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.
jpal13
Posts: 278
Joined: Wed Oct 05, 2011 6:53 pm

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

Postby jpal13 » Sun Dec 11, 2011 9:22 pm

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
Posts: 102
Joined: Sun Oct 02, 2011 2:55 pm

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

Postby BigJohnso » Sun Dec 11, 2011 9:46 pm

jpal13 wrote: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...

User avatar
larsoner
Posts: 143
Joined: Fri Dec 09, 2011 11:33 am

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

Postby larsoner » Sun Dec 11, 2011 9:50 pm

jpal13 wrote: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.

User avatar
msblaw89
Posts: 2669
Joined: Wed Sep 07, 2011 6:10 pm

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

Postby msblaw89 » Sun Dec 11, 2011 9:54 pm

jpal13 wrote: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

User avatar
skers
Posts: 4950
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2010 12:33 am

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

Postby skers » Sun Dec 11, 2011 9:56 pm

Fuck, I'm nervous.

User avatar
Haymarket
Posts: 438
Joined: Tue Aug 30, 2011 1:09 pm

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

Postby Haymarket » Mon Dec 12, 2011 4:05 pm

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

Goodluck EDers.

BigJohnso
Posts: 102
Joined: Sun Oct 02, 2011 2:55 pm

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

Postby BigJohnso » Mon Dec 12, 2011 4:13 pm

Haymarket wrote: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!

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

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

Postby Bildungsroman » Mon Dec 12, 2011 4:14 pm

Haymarket wrote: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.

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

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

Postby Samara » Mon Dec 12, 2011 4:35 pm

Bildungsroman wrote:
Haymarket wrote: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?

User avatar
Haymarket
Posts: 438
Joined: Tue Aug 30, 2011 1:09 pm

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

Postby Haymarket » Mon Dec 12, 2011 4:41 pm

Samara wrote:
Bildungsroman wrote:
Haymarket wrote: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.

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

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

Postby Bildungsroman » Mon Dec 12, 2011 4:42 pm

Samara wrote:
Bildungsroman wrote:
Haymarket wrote: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
Posts: 191
Joined: Mon Dec 14, 2009 7:36 pm

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

Postby mijenks » Mon Dec 12, 2011 4:43 pm

Haymarket wrote: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.

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

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

Postby Dany » Mon Dec 12, 2011 4:44 pm

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.

User avatar
Haymarket
Posts: 438
Joined: Tue Aug 30, 2011 1:09 pm

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

Postby Haymarket » Mon Dec 12, 2011 4:45 pm

mijenks wrote:
Haymarket wrote: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
Posts: 191
Joined: Mon Dec 14, 2009 7:36 pm

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

Postby mijenks » Mon Dec 12, 2011 4:46 pm

Haymarket wrote:
mijenks wrote:
Haymarket wrote: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...

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

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

Postby Samara » Mon Dec 12, 2011 4:46 pm

Haymarket wrote: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?

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

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

Postby Bildungsroman » Mon Dec 12, 2011 4:48 pm

Samara wrote:
Haymarket wrote: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?

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

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

Postby Dany » Mon Dec 12, 2011 4:49 pm

Bildungsroman wrote:But Professor, where do we draw the line?

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

User avatar
Haymarket
Posts: 438
Joined: Tue Aug 30, 2011 1:09 pm

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

Postby Haymarket » Mon Dec 12, 2011 4:49 pm

Samara wrote:
Haymarket wrote: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?

User avatar
msblaw89
Posts: 2669
Joined: Wed Sep 07, 2011 6:10 pm

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

Postby msblaw89 » Mon Dec 12, 2011 4:54 pm

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

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

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

Postby Samara » Mon Dec 12, 2011 4:55 pm

Bildungsroman wrote:
Samara wrote:
Haymarket wrote: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?

Haymarket wrote:Without a floor and a ceiling......what are grades?

You guys suck. :P

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

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

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

Postby Dany » Mon Dec 12, 2011 5:05 pm

Haymarket wrote:Without a floor and a ceiling......what are grades?

Image

Curious1
Posts: 964
Joined: Sat Sep 03, 2011 7:54 pm

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

Postby Curious1 » Mon Dec 12, 2011 5:10 pm

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

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

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

Postby Dany » Mon Dec 12, 2011 5:10 pm

Curious1 wrote: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
Posts: 964
Joined: Sat Sep 03, 2011 7:54 pm

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

Postby Curious1 » Mon Dec 12, 2011 5:12 pm

Dany wrote:
Curious1 wrote: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.




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