Chicago c/o 2015 Applicants (2011-2012 cycle) Forum

[jpal13]

Does anyone know what this means....


My online status changed to 12/9 on Friday and still under review, did I get held I wonder?

[BigJohnso]

Does anyone know what this means....


My online status changed to 12/9 on Friday and still under review, did I get held I wonder?

Hmmmm, mine is still on 12/2...

[larsoner]

Does anyone know what this means....


My online status changed to 12/9 on Friday and still under review, did I get held I wonder?

I don't know how Chicago goes about handling their applications, but if you check the Penn forum you'll see that a lot of people have been checked twice and it doesn't seem to mean rejection. The theory is that any time someone reviews your application, your status updates.

[msblaw89]

Does anyone know what this means....


My online status changed to 12/9 on Friday and still under review, did I get held I wonder?

I don't think movement is ever a bad thing

[skers]

Fuck, I'm nervous.

[Haymarket]

1Ls finished their first quarter exams today. You can now expect much less bitter answers from us.

Goodluck EDers.

[BigJohnso]

1Ls finished their first quarter exams today. You can now expect much less bitter answers from us.

Goodluck EDers.

Thanks!! Hopefully your exams went well!

[Bildungsroman]

1Ls finished their first quarter exams today. You can now expect much less bitter answers from us.

Make sure to get your questions in before grades come out. Expect 900% more bitterness from me after that.

[Samara]

1Ls finished their first quarter exams today. You can now expect much less bitter answers from us.

Make sure to get your questions in before grades come out. Expect 900% more bitterness from me after that.

I should probably ask this now then. What's with the UChi grading system? Are the numbers arbitrary? I get that it's supposed to provide greater granularity in the curve, but couldn't they choose something easier to understand?

[Haymarket]

1Ls finished their first quarter exams today. You can now expect much less bitter answers from us.

Make sure to get your questions in before grades come out. Expect 900% more bitterness from me after that.

I should probably ask this now then. What's with the UChi grading system? Are the numbers arbitrary? I get that it's supposed to provide greater granularity in the curve, but couldn't they choose something easier to understand?

Here is the story behind the grades as told to me by a longtime professor. The law school originally had the standard 1-100 grading scale, but then some time a in the 50's (I think) the faculty decided that the grading system should reflect the actual grades of law school exams. It's literally impossible for someone to write a "perfect" law school exam. So they limited the range from 55-86 as the possible scores to reflect this because, frankly, if you get 86% of all the possible things to talk about that's outstanding.

So that was the scale for a long time until some students began to complain somewhat that people weren't properly understanding the grades (it's unclear if that really was the case) and they were thinking an 82, which is an amazing score, was like a low B. So they added a 1 to the beginning of the number in 2003 (I think) to change it. So when the Dean made this change he looked at his kingdom, he was finally there, to sit on his throne as the Prince of Bel Air.

[Bildungsroman]

1Ls finished their first quarter exams today. You can now expect much less bitter answers from us.

Make sure to get your questions in before grades come out. Expect 900% more bitterness from me after that.

I should probably ask this now then. What's with the UChi grading system? Are the numbers arbitrary? I get that it's supposed to provide greater granularity in the curve, but couldn't they choose something easier to understand?

I'm not sure about the exact reasoning behind it, but it is kind of a cool concept to me. It seems to divorce the grading system completely from the ABCDF conception, which makes a lot of sense to do since law school grades are largely about relative performance on a curve and traditional grades carry different connotations and designate performance against a different standard. I don't know if this is te exact reasoning behind having the grades the way they are, but it's a reason in my own mind why I like it. I think what makes it confusing is when people do what I've seen lots of people do, which is try and translate the number grades into ABCDF grades. I never think of it as "oh a 177 is like a B+ and a 179 is like an A etc." because that just confuses things and doesn't serve any useful purpose.

[mijenks]

So when the Dean made this change he looked at his kingdom, he was finally there, to sit on his throne as the Prince of Bel Air.

Not subtle enough.

[Dany]

We had a professor explain it to us, so here goes. They originally had a 100-point scale, but then decided that sent the wrong message, because not even a perfect student could get a 100 as there are always issues and arguments you simply didn't see, no matter how brilliant you are. So they changed to an 86-point scale to signify that even someone who got the best grade possible (86) didn't get everything. [No idea why they decided on 86, though.] After a little while, students started complaining that they were being judged unfairly by employers, and that when employers saw an 85, they'd assume a ~B average even though it was really like an A+ average, so the administration added a 1 to the beginning of grades to clear this up. So now our grading system is 155-186, with a ~177 as the median in 1L classes.

DAMN YOU HAYMARKET.

[Haymarket]

So when the Dean made this change he looked at his kingdom, he was finally there, to sit on his throne as the Prince of Bel Air.

Not subtle enough.

I will not be sassed by you.

[mijenks]

So when the Dean made this change he looked at his kingdom, he was finally there, to sit on his throne as the Prince of Bel Air.

Not subtle enough.

I will not be sassed by you.

Your Bel-Airing needs more rigor...

