Veterans Thread Forum

[mdubs314]

^^ mdubbs look what you made this nice person do, going to such lengths to correct your shitty advice.

I've sent him a message on PM. if it has value worth sharing in the end, I'm sure it'll come here too.

We can't help people who don't accept our invitation to help at service to school. For those that don't, I'm sure they will come on here and continue to agree with people like you that will keep saying, "I didn't out-perform my numbers. Don't listen to anyone that says you can do it. Don't bother getting help from an organization that specializes in that skill. Just do your thing, submit an average application and accept your fate like the rest of us who didn't out perform or numbers." That's the way it has to be I suppose. Keep collecting data on your pool of self-serving data. I'll keep tabs on our pool of people that out perform their numbers.

[SemperLegal]

I'm looking to collect info from vets who are using vocational rehab or applied and were denied (for whatever reason). I'd like to include the information in our guide book.

With the VA being so hit-or-miss with the vocational rehab program, I want to put vets in the best possible position when they go in for their interview. You don't have to provide PII information. Just details. Post on here or PM is cool.

BFalcon, good (digitally) talking with you today. Glad to see you and GULC onboard with the DC conference.

A friend of mine got tuition, books, bar, and the USCA free from VOCRE. (Dude earned it, he was halfway to one career when his Valor-Award-earning exploits took that away)* will see if he has comments.


*Not saying that anyone, including me, with lesser injuries shouldn't apply, just bragging on behalf of my boy. Always felt weird in class or our school vet group to have a bonafied war hero just chilling.

[SemperLegal]

^^ mdubbs look what you made this nice person do, going to such lengths to correct your shitty advice.

I've sent him a message on PM. if it has value worth sharing in the end, I'm sure it'll come here too.

We can't help people who don't accept our invitation to help at service to school. For those that don't, I'm sure they will come on here and continue to agree with people like you that will keep saying, "I didn't out-perform my numbers. Don't listen to anyone that says you can do it. Don't bother getting help from an organization that specializes in that skill. Just do your thing, submit an average application and accept your fate like the rest of us who didn't out perform or numbers." That's the way it has to be I suppose. Keep collecting data on your pool of self-serving data. I'll keep tabs on our pool of people that out perform their numbers.

I'm crowd sourcing some of my veteran friends, and I can now say that although I did not outperform my numbers at all, most of my classmates did and were well below median. I don't know if that means I had a weak application, if the veteran bump peters out higher in the T14, or if I just happened to go to a school that is uniquely pro-vet.

[SemperLegal]

Morning folks,

I'm the senior co-president of Georgetown's Military Law Society. More than happy to take questions from any vets or service-members looking at Georgetown. We have a robust society with 117 members and over 85 J.D. student-veterans/active duty/reserve. This year, our Board and committees will be hosting 19 events including a comprehensive career series, academic and national-security related panels, social events, and admissions events. We also pair all MLS members with distinguished veteran alumni in the D.C. area through our External Mentorship Program as well as 1L/1E pairing with internal upperclass-student mentors. Currently lobbying for veterans experiential learning courses, scholarship and YRP upgrades and veteran hiring in BigLaw.

Unless you object, moving this to the OP wihen I get to a computer. Anyone else, anonymously or otherwise, who wants to do a school specific summary, let me know.

[Billy Madison]

As someone currently receiving assistance from Service2School (which but me in touch with a dude who really has his stuff together and has given great advice IRT my PS, resume, etc) AND as someone who received some help from MT Cicero, I have to say that I agree with MT. Unless you're sharing with us the data that supports your more optimistic outlook, I don't see how you can make such bold claims and not expect some push-back. I'm not calling you a liar or anything, I just think that everything available to the masses supports MT's comments, while nothing readily available supports yours. If you have evidence to the contrary, please share, because in the end we're all just vets trying to do the best we can. But for the most part you've given people a lot of hope without substantiating your claims. I hope to God you're correct, that'd help me immensely, but I think MT's criticism was pretty fair. To me, your advice seems to follow a "you miss 100% of the shots you don't take" logic, which is true but LS admissions has a lot of data that we can use to determine our approximate odds and save some time/money. I don't want this to come across as a personal attack and I admit I'm no more qualified than anyone else to give advice, but that's my $0.02.

