UVa. Regular Decision Forum

[r6_philly]

got an e-mail today from the dean telling me that I was missing a transcript and that they cant give offers without it and if I can please send in my transcript ASAP...I only took a few classes at this community college and also have a financial obligation there hence why i didnt include it. I responded telling him that I am taking care of it and attached a scanned version of the transcript in the meantime. The fact he emailed me and told me he cant make an offer without it, does that bode well for me if I get the transcript in ASAP??
(167, 4.05GPA, URM)

Did you list this school at LSAC? I am suprised they even generated a report for you.

ETA: you are shoo-in with those number.

[CM612]

got an e-mail today from the dean telling me that I was missing a transcript and that they cant give offers without it and if I can please send in my transcript ASAP...I only took a few classes at this community college and also have a financial obligation there hence why i didnt include it. I responded telling him that I am taking care of it and attached a scanned version of the transcript in the meantime. The fact he emailed me and told me he cant make an offer without it, does that bode well for me if I get the transcript in ASAP??
(167, 4.05GPA, URM)

I'd say it bodes pretty well for you.

[unc0mm0n1]

got an e-mail today from the dean telling me that I was missing a transcript and that they cant give offers without it and if I can please send in my transcript ASAP...I only took a few classes at this community college and also have a financial obligation there hence why i didnt include it. I responded telling him that I am taking care of it and attached a scanned version of the transcript in the meantime. The fact he emailed me and told me he cant make an offer without it, does that bode well for me if I get the transcript in ASAP??
(167, 4.05GPA, URM)

You have two masters including one from U. of C right? If I got a scholarship of 90,000 you're at least getting that. (my masters was from Oklahoma not quite U of Chicago).

[WhatSarahSaid]

does that bode well for me if I get the transcript in ASAP??

Let's put it this way -- he's not scrambling for your transcript so that he can waitlist you.

[r6_philly]

You have two masters including one from U. of C right? If I got a scholarship of 90,000 you're at least getting that. (my masters was from Oklahoma not quite U of Chicago).

You think people with master's get the 90k offer? That's interesting. that's making mine worth something lol

[Ship87]

Waitlisted this afternoon. This is my first non-acceptance of the cycle, and UVA wasn't very high on my list anyways so I think I'll be withdrawing my app soon. Good luck to everyone!

[unc0mm0n1]

You have two masters including one from U. of C right? If I got a scholarship of 90,000 you're at least getting that. (my masters was from Oklahoma not quite U of Chicago).

You think people with master's get the 90k offer? That's interesting. that's making mine worth something lol

I think it's a nice soft. Every law school view book I've received so far seems to showcase the number of students they have with graduate degrees. I was just pointing out his are from Chicago and UCLA two very prestigious schools, I don't think that would hurt esp when dishing out the cash.

[vi_vi]

I listed on LSAC but indicated that I had a financial obligation with them and since it wasn't my degree granting school it didn't seem to be a problem. So far I haven't had any issues generating the LSAC reports for any school.

I'm hoping that the scanned in transcript I sent him will serve the purpose of giving me an admit on the condition I get my transcript in to LSAC in a reasonable and timely fashion.

[r6_philly]

I listed on LSAC but indicated that I had a financial obligation with them and since it wasn't my degree granting school it didn't seem to be a problem. So far I haven't had any issues generating the LSAC reports for any school.

I'm hoping that the scanned in transcript I sent him will serve the purpose of giving me an admit on the condition I get my transcript in to LSAC in a reasonable and timely fashion.

I see. You will probably get in with $$$ unless the transcripts are super ugly lol

You probably have decent chances at all the schools anyway. Good luck!

[Ghost]

.

[Dany]

Still nothing here! Come on, UVA. I even played softball in high school.

[absolutazn87]

Nothing here either!! C'mon UVA. I hope the LOCI I sent doesn't just postpone an inevitable WL. If it's gonna be a WL, just let me know!

[r6_philly]

Nothing here either!! C'mon UVA. I hope the LOCI I sent doesn't just postpone an inevitable WL. If it's gonna be a WL, just let me know!

You are going to be in.

[agora139]

UVA's unpredictability is irritating

[well-hello-there]

(quote="well-hello-there"]
whatev. non-urm with a 167 LSAT claiming all the top scholarships from all the top schools because his/her "PERSONALITY really shined through on the applications"! obv. troll is obvious.

i don't know about berkeley stipend but you can get $20K/year at UVA[/quote)

Regardless of what you think of him, you giving bad info is just as bad.

FTR, neonx is definitely not a troll.

y'all seem pretty convinced so maybe there's something i'm missing....just noticed a PM which I will check after work. If I'm wrong, I'll apologize.

haha, no he really isn't, although i guess none of us can know for sure. he has had an extremely good cycle, though, which makes him a bit of an outlier/look like a troll.

yeah, I'm still not convinced. All y'all's being so adamant had me doubting myself for a minute there. As far as I can tell, however, none of you are privy to any info. that I don't have. Therefore, you all have no reason to believe his/her outlandish claims.

