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

Share Your Experiences, Read About Other Experiences. Please keep posts organized by school and expected year of graduation.
User avatar
elibrarian
Posts: 336
Joined: Fri Jul 23, 2010 11:49 am

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

Postby elibrarian » Thu Sep 01, 2011 2:31 pm

Samara wrote:So, Chicago asks that your resume include the number of hours spent per week on each job/activity. The application itself has a space for that, but I figure they want their instructions followed and for people to have that on their resume as well. My problem is that adding the hours spent would make my resume too crowded. Do you guys think it would be acceptable to replace:

Position -> Location -> Dates

with:

Position -> Hrs/wk -> Dates

I just don't know where else to put it that won't wreck the formatting. Maybe in the job description?


Confused. Is there an employment section I'm missing? I thought the only place to put hours for work, or work experience at all, was on your resume.

User avatar
Dany
Posts: 11580
Joined: Mon Sep 28, 2009 3:00 pm

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

Postby Dany » Thu Sep 01, 2011 2:32 pm

I took out location to fit in hours per week last year.

User avatar
Samara
Posts: 3245
Joined: Wed May 11, 2011 4:26 pm

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

Postby Samara » Thu Sep 01, 2011 2:37 pm

Dany wrote:I took out location to fit in hours per week last year.

Good to know, thanks!

elibrarian wrote:Confused. Is there an employment section I'm missing? I thought the only place to put hours for work, or work experience at all, was on your resume.

Oops, my bad. Northwestern has such a section and so I assumed before opening the Chicago app that Chicago's did too.

MumofCad
Posts: 974
Joined: Sat Jul 23, 2011 8:46 pm

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

Postby MumofCad » Fri Sep 02, 2011 5:35 pm

Fee waivers went out today! Hope everyone got one or gets one soon!

madvillain
Posts: 116
Joined: Wed May 18, 2011 10:39 am

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

Postby madvillain » Fri Sep 02, 2011 5:39 pm

Just got mine on email...in fact I was so happy about it that I just went ahead and submitted the application. Good luck to everyone.

(Not sure if Chicago will actually process the application until the 15th, but what the heck. Transmitted anyway.)

MumofCad
Posts: 974
Joined: Sat Jul 23, 2011 8:46 pm

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

Postby MumofCad » Fri Sep 02, 2011 5:47 pm

madvillain wrote:Just got mine on email...in fact I was so happy about it that I just went ahead and submitted the application. Good luck to everyone.

(Not sure if Chicago will actually process the application until the 15th, but what the heck. Transmitted anyway.)


Wait, you were able to transmit yours? My keeps saying I have to wait until the 15th. That's strange.

Oh wait, now it says I can. Humphf! Well shoot. I'd better finalize my PS.

madvillain
Posts: 116
Joined: Wed May 18, 2011 10:39 am

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

Postby madvillain » Fri Sep 02, 2011 5:50 pm

MumofCad wrote:
madvillain wrote:Just got mine on email...in fact I was so happy about it that I just went ahead and submitted the application. Good luck to everyone.

(Not sure if Chicago will actually process the application until the 15th, but what the heck. Transmitted anyway.)


Wait, you were able to transmit yours? My keeps saying I have to wait until the 15th. That's strange.


Yeah, I know, I was quite surprised as well. But apparently I was able to get through.
Last edited by madvillain on Sat Sep 03, 2011 9:04 am, edited 1 time in total.

MumofCad
Posts: 974
Joined: Sat Jul 23, 2011 8:46 pm

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

Postby MumofCad » Fri Sep 02, 2011 7:12 pm

Does anyone know the twitter name of Chicago admissions? I saw from last year's thread when looking to see when decisions came in that they tweet fairly regularly to answer questions and concerns. Thought it might be useful for the thread, but as you can probably tell, I don't know anything about using Twitter myself lol.

ETA; I'm assuming its different from the Chicago Law general tweets, but maybe not?

ETAA: Found it: @UChicagoLawApps (for other Twitter ignoramus)
Last edited by MumofCad on Fri Sep 02, 2011 7:25 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Bildungsroman
Posts: 5548
Joined: Sun Apr 11, 2010 2:42 pm

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

Postby Bildungsroman » Fri Sep 02, 2011 7:19 pm

MumofCad wrote:Does anyone know the twitter name of Chicago admissions? I saw from last year's thread when looking to see when decisions came in that they tweet fairly regularly to answer questions and concerns. Thought it might be useful for the thread, but as you can probably tell, I don't know anything about using Twitter myself lol.

ETA; I'm assuming its different from the Chicago Law general tweets, but maybe not?

