Top Law Schools

Just to defend WUSTL for a quick second, I have gotten a derivative of the "impressed with your credentials line" in every single one of my (ample number of) WLs and dings

FourOnTheFloor wrote:

sparty99 wrote:

DorianGray89 wrote:Just got dinged.

+ 1

Did you also get the line, "Although we are unable to offer you a seat in this year's class, the Admissions Committee was highly impressed with your credentials."

I also got this email. First ding of my cycle...I was starting to wonder what a rejection letter looks like. Apparently they look patronizing.

+1 Boy, when they say they come in waves...

mrwarre85 wrote:Dinged.

I think the line about being impressed with your credentials in insulting. This is of course with the assumption that everyone's email contained that line.

Dinged too. I agree the line was totally insulting for you guys. However, I think they meant it for me.

mrwarre85 wrote:Dinged.

I think the line about being impressed with your credentials in insulting. This is of course with the assumption that everyone's email contained that line.

Haha, I thought it was stupid.

You obviously weren't that ****ing impressed with my credentials if you didn't accept me.

I wish all schools would stop with the patronizing "impressed with your credentials" bs and just say "thanks for the app fee, but we decided you wouldn't be a good fit for our class." It would be much less insulting.

Ding. No hard feelings here, doubt I would have attended at sticker. Adieu wustl.

Moral_Midgetry wrote:I wish all schools would stop with the patronizing "impressed with your credentials" bs and just say "thanks for the app fee, but we decided you wouldn't be a good fit for our class." It would be much less insulting.

you're right, i bet no one would complain, then!

All these 167 splitters are getting dinged when they were nearly auto admit last year. I'm still in review 3/14...3.3 167. Meh.

"Although we are unable to offer you a seat in this year's class, the Admissions Committee was highly impressed with your credentials until we saw your 148 LSAT score. You should try Sears."

sparty99 wrote:"Although we are unable to offer you a seat in this year's class, the Admissions Committee was highly impressed with your credentials until we saw your 148 LSAT score. You should try Sears."

lol nice

sparty99 wrote:"Although we are unable to offer you a seat in this year's class, the Admissions Committee was highly impressed with your credentials until we saw your 148 LSAT score. You should try Sears."

wait, Sears has a law school now?

purplebulldogs wrote:

sparty99 wrote:"Although we are unable to offer you a seat in this year's class, the Admissions Committee was highly impressed with your credentials until we saw your 148 LSAT score. You should try Sears."

wait, Sears has a law school now?

Honestly, it'd almost be more shocking that they didn't have one.

What do you guys have under status?

tinlawman wrote:What do you guys have under status?

In Review 3/23

mrwarre85 wrote:Dinged.

I think the line about being impressed with your credentials in insulting. This is of course with the assumption that everyone's email contained that line.

If you find this line insulting, then don't ever apply for any legal jobs. I've gotten a "We found your resume highly impressive, but we are unable to offer you an interview/job" line in almost every job rejection letter I have gotten. And I think I got in in every LS rejection as well.

Sorry to hear about the dings guys.

Hmm no email here yet, I'm assuming I'm waitlisted at best at this point.

law4vus wrote:All these 167 splitters are getting dinged when they were nearly auto admit last year. I'm still in review 3/14...3.3 167. Meh.

Yeah. Wow, it looks like 168 is the new 167 at WUSTL. Dunno how I evaded the dinghammer, but for whatever reason I'm not out just yet. Condolences to all, rejection stings. I'm sure you guys will be successful wherever you go, insert another generic patronizing comment. But seriously, I'm no stranger to rejection. Go have a beer and write a nasty letter to WUSTL (DO NOT mail the letter, lol, writing it will just make you feel better). Works for me.

romothesavior wrote:I'll also throw out Fitz's and Zia's (on the Hill) as great options.

Fitz's is terrible. That place is a tourist trap.

romothesavior wrote:

mrwarre85 wrote:Dinged.

I think the line about being impressed with your credentials in insulting. This is of course with the assumption that everyone's email contained that line.

If you find this line insulting, then don't ever apply for any legal jobs. I've gotten a "We found your resume highly impressive, but we are unable to offer you an interview/job" line in almost every job rejection letter I have gotten. And I think I got in in every LS rejection as well.

Sorry to hear about the dings guys.

It seems like passive aggressive-ness is the name of the game with lawyers. I always saw the Closing "Very Truly Yours," as extremely passive aggressive, sort of like a British fuck you, not unlike this...http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y0Rjn6W9 ... re=related

Flips88 wrote:

tinlawman wrote:What do you guys have under status?

In Review 3/23

In review 3/15

Dinged, woooo.

ArthurDigbySellers wrote:

romothesavior wrote:

mrwarre85 wrote:Dinged.

I think the line about being impressed with your credentials in insulting. This is of course with the assumption that everyone's email contained that line.

If you find this line insulting, then don't ever apply for any legal jobs. I've gotten a "We found your resume highly impressive, but we are unable to offer you an interview/job" line in almost every job rejection letter I have gotten. And I think I got in in every LS rejection as well.

Sorry to hear about the dings guys.

It seems like passive aggressive-ness is the name of the game with lawyers. I always saw the Closing "Very Truly Yours," as extremely passive aggressive, sort of like a British fuck you, not unlike this...http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y0Rjn6W9 ... re=related

You think so? I don't see why they would have any reason to be aggressive in this situation. As in "Hey, thanks for wasting our time with your shitty f**** app"? I read it more as "Good try sport, pip pip."

Sorry bout the dings.

sold123 wrote:

ArthurDigbySellers wrote:

romothesavior wrote:

mrwarre85 wrote:Dinged.

I think the line about being impressed with your credentials in insulting. This is of course with the assumption that everyone's email contained that line.

If you find this line insulting, then don't ever apply for any legal jobs. I've gotten a "We found your resume highly impressive, but we are unable to offer you an interview/job" line in almost every job rejection letter I have gotten. And I think I got in in every LS rejection as well.

Sorry to hear about the dings guys.

It seems like passive aggressive-ness is the name of the game with lawyers. I always saw the Closing "Very Truly Yours," as extremely passive aggressive, sort of like a British fuck you, not unlike this...http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y0Rjn6W9 ... re=related

You think so? I don't see why they would have any reason to be aggressive in this situation. As in "Hey, thanks for wasting our time with your shitty f**** app"? I read it more as "Good try sport, pip pip."

Sorry bout the dings.

Lol no not rejection letters, I meant that having worked in a small litigation office, some (actually most) of the correspondence between lawyers is very passive aggressive.

Just rejected with a 3.44 and a 167? I really do not care but I am highly confused as to how I did not at least get a WL? I can honestly say that my odds of attending were .02% anyway.

SrLaw wrote:Just rejected with a 3.44 and a 167? I really do not care but I am highly confused as to how I did not at least get a WL? I can honestly say that my odds of attending were .02% anyway.

WUSTL is just stringing me along. Same LSAT, lower GPA, haven't changed date since 3/14.


Is this like in alphabetical order or something? lol