<p>As in late 20s/early 30s, maybe a graduate student. I don’t know why.</p>
<p>Well, I’m 24. But what changed your mind?</p>
<p>You said that you “didn’t apply to Stanford” so I figured that the application process was relatively recent for you. And since students typically matriculate in the early 20s (around 24)…yeah.</p>
<p>Plus, I thought you were older because you know a ton about graduate school.</p>
<p>Makes sense.</p>
<p>thanks for all the insight</p>
<p>I disagree a bit with Mike (#12). I don’t think perfect numbers guarantees a spot at Harvard Law. From what I’ve seen, you have to do SOMETHING else. It might be an EC, it might be post-college work experience, especially Teach for America, Peace Corps, URM-status, etc. The “extras” matter less at HLS than at YLS or SLS, but they still matter some. If you’ve done NOTHING but study for four years and thus have a high gpa and get a high LSAT, I think the odds are VERY high that HLS will reject you. </p>
<p>Plus…I think it’s sort of “silly” for someone to assume that (s)he will get a near perfect LSAT and therefore has no need to do ECs–or anything else.
Not many folks get a 180 LSAT and for mere mortals with gpa’s and LSATs about the median, other things will matter.</p>
<p>For your own sake, do some ECs. They make college a lot more fun. And, sometimes, they even help get hired later on.</p>
<p>Most of the people I personally know at HLS did do a lot more than Noel’s list. They did NOT do it to get into law school–they just had more going for them than gpa and LSAT score. They might have–indeed probably would have,-- gotten into Harvard Law without having done the other things–but they did them because they enjoyed them.</p>
<p>It’s a good criticism. I apologize for being sloppy in the phrasing. I should have said that you need to actually get yourself in trouble through the phone interview or LOR or essays or something like that in order to get rejected – and Jonri is right that having no EC’s whatsoever would probably qualify.</p>