[r6_philly]

yeah, I'm still not convinced. All y'all's being so adamant had me doubting myself for a minute there. As far as I can tell, however, none of you are privy to any info. that I don't have. Therefore, you all have no reason to believe his/her outlandish claims.

Haha no one needs to believe anyone on here. It doesn't matter all that much, all that matters is where I am going to be heading.

[somewhere]

yeah, I'm still not convinced. All y'all's being so adamant had me doubting myself for a minute there. As far as I can tell, however, none of you are privy to any info. that I don't have. Therefore, you all have no reason to believe his/her outlandish claims.

They're only outlandish if you assume that acceptance and scholarship money are determined entirely by LSAT scores, or so overwhelmingly controlled by LSAT scores that a 167 is damnation— and such an assumption is refuted by abundant evidence to the contrary, and by the repeated explicit statements of directors of admissions at every selective law school.

[Flips88]

yeah, I'm still not convinced. All y'all's being so adamant had me doubting myself for a minute there. As far as I can tell, however, none of you are privy to any info. that I don't have. Therefore, you all have no reason to believe his/her outlandish claims.

They're only outlandish if you assume that acceptance and scholarship money are determined entirely by LSAT scores, or so overwhelmingly controlled by LSAT scores that a 167 is damnation— and such an assumption is refuted by abundant evidence to the contrary, and by the repeated explicit statements of directors of admissions at every selective law school.

LSAT isn't the be all end all of admissions and scholarship, but I believe the instances of non-URM sub-170 LSATs getting large schollys at T-14s are largely exceptions to the rule

[paulinaporizkova]

yeah, I'm still not convinced. All y'all's being so adamant had me doubting myself for a minute there. As far as I can tell, however, none of you are privy to any info. that I don't have. Therefore, you all have no reason to believe his/her outlandish claims.

They're only outlandish if you assume that acceptance and scholarship money are determined entirely by LSAT scores, or so overwhelmingly controlled by LSAT scores that a 167 is damnation— and such an assumption is refuted by abundant evidence to the contrary, and by the repeated explicit statements of directors of admissions at every selective law school.

unfortunately they've been known to stretch the truth to keep their number of applications up. if you think you have a chance, you'll apply. if you don't, you won't. and that's a lot of money to gain or lose in application fees and yield percentages as rank indicators

[somewhere]

yeah, I'm still not convinced. All y'all's being so adamant had me doubting myself for a minute there. As far as I can tell, however, none of you are privy to any info. that I don't have. Therefore, you all have no reason to believe his/her outlandish claims.

They're only outlandish if you assume that acceptance and scholarship money are determined entirely by LSAT scores, or so overwhelmingly controlled by LSAT scores that a 167 is damnation— and such an assumption is refuted by abundant evidence to the contrary, and by the repeated explicit statements of directors of admissions at every selective law school.

LSAT isn't the be all end all of admissions and scholarship, but I believe the instances of non-URM sub-170 LSATs getting large schollys at T-14s are largely exceptions to the rule

My point was only that being relatively rare does not make something outlandish or on-its-face unbelievable.

[r6_philly]

My point was only that being relatively rare does not make something outlandish or on-its-face unbelievable.

Being relatively rare = doesn't happen often if at all.

Admission deans = marketing professionals.

[somewhere]

unfortunately they've been known to stretch the truth to keep their number of applications up.

I am not aware of any compelling evidence that this is true.

Your explanation of the motive is perfectly sensible. But motive alone does not imply guilt.

I believe the motive for many people to be certain that you're right is the fact that they got rejected from places with borderline numbers and it hurt their ego. Hurts it even more to see somebody with lower numbers getting in. But there's a valid alternate explanation: that sometimes people with lower numbers have otherwise more compelling applications.

[r6_philly]

My point was only that being relatively rare does not make something outlandish or on-its-face unbelievable.

Also,

Outlandish = "exceeding proper or reasonable limits or standards " - Merriam-Webster

[somewhere]

Being relatively rare = doesn't happy often if at all.

If it doesn't happen at all, it's not rare, it's non-existent.

There is abundant evidence, however, that people with lower numbers sometimes get accepted above where their numbers would suggest, and sometimes (but more rarely) even with money. The lower you go, the rarer, obviously, and into non-existence. But the claim that the present case is outlandish is, as I see it, false, and more suggestive of a bruised ego than perception of the truth.

[somewhere]

My point was only that being relatively rare does not make something outlandish or on-its-face unbelievable.

Also,

Outlandish = "exceeding proper or reasonable limits or standards " - Merriam-Webster

People with webbed toes are rare. It is not outlandish to say that people with webbed toes exist.