[SemperLegal]

Has anyone used their extra months of GI Bill eligibility to take classes just for the BAH? I'm going to get to Austin sometime around December. I plan on enrolling in some classes just to get the BAH as opposed to getting a job for just a few months. How did that work out for you?

I haven't, but I know a lot of people who have. Keep in mind you have to get high enough grades in enough credits to qualify. Either way, I'm sure there's some junior college class that it's either professionally or personally rewarding, while still easy. I was thinking of taking a coding class and hospitality courses at one point, but it fell through

[SemperLegal]

As someone currently receiving assistance from Service2School (which but me in touch with a dude who really has his stuff together and has given great advice IRT my PS, resume, etc) AND as someone who received some help from MT Cicero, I have to say that I agree with MT. Unless you're sharing with us the data that supports your more optimistic outlook, I don't see how you can make such bold claims and not expect some push-back. I'm not calling you a liar or anything, I just think that everything available to the masses supports MT's comments, while nothing readily available supports yours. If you have evidence to the contrary, please share, because in the end we're all just vets trying to do the best we can. But for the most part you've given people a lot of hope without substantiating your claims. I hope to God you're correct, that'd help me immensely, but I think MT's criticism was pretty fair. To me, your advice seems to follow a "you miss 100% of the shots you don't take" logic, which is true but LS admissions has a lot of data that we can use to determine our approximate odds and save some time/money. I don't want this to come across as a personal attack and I admit I'm no more qualified than anyone else to give advice, but that's my $0.02.

I think the answer is they are both a little right. Veteran admissions, especially since we already passed peak troop fetishism, varies adcom to adcom, day to day. You have to prepare like no bump, but apply (and pray) that you get a reader on his peak "the troops are heroes made more heroic," "the troops are exploited diamonds in the rough that I can save", or (most accurately, but less advantageously) "veterans add unique diversity and a likely better-than-average work ethic".


Tldr: everyone should prep and LSAT as though MT is correct, but apply, ask for waivers, and ignore what they can't change( (gpa) like dubbs is.

Worse comes to worse, you're out $12 and 750 words per overreach where the magic didn't happen.

[MT Cicero]

As someone currently receiving assistance from Service2School (which but me in touch with a dude who really has his stuff together and has given great advice IRT my PS, resume, etc) AND as someone who received some help from MT Cicero, I have to say that I agree with MT. Unless you're sharing with us the data that supports your more optimistic outlook, I don't see how you can make such bold claims and not expect some push-back. I'm not calling you a liar or anything, I just think that everything available to the masses supports MT's comments, while nothing readily available supports yours. If you have evidence to the contrary, please share, because in the end we're all just vets trying to do the best we can. But for the most part you've given people a lot of hope without substantiating your claims. I hope to God you're correct, that'd help me immensely, but I think MT's criticism was pretty fair. To me, your advice seems to follow a "you miss 100% of the shots you don't take" logic, which is true but LS admissions has a lot of data that we can use to determine our approximate odds and save some time/money. I don't want this to come across as a personal attack and I admit I'm no more qualified than anyone else to give advice, but that's my $0.02.

I think the answer is they are both a little right. Veteran admissions, especially since we already passed peak troop fetishism, varies adcom to adcom, day to day. You have to prepare like no bump, but apply (and pray) that you get a reader on his peak "the troops are heroes made more heroic," "the troops are exploited diamonds in the rough that I can save", or (most accurately, but less advantageously) "veterans add unique diversity and a likely better-than-average work ethic".


Tldr: everyone should prep and LSAT as though MT is correctit is the most determinative factor (because it is), but apply, ask for waivers, and ignore what they can't change( (gpa) like dubbs is.

