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

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

Postby JoeMo » Thu Dec 08, 2011 10:00 am

MumofCad wrote:I would say that these are not representative numbers, but any school will have to do this to an extent. UVA has done the same, skimming off a select group of high scorers for early admission and holding the rest to see how things shape up. It'd be rather silly for them to delay their "target" admit decisions to try and let in a bunch of people unlikely to go to their school. A bunch of the "high number" waiters have already gotten into Harvard and more will get into Yale/Stanford in the coming weeks. Wasting resources on trying to pull them away versus trying to make sure you get enough splitters and what not to hold your medians would not be a winning strategy. Call it YP, but I think its probably just how they have to act to be successful at holding their spot.

Also people keep pointing to LSN to prove things about how many people have gotten in or applied this year versus last year - Just a word of caution in reading too much into LSN data at this stage: there is the fact that its not representative, but its all highly skewed at this early stage in the game. A good number of people will have their's set to private until the cycle is over.


TITCR - Thank you MOC always the voice of reason.

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

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

Postby msblaw89 » Thu Dec 08, 2011 10:01 am

lsatisevil wrote:System Cannot open log for source 'LawRoles'. You may not have write access.

What does this mean? Just tried to login to Admitted Students Site.

i think it means you're in! When did you get your status checker?

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

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

Postby addy11 » Thu Dec 08, 2011 10:05 am

MumofCad wrote:I would say that these are not representative numbers, but any school will have to do this to an extent. UVA has done the same, skimming off a select group of high scorers for early admission and holding the rest to see how things shape up. It'd be rather silly for them to delay their "target" admit decisions to try and let in a bunch of people unlikely to go to their school. A bunch of the "high number" waiters have already gotten into Harvard and more will get into Yale/Stanford in the coming weeks. Wasting resources on trying to pull them away versus trying to make sure you get enough splitters and what not to hold your medians would not be a winning strategy. Call it YP, but I think its probably just how they have to act to be successful at holding their spot.

Also people keep pointing to LSN to prove things about how many people have gotten in or applied this year versus last year - Just a word of caution in reading too much into LSN data at this stage: there is the fact that its not representative, but its all highly skewed at this early stage in the game. A good number of people will have their's set to private until the cycle is over.


They may not be representative, but FWIW I didn't just sit there plugging in numbers until I got data that supported my conclusion. Those were the first parameters I put in and they produced those findings.

Your UVA comparison is telling. I'd put Penn in the same camp as well, but I never thought that Michigan fit the mold. I have great respect for all three schools (and, as it turns out, considerable personal ties to each), so when I began applying to law schools I was disappointed to see them seemingly participating in this practice. I don't think it's universal, just peculiar to that group between the t6 and the lower t14. To wit, you do not tend to find this at Duke or Georgetown.

You make it seem like a practical move, but I think it sounds cynical. Penn, UVA, Michigan are all outstanding schools, and this idea that someone who gets into Harvard wouldn't consider them is pretty sad for any of them to maintain. I mean, UVA is probably the worst offender (routinely waitlisting people who get into Yale), but just take a look at AspiringAcademic's LSN profile. Dude is already in at Harvard but specifically mentions UVA having great faculty. It remains to be seen whether he will get into UVA or whether he would pick it if he did, but it would be a loss for both him and UVA if they decided not to "waste resources" to woo him.

This whole idea of them having to maintain medians and cautiously admit the best and brightest for fear of rejection leaves MVPB fighting to maintain the status quo, instead of asserting themselves as equals to the t6 by pursuing their legitimate claim to the best and the brightest.

User avatar
ScrabbleChamp
Posts: 963
Joined: Wed Jun 23, 2010 8:09 am

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

Postby ScrabbleChamp » Thu Dec 08, 2011 10:19 am

addy11 wrote:
MumofCad wrote:I would say that these are not representative numbers, but any school will have to do this to an extent. UVA has done the same, skimming off a select group of high scorers for early admission and holding the rest to see how things shape up. It'd be rather silly for them to delay their "target" admit decisions to try and let in a bunch of people unlikely to go to their school. A bunch of the "high number" waiters have already gotten into Harvard and more will get into Yale/Stanford in the coming weeks. Wasting resources on trying to pull them away versus trying to make sure you get enough splitters and what not to hold your medians would not be a winning strategy. Call it YP, but I think its probably just how they have to act to be successful at holding their spot.

Also people keep pointing to LSN to prove things about how many people have gotten in or applied this year versus last year - Just a word of caution in reading too much into LSN data at this stage: there is the fact that its not representative, but its all highly skewed at this early stage in the game. A good number of people will have their's set to private until the cycle is over.


