Michigan 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
crooked
Posts: 253
Joined: Fri Jan 21, 2011 11:23 pm

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

Postby crooked » Mon Nov 28, 2011 3:30 pm

Congratulations!

User avatar
baconpuffs
Posts: 154
Joined: Mon May 31, 2010 10:18 pm

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

Postby baconpuffs » Mon Nov 28, 2011 3:34 pm

JoeMo wrote:OMG OMG OMG! I'm in!!!! I didn't think this was going to happen for me. I am so happy. I'll be seeing you guys in Ann Arbor for ASW!!!!!! :)

=D congrats!

User avatar
Hopefully2012
Posts: 465
Joined: Sun Jul 10, 2011 5:22 pm

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

Postby Hopefully2012 » Mon Nov 28, 2011 3:36 pm

JoeMo wrote:OMG OMG OMG! I'm in!!!! I didn't think this was going to happen for me. I am so happy. I'll be seeing you guys in Ann Arbor for ASW!!!!!! :)

Congrats!! I'm all for reverse splitter love. :)

Real Madrid
Posts: 835
Joined: Mon May 30, 2011 12:21 am

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

Postby Real Madrid » Mon Nov 28, 2011 3:41 pm

Anyone else already started looking at apartments?
:)

daydreamer
Posts: 108
Joined: Thu Jun 10, 2010 4:10 pm

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

Postby daydreamer » Mon Nov 28, 2011 3:45 pm

JoeMo wrote:OMG OMG OMG! I'm in!!!! I didn't think this was going to happen for me. I am so happy. I'll be seeing you guys in Ann Arbor for ASW!!!!!! :)


That's awesome, congrats! When did you send/go complete?

User avatar
crooked
Posts: 253
Joined: Fri Jan 21, 2011 11:23 pm

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

Postby crooked » Mon Nov 28, 2011 3:47 pm

Real Madrid wrote:Anyone else already started looking at apartments?
:)


Waiting to see how my cycle plays out, but I've definitely thought about it. Hoping the "Housing" section of ASW is updated soon.

User avatar
baconpuffs
Posts: 154
Joined: Mon May 31, 2010 10:18 pm

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

Postby baconpuffs » Mon Nov 28, 2011 3:50 pm

crooked wrote:
Real Madrid wrote:Anyone else already started looking at apartments?
:)


Waiting to see how my cycle plays out, but I've definitely thought about it. Hoping the "Housing" section of ASW is updated soon.

+1

Is anyone in this position admitted for summer start only?

User avatar
Hopefully2012
Posts: 465
Joined: Sun Jul 10, 2011 5:22 pm

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

Postby Hopefully2012 » Mon Nov 28, 2011 3:58 pm

baconpuffs wrote:
crooked wrote:
Real Madrid wrote:Anyone else already started looking at apartments?
:)


Waiting to see how my cycle plays out, but I've definitely thought about it. Hoping the "Housing" section of ASW is updated soon.

+1

Is anyone in this position admitted for summer start only?

I started posting some apt related stuff on the Mich Class of 2015 thread (viewtopic.php?f=32&t=166294). Seems like the best deal is to sublet during the summer and get a head start on the housing search for the fall while we're in Ann Arbor.

03121202698008
Posts: 3002
Joined: Fri Jul 17, 2009 2:07 am

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

Postby 03121202698008 » Mon Nov 28, 2011 4:17 pm

Hopefully2012 wrote:
baconpuffs wrote:
crooked wrote:
Real Madrid wrote:Anyone else already started looking at apartments?
:)


Waiting to see how my cycle plays out, but I've definitely thought about it. Hoping the "Housing" section of ASW is updated soon.

+1

Is anyone in this position admitted for summer start only?

I started posting some apt related stuff on the Mich Class of 2015 thread (http://www.top-law-schools.com/forums/v ... 2&t=166294). Seems like the best deal is to sublet during the summer and get a head start on the housing search for the fall while we're in Ann Arbor.


You need to be looking for the fall now. Places are already re-leasing for then. The market in AA locks up super early.

User avatar
WhiteGuy5
Posts: 919
Joined: Thu Oct 06, 2011 3:47 pm

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

Postby WhiteGuy5 » Mon Nov 28, 2011 4:29 pm

Umm...still no status checker. Submitted early Nov. Should I call?

