HLS GPA Requirements


I've GPA 2.81 in LLB out of the scale of 4. Do you think Harvard considering or ever considered the application with GPA in this range? I heard HLS only consider people with GPA above 3.5. I would greatly appreciate your comments
I've GPA 2.81 in LLB out of the scale of 4. Do you think Harvard considering or ever considered the application with GPA in this range? I heard HLS only consider people with GPA above 3.5. I would greatly appreciate your comments
quote
jsd
I've GPA 2.81 in LLB out of the scale of 4. Do you think Harvard considering or ever considered the application with GPA in this range? I heard HLS only consider people with GPA above 3.5. I would greatly appreciate your comments


What you heard is right. Nearly all who apply have outstanding gpas. Your chances are non-existent.
<blockquote>I've GPA 2.81 in LLB out of the scale of 4. Do you think Harvard considering or ever considered the application with GPA in this range? I heard HLS only consider people with GPA above 3.5. I would greatly appreciate your comments </blockquote>

What you heard is right. Nearly all who apply have outstanding gpas. Your chances are non-existent.
quote
Thank you for your comments, I understand my GPA is low, but my percentage is 70.17% which is grade B. A is the highest grade, so dont you think the percentage will have positive impact?
Thank you for your comments, I understand my GPA is low, but my percentage is 70.17% which is grade B. A is the highest grade, so don’t you think the percentage will have positive impact?
quote
hotpursuit
Farhad,

You should apply. Why not send the application and clear all doubts?

They also consider your ranking, LORs, essays, working experience. So if these are good, you might have a chance.

H
Farhad,

You should apply. Why not send the application and clear all doubts?

They also consider your ranking, LORs, essays, working experience. So if these are good, you might have a chance.

H
quote
law01
you have nothing to lose by applying, BUT it will have to be next year, as the deadline for LLM applications passed two weeks ago.
you have nothing to lose by applying, BUT it will have to be next year, as the deadline for LLM applications passed two weeks ago.
quote
jsd
Thank you for your comments, I understand my GPA is low, but my percentage is 70.17% which is grade B. A is the highest grade, so dont you think the percentage will have positive impact?


What is your relative grading? Anything below top 15 (rarely 20) % makes rejection by HLS almost certain.

Remember that the 'nothing to lose' approach given by these eternal optimists here is deeply flawed. If you get rejected, it *will* affect your possibility for acceptance at a future date. If your credentials are not good now, take time and improve them and then apply when the outlook is good. Applying at a time when you feel you do not stand a reasonable chance can make you lose everything. The first application should be the best (and the last)
<blockquote>Thank you for your comments, I understand my GPA is low, but my percentage is 70.17% which is grade B. A is the highest grade, so don’t you think the percentage will have positive impact? </blockquote>

What is your relative grading? Anything below top 15 (rarely 20) % makes rejection by HLS almost certain.

Remember that the 'nothing to lose' approach given by these eternal optimists here is deeply flawed. If you get rejected, it *will* affect your possibility for acceptance at a future date. If your credentials are not good now, take time and improve them and then apply when the outlook is good. Applying at a time when you feel you do not stand a reasonable chance can make you lose everything. The first application should be the best (and the last)
quote
Jack13
Thank you for your comments, I understand my GPA is low, but my percentage is 70.17% which is grade B. A is the highest grade, so dont you think the percentage will have positive impact?


What is your relative grading? Anything below top 15 (rarely 20) % makes rejection by HLS almost certain.

Remember that the 'nothing to lose' approach given by these eternal optimists here is deeply flawed. If you get rejected, it *will* affect your possibility for acceptance at a future date. If your credentials are not good now, take time and improve them and then apply when the outlook is good. Applying at a time when you feel you do not stand a reasonable chance can make you lose everything. The first application should be the best (and the last)


Why would a rejection affect your reapplication?
<blockquote><blockquote>Thank you for your comments, I understand my GPA is low, but my percentage is 70.17% which is grade B. A is the highest grade, so don’t you think the percentage will have positive impact? </blockquote>

What is your relative grading? Anything below top 15 (rarely 20) % makes rejection by HLS almost certain.

Remember that the 'nothing to lose' approach given by these eternal optimists here is deeply flawed. If you get rejected, it *will* affect your possibility for acceptance at a future date. If your credentials are not good now, take time and improve them and then apply when the outlook is good. Applying at a time when you feel you do not stand a reasonable chance can make you lose everything. The first application should be the best (and the last)
</blockquote>

Why would a rejection affect your reapplication?
quote
jsd


Why would a rejection affect your reapplication?