They may not be representative, but FWIW I didn't just sit there plugging in numbers until I got data that supported my conclusion. Those were the first parameters I put in and they produced those findings.

Your UVA comparison is telling. I'd put Penn in the same camp as well, but I never thought that Michigan fit the mold. I have great respect for all three schools (and, as it turns out, considerable personal ties to each), so when I began applying to law schools I was disappointed to see them seemingly participating in this practice. I don't think it's universal, just peculiar to that group between the t6 and the lower t14. To wit, you do not tend to find this at Duke or Georgetown.

You make it seem like a practical move, but I think it sounds cynical. Penn, UVA, Michigan are all outstanding schools, and this idea that someone who gets into Harvard wouldn't consider them is pretty sad for any of them to maintain. I mean, UVA is probably the worst offender (routinely waitlisting people who get into Yale), but just take a look at AspiringAcademic's LSN profile. Dude is already in at Harvard but specifically mentions UVA having great faculty. It remains to be seen whether he will get into UVA or whether he would pick it if he did, but it would be a loss for both him and UVA if they decided not to "waste resources" to woo him.

This whole idea of them having to maintain medians and cautiously admit the best and brightest for fear of rejection leaves MVPB fighting to maintain the status quo, instead of asserting themselves as equals to the t6 by pursuing their legitimate claim to the best and the brightest.


Has anyone considered that maybe Michigan just looks for certain things with regards to high number applicants. I have higher numbers than most of those that are complaining about not being admitted yet (I'm 177/3.78, but I was admitted RD and applied 11/03). It may not be that Michigan is setting people aside because they fear they may go to a better school, it may be they are setting them aside because, although the numbers indicate they may do well, their application didn't present itself to be exactly what Michigan is looking for.

Food for thought.
Last edited by ScrabbleChamp on Thu Dec 08, 2011 10:46 am, edited 1 time in total.

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

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

Postby addy11 » Thu Dec 08, 2011 10:30 am

ScrabbleChamp wrote:
addy11 wrote:
MumofCad wrote:I would say that these are not representative numbers, but any school will have to do this to an extent. UVA has done the same, skimming off a select group of high scorers for early admission and holding the rest to see how things shape up. It'd be rather silly for them to delay their "target" admit decisions to try and let in a bunch of people unlikely to go to their school. A bunch of the "high number" waiters have already gotten into Harvard and more will get into Yale/Stanford in the coming weeks. Wasting resources on trying to pull them away versus trying to make sure you get enough splitters and what not to hold your medians would not be a winning strategy. Call it YP, but I think its probably just how they have to act to be successful at holding their spot.

Also people keep pointing to LSN to prove things about how many people have gotten in or applied this year versus last year - Just a word of caution in reading too much into LSN data at this stage: there is the fact that its not representative, but its all highly skewed at this early stage in the game. A good number of people will have their's set to private until the cycle is over.


They may not be representative, but FWIW I didn't just sit there plugging in numbers until I got data that supported my conclusion. Those were the first parameters I put in and they produced those findings.

Your UVA comparison is telling. I'd put Penn in the same camp as well, but I never thought that Michigan fit the mold. I have great respect for all three schools (and, as it turns out, considerable personal ties to each), so when I began applying to law schools I was disappointed to see them seemingly participating in this practice. I don't think it's universal, just peculiar to that group between the t6 and the lower t14. To wit, you do not tend to find this at Duke or Georgetown.

You make it seem like a practical move, but I think it sounds cynical. Penn, UVA, Michigan are all outstanding schools, and this idea that someone who gets into Harvard wouldn't consider them is pretty sad for any of them to maintain. I mean, UVA is probably the worst offender (routinely waitlisting people who get into Yale), but just take a look at AspiringAcademic's LSN profile. Dude is already in at Harvard but specifically mentions UVA having great faculty. It remains to be seen whether he will get into UVA or whether he would pick it if he did, but it would be a loss for both him and UVA if they decided not to "waste resources" to woo him.

This whole idea of them having to maintain medians and cautiously admit the best and brightest for fear of rejection leaves MVPB fighting to maintain the status quo, instead of asserting themselves as equals to the t6 by pursuing their legitimate claim to the best and the brightest.


Has anyone considered that maybe Michigan just looks for certain things with regards to high number applicants. I have higher numbers than most of those that are complaining about not being admitted yet (I'm 177/3.78), but I was admitted RD and applied 11/03). It may not be that Michigan is setting people aside because they fear they may go to a better school, it may be they are setting them aside because, although the numbers indicate they may do well, their application didn't present itself to be exactly what Michigan is looking for.

