US News has Harvard’s 25-75 percentiles as 3.75 - 3.95, and 170 - 175. So, yeah, I’d say a waitlist would be expected for a 3.9 / 172, especially since from what I’ve heard every school values the LSAT more highly than the GPA (except maybe UC Berkeley).</p>
<p>BronxBomers7,
wait a minute. Because 25-75 percetiles are 3.75 - 3.95 and 170 - 175, wouldn’t it be more accurate to assess a 3.9/172 as a “foot in” rather than an expected case of waitlist?</p>
<p>because saying “waitlist would be expected” implies that the applicant has almost no chance of acceptance, but the evidence provided by the US News suggests that the applicant’s stats are at least in the high range in the 25-75 percentile (at least the GPA), and therefore have a copious chance of admissions. So wouldn’t it be more accurate to say that the applicant, based solely on numbers, has a high chance of acceptance?</p>
<p>First, LSAT is more important than GPA. Second, you can’t use IQR’s like that. It might well be that the 25th percentile is 170, the 30th is 172, and the 75th is 175. Third, how on earth can a chance be “copious”?</p>
<p>lol, you’re right, couldn’t be more wrong on the use of the word copious.</p>
<p>If I ever need a lawyer for a case that involves some math, I won’t be calling you guys.</p>
<p>The median scores and 25/75 rankings only provide a snapshot of the accepted class of applicants. 50% of the accepted class may have an LSAT in the range of 170-175, but what about those who were rejected? Of those who applied with an LSAT of 170-175, perhaps 60% or 75% were rejected (I’m making up those figures, but those are the numbers that actually matter in this discussion). I assume that HLS rejected a fair number of applicants with a perfect score and perhaps even accepted a few who scored in the 160range, though at a far lower percentage. </p>
<p>You may want to consider a class in statistics before you graduate from college. It will make you a better lawyer.</p>
<p>"I assume that HLS rejected a fair number of applicants with a perfect score "</p>
<p>IMO, that’s a really bad assumption.</p>
<p>I’ll 2nd jonri’s comment, but it is important to note that the rest of what parentstwo said is pretty important to realize. We’re not talking about what the incoming class looks like, we’re talking about what the applicant pool looks like in relation to the incoming class, conditional upon restricting our objective criteria (GPA/LSAT) to particular regions.</p>
<p>This is a hypothetical question… what if someone has a 3.9 and 178 LSAT… but really poor ECs… can he get into harvard? no other hooks…</p>
<p>(purely hypothetical question)</p>
<p>How poor?</p>
<p>P2’s underlying claim is very accurate. It turns out that any conclusions drawn are probably pretty robust to his correction, however – that is, he’s completely right that the discussion here is mathematically sloppy, but in this particular situation it’s a reasonable approximation.</p>
<p>so there’s nothing as a shoo-in even if you have perfect stats?</p>
<p>IMHO, HLS would not reject an applicant with perfect or near-perfect stats unless there were something outrageously wrong with her application. Assuming no typos and no incredibly damning recs, my guess is that a 4.0/180 would get in even without a shred of ECs or work WE.</p>
<p>Allow that same applicant even just one or two small ECs, and I would bet my house that she gets in.</p>
<p>What exactly are ECs that law schools look at? Charity work etc like for undergrad?</p>
<p>Anything and everything counts. In my judgment, a 3.9 178 who literally left his resume utterly blank would not necessarily be admitted to HLS.</p>
<p>^I don’t mean a blank resume… i mean maybe 3 or 4 ECs with no/few leadership positions? because leadership thingies does not seem to be something one can really control ALL THE TIME… i had leadership positions when i was in high school… but in college i dunno because im not in college yet.</p>