--LinkRemoved--

User avatar
nids333
Posts: 104
Joined: Sun Jan 24, 2010 9:51 pm

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

Postby nids333 » Fri Sep 02, 2011 7:22 pm

madvillain wrote:Just got mine on email...in fact I was so happy about it that I just went ahead and submitted the application. Good luck to everyone.

(Not sure if Chicago will actually process the application until the 15th, but what the heck. Transmitted anyway.)



Just got mine as well! So stoked!

MumofCad
Posts: 974
Joined: Sat Jul 23, 2011 8:46 pm

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

Postby MumofCad » Fri Sep 02, 2011 7:28 pm

Bildungsroman wrote:--LinkRemoved--


Thanks! I just found it too! Can you tell I just finally gave in and signed up for Twitter yesterday?

I broke down. My husband is in IT so he's one of those "early adapters" of all new technology. Before I'd ever heard it mentioned anywhere, he was tweeting on his phone continually. It drove me nuts. He's still constantly busting up or cruising on his phone through tweets when we're watching movies. I took a moral stand against it, but I just couldn't do it any longer.

User avatar
Bildungsroman
Posts: 5548
Joined: Sun Apr 11, 2010 2:42 pm

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

Postby Bildungsroman » Fri Sep 02, 2011 8:18 pm

MumofCad wrote:
Bildungsroman wrote:--LinkRemoved--


Thanks! I just found it too! Can you tell I just finally gave in and signed up for Twitter yesterday?

I broke down. My husband is in IT so he's one of those "early adapters" of all new technology. Before I'd ever heard it mentioned anywhere, he was tweeting on his phone continually. It drove me nuts. He's still constantly busting up or cruising on his phone through tweets when we're watching movies. I took a moral stand against it, but I just couldn't do it any longer.

I don't even twitter, but I signed up to have the chicago law apps tweets sent to my phone for the week decisions from my batch were scheduled to come out, just so I could know when they announced they were going to the phones to begin making admit calls. That text was the only phone communication I got from Chicago that day. :lol:

MumofCad
Posts: 974
Joined: Sat Jul 23, 2011 8:46 pm

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

Postby MumofCad » Fri Sep 02, 2011 9:10 pm

Bildungsroman wrote:I don't even twitter, but I signed up to have the chicago law apps tweets sent to my phone for the week decisions from my batch were scheduled to come out, just so I could know when they announced they were going to the phones to begin making admit calls. That text was the only phone communication I got from Chicago that day. :lol:


Hahaha - yeah, that's pretty much my reason for signing up too.

I'm a little worried about all these phone calls. I'm often in the car with my kids when important calls come in. The blue-tooth automatically connects my phone once I get in and they can hear the whole car. In fact, it seems I am invariably in my car whenever someone calls that I would rather not have hear my son scream about how he is sure his sister has pooped her pants and needs to go straight to bed. I'm sure at least one law school call is going to go horribly awry.

Sigh.

Mista Bojangles
Posts: 243
Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2011 4:33 pm

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

Postby Mista Bojangles » Sat Sep 03, 2011 6:51 am

i got the fee waiver as well. i'm actually fairly sure i'm not interested in uchicago, but is it worth applying in any case in order to potentially get some help with scholarship leverage against peer schools? i'm interested in both C and N

User avatar
j12
Posts: 169
Joined: Fri Apr 01, 2011 3:41 pm

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

Postby j12 » Sat Sep 03, 2011 8:40 am

Mista Bojangles wrote:i got the fee waiver as well. i'm actually fairly sure i'm not interested in uchicago, but is it worth applying in any case in order to potentially get some help with scholarship leverage against peer schools? i'm interested in both C and N


Absolutely yes. The $16 CAS fee could net you a couple thousand in the end. Actually, don't apply. I want less competition.

Also, did these waivers come through email? I didn't get one :cry: .

MumofCad
Posts: 974
Joined: Sat Jul 23, 2011 8:46 pm

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

Postby MumofCad » Sat Sep 03, 2011 8:46 am

Mista Bojangles wrote:i got the fee waiver as well. i'm actually fairly sure i'm not interested in uchicago, but is it worth applying in any case in order to potentially get some help with scholarship leverage against peer schools? i'm interested in both C and N


Personally, I'm only applying to schools I would consider attending. So I'm your opposite, applying to UChi and not NYU or Columbia because I know I just couldn't live in NYC with my family for any amount of money.

I think the general wisdom though is to do just what you are saying. Especially with the big scholly money Chicago might hand out, I could see it giving you great leverage when the time comes. In the end though, you have to make the decision yourself about whether this is something you want to engage in. I'm fine with negotiating scholarships if there is really a debate going on for me, like a full-ride at one school a little lower ranked and nothing at a higher ranked school. I have nothing against the practice. But I wouldn't feel ethical saying, "hey, X school gave me this and I'd love to go to your school instead but you gave me X," unless it was actually true.