Food for thought.


Yes, many times in this very thread. I believe I made this very same point to you several weeks back when you were complaining about a URM being admitted to Berkeley ahead of you, despite your superior numbers.

Anyway, I think I've taken up enough space. I think most of the people who are in the same camp with me understand the anxiety, but that doesn't mean I should take up any more posts with speculation, especially so early in this cycle.

Good luck, everyone!

potl
Posts: 121
Joined: Tue Jun 28, 2011 12:35 pm

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

Postby potl » Thu Dec 08, 2011 10:32 am

ScrabbleChamp wrote:
addy11 wrote:
MumofCad wrote:I would say that these are not representative numbers, but any school will have to do this to an extent. UVA has done the same, skimming off a select group of high scorers for early admission and holding the rest to see how things shape up. It'd be rather silly for them to delay their "target" admit decisions to try and let in a bunch of people unlikely to go to their school. A bunch of the "high number" waiters have already gotten into Harvard and more will get into Yale/Stanford in the coming weeks. Wasting resources on trying to pull them away versus trying to make sure you get enough splitters and what not to hold your medians would not be a winning strategy. Call it YP, but I think its probably just how they have to act to be successful at holding their spot.

Also people keep pointing to LSN to prove things about how many people have gotten in or applied this year versus last year - Just a word of caution in reading too much into LSN data at this stage: there is the fact that its not representative, but its all highly skewed at this early stage in the game. A good number of people will have their's set to private until the cycle is over.


They may not be representative, but FWIW I didn't just sit there plugging in numbers until I got data that supported my conclusion. Those were the first parameters I put in and they produced those findings.

Your UVA comparison is telling. I'd put Penn in the same camp as well, but I never thought that Michigan fit the mold. I have great respect for all three schools (and, as it turns out, considerable personal ties to each), so when I began applying to law schools I was disappointed to see them seemingly participating in this practice. I don't think it's universal, just peculiar to that group between the t6 and the lower t14. To wit, you do not tend to find this at Duke or Georgetown.

You make it seem like a practical move, but I think it sounds cynical. Penn, UVA, Michigan are all outstanding schools, and this idea that someone who gets into Harvard wouldn't consider them is pretty sad for any of them to maintain. I mean, UVA is probably the worst offender (routinely waitlisting people who get into Yale), but just take a look at AspiringAcademic's LSN profile. Dude is already in at Harvard but specifically mentions UVA having great faculty. It remains to be seen whether he will get into UVA or whether he would pick it if he did, but it would be a loss for both him and UVA if they decided not to "waste resources" to woo him.

This whole idea of them having to maintain medians and cautiously admit the best and brightest for fear of rejection leaves MVPB fighting to maintain the status quo, instead of asserting themselves as equals to the t6 by pursuing their legitimate claim to the best and the brightest.


Has anyone considered that maybe Michigan just looks for certain things with regards to high number applicants. I have higher numbers than most of those that are complaining about not being admitted yet (I'm 177/3.78), but I was admitted RD and applied 11/03). It may not be that Michigan is setting people aside because they fear they may go to a better school, it may be they are setting them aside because, although the numbers indicate they may do well, their application didn't present itself to be exactly what Michigan is looking for.

Food for thought.



I don't think that 'looking for certain things from high-number applicants' and 'yield-protect' are necessarily mutually exclusive. In fact, perhaps that 'certain thing' is a demonstrated interest in actually attending the school (versus higher-ranked schools).

Unless high-number applicants tend to be worse candidates in other respects than lower-number candidates, it seems like the adcomms are effectively discounting the former group (AS A GROUP, not necessarily across the board) for doing particularly well on the LSAT and maintaining particularly good grades.

FWIW, I don't fall into the 'high-number' group.

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

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

Postby Campagnolo » Thu Dec 08, 2011 10:33 am

I seem to recall Dean Z saying in her blog that the largest group of people Michigan admits who don't come go to Harvard. That doesn't seem like yield protecting to me.

What's more likely is that a high set of numbers is required to be admitted. But it's entirely likely that a huge chunk of people with a high set of index numbers is straight from undergrad, no work experience, and can't write for shit.

Why is that so hard to believe?

