happyfeet wrote: ArchRoark wrote:
happyfeet wrote:just got my letter this morning (in jersey) and can't stop smiling. i had a tough cycle last year (including a GULC rejection) so this is fabulous way to start the new cycle.
congrats! I was wondering how schools treat reapplicants who have been denied previous cycle. New cycle new chance? Or do thy pull your old file/application? When I spoke with the admissions director of Cleo she stated that for the most part if a school has denied you in a past cycle you are an auto ding the next time around. Glad to hear your experience was different. Did you substantially improve your numbers? In my case I took a significant risk with my ps topic and I think it backfired with some of the more conservative schools. If my cycle turns out horribly I may just rewrite everything, secure new a recommendation and submit a whole new application package.
what i had heard was that something significantly different can definitely make the difference - in my case, i brought my LSAT score up by 8 points. last year i was below their 25%, now i'm a little over their median. everything else, my ps, my recs, are exactly the same. i did change jobs but am still doing the same line of work (public health/international development).
some schools however (upenn i know for sure) do require you to submit a new personal statement and recs regardless of whatever else might have also changed in your app.
good for you for being bold with your ps topic, most of us probably aren't and so i'm sure your grabbing their attention with it.
I'm in the same boat. Applied two cycles ago, got in nowhere. In the interim, I upped LSAT 11 points and have new work experience, new letters, new PS, new everything. Now that I actually think about it, my 2010 app is worlds different from 2008.
I wonder if schools actually compare apps for re-applicants when they judge them. For example, if they notice that "oh, the application looks just like last year's" then they might be inclined to reject again. On the other hand, they may just judge independently again, and, because the standards are the same (if not higher), the person will likely be rejected again. Which theory is correct?