TheRedMamba
Posts: 177
Joined: Thu Dec 30, 2010 2:33 pm

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

Postby TheRedMamba » Mon Nov 28, 2011 4:30 pm

WhiteGuy5 wrote:Umm...still no status checker. Submitted early Nov. Should I call?


+1

lawgem
Posts: 4
Joined: Thu Nov 03, 2011 7:09 am

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

Postby lawgem » Mon Nov 28, 2011 4:39 pm

Congrats JoeMo!

How did you find out? Wondering when the decision was available to you. I think you are the first Oct LSAT taker to get a response. Are you ED? Hope this is just the beginning of good news for today/tomorrow..... :) Good luck to everyone still waiting!

User avatar
Campagnolo
Posts: 906
Joined: Wed Oct 28, 2009 5:49 pm

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

Postby Campagnolo » Mon Nov 28, 2011 4:45 pm

TheRedMamba wrote:
WhiteGuy5 wrote:Umm...still no status checker. Submitted early Nov. Should I call?


+1


I'm in the same boat. I don't think there's anything to worry about. Give 'em a month or so. They only send out status checkers on Tuesdays. If you don't get one tomorrow, you could call on Wednesday, but honestly, they'll get to you.

addy11
Posts: 479
Joined: Wed Oct 12, 2011 11:01 pm

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

Postby addy11 » Mon Nov 28, 2011 4:53 pm

lawgem wrote:Congrats JoeMo!

How did you find out? Wondering when the decision was available to you. I think you are the first Oct LSAT taker to get a response. Are you ED? Hope this is just the beginning of good news for today/tomorrow..... :) Good luck to everyone still waiting!


It's important to note that he's an URM. Seems like at all schools URMs have a different cadence for admission (i.e., Tuesday has a bunch of URMs admitted, then on Thursday and Friday you'll see a bunch of non-URM admits).

User avatar
JoeMo
Posts: 1518
Joined: Tue Oct 11, 2011 10:29 am

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

Postby JoeMo » Mon Nov 28, 2011 4:59 pm

addy11 wrote:
lawgem wrote:Congrats JoeMo!

How did you find out? Wondering when the decision was available to you. I think you are the first Oct LSAT taker to get a response. Are you ED? Hope this is just the beginning of good news for today/tomorrow..... :) Good luck to everyone still waiting!


It's important to note that he's an URM. Seems like at all schools URMs have a different cadence for admission (i.e., Tuesday has a bunch of URMs admitted, then on Thursday and Friday you'll see a bunch of non-URM admits).


I'm not URM. Not sure where you got that from.

User avatar
JoeMo
Posts: 1518
Joined: Tue Oct 11, 2011 10:29 am

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

Postby JoeMo » Mon Nov 28, 2011 5:02 pm

lawgem wrote:Congrats JoeMo!

How did you find out? Wondering when the decision was available to you. I think you are the first Oct LSAT taker to get a response. Are you ED? Hope this is just the beginning of good news for today/tomorrow..... :) Good luck to everyone still waiting!


I found out via a very kind personal e-mail from Dean Z. I was not ED. And I went complete 11/10 if I'm going by the second status checker e-mail.

This is truly a blessing this early in the season. Michigan was my #1 choice and so this is where I'll be going.

Also, FWIW I don't know why the personal e-mail vs. the way everyone else has been hearing. I just know that I was as shocked as anyone else.

User avatar
thelaststraw05
Posts: 1028
Joined: Fri Nov 05, 2010 7:47 am

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

Postby thelaststraw05 » Mon Nov 28, 2011 5:02 pm

addy11 wrote:
lawgem wrote:Congrats JoeMo!

How did you find out? Wondering when the decision was available to you. I think you are the first Oct LSAT taker to get a response. Are you ED? Hope this is just the beginning of good news for today/tomorrow..... :) Good luck to everyone still waiting!


It's important to note that he's an URM. Seems like at all schools URMs have a different cadence for admission (i.e., Tuesday has a bunch of URMs admitted, then on Thursday and Friday you'll see a bunch of non-URM admits).


