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.
imjustjoking22
Posts: 461
Joined: Fri Jun 10, 2011 9:46 am

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

Postby imjustjoking22 » Sat Feb 25, 2012 2:01 pm

UnamSanctam wrote:It's definitely a numbers game, but the T14 gets to pick and choose. I don't know about the rest of the lower T14, but if you look at MVP graphs on LSN, they all WL some people with high stats. Does that mean that HYSCCNMVP are all super holistic? Meh. I'd think if you have high stats there's something else about your application that is a red flag, and that could be anything from a lackluster personal statement to unenthusiastic letters of rec. So yeah, I guess that Michigan is holistic, but I think its reputation for holistic admissions is overblown in comparison to UVA and Penn. They all do it to some degree.


Honestly, I don't think that's true at all- I doubt all of the people with high stats who are being WL'd have red flags of some kind, and I do think it's more "crafting a class."

User avatar
soj
Posts: 7735
Joined: Sat Jan 16, 2010 11:10 pm

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

Postby soj » Sat Feb 25, 2012 2:32 pm

JoeMo wrote:
ScrabbleChamp wrote:
JamMasterJ wrote:Dude, Mich is not all about the numbers. You never know with them


I love you for this.

I don't mean to be an ass, but just because you (collective you, not singular you) have great numbers and wrote a "Why Mich" does not mean you will get in. I personally know someone with a 180 and 3.9 that got in and someone with a 3.2 and a 168 that got in and many in between that did not... Michigan is about way more than the numbers and desire to attend... it is about who they feel will fit in best and contribute best to the overall class. Someone who was admitted last year may not have been admitted this year due to class make up, and vice-versa. I completely understand why people are upset, but to bitch about it and act incredulous is pointless. Nobody really knows why anyone is accepted or denied (accept for maybe the 141/2.5 folks that apply).


I second this... Michigan is one of those schools that seems to stand out for looking at the whole picture. I mean, I think I am a clear indication of this since my LSAT is lower than a lot of the people that didn't get in.

I think the incredulous people are just said they won't get to post "Complete" every day from now on.

Let's stop with this vaguely arrogant "I got in therefore Michigan is holistic" argument. Don't pretend your softs (which I'm sure were great) were all you had to offer to Michigan. Reverse splitters get into Michigan (or UVA or Penn or NU) all the time.

Looking at this year's LSN graphs, I see little difference between UVA, Penn, and Michigan other than the medians and the use of the waitlist. All three schools accept splitters and reverse splitters but very few non-URMs below both medians (I see literally 1-2 at each school). I'm prepared to agree that Michigan might be holistic in reviewing non-URM applicants at or above one or both medians, but not any more than I'm prepared to agree the same about UVA and Penn.

User avatar
DonnaDraper
Posts: 280
Joined: Thu Jan 06, 2011 12:30 am

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

Postby DonnaDraper » Sat Feb 25, 2012 2:34 pm

I remember hearing that Michigan likes to admit people who have some volunteering in their background regardless of whether they want to do public interest or not. I completely forget where I am getting this from but I also remember it being said that that aspect helped contribute to the friendly vibe of the students. There could be other peculiarities like that that they look for. Obviously good numbers are good numbers and they are definitely needed, but I am sure each app exudes some type of personality to some degree.

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

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

Postby JoeMo » Sat Feb 25, 2012 2:41 pm

soj wrote:Let's stop with this vaguely arrogant "I got in therefore Michigan is holistic" argument. Don't pretend your softs (which I'm sure were great) were all you had to offer to Michigan. Reverse splitters get into Michigan (or UVA or Penn or NU) all the time.

Looking at this year's LSN graphs, I see little difference between UVA, Penn, and Michigan other than the medians and the use of the waitlist. All three schools accept splitters and reverse splitters but very few non-URMs below both medians (I see literally 1-2 at each school). I'm prepared to agree that Michigan might be holistic in reviewing non-URM applicants at or above one or both medians, but not any more than I'm prepared to agree the same about UVA and Penn.


It's not arrogance at all. I just don't share in the cynicism. I've said many times, even prior to getting in that I believe their process to be very holistic. I also never said UVA or PENN were strictly numbers based. I think the majority of the T14 does a pretty thorough review. It's also safe to say that most of us are pretty good applicants, thus the reason the majority of people that have been WL'd are T14 secure already. Someone has to take every seat and if it were strictly a numbers thing then the same people would get into every school.

charliep
Posts: 225
Joined: Sat Oct 29, 2011 9:36 pm

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

Postby charliep » Sat Feb 25, 2012 2:49 pm

JoeMo wrote:
soj wrote:Let's stop with this vaguely arrogant "I got in therefore Michigan is holistic" argument. Don't pretend your softs (which I'm sure were great) were all you had to offer to Michigan. Reverse splitters get into Michigan (or UVA or Penn or NU) all the time.

