<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>