Also Michigan law (as in the law of the state of Michigan) does not allow the use of race in admissions:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michigan_C ... Initiative

addy11
Posts: 479
Joined: Wed Oct 12, 2011 11:01 pm

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

Postby addy11 » Mon Nov 28, 2011 5:12 pm

thelaststraw05 wrote:
addy11 wrote:
lawgem wrote:Congrats JoeMo!

How did you find out? Wondering when the decision was available to you. I think you are the first Oct LSAT taker to get a response. Are you ED? Hope this is just the beginning of good news for today/tomorrow..... :) Good luck to everyone still waiting!


It's important to note that he's an URM. Seems like at all schools URMs have a different cadence for admission (i.e., Tuesday has a bunch of URMs admitted, then on Thursday and Friday you'll see a bunch of non-URM admits).


Also Michigan law (as in the law of the state of Michigan) does not allow the use of race in admissions:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michigan_C ... Initiative


Oops. I'm doubly an idiot then. I made the illicit assumption that Ethnic Minority = URM, and then forgot about the initiative.

Oh well... then this is good! The next race blind cohort will be hearing soon. Here's to hoping we're all in it. :)

User avatar
amc987
Posts: 568
Joined: Sat Aug 29, 2009 10:58 am

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

Postby amc987 » Mon Nov 28, 2011 5:14 pm

thelaststraw05 wrote:Also Michigan law (as in the law of the state of Michigan) does not allow the use of race in admissions:


This actually isn't accurate. As a result of the SC's decision in Grutter vs. Bollinger, the University of Michigan and other state universities have a compelling interest in admitting a diverse class of law students. Using affirmative action in that context was deemed narrowly tailored to meet that interest. Michigan is allowed to consider race and ethnicity holistically and use those aspects of an applicant's background when they're making decisions. Michigan can't have quotas or give an application an automatic number of additional points just because the applicant is a URM, but they are allowed to weigh race along with lots of other factors when they choose the incoming class. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grutter_v._Bollinger

User avatar
JoeMo
Posts: 1518
Joined: Tue Oct 11, 2011 10:29 am

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

Postby JoeMo » Mon Nov 28, 2011 5:15 pm

addy11 wrote:Oops. I'm doubly an idiot then. I made the illicit assumption that Ethnic Minority = URM, and then forgot about the initiative.

Oh well... then this is good! The next race blind cohort will be hearing soon. Here's to hoping we're all in it. :)


Lol, I should probably change that because you're not the first person to think that. I think Minority only = URM if you're Native American, African American, Mexican or Puerto Rican. At least from what I've heard from other TLS'ers. Thus, I don't qualify.

03121202698008
Posts: 3002
Joined: Fri Jul 17, 2009 2:07 am

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

Postby 03121202698008 » Mon Nov 28, 2011 5:20 pm

amc987 wrote:
thelaststraw05 wrote:Also Michigan law (as in the law of the state of Michigan) does not allow the use of race in admissions:


This actually isn't accurate. As a result of the SC's decision in Grutter vs. Bollinger, the University of Michigan and other state universities have a compelling interest in admitting a diverse class of law students. Using affirmative action in that context was deemed narrowly tailored to meet that interest. Michigan is allowed to consider race and ethnicity holistically and use those aspects of an applicant's background when they're making decisions. Michigan can't have quotas or give an application an automatic number of additional points just because the applicant is a URM, but they are allowed to weigh race along with lots of other factors when they choose the incoming class. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grutter_v._Bollinger


Michigan amended their state constitution after Grutter specifically to prohibit such consideration. Hence why he said the state of MI, and not the 14th Amendment. So actually, it's very accurate. I'd advise you to be careful making legal assertions you aren't positive of.
Last edited by 03121202698008 on Mon Nov 28, 2011 5:25 pm, edited 2 times in total.

User avatar
thelaststraw05
Posts: 1028
Joined: Fri Nov 05, 2010 7:47 am

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

Postby thelaststraw05 » Mon Nov 28, 2011 5:24 pm

blowhard wrote:
amc987 wrote:
thelaststraw05 wrote:Also Michigan law (as in the law of the state of Michigan) does not allow the use of race in admissions:


This actually isn't accurate. As a result of the SC's decision in Grutter vs. Bollinger, the University of Michigan and other state universities have a compelling interest in admitting a diverse class of law students. Using affirmative action in that context was deemed narrowly tailored to meet that interest. Michigan is allowed to consider race and ethnicity holistically and use those aspects of an applicant's background when they're making decisions. Michigan can't have quotas or give an application an automatic number of additional points just because the applicant is a URM, but they are allowed to weigh race along with lots of other factors when they choose the incoming class. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grutter_v._Bollinger


Michigan amended their state constitution after Grutter specifically to prohibit such consideration. Hence why he said the state of MI, and not the Constitution. So actually, it's very accurate. I'd advise you to be careful making legal assertions you aren't positive of.