Worse comes to worse, you're out $12 and 750 words per overreach where the magic didn't happen.

I'm PMing mdubs right now, but I might not get it to him until after class. The bolded (with my edits) is pretty much correct though. I reached like crazy in my apps. I only object to facts being thrown around that are absolutely wrong. The "below 25th, the GPA doesn't matter" was flat-out wrong (though the schools COULD do it without it affecting their numbers). He has made other posts which seem to say, "you'll scoop a couple T14s, don't worry about it" (not a direct quote, but certainly the theme). I called him out in my recent post for very specific, erroneous proclamations. That's all.

The problem is that it might encourage vets to target slightly lower LSATs. "I'm a vet, a 168=170 for normal folks." Or, it might encourage vets to settle for an LSAT score when they could/should retake. This is my biggest problem with the casual "vets get a bump...trust me" trope. You may or may not get one. Whether or not you use his service, another service, etc., you still may or may not get a bump (even if the bump chances are higher using his service, which I have no way of knowing).

That damn LSAT is the bane of 0Ls lives, and they look for ANY REASON TO STOP GRINDING FOR THAT DAMN THING! We all know this! We know the feeling! When so many vets on here got admitted at about their number, and some slightly outperformed, there's too much downside risk to allowing people who browse this forum to settle for lower numbers.

Once someone has done the absolute best they know they can do with either 3 well-grinded-for takes, a 99th percentile score, or the absolute best they could've possibly done...then and only then should mdubs be allowed to play Eye of the Tiger for them and be the Mickey to their Rocky. Hell, I'll do the same at that point!

[Billy Madison]

I think the answer is they are both a little right. Veteran admissions, especially since we already passed peak troop fetishism, varies adcom to adcom, day to day. You have to prepare like no bump, but apply (and pray) that you get a reader on his peak "the troops are heroes made more heroic," "the troops are exploited diamonds in the rough that I can save", or (most accurately, but less advantageously) "veterans add unique diversity and a likely better-than-average work ethic".


Tldr: everyone should prep and LSAT as though MT is correct, but apply, ask for waivers, and ignore what they can't change( (gpa) like dubbs is.

Worse comes to worse, you're out $12 and 750 words per overreach where the magic didn't happen.

That's fair. Just wondering, where'd you get "$12" from? Isn't each wasted app going to cost at least $30 (CRS) + school app fee (if applicable)? Shoot, I'd give Stanford $12 to take my app.

[Cobretti]

As someone currently receiving assistance from Service2School (which but me in touch with a dude who really has his stuff together and has given great advice IRT my PS, resume, etc) AND as someone who received some help from MT Cicero, I have to say that I agree with MT. Unless you're sharing with us the data that supports your more optimistic outlook, I don't see how you can make such bold claims and not expect some push-back. I'm not calling you a liar or anything, I just think that everything available to the masses supports MT's comments, while nothing readily available supports yours. If you have evidence to the contrary, please share, because in the end we're all just vets trying to do the best we can. But for the most part you've given people a lot of hope without substantiating your claims. I hope to God you're correct, that'd help me immensely, but I think MT's criticism was pretty fair. To me, your advice seems to follow a "you miss 100% of the shots you don't take" logic, which is true but LS admissions has a lot of data that we can use to determine our approximate odds and save some time/money. I don't want this to come across as a personal attack and I admit I'm no more qualified than anyone else to give advice, but that's my $0.02.

I think the answer is they are both a little right. Veteran admissions, especially since we already passed peak troop fetishism, varies adcom to adcom, day to day. You have to prepare like no bump, but apply (and pray) that you get a reader on his peak "the troops are heroes made more heroic," "the troops are exploited diamonds in the rough that I can save", or (most accurately, but less advantageously) "veterans add unique diversity and a likely better-than-average work ethic".


Tldr: everyone should prep and LSAT as though MT is correctit is the most determinative factor (because it is), but apply, ask for waivers, and ignore what they can't change( (gpa) like dubbs is.