I expected the answer was obvious. Admitting an applicant who was rejected a little earlier is an acknowledgement that either the law school made a mistake earlier OR the next years talent pool is poorer OR the candidate has greatly improved his / her credentials. The last option is slow and takes time, making the first two better reasons to justify if the reapplication is very soon (1-3 years).

This is why all app forms have a Q that asks whether the applicant has applied before. They want to know what has changed. So unless you get some particularly big career leg up reapplication is not much use. That's why people should not apply unless they find out how good their chances really are.
<blockquote>

Why would a rejection affect your reapplication?</blockquote>

I expected the answer was obvious. Admitting an applicant who was rejected a little earlier is an acknowledgement that either the law school made a mistake earlier OR the next years talent pool is poorer OR the candidate has greatly improved his / her credentials. The last option is slow and takes time, making the first two better reasons to justify if the reapplication is very soon (1-3 years).

This is why all app forms have a Q that asks whether the applicant has applied before. They want to know what has changed. So unless you get some particularly big career leg up reapplication is not much use. That's why people should not apply unless they find out how good their chances really are.
quote
Jack13


Why would a rejection affect your reapplication?


I expected the answer was obvious. Admitting an applicant who was rejected a little earlier is an acknowledgement that either the law school made a mistake earlier OR the next years talent pool is less OR the candidate has greatly improved his / her credentials. The last option is slow and takes time, making the first two better reasons to justify if the reapplication is very soon (1-3 years).

This is why all app forms have a Q that asks whether the applicant has applied before. They want to know what has changed. So unless you get some particularly big career leg up reapplication is not much use. That's why people should not apply unless they find out how good their chances really are.


For me, the answer it is not that obvious. A stellar candidate might not be able to sell himself very well at his first try. Conversely, the following year, he might submit a far stronger application.

For example, many applicants look for prestigious recommenders who do not know them very well. This often turns out to be a big mistake as the content of a letter is much more important than the recommender's title.

All I want to say is that I think (and hope) that in the admission process a reapplicant will be at no disadvantage compared to his competitors.
<blockquote><blockquote>

Why would a rejection affect your reapplication?</blockquote>

I expected the answer was obvious. Admitting an applicant who was rejected a little earlier is an acknowledgement that either the law school made a mistake earlier OR the next years talent pool is less OR the candidate has greatly improved his / her credentials. The last option is slow and takes time, making the first two better reasons to justify if the reapplication is very soon (1-3 years).

This is why all app forms have a Q that asks whether the applicant has applied before. They want to know what has changed. So unless you get some particularly big career leg up reapplication is not much use. That's why people should not apply unless they find out how good their chances really are.</blockquote>

For me, the answer it is not that obvious. A stellar candidate might not be able to sell himself very well at his first try. Conversely, the following year, he might submit a far stronger application.

For example, many applicants look for prestigious recommenders who do not know them very well. This often turns out to be a big mistake as the content of a letter is much more important than the recommender's title.

All I want to say is that I think (and hope) that in the admission process a reapplicant will be at no disadvantage compared to his competitors.
quote
law01


Why would a rejection affect your reapplication?


I expected the answer was obvious. Admitting an applicant who was rejected a little earlier is an acknowledgement that either the law school made a mistake earlier OR the next years talent pool is less OR the candidate has greatly improved his / her credentials. The last option is slow and takes time, making the first two better reasons to justify if the reapplication is very soon (1-3 years).

This is why all app forms have a Q that asks whether the applicant has applied before. They want to know what has changed. So unless you get some particularly big career leg up reapplication is not much use. That's why people should not apply unless they find out how good their chances really are.


For me, the answer it is not that obvious. A stellar candidate might not be able to sell himself very well at his first try. Conversely, the following year, he might submit a far stronger application.

For example, many applicants look for prestigious recommenders who do not know them very well. This often turns out to be a big mistake as the content of a letter is much more important than the recommender's title.

All I want to say is that I think (and hope) that in the admission process a reapplicant will be at no disadvantage compared to his competitors.


I know people who were rejected on their first attempt and then got accepted without having any additional credentials compared to their first attempt. If for example they get 1000 applications and they accept 300 it's obvious that some strong candidates will be rejected, this doesn't mean that they didn't have the necessary credentials, 95% of those applying do have the required credentials, so being rejected in your first attempt means nothing, nor does it have an adverse impact on your second attempt
<blockquote><blockquote><blockquote>

Why would a rejection affect your reapplication?</blockquote>

I expected the answer was obvious. Admitting an applicant who was rejected a little earlier is an acknowledgement that either the law school made a mistake earlier OR the next years talent pool is less OR the candidate has greatly improved his / her credentials. The last option is slow and takes time, making the first two better reasons to justify if the reapplication is very soon (1-3 years).