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

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

Postby MumofCad » Thu Dec 08, 2011 10:43 am

Its not cynical. These are professional admissions office. Their strategies are based, unlike our speculative ones, on year upon year upon year of results. They don't just magically hope to recruit a class every year that holds their medians. They know that while a minority of people who get into HYS will choose large scholarships over attending HYS, many more won't. They also have a limited amount of big money offers they can use to lure people away from HYS (or CCN in this case). The point would be that if they admitted 14 of the 24 as they did with the lower numbered candidates, they couldn't feasibly offer all of them (and all the other comparable candidates not on LSN) full rides to lure them away. They aren't target applicants in the sense that Michigan with no money is probably not their #1 choice. So they choose a select numbers they would like to prioritize luring away, then as those fade and withdraw, you will see more get offers to replace them in the attempted lure away pool. The number they will matriculate from this group versus target applicants is miniscule and thus has a miniscule impact on their eventual class medians.

Its not to justify that candidates are making the right choice year after year on this issue, but to assume that Michigan is just throwing darts at the board and hasn't worked this stuff out is not accurate.

And FWIW - Duke is using a different formula all together IMO. They have found a way around the YP issue and it has yet to produce a boost of any sort from the typical model. Whether they had to hire additional staff to process all those PT apps earlier on....not clear. But I'd rather have more money available for scholarships than more money for staff to process apps that are not likely to attend anyhow. But I'm pretty frugal.

User avatar
Danny Mothers
Posts: 129
Joined: Tue Oct 18, 2011 1:25 pm

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

Postby Danny Mothers » Thu Dec 08, 2011 11:20 am

msblaw89 wrote:
lsatisevil wrote:System Cannot open log for source 'LawRoles'. You may not have write access.

What does this mean? Just tried to login to Admitted Students Site.

i think it means you're in! When did you get your status checker?


Not necessarily. I had this error earlier this week, but it recently went back to the normal red text. It's probably meaningless.

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

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

Postby msblaw89 » Thu Dec 08, 2011 11:28 am

Danny Mothers wrote:
msblaw89 wrote:
lsatisevil wrote:System Cannot open log for source 'LawRoles'. You may not have write access.

What does this mean? Just tried to login to Admitted Students Site.

i think it means you're in! When did you get your status checker?


Not necessarily. I had this error earlier this week, but it recently went back to the normal red text. It's probably meaningless.

oh, :cry:

potl
Posts: 121
Joined: Tue Jun 28, 2011 12:35 pm

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

Postby potl » Thu Dec 08, 2011 11:32 am

Campagnolo wrote:I seem to recall Dean Z saying in her blog that the largest group of people Michigan admits who don't come go to Harvard. That doesn't seem like yield protecting to me.

What's more likely is that a high set of numbers is required to be admitted. But it's entirely likely that a huge chunk of people with a high set of index numbers is straight from undergrad, no work experience, and can't write for shit.

Why is that so hard to believe?


If we're only analyzing the results for the current year, I think we're looking more at proportions than at "chunks."

Why would there be a higher proportion of "straight-from-undergrad/no WE/can't write for shit" applicants among high-indices versus low-indices?

User avatar
Danny Mothers
Posts: 129
Joined: Tue Oct 18, 2011 1:25 pm

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

Postby Danny Mothers » Thu Dec 08, 2011 11:37 am

msblaw89 wrote:
Danny Mothers wrote:
msblaw89 wrote:
lsatisevil wrote:System Cannot open log for source 'LawRoles'. You may not have write access.

What does this mean? Just tried to login to Admitted Students Site.

i think it means you're in! When did you get your status checker?


Not necessarily. I had this error earlier this week, but it recently went back to the normal red text. It's probably meaningless.

oh, :cry:


I know how you feel. When I first saw that lawroles thing, I got REALLY excited. It was pretty disheartening to see it revert back to the normal stuff a couple of days later.

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

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

Postby JoeMo » Thu Dec 08, 2011 11:46 am

potl wrote:
Campagnolo wrote:I seem to recall Dean Z saying in her blog that the largest group of people Michigan admits who don't come go to Harvard. That doesn't seem like yield protecting to me.

What's more likely is that a high set of numbers is required to be admitted. But it's entirely likely that a huge chunk of people with a high set of index numbers is straight from undergrad, no work experience, and can't write for shit.

Why is that so hard to believe?


If we're only analyzing the results for the current year, I think we're looking more at proportions than at "chunks."

Why would there be a higher proportion of "straight-from-undergrad/no WE/can't write for shit" applicants among high-indices versus low-indices?


The ones with low-indices that are straight from undergrad/no WE/can't write for shit will be getting their rejections in January.