Worse comes to worse, you're out $12 and 750 words per overreach where the magic didn't happen.

I'm PMing mdubs right now, but I might not get it to him until after class. The bolded (with my edits) is pretty much correct though. I reached like crazy in my apps. I only object to facts being thrown around that are absolutely wrong. The "below 25th, the GPA doesn't matter" was flat-out wrong (though the schools COULD do it without it affecting their numbers). He has made other posts which seem to say, "you'll scoop a couple T14s, don't worry about it" (not a direct quote, but certainly the theme). I called him out in my recent post for very specific, erroneous proclamations. That's all.

The problem is that it might encourage vets to target slightly lower LSATs. "I'm a vet, a 168=170 for normal folks." Or, it might encourage vets to settle for an LSAT score when they could/should retake. This is my biggest problem with the casual "vets get a bump...trust me" trope. You may or may not get one. Whether or not you use his service, another service, etc., you still may or may not get a bump (even if the bump chances are higher using his service, which I have no way of knowing).

That damn LSAT is the bane of 0Ls lives, and they look for ANY REASON TO STOP GRINDING FOR THAT DAMN THING! We all know this! We know the feeling! When so many vets on here got admitted at about their number, and some slightly outperformed, there's too much downside risk to allowing people who browse this forum to settle for lower numbers.

Once someone has done the absolute best they know they can do with either 3 well-grinded-for takes, a 99th percentile score, or the absolute best they could've possibly done...then and only then should mdubs be allowed to play Eye of the Tiger for them and be the Mickey to their Rocky. Hell, I'll do the same at that point!

Exactly, +1

[SemperLegal]

I think the answer is they are both a little right. Veteran admissions, especially since we already passed peak troop fetishism, varies adcom to adcom, day to day. You have to prepare like no bump, but apply (and pray) that you get a reader on his peak "the troops are heroes made more heroic," "the troops are exploited diamonds in the rough that I can save", or (most accurately, but less advantageously) "veterans add unique diversity and a likely better-than-average work ethic".


Tldr: everyone should prep and LSAT as though MT is correct, but apply, ask for waivers, and ignore what they can't change( (gpa) like dubbs is.

Worse comes to worse, you're out $12 and 750 words per overreach where the magic didn't happen.

That's fair. Just wondering, where'd you get "$12" from? Isn't each wasted app going to cost at least $30 (CRS) + school app fee (if applicable)? Shoot, I'd give Stanford $12 to take my app.

Dating myself. Used to be 12$ for CRS. I think most schools give fee waivers if you ask, especially for vets.

[mdubs314]

As someone currently receiving assistance from Service2School (which but me in touch with a dude who really has his stuff together and has given great advice IRT my PS, resume, etc) AND as someone who received some help from MT Cicero, I have to say that I agree with MT. Unless you're sharing with us the data that supports your more optimistic outlook, I don't see how you can make such bold claims and not expect some push-back. I'm not calling you a liar or anything, I just think that everything available to the masses supports MT's comments, while nothing readily available supports yours. If you have evidence to the contrary, please share, because in the end we're all just vets trying to do the best we can. But for the most part you've given people a lot of hope without substantiating your claims. I hope to God you're correct, that'd help me immensely, but I think MT's criticism was pretty fair. To me, your advice seems to follow a "you miss 100% of the shots you don't take" logic, which is true but LS admissions has a lot of data that we can use to determine our approximate odds and save some time/money. I don't want this to come across as a personal attack and I admit I'm no more qualified than anyone else to give advice, but that's my $0.02.

I don't take it as a personal attack. Nor do I see the feedback from MT as a personal attack. Let me talk in PM some. I'll ask S2S leadership if I can share some info in a public setting. I have access to a handful of vets I know of personally, but I'll see if I can get my hands on some consolidated data. I think that's a fair request. Perhaps I can get some of those vets to come on here and post, too.

