Getting accepted as a write-on after you've been dinged Forum

[CMR]

So sweet, this bitterness.

[phishskier41]

That is absolutely the worst thing I have ever heard if you are meaning that you did the write on for a school you were planning on transferring too which subsequently rejected you..... If so this is the worst.

[traehekat]

Grapes gotta be SO sour.

[samiseaborn]

ouch.

You should put it on your resume the same way transfer put their old schools on. "Invited onto Rejected LS's Review". Would make a very interesting conversation starter at interviews.

[CMR]

I should just accept and start submitting articles.

[Machine Spirit]

Can't tell if this is a worse scenario than if you had been invited on to Law Review before being dinged, and not after. With that situation, you'd be very happy, ecstatic even, at your future possibilities, only to then be denied by the school. Your case is more like someone kicking you after tripping you.

Both blow though. Sorry bout that. What school?

[traydeuce]

Columbia? Harvard hasn't rejected people yet, I thought. Chicago's yet to announce their write-on, and most of the other schools didn't make transfers write on until after they got in.

[yellowjacket2012]

I should just accept and start submitting articles.

well, must say I love your spirit.
For what it's worth, you're a good writer - and that's bread and butter in the profession you're getting int.

[A'nold]

You should definitely petition for re-consideration.

[iheartlaw]

i heard about someone on this forum writing on the Harvard Law Review but getting dinged for admission. At least that person has bragging rights!

[yellowjacket2012]

petition for reconsideration - I disagree with. This sets up really vulgur incentives for people to have the worst summer of their lives after their 1L year - applying to HYS with no stats to back it up, and writing on like their lives depended on it.

I think writing on to a pre-admit lock - is reasonable - writing on to HARVARD - unless you're top 2-3% at a t10, is just reeeeeeeeally optimistic.

[A'nold]

See, this really pisses me off. Look, yes, OP is from Cooley, basically the biggest joke of a ls in the country, at least reputation-wise. He finished at THE TOP of his class. The only reason you would NOT admit him would be that you think that he had crap for competition and you are still unsure whether he could finish above median at your school and pass the bar.

He just f-ing wrote on to your flagship LR. Let the guy in. Damn. This is disgusting to say the least.

[Bankhead]

I disagree. This is transfer admissions. This is not, and should not be reduced to, a write-on competition.

[ggocat]

He just f-ing wrote on to your flagship LR.

I didn't see OP make this assertion re: flagship journal. But if it's true, I agree--OP should ask for reconsideration based on this fact.

[Bankhead]

Why would writing on to a flagship journal have anything to do with whether they should admit you? Some 3L deems your write-on good... uhh ok.

[ggocat]

Why would writing on to a flagship journal have anything to do with whether they should admit you? Some 3L deems your write-on good... uhh ok.

It provides additional evidence of the quality of an applicant's writing, the applicant's dedication to attend, and the likelihood that the applicant would become a productive member of the student body.

You could ask the same question about recommendations from 1L profs. Why do those have any role?

The things that matters most in the transfer process include the budget deficit of the school and the willingness of the applicant to pay tuition.

[A'nold]

I think you are missing my point, Bankhead.

The only reason a, say, Emory transfer >>>> a Cooley transfer is the fear that the Cooley guy is not up to snuf and that there is still a risk that he will underperform or just suck at your new school. HOWEVER, if dude is at the very top of his class at Cooley AND wrote onto your most prestigeous journal, beating out your own school's best....uh, hello? ADMIT HIM. Geesh.

[traydeuce]

But to be fair, a'nold, a write-on is just one essay. Your position is like saying that I deserved to get into Duke law last year because as a Duke undergrad I got an A in a Duke law class, proving I could outsmart their 2Ls. Well yeah, in that class I did, but it was just one class and outside of my lsat the rest of my record wasn't very impressive.

[helfer snooterbagon]

But to be fair, a'nold, a write-on is just one essay. Your position is like saying that I deserved to get into Duke law last year because as a Duke undergrad I got an A in a Duke law class, proving I could outsmart their 2Ls. Well yeah, in that class I did, but it was just one class and outside of my lsat the rest of my record wasn't very impressive.

I enjoyed that Tray incorporated a bit of a self aggrandizing into his argument.

[Machine Spirit]

Why would writing on to a flagship journal have anything to do with whether they should admit you? Some 3L deems your write-on good... uhh ok.

Agreed. It's an unfortunate situation, that's for sure, but whether or not 3Ls are impressed with a write-on has no bearing on whether you're still a viable admit. Moral of story: if you're that good at writing, don't go to Cooley.

[tamlyric]

But to be fair, a'nold, a write-on is just one essay. Your position is like saying that I deserved to get into Duke law last year because as a Duke undergrad I got an A in a Duke law class, proving I could outsmart their 2Ls. Well yeah, in that class I did, but it was just one class and outside of my lsat the rest of my record wasn't very impressive.

Is this really such a bad argument? Perhaps you should have been admitted to Duke. Also, I think, there is a relevant difference between this argument and the one A'nold makes for why OP should petition, namely, OP arguably beat out the best students at school X when s/he wrote onto X's Law Review, while you beat out a bunch of 2Ls who may or may not be among the best students at Duke. Perhaps, though, it's best to think about A'nold's argument from the point of view of school X's admissions committee when evaluating prospective 0Ls. If they could be 100% certain that OP would make Law Review were he to matriculate, it seems they would have to come up with a very good reason to reject OP.

[ggocat]

But to be fair, a'nold, a write-on is just one essay. Your position is like saying that I deserved to get into Duke law last year because as a Duke undergrad I got an A in a Duke law class, proving I could outsmart their 2Ls. Well yeah, in that class I did, but it was just one class and outside of my lsat the rest of my record wasn't very impressive.

You were graded on the curve, were you?

[rynabrius]

I think what this highlights is that all schools should offer a separate writing competition for transfers.

[Bankhead]

If a school wanted a legal writing sample as part of the evaluation procedures, then they would simply ask for a writing sample. To my knowledge, the only school that does this is Northwestern. I take that to mean that other schools don't really care/don't have time to evaluate your legal writing abilities, but instead care more about the things that they specifically ask for.

It isn't fair for a school to say that they factor in x+y in admissions decisions, and then give CMR or whoever credit for doing z. If the school gives evaluation credit for the write-on, then then school needs to explicitly say "if you do the write-on successfully we look favorably on that" or something.

[ToTransferOrNot]

For what it's worth, if I was an Adcomm, I would reconsider someone who wrote on to the Law Review if he was at the very top of whatever school he was at initially.

That said, I disagree that the only reason an Emory transfer is > a Cooley transfer is because of some fear that the Cooley guy won't be up to snuff. There's an aspect of the level of competition that you beat to get your law school grades--and evidence of writing ability doesn't mean much to law school grades (as demonstrated by the fact that LRW makes up 10% or less of most law student's GPAs). Exam writing is a completely different beast, and everyone knows it.

Now, you could take issue with that fact, and argue that legal writing should be a much larger part of law school evaluation in general. After working for a few summers, I would agree with that without reservation. But even if that was the case, Law Review-style writing and excessive Bluebooking exercises have nothing to do with real legal writing anyway. In fact, legal employers often dread having to re-train people to NOT write Law-Review style, even though they love seeing Law Review on resumes. That comes from the top appeals lawyer in the country, by the way--I'm sure the sentiment is even more true for trial lawyers.

Keep in mind, you're not beating out the school's best minds, generally--those folks graded on to Law Review (if the school allows for grade-ons). You're beating out the school's best Law-Review type writers... and that type of writing is completely meaningless to the actual practice of law AND law school.