StickyIcky wrote:Wow, it seems as though the coldness of the legal community typically stereotyped has become a self-fulfilling prophecy on these forums. Sure, these are "businesses," but they are non-profit businesses whose first and foremost aim should be attempting to train future lawyers. While gaming the numbers has become an unfortunate part of the admissions process, that doesn't mean that law schools should start forgetting that they are dealing with real people. If you reject one person and waitlist another, it's absurd to say that the law school's intentions are anything other than the categories proscribed; sure, the law schools can legally do whatever they please, but the OP is making a normative claim about the moral and ethical issues involved.
To everyone mocking the OP as a "sore loser" (or something along those lines), congrats on making fun of someone just looking to relay their frustration with what has become an unnecessarily grueling process. Law school requires some innovative thinking; try empathizing for a second instead of immediately reacting with whatever the most ruthless reply can be.
Ok I was willing to let this sleeping dog lie, but now...
The "coldness" of the legal community that you deride is what allows for rational thought, objective thinking, and equal application of the law across all parties. I originally empathized with the OP's situation, lots of us did. That does not mean the OP gets to go around whining that what Case Western's actions (or those of any other lawschool with similar practices) are "unethical" when they are clearly not. The OP is not a special little snowflake, he or she gets no more rights than the rest of us do. Case Western's actions are frustrating, annoying, and downright rude, but that does not make them unethical, as the OP has repeatedly attempted to assert.
As I said, words mean something. You can't get up and yell at the top of your lungs making bombastic claims when they simply are not true. If the OP had said, "I'm pissed off, I'm upset, I don't know what to do," you get a sympathetic shoulder to cry on from my angle and words of wisdom. The OP took a different path. Instead, he or she asserted that an entire set of adcomms and deans were somehow deficient in their ethical duties to applicants, because they exercised their own judgment and wisdom on who they want in their law school (which was their right, lest we forget that nobody has asserted to the contrary). The law school owes the OP no ethical duty to continuously inform the OP of the likelihood of getting off the waitlist, just as the OP owes no duty to the law school to stay on the waitlist. The OP makes a conscious, continuous choice to remain committed to Case Western's waitlist, including submitting to however they choose to administer admissions decisions. If the OP don't like it, don't keep submitting to practices you find rude.Its just wrong on so many levels to reach for that word, "unethical", especially around lawyers and future lawyers, without fully comprehending what the consequences of using that word are, and doubly so when the facts do not support your charges.
The OP is not entitled to special treatment for misinterpreting the clear language of a waitlist (it is not an offer of admission, nor does it imply that you will get off at any time in the future, nor does it imply any particular probability of getting off said waitlist, nor does it imply a duty to inform WL candidates of their relative chances of getting off the waitlist). The OP is not entitled to hurl ethics charges at a school and series of adcomms just because he or she is in a crappy position.
As I've said multiple times before in this thread, the OP has two choices here: 1) Accept the decision of Case and ride out the waitlist knowing their conditions OR 2) Call up Case, tell them you're withdrawing, and tell them exactly why. Empathy has nothing to do with why the OP is going around calling people unethical when their actions clearly are not even close to unethical. If you want empathy, you should be giving it to the adcomms at Case who have been run through the muck here for no good reason. Who the heck defends them here, especially when they've done ABSOLUTELY NOTHING WRONG. The OP made his or her own bed, in spite of our attempts at reasoning with him or her. The OP couldn't see past his or her own anger and disillusionment, and continued hurling charges of unethical behavior. The OP, quite frankly, should be apologizing to Case Western. We're not calling the OP a sore loser. What we are saying is its completely wrong to call this unethical behavior and the OP had no right to say as much (especially after the OP asked us if he or she was being unreasonable...which we did, and the OP just kept it up.)
Now I'm really done...