[KPUSN07]

Hey all - I appreciate the feedback and look forward to the continued conversation. I'm not sure we've discussed this topic on the board, but I think it's a question that many Academy vets have, but none really get a straight answer. For example, my father (a 30 year attorney) would say that Academy vets absolutely get a bump / curve in GPA in the eyes of admission officers, but wanted to hear from folks who have been or are admission officers.

As a prelude - I'm looking at handful of schools, but really balancing the school selection with settling down in an area we like. I like UF/FSU (wife and I would love to settle in Fla), Ohio State / IU (regional home), GWU (MBA alum / love DC), GMU, UNC, Notre Dame.... That's somewhat the mindset as of now.

[Billy Madison]

Hey all - I appreciate the feedback and look forward to the continued conversation. I'm not sure we've discussed this topic on the board, but I think it's a question that many Academy vets have, but none really get a straight answer. For example, my father (a 30 year attorney) would say that Academy vets absolutely get a bump / curve in GPA in the eyes of admission officers, but wanted to hear from folks who have been or are admission officers.

As a prelude - I'm looking at handful of schools, but really balancing the school selection with settling down in an area we like. I like UF/FSU (wife and I would love to settle in Fla), Ohio State / IU (regional home), GWU (MBA alum / love DC), GMU, UNC, Notre Dame.... That's somewhat the mindset as of now.

I don't know how many admissions folks visit this thread, so you might be waiting a while. Conventional wisdom suggests a modest bump of indeterminate value. It also suggests a stronger bump when looking for a job post-LS. Nobody can really comment on your admissions chances at any of the schools you mentioned without knowing your numbers. It's difficult to offer advice on schools without knowing your career goals. My generic opinion as a Buckeye is that OSU easily the best in the state, but that bar is pretty low. Big law is like 17% from OSU, though the overall employment is decent. I was impressed by ND's employment stats for a school outside the t14 and hope to go there if I don't make NW or GULC.

[KPUSN07]

I've had questions about what this actually means:

"(2) Every school admits 25% of their class below their 25th percentile (give or take) every year, not "a handful." This is what makes it their 25th percentile."

So if a school's 25% LSAT score is 155 (UF for example), does that mean that 25% of the class offered admission scored below a 155 OR does that mean that 25% of the folks who chose to enroll scored below a 155?

How is the 75% explained?

Sorry for the ignorance - just somewhat new to interpreting the numbers.

[Cobretti]

I've had questions about what this actually means:

"(2) Every school admits 25% of their class below their 25th percentile (give or take) every year, not "a handful." This is what makes it their 25th percentile."

So if a school's 25% LSAT score is 155 (UF for example), does that mean that 25% of the class offered admission scored below a 155 OR does that mean that 25% of the folks who chose to enroll scored below a 155?

How is the 75% explained?

Sorry for the ignorance - just somewhat new to interpreting the numbers.

25% of the 1L class scored 155 or lower.

[ihenry]

I've had questions about what this actually means:

"(2) Every school admits 25% of their class below their 25th percentile (give or take) every year, not "a handful." This is what makes it their 25th percentile."

So if a school's 25% LSAT score is 155 (UF for example), does that mean that 25% of the class offered admission scored below a 155 OR does that mean that 25% of the folks who chose to enroll scored below a 155?

How is the 75% explained?

Sorry for the ignorance - just somewhat new to interpreting the numbers.

I don't belong to this thread but I just saw this post and here is my understanding:

It's 25% of the incoming class. Think about it in this way:
schools throw scholarship money for high scorers because they want to attract them to their school. In other words, only when they are in do they count into statistics. Same for 75%.

Note that however they are not necessarily "below" that score. Theoretically, all bottom 25% students can have the same score of 155 and the school's 25 percentile is still 155. It should be that "at most 25%" of total enrolled students scoring below 25percentile line.