This is why all app forms have a Q that asks whether the applicant has applied before. They want to know what has changed. So unless you get some particularly big career leg up reapplication is not much use. That's why people should not apply unless they find out how good their chances really are.</blockquote>

For me, the answer it is not that obvious. A stellar candidate might not be able to sell himself very well at his first try. Conversely, the following year, he might submit a far stronger application.

For example, many applicants look for prestigious recommenders who do not know them very well. This often turns out to be a big mistake as the content of a letter is much more important than the recommender's title.

All I want to say is that I think (and hope) that in the admission process a reapplicant will be at no disadvantage compared to his competitors.</blockquote>

I know people who were rejected on their first attempt and then got accepted without having any additional credentials compared to their first attempt. If for example they get 1000 applications and they accept 300 it's obvious that some strong candidates will be rejected, this doesn't mean that they didn't have the necessary credentials, 95% of those applying do have the required credentials, so being rejected in your first attempt means nothing, nor does it have an adverse impact on your second attempt
quote
jsd


I know people who were rejected on their first attempt and then got accepted without having any additional credentials compared to their first attempt.


This does happen but it is extremely rare if you take into account the number of applicants re-applying. At a place like HLS where the ordinary success rate is 5-8%, the chances of reapplication being successful would be 0.5%-1%.

Anyway, you can choose to believe that each reapplication attempt is considered in isolation - your call.
<blockquote>

I know people who were rejected on their first attempt and then got accepted without having any additional credentials compared to their first attempt. </blockquote>

This does happen but it is extremely rare if you take into account the number of applicants re-applying. At a place like HLS where the ordinary success rate is 5-8%, the chances of reapplication being successful would be 0.5%-1%.

Anyway, you can choose to believe that each reapplication attempt is considered in isolation - your call.
quote
law01
Jsd did you study at Harvard?
Jsd did you study at Harvard?
quote
Jack13


I know people who were rejected on their first attempt and then got accepted without having any additional credentials compared to their first attempt.


This does happen but it is extremely rare if you take into account the number of applicants re-applying. At a place like HLS where the ordinary success rate is 5-8%, the chances of reapplication being successful would be 0.5%-1%.

Anyway, you can choose to believe that each reapplication attempt is considered in isolation - your call.


Where did you find these numbers if I may ask?
<blockquote><blockquote>

I know people who were rejected on their first attempt and then got accepted without having any additional credentials compared to their first attempt. </blockquote>

This does happen but it is extremely rare if you take into account the number of applicants re-applying. At a place like HLS where the ordinary success rate is 5-8%, the chances of reapplication being successful would be 0.5%-1%.

Anyway, you can choose to believe that each reapplication attempt is considered in isolation - your call. </blockquote>

Where did you find these numbers if I may ask?
quote
llmhls
Jsd did you study at Harvard?


most likely he did...
On this topic I have to agree with him. If you are not good enough this year to be at least waitlisted next year your chances will be usually worse. However, if you reapply in 3 years it is a different story. So I agree, rather take 2 years to prepare your application than apply next year and the year after that. An alternative plan which I found worked great for me is that you pick a few law schools to apply one year and leave the rest for the year after that. If you are rejected by all of them in the first year you know that you have to improve significantly , if most of them want you you are a strong candidate and can decide if you want to go to one of them or risk it next year with a even stronger background. I personally decided to apply to just HLS in the first year and if they had rejected me than I would have known that I have to apply to a broader number of programs next year. Using such a system you obviously risk some money and decrease the number of programs you have a shot at in y2 but you get a good overview about your chances. If you are not sure that you are at the top of the line, apply to CLS,Cornel and Fordham for example. Even though each program has its own criteria, you will get at least an overview ...
<blockquote>Jsd did you study at Harvard?</blockquote>

most likely he did...
On this topic I have to agree with him. If you are not good enough this year to be at least waitlisted next year your chances will be usually worse. However, if you reapply in 3 years it is a different story. So I agree, rather take 2 years to prepare your application than apply next year and the year after that. An alternative plan which I found worked great for me is that you pick a few law schools to apply one year and leave the rest for the year after that. If you are rejected by all of them in the first year you know that you have to improve significantly , if most of them want you you are a strong candidate and can decide if you want to go to one of them or risk it next year with a even stronger background. I personally decided to apply to just HLS in the first year and if they had rejected me than I would have known that I have to apply to a broader number of programs next year. Using such a system you obviously risk some money and decrease the number of programs you have a shot at in y2 but you get a good overview about your chances. If you are not sure that you are at the top of the line, apply to CLS,Cornel and Fordham for example. Even though each program has its own criteria, you will get at least an overview ...
quote

Reply to Post

Related Law Schools

Cambridge, Massachusetts 951 Followers 841 Discussions