So I feel like TCR is for you to answer the question based on your own personal feeling about the ethics involved in using leverage at a school you really have zero intention of attending against the school you actually want to be at , considering as well the impact on others while you tie of a seat and scholly money you have no intention of taking while others are likewise trying to make their final choice.

User avatar
descartesb4thehorse
Posts: 1147
Joined: Wed Mar 16, 2011 1:03 am

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

Postby descartesb4thehorse » Sat Sep 03, 2011 9:04 am

It's not really unethical, though. Schools expect you to be able to say that you have a certain scholarship somewhere, and you're putting yourself at a deep disadvantage if you don't. That's why applying to only one school isn't really a good idea. The app process is a game of skill, and it's not unethical to play that game. Law school adcomms all talk to each other, there's a lot of transparency among them, and if they felt this practice was unethical, they wouldn't change their scholarship amounts based on what other schools are giving. But they're trying to recruit you, and there's nothing wrong with getting a higher valuation somewhere else so you have something to bring to the table in the negotiations.

That being said, it hurts my heart when someone says they have absolutely no desire to go to a school that I think is a really great place, so I know where your animosity is coming from. People also change their mind. They just applied because of a fee waiver, or they wanted to leverage scholly, or they would only go there if it was their only acceptance at a TX, and then they end up loving it and picking it over their previous top choices. So when I hear someone doesn't like a place like Chicago, I just think they haven't done all their homework yet. :wink:

MumofCad
Posts: 974
Joined: Sat Jul 23, 2011 8:46 pm

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

Postby MumofCad » Sat Sep 03, 2011 9:29 am

descartesb4thehorse wrote:It's not really unethical, though.


That is why I said you have to decide for yourself about the ethics of the practice. For me, I'm not comfortable with the ethics of saying I'm tempted to go somewhere that I'm not to wrangle money out of people. Others might feel its part of the "game." As I said, I'm happy to play the game when my moves are truthful and that is why schools don't take action to eliminate the practice. There is a legitimate purpose and benefit to it, and they have no way of knowing who is being honest and who is being dishonest about their intentions. If they eliminated the practice, the honest would go down with the dishonest. That's another reason why I hope the practice isn't horribly abused by people just playing a game, because then people trying to negotiate in good faith will meet a heavy dose of sceptism by the adcoms. Or might even be told "no" in lieu of someone with no real intention of saying "yes." It'd be a shame to disrupt the whole practice for the benefit of a few seeking to maximize their own personal reward or just playing a game.

I totally plan to play the game if I need to, but I'm not willing to lie. That's just me.

If you are applying to only 1 or 2 schools then you def haven't done your homework. And I think some genuinely apply to all T-14 unsure of where they want to go and how they want to see the trade-off between $$$/higher rank. Of course, their uncertainty contributes to the impulse by schools to YP and thus hurts those applying with an actual intention of going below their numbers, but genuine uncertainty is fair game to seek the best possible array of options. To me, its totally different than knowingly applying somewhere you would never go. Maybe I'm in a unique position because there aren't a lot of people that are dead-set against certain schools like I am, but I'm not applying to Columbia, NYU, UPenn, Georgetown which is blocks from my house. All are in range of other schools I am applying to, but I wouldn't take a full-ride to any of them so I just won't apply. I am applying to 8 schools though and obviously not going to attend all of them (solely because of the debt of course ;), I'd love to spend the next 24 years getting law degrees).

User avatar
j12
Posts: 169
Joined: Fri Apr 01, 2011 3:41 pm

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

Postby j12 » Sat Sep 03, 2011 9:52 am

At this point, if you're applying to Chicago with a legitimate chance, you're applying to one of the best professional schools in the country. You are applying for the quality of education and the opportunities upon graduation, not b/c of the location.

If I could pick anywhere in the world to live Boston, Chicago, New York, and especially New Haven would not be at the top of my list, but if I got into certain schools in those cities I would suck it up and move there.

I understand due to having a family Mumofcard ruling out certain cities, but the earlier individual who said s/he wasn't interested in Chicago is making a mistake by ruling it out if purely for reasons of location. I think if you get a fee-waiver to a school on this level you should apply no matter what. Even if you don't think you'll go there, even if now you say you know you won't go there now, why close that door if you don't have to? You can choose whether or not to use it for scholarship leverage later in the game if you apply, are accepted, visit, and then know it's not the right fit for you.
To say that it is unethical I think is taking a rather narrow scope. You can say "Hey X comparable school offered me more $. I'd rather go to your school, but I'd like an offer more in line with X." They can comply or they can say no, and you still go to the school of your choice. You never threatened to say you wouldn't go or needed more to attend, but just let them know of another offer to better your opportunities.