[UnicornHunter]

As someone currently receiving assistance from Service2School (which but me in touch with a dude who really has his stuff together and has given great advice IRT my PS, resume, etc) AND as someone who received some help from MT Cicero, I have to say that I agree with MT. Unless you're sharing with us the data that supports your more optimistic outlook, I don't see how you can make such bold claims and not expect some push-back. I'm not calling you a liar or anything, I just think that everything available to the masses supports MT's comments, while nothing readily available supports yours. If you have evidence to the contrary, please share, because in the end we're all just vets trying to do the best we can. But for the most part you've given people a lot of hope without substantiating your claims. I hope to God you're correct, that'd help me immensely, but I think MT's criticism was pretty fair. To me, your advice seems to follow a "you miss 100% of the shots you don't take" logic, which is true but LS admissions has a lot of data that we can use to determine our approximate odds and save some time/money. I don't want this to come across as a personal attack and I admit I'm no more qualified than anyone else to give advice, but that's my $0.02.

I think the answer is they are both a little right. Veteran admissions, especially since we already passed peak troop fetishism, varies adcom to adcom, day to day. You have to prepare like no bump, but apply (and pray) that you get a reader on his peak "the troops are heroes made more heroic," "the troops are exploited diamonds in the rough that I can save", or (most accurately, but less advantageously) "veterans add unique diversity and a likely better-than-average work ethic".


Tldr: everyone should prep and LSAT as though MT is correctit is the most determinative factor (because it is), but apply, ask for waivers, and ignore what they can't change( (gpa) like dubbs is.

Worse comes to worse, you're out $12 and 750 words per overreach where the magic didn't happen.

I'm PMing mdubs right now, but I might not get it to him until after class. The bolded (with my edits) is pretty much correct though. I reached like crazy in my apps. I only object to facts being thrown around that are absolutely wrong. The "below 25th, the GPA doesn't matter" was flat-out wrong (though the schools COULD do it without it affecting their numbers). He has made other posts which seem to say, "you'll scoop a couple T14s, don't worry about it" (not a direct quote, but certainly the theme). I called him out in my recent post for very specific, erroneous proclamations. That's all.

The problem is that it might encourage vets to target slightly lower LSATs. "I'm a vet, a 168=170 for normal folks." Or, it might encourage vets to settle for an LSAT score when they could/should retake. This is my biggest problem with the casual "vets get a bump...trust me" trope. You may or may not get one. Whether or not you use his service, another service, etc., you still may or may not get a bump (even if the bump chances are higher using his service, which I have no way of knowing).

That damn LSAT is the bane of 0Ls lives, and they look for ANY REASON TO STOP GRINDING FOR THAT DAMN THING! We all know this! We know the feeling! When so many vets on here got admitted at about their number, and some slightly outperformed, there's too much downside risk to allowing people who browse this forum to settle for lower numbers.

Once someone has done the absolute best they know they can do with either 3 well-grinded-for takes, a 99th percentile score, or the absolute best they could've possibly done...then and only then should mdubs be allowed to play Eye of the Tiger for them and be the Mickey to their Rocky. Hell, I'll do the same at that point!

Pretty much agree with this. It's just dumb to rely on some impossible to quantify and highly theoretical vet boost when there's a very concrete thing (prep for/rock the LSAT) that you can do. I think Service2School is great and have recommended it to some of my old soldiers who are now looking at getting out, but the equation for a vet really shouldn't be substantially different than it is for anyone else.

[KPUSN07]

I've had questions about what this actually means:

"(2) Every school admits 25% of their class below their 25th percentile (give or take) every year, not "a handful." This is what makes it their 25th percentile."

So if a school's 25% LSAT score is 155 (UF for example), does that mean that 25% of the class offered admission scored below a 155 OR does that mean that 25% of the folks who chose to enroll scored below a 155?

How is the 75% explained?

Sorry for the ignorance - just somewhat new to interpreting the numbers.

I don't belong to this thread but I just saw this post and here is my understanding:

It's 25% of the incoming class. Think about it in this way:
schools throw scholarship money for high scorers because they want to attract them to their school. In other words, only when they are in do they count into statistics. Same for 75%.