[Samara]

Here is the story behind the grades as told to me by a longtime professor. The law school originally had the standard 1-100 grading scale, but then some time a in the 50's (I think) the faculty decided that the grading system should reflect the actual grades of law school exams. It's literally impossible for someone to write a "perfect" law school exam. So they limited the range from 55-86 as the possible scores to reflect this because, frankly, if you get 86% of all the possible things to talk about that's outstanding.

So that was the scale for a long time until some students began to complain somewhat that people weren't properly understanding the grades (it's unclear if that really was the case) and they were thinking an 82, which is an amazing score, was like a low B. So they added a 1 to the beginning of the number in 2003 (I think) to change it. So when the Dean made this change he looked at his kingdom, he was finally there, to sit on his throne as the Prince of Bel Air.

I actually kind of like their approach. Why enforce a floor and a ceiling though? If someone could master 86% of the material, why couldn't someone master 87% or 88%? If the idea is that once you are up to that level, what's the point of distinguishing because it is so difficult and rare, aren't you effectively using a traditional 0-100 scale?

[Bildungsroman]

Here is the story behind the grades as told to me by a longtime professor. The law school originally had the standard 1-100 grading scale, but then some time a in the 50's (I think) the faculty decided that the grading system should reflect the actual grades of law school exams. It's literally impossible for someone to write a "perfect" law school exam. So they limited the range from 55-86 as the possible scores to reflect this because, frankly, if you get 86% of all the possible things to talk about that's outstanding.

So that was the scale for a long time until some students began to complain somewhat that people weren't properly understanding the grades (it's unclear if that really was the case) and they were thinking an 82, which is an amazing score, was like a low B. So they added a 1 to the beginning of the number in 2003 (I think) to change it. So when the Dean made this change he looked at his kingdom, he was finally there, to sit on his throne as the Prince of Bel Air.

I actually kind of like their approach. Why enforce a floor and a ceiling though? If someone could master 86% of the material, why couldn't someone master 87% or 88%? If the idea is that once you are up to that level, what's the point of distinguishing because it is so difficult and rare, aren't you effectively using a traditional 0-100 scale?

But Professor, where do we draw the line?

[Dany]

But Professor, where do we draw the line?

Let's turn bingo into an in-class drinking game 2L year.

[Haymarket]

Here is the story behind the grades as told to me by a longtime professor. The law school originally had the standard 1-100 grading scale, but then some time a in the 50's (I think) the faculty decided that the grading system should reflect the actual grades of law school exams. It's literally impossible for someone to write a "perfect" law school exam. So they limited the range from 55-86 as the possible scores to reflect this because, frankly, if you get 86% of all the possible things to talk about that's outstanding.

So that was the scale for a long time until some students began to complain somewhat that people weren't properly understanding the grades (it's unclear if that really was the case) and they were thinking an 82, which is an amazing score, was like a low B. So they added a 1 to the beginning of the number in 2003 (I think) to change it. So when the Dean made this change he looked at his kingdom, he was finally there, to sit on his throne as the Prince of Bel Air.

I actually kind of like their approach. Why enforce a floor and a ceiling though? If someone could master 86% of the material, why couldn't someone master 87% or 88%? If the idea is that once you are up to that level, what's the point of distinguishing because it is so difficult and rare, aren't you effectively using a traditional 0-100 scale?

Without a floor and a ceiling......what are grades?

[msblaw89]

Can anyone who goes to Chicago sweet talk admissions and see when they will make phone calls

[Samara]

Here is the story behind the grades as told to me by a longtime professor. The law school originally had the standard 1-100 grading scale, but then some time a in the 50's (I think) the faculty decided that the grading system should reflect the actual grades of law school exams. It's literally impossible for someone to write a "perfect" law school exam. So they limited the range from 55-86 as the possible scores to reflect this because, frankly, if you get 86% of all the possible things to talk about that's outstanding.

So that was the scale for a long time until some students began to complain somewhat that people weren't properly understanding the grades (it's unclear if that really was the case) and they were thinking an 82, which is an amazing score, was like a low B. So they added a 1 to the beginning of the number in 2003 (I think) to change it. So when the Dean made this change he looked at his kingdom, he was finally there, to sit on his throne as the Prince of Bel Air.

I actually kind of like their approach. Why enforce a floor and a ceiling though? If someone could master 86% of the material, why couldn't someone master 87% or 88%? If the idea is that once you are up to that level, what's the point of distinguishing because it is so difficult and rare, aren't you effectively using a traditional 0-100 scale?

But Professor, where do we draw the line?

Without a floor and a ceiling......what are grades?

You guys suck.

I guess I'm just destined for a less rigorous grading scale.

[Dany]

Without a floor and a ceiling......what are grades?

[Curious1]

Am I right in saying that no RD decisions have come out yet? Just checking since last year the first batch was early December.

[Dany]

Am I right in saying that no RD decisions have come out yet? Just checking since last year the first batch was early December.

The first batch of RD decisions was in January.

[Curious1]

Am I right in saying that no RD decisions have come out yet? Just checking since last year the first batch was early December.

The first batch of RD decisions was in January.

Sorry I'm blind.