ETA: When I applied for my job, they asked what I was looking for in salary. I told them then only offer I had so far was for X, but I was looking for something more in the range of Y. I told them where I got Y from doing research on going rates for people w/ similar education and positions. They gave me Y+ and not something closer to X, because they knew that's what it would take to get me. I consider this to be pretty similar, except you may actually get a hard offer on your side and not just say "other people I saw on LSN got this."
Last edited by j12 on Sat Sep 03, 2011 10:07 am, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Dany
Posts: 11580
Joined: Mon Sep 28, 2009 3:00 pm

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

Postby Dany » Sat Sep 03, 2011 9:57 am

I ruled a lot of schools out because of location. You couldn't pay me to go to Berkeley, Michigan, Cornell, Duke, and some others - all fantastic schools, but not right for me. To some people location won't be important, and to others it will.

MumofCad
Posts: 974
Joined: Sat Jul 23, 2011 8:46 pm

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

Postby MumofCad » Sat Sep 03, 2011 11:09 am

j12 wrote:To say that it is unethical I think is taking a rather narrow scope.


That's why I didn't say it was unethical. I'm not sure that it is and really don't care too much one way or the other. I'm just not comfortable with the practice if it involves outright lying for me. Negotiating a job salary does not involve deceit (or it shouldn't). Maybe its because I've spent so much time in ME conflict resolution, where your honor is prime in getting a deal not only worked out, but to stick.

But I def do think in comparison to most Americans that I take a narrow view of ethical questions. That's where my cookie crumbles. I like to get ahead as much as the next guy, but I also like to sleep soundly at night (well as soundly as I can with two kids under 4 and being 6 months pregnant lol). Everyone has their own tolerance for these things, mine def is low relative to other people and that's why I wouldn't judge them engaging in the practice. If they think its right for them and they are happy to do so, feel free. Its just not the right choice for me and not the way I want to make the first decision of my legal career. That's why I gave the original questioners both perspectives and encouraged them to think it over, and choose the path that was right for them. I don't think there can be a standard, "yes, you must do this or you are an idiot," or "no, you absolutely shouldn't or your destined to become an evil corporate bastard" lol. Like most things, its a grey area and depends ultimately on the comfort level of the person engaged in the behavior.

ETA: But I totally agree with you that if there is any doubt about attendance, you should apply. Its so early in the cycle and you don't want to have regrets over $16. There is no question in that regard and if I was 22, I would probably be blanketing the T-14 and visiting around 5 before making a final decision. I think it is unique to know certain places you couldn't be paid to live (well just NY really) with 3 small children; because I did my masters in London and I'm a country girl. I've actually lived in a comparable city and spent a good deal of time in NY, so I know from experience I wouldn't be happy there. I love DC, but I was not happy with the quality of life in London because I need to be able to easily access some level of rural life. You don't grow up hay-raking and frog-jumping, and then feel comfortable in a small apartment with 3 kids. I don't know how to manage that lifestyle well and I wouldn't want that stress on top of the already stressful law school transition. I totally can do it on my own, but want to expose my kids to the sort of pleasures I took from my youth. In youth though, I think one should really explore the options and take some leaps out of their comfort zone. I'm glad I got to live in London, even though I know I don't want to end up there again.

MumofCad
Posts: 974
Joined: Sat Jul 23, 2011 8:46 pm

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

Postby MumofCad » Sat Sep 03, 2011 6:48 pm

ETA:

Submitted: 9/6

Complete: 9/13

Decision:

Good luck everyone!
Last edited by MumofCad on Wed Sep 14, 2011 11:10 am, edited 2 times in total.

User avatar
Hawkeye Pierce
Posts: 1261
Joined: Tue Sep 21, 2010 12:18 am

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

Postby Hawkeye Pierce » Wed Sep 07, 2011 12:14 am

Just submitted my app!

User avatar
Tiago Splitter
Posts: 15512
Joined: Tue Jun 28, 2011 1:20 am

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

Postby Tiago Splitter » Wed Sep 07, 2011 12:17 am

Submitted as well.

User avatar
Dany
Posts: 11580
Joined: Mon Sep 28, 2009 3:00 pm

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

Postby Dany » Wed Sep 07, 2011 12:19 am

Now you get to wait until January!




Return to “Law School Acceptances, Denials, and Waitlists”