Note that however they are not necessarily "below" that score. Theoretically, all bottom 25% students can have the same score of 155 and the school's 25 percentile is still 155. It should be that "at most 25%" of total enrolled students scoring below 25percentile line.

Makes more sense and thanks - so to really feel good about yourself, all things being equal, you really want to score between that 25%-75% range.

[Cobretti]

I've had questions about what this actually means:

"(2) Every school admits 25% of their class below their 25th percentile (give or take) every year, not "a handful." This is what makes it their 25th percentile."

So if a school's 25% LSAT score is 155 (UF for example), does that mean that 25% of the class offered admission scored below a 155 OR does that mean that 25% of the folks who chose to enroll scored below a 155?

How is the 75% explained?

Sorry for the ignorance - just somewhat new to interpreting the numbers.

I don't belong to this thread but I just saw this post and here is my understanding:

It's 25% of the incoming class. Think about it in this way:
schools throw scholarship money for high scorers because they want to attract them to their school. In other words, only when they are in do they count into statistics. Same for 75%.

Note that however they are not necessarily "below" that score. Theoretically, all bottom 25% students can have the same score of 155 and the school's 25 percentile is still 155. It should be that "at most 25%" of total enrolled students scoring below 25percentile line.

Makes more sense and thanks - so to really feel good about yourself, all things being equal, you really want to score between that 25%-75% range.

USNews only uses Median in their calculations for ranking, so really you want to shoot for that. 25% and 75% aren't really meaningful to the schools.

[Billy Madison]

Everyone says LSN and myLSN are the gold stardard, but among those of you who've already been accepted to schools, which schools accepted you? What I mean is, after looking at myLSN, there are schools that show up with odds between 0-100% but at what level in there did you guys receive acceptances? 25%? 50%? 75%? I only ask because those numbers are for the population as a whole, excluding ED and URM, so your experiences relative to what myLSN predicted as your chances might provide a decent look at any "bump" should it exist.

[Troianii]

Just thought I'd chime in and say that law schools are apparently much more willing to offer fee waivers to veterans than they use to be. Solicited based on veteran status, I've gotten fee waivers from WUSTL, NYU, GW, ASU, Emory, BU, Georgia, Vanderbilt - all just based on veteran status. All that I've done is give the admissions office a call, be very polite (ask how they are), and then ask if they give fee waivers to military veterans. Nearly every time the answer is a yes, and they'll just ask you to email them with your LSAC acct#. Some of them ask for proof of veteran status, and so out of habit I always attach my VA card to each request.

I'd recommend people go ahead and try it. Even if the schools aren't on the list above, give it a try - worth a shot, and schools seem much more open to the idea now.

[Billy Madison]

Just thought I'd chime in and say that law schools are apparently much more willing to offer fee waivers to veterans than they use to be. Solicited based on veteran status, I've gotten fee waivers from WUSTL, NYU, GW, ASU, Emory, BU, Georgia, Vanderbilt - all just based on veteran status. All that I've done is give the admissions office a call, be very polite (ask how they are), and then ask if they give fee waivers to military veterans. Nearly every time the answer is a yes, and they'll just ask you to email them with your LSAC acct#. Some of them ask for proof of veteran status, and so out of habit I always attach my VA card to each request.

I'd recommend people go ahead and try it. Even if the schools aren't on the list above, give it a try - worth a shot, and schools seem much more open to the idea now.

Good lookin' out! That's awesome!

[nontrad2014]

We are addressing a seat deposit issue at my school, but I was thinking that maybe others have been affected.

When anyone was a 1L and used GI Bill or Vocational Rehab, were you reimbursed for your seat deposit? Our school has not been billing the VA for the seat deposit; rather, they are applying the seat deposit towards tuition but only billing the VA for tuition, minus the $400 seat deposit. I addressed it last year and waiting to see if our school fixes it. Anyone have the same issue at their school?

Thanks.

[Billy Madison]

Vet waiver from UV today. Just send an email.