User avatar
crumpetsandtea
Posts: 7156
Joined: Thu Jun 17, 2010 7:57 pm

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

Postby crumpetsandtea » Thu Dec 08, 2011 1:22 pm

I think it's silly to be basing any conclusions on this cycle. We're hardly even halfway through, there's no way those results are representative at all! I mean, c'mon guys...it's December. The cycle doesn't end until ~March or April. Just because the high #s haven't been OMGAUTOADMIT!!!!!!!!!1111111111 doesn't mean Michigan is trying to YP or 'doesn't like' high scorers or is 'cynical' about their admissions policies. It just means they're admitting borderline/target candidates first. If you look at the links straw provided from the PAST FEW years (aka, completed cycles that we can look at to actually gauge patterns over the entire period of decisions), you'll see that Michigan WL/R people pretty broadly all across the board.

I mean, come on y'all. It just doesn't make sense to say 'WE'RE 1/5 OF THE WAY THROUGH DECISIONS, CLEARLY IF YOU HAVENT GOTTEN IN BY NOW IT'S A TREND!!" :mrgreen: <3

sea15
Posts: 129
Joined: Mon Jun 20, 2011 2:20 pm

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

Postby sea15 » Thu Dec 08, 2011 1:23 pm

https://www.law.umich.edu/connection/a2 ... 397d820295

Interesting post and poll! I personally would not like a house visit, and phone calls are always awkward...

User avatar
Take Two
Posts: 552
Joined: Fri Jul 01, 2011 1:30 am

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

Postby Take Two » Thu Dec 08, 2011 1:27 pm

haha I dont care how they do it as long as they let me in!

HERE THAT MICHIGAN! LET ME IN!

please...

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

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

Postby msblaw89 » Thu Dec 08, 2011 1:28 pm

Take Two wrote:haha I dont care how they do it as long as they let me in!

HERE THAT MICHIGAN! LET ME IN!

please...

+1 Pretty please! With a cherry on top :D

t14retaker
Posts: 13
Joined: Tue Nov 15, 2011 3:39 am

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

Postby t14retaker » Thu Dec 08, 2011 1:36 pm

I have LOW SCORE, please LET ME IN.

SC 11/18

still COMPLETE..

ralph_pootawn
Posts: 265
Joined: Sun Aug 08, 2010 4:14 pm

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

Postby ralph_pootawn » Thu Dec 08, 2011 1:49 pm

SC 11/3 still at complete. XD

User avatar
crumpetsandtea
Posts: 7156
Joined: Thu Jun 17, 2010 7:57 pm

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

Postby crumpetsandtea » Thu Dec 08, 2011 1:50 pm

ralph_pootawn wrote:SC 11/3 still at complete. XD

Me too!

ralph_pootawn
Posts: 265
Joined: Sun Aug 08, 2010 4:14 pm

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

Postby ralph_pootawn » Thu Dec 08, 2011 1:51 pm

crumpetsandtea wrote:
ralph_pootawn wrote:SC 11/3 still at complete. XD

Me too!


starting to lose hope. sucks cause I would love to go to Michigan

User avatar
AntipodeanPhil
Posts: 1300
Joined: Fri Apr 08, 2011 7:02 pm

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

Postby AntipodeanPhil » Thu Dec 08, 2011 1:53 pm

The financial aid section of the ASW says I got $22,500! I think we concluded on previous pages that the amount is per year, but the "Award Year" is listed as "2013." What does that mean? Does it mean I only get it for two years? Does anyone else's say "2013?"

User avatar
crumpetsandtea
Posts: 7156
Joined: Thu Jun 17, 2010 7:57 pm

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

Postby crumpetsandtea » Thu Dec 08, 2011 1:57 pm

ralph_pootawn wrote:
crumpetsandtea wrote:
ralph_pootawn wrote:SC 11/3 still at complete. XD

Me too!


starting to lose hope. sucks cause I would love to go to Michigan

I didn't have much hope to begin with...they don't really like traditional splitters :P But I'm still freaking out, that's for sure.

User avatar
jfish
Posts: 61
Joined: Tue Jul 12, 2011 4:29 pm

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

Postby jfish » Thu Dec 08, 2011 1:58 pm

AntipodeanPhil wrote:The financial aid section of the ASW says I got $22,500! I think we concluded on previous pages that the amount is per year, but the "Award Year" is listed as "2013." What does that mean? Does it mean I only get it for two years? Does anyone else's say "2013?"


Nope, it's for three years, so 67.5k total! Congratulations!!

User avatar
Take Two
Posts: 552
Joined: Fri Jul 01, 2011 1:30 am

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

Postby Take Two » Thu Dec 08, 2011 1:59 pm

at this risk of sounding like an idiot, is there a status that comes after complete, like an "under review," that I should be freaking out because I dont have it?




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

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: carlos_danger, ginawwhan, Long shot hero, notnecessarilyproper, pandaaa, rizzlebizness, Zoe107 and 9 guests