this is a question to "gloss" and anyone that knows anything about this:

@ gloss

You went to SLS so I can ask.

I was rejected by Stanford and I will probably go to U Michigan (although I am on UPENN WL with my fingers crossed!). Stanford was my n. 1 option, though :( and I always thought that my 3 1/2 year of work experience hurt my chances - I am from Europe, btw, and work on a Magic Circle firm in Eastern Europe)

Then I saw your post at "Ad": is it common that a person with 2 years of experience is admitted to SLS LLM? You mentioned there was someone like that on your class. Was the admitted from an under represented country, exceptional or just lucky?

I am curious and trying to understand SLS criterea...I heard that 90% of the LLM CGC is usually over 30-32, and had in average 5-6 years of work experience. Do you know any reappplicant who was admitted?

Thanks!!!

The silence/lack of replies to your thread is very telling. No one knows.

As a matter of fact, there are no rules. Unlike JDs where law schools report some basic information to ABA/LSAC regarding students they admit, and third-parties such as US News track this information, there's no obligation whatsoever for LLMs.

Stanford or Harvard could admit a 22 year with low grades and no work experience if they so wish. And anyone will conclude "oh they probably had their reasons", and their reputation won't even be tarnished.

You can paint a typical profile based on previous students that were admitted and it'd still not guarantee anything, especially in programs that are as small as Stanford: you can have 10 years of work experience in pharmacological company, a summa cum laude LLB, amazing extra curriculum activities, and still be rejected because there was another applicant working in the same field and they wanted to diversify their student body, ie. no 2 applicants from the same country/field of practice.

LLM admissions, 100x times more than JD, are a very arbitrary, non transparent, and random process. One illustration of this is it's quite common to be rejected by lower ranked schools while admitted at higher ones, more so than JDs.

In one of my undergraduate years, I obtained a GPA of 3.1/4 and still ranked in the top 5% (because in my country and in this specific university/program professors hardly ever award grades above 3.5/4 or B-) at the same time that program isn't famous enough abroad to the point I'd expect an LLM admission committee to know that 3.1/4 is a very high grade). So how can it be fair when I'm compared with people from other countries who have 3.9 GPA?

Every year it's the same lottery, everyone wants to get into HYS and there are only 200 lucky souls. There will probably be at least 200 other that are at least as worthy, but for one reason or another (overrepresented country that year, your recommender doesn't know how to write a good recommendation letter by American standards, etc.) they didn't make it.

Of course I'm not saying everyone who was rejected deserved to be in, far from it, I'm merely stating that many may have been accepted had they applied a year ago or next year.

My best advice is... accept it. There's nothing you can do about it at this point. And knowing why will only enrage you more because you're bound to find someone who was accepted despite not meeting the requirement of your "why" either.
Class sizes are so small there's no way the admission process can be fair, they're bound to reject extremely worthy candidates simply because there aren't enough spots.

If we had access to the personal data of every student accepted at SLS I'm certain we'll find at least one lucky alumni that had worst credentials than us.

My only hope and wish is that recruiters are also aware of this, and they know that very promising young lawyers can be found elsewhere than at Harvard, Yale and Stanford.

Just today I saw your post. I am sorry for my late answer. Yes, you are right about the usual profile. The average age for the LLM in Corporate is 30-32 and usually above 5-6 years of experience. I was 28 when I was admitted and I had 5 years of experience, but only one student was younger than me in my class. Like Hedek said, there is no magic formula. However, besides the profile that you mentioned, I would say that usually the LLMs in Stanford have already a graduate degree from their home countries (like a Masters, MBA or a PhD - they finished or they are almost finishing it) and several publications, besides working in big law firm. If you match the profile, you should have been short listed. From what you said, I suppose you have a little less experience than they want and I am not sure if you have a graduate degree, or publications, or something else that could put you above the other people short listed. It is rare for people outside this profile to be admitted. This younger person that I mentioned had several publications, won legal writing contests, and had other things in her resume that made her a very interesting candidate. If you have any other questions, please let me know!

I just want to add something. It is almost impossible to understand how the schools pick the candidantes, so dont lose your time thinking about it anymore. The LLM is just one step in the "US lawyer" experience. All top schools are really good and I can guarantee that you will have a great experience (inside and outside the school - like Michigan college football team is awesome and I love college football). The other steps in the "US lawyer" experience are the Bar exam and the work experience. If you can pass the bar and can manage to work in the US for while (in your own firm or in a new one) you will have a much more complete and interesting LLM experience than most students and the market will consider that... so keep this in mind. Good luck!

This younger person that I mentioned had several publications, won legal writing contests, and had other things in her resume that made her a very interesting candidate. If you have any other questions, please let me know!

Thanks for your replies guys! You are absolutely right! I won't think about this anymore and it looks like this person deserved it.

I think that it is a bit of a myth that LLM Adcom favor women (and I am a guy btw). I know this happens on MBAs b/c not so many women apply for it, but as far as I know (and talks I had with specialists and Admcoms), nowadays in the US. the split is 50/50. In other words, the same number of women and men apply - and some even say that more women apply b/c they are more willing to stop working and study for a year. Who knows?!

And, as you said, this whole process is a bit of credentials, a bit of what they are looking for, a bit of luck and a bit random.

Hey Frosty, If you decide to go to Michigan, enjoy the Big House: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michigan_Stadium...

I think that it is a bit of a myth that LLM Adcom favor women (and I am a guy btw). I know this happens on MBAs b/c not so many women apply for it, but as far as I know (and talks I had with specialists and Admcoms), nowadays in the US. the split is 50/50. In other words, the same number of women and men apply - and some even say that more women apply b/c they are more willing to stop working and study for a year. Who knows?.