^A nicer response than I was typing up^

User avatar
amc987
Posts: 568
Joined: Sat Aug 29, 2009 10:58 am

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

Postby amc987 » Mon Nov 28, 2011 5:26 pm

blowhard wrote:
amc987 wrote:
thelaststraw05 wrote:Also Michigan law (as in the law of the state of Michigan) does not allow the use of race in admissions:


This actually isn't accurate. As a result of the SC's decision in Grutter vs. Bollinger, the University of Michigan and other state universities have a compelling interest in admitting a diverse class of law students. Using affirmative action in that context was deemed narrowly tailored to meet that interest. Michigan is allowed to consider race and ethnicity holistically and use those aspects of an applicant's background when they're making decisions. Michigan can't have quotas or give an application an automatic number of additional points just because the applicant is a URM, but they are allowed to weigh race along with lots of other factors when they choose the incoming class. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grutter_v._Bollinger


Michigan amended their state constitution after Grutter to prohibit such consideration. So actually, it's very accurate.


The Michigan Civil Rights Initiative got overturned by the 6th Circuit on appeal in July. Michigan's AG said he's going to appeal that ruling. To be fair, I didn't know that this had happened when I posted my response. But at the very least, the legislation seems to be in some kind of limbo. I'm not sure what that means in terms of admissions, but I don't think it's quite as clear cut as "Michigan can't use race in admissions decisions." Grutter vs. Bollinger on the other hand is federal law and, to my knowledge, has not been overturned. I think the Supreme Court might be hearing arguments on a related affirmative action case next year.

User avatar
JoeMo
Posts: 1518
Joined: Tue Oct 11, 2011 10:29 am

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

Postby JoeMo » Mon Nov 28, 2011 5:32 pm

Back to where we were: I did not get accepted based on MY race because I'm not a URM. :D

03121202698008
Posts: 3002
Joined: Fri Jul 17, 2009 2:07 am

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

Postby 03121202698008 » Mon Nov 28, 2011 5:37 pm

amc987 wrote:
blowhard wrote:
amc987 wrote:
thelaststraw05 wrote:Also Michigan law (as in the law of the state of Michigan) does not allow the use of race in admissions:


This actually isn't accurate. As a result of the SC's decision in Grutter vs. Bollinger, the University of Michigan and other state universities have a compelling interest in admitting a diverse class of law students. Using affirmative action in that context was deemed narrowly tailored to meet that interest. Michigan is allowed to consider race and ethnicity holistically and use those aspects of an applicant's background when they're making decisions. Michigan can't have quotas or give an application an automatic number of additional points just because the applicant is a URM, but they are allowed to weigh race along with lots of other factors when they choose the incoming class. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grutter_v._Bollinger


Michigan amended their state constitution after Grutter to prohibit such consideration. So actually, it's very accurate.


The Michigan Civil Rights Initiative got overturned by the 6th Circuit on appeal in July. Michigan's AG said he's going to appeal that ruling. To be fair, I didn't know that this had happened when I posted my response. But at the very least, the legislation seems to be in some kind of limbo. I'm not sure what that means in terms of admissions, but I don't think it's quite as clear cut as "Michigan can't use race in admissions decisions." Grutter vs. Bollinger on the other hand is federal law and, to my knowledge, has not been overturned. I think the Supreme Court might be hearing arguments on a related affirmative action case next year.


You are correct that the 6th circuit technically over-ruled the amendment...but this is highly in limbo and likely to be struck down. (Many consider the court's reasoning ludicrous.) Considering the cost of re-vamping an admissions program, I doubt they have re-instituted using race.

Regardless, the way race was used would not result in someone being admitted sooner or later which was the original assertion. (Nor is the poster even a URM.)




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