Looking at this year's LSN graphs, I see little difference between UVA, Penn, and Michigan other than the medians and the use of the waitlist. All three schools accept splitters and reverse splitters but very few non-URMs below both medians (I see literally 1-2 at each school). I'm prepared to agree that Michigan might be holistic in reviewing non-URM applicants at or above one or both medians, but not any more than I'm prepared to agree the same about UVA and Penn.


It's not arrogance at all. I just don't share in the cynicism. I've said many times, even prior to getting in that I believe their process to be very holistic. I also never said UVA or PENN were strictly numbers based. I think the majority of the T14 does a pretty thorough review. It's also safe to say that most of us are pretty good applicants, thus the reason the majority of people that have been WL'd are T14 secure already. Someone has to take every seat and if it were strictly a numbers thing then the same people would get into every school.


unless you count yield protection as part of the numbers game

User avatar
soj
Posts: 7735
Joined: Sat Jan 16, 2010 11:10 pm

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

Postby soj » Sat Feb 25, 2012 2:52 pm

JoeMo wrote:I also never said UVA or PENN were strictly numbers based.

Neither did I. I do take issue with the idea held by some people (not necessarily you) that holistic review sets Michigan apart from UVA and Penn.

JoeMo wrote:I think the majority of the T14 does a pretty thorough review.

Maybe. Of course, I wouldn't claim to know how exactly admissions committees make decisions. As applicants, we TLSers like to pretend we know how the process works because it gives us a sense of control and comforts us. Still, I've seen plenty of signs that most T14 admissions are overwhelmingly numbers-based. I'm willing to concede that Michigan might use holistic review on non-URMs at or above at least one median, but beyond that, I'm unconvinced.

JoeMo wrote:Someone has to take every seat and if it were strictly a numbers thing then the same people would get into every school.

No. Schools have different class sizes, medians, and yields.

@charliep: as for yield protection, I definitely consider it a possible component of a holistic review process. Admissions committees and TLSers act like YP is a bad word, but I think it's pretty clear likeliness to attend is a big (and possibly dispositive) factor at many T14 schools. I also don't think it's such a shameful thing.

User avatar
UnamSanctam
Posts: 7175
Joined: Mon Mar 21, 2011 3:17 am

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

Postby UnamSanctam » Sat Feb 25, 2012 3:48 pm

imjustjoking22 wrote:
UnamSanctam wrote:It's definitely a numbers game, but the T14 gets to pick and choose. I don't know about the rest of the lower T14, but if you look at MVP graphs on LSN, they all WL some people with high stats. Does that mean that HYSCCNMVP are all super holistic? Meh. I'd think if you have high stats there's something else about your application that is a red flag, and that could be anything from a lackluster personal statement to unenthusiastic letters of rec. So yeah, I guess that Michigan is holistic, but I think its reputation for holistic admissions is overblown in comparison to UVA and Penn. They all do it to some degree.


Honestly, I don't think that's true at all- I doubt all of the people with high stats who are being WL'd have red flags of some kind, and I do think it's more "crafting a class."


"Red flag" was probably too strong of a term since it has a negative connotation I didn't mean to insert. I mean there's simply something about high numbered applicants that puts them on the WL. If it's that they don't seem that they'd fit in a class, then that's influenced by essays/LoRs. But I also don't think that all the people who got put on the WL with high numbers are there only because they don't seem a good fit. Likely some got put on because they don't seem a good fit, and others were put on because there were parts of the application that could have been more convincing.

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

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

Postby ScrabbleChamp » Sat Feb 25, 2012 4:21 pm

soj wrote:
JoeMo wrote:Someone has to take every seat and if it were strictly a numbers thing then the same people would get into every school.

No. Schools have different class sizes, medians, and yields.


I think the sentiment that he was getting at is that several people WL'd by Mich were accepted to higher ranked schools (NYU, Chicago, Columbia, etc...). As such, if it were just a numbers game, then anyone admitted to the T6 would also get admitted to Michigan. Obviously, an admit to Berkeley may not also get Harvard, but if you have Harvard, you should have Berkeley in a numbers only world.

Also, using LSN to justify any argument is ridiculous. Harvard gets about 8000 applications a year, but only 641 are represented on LSN. You can go through the entire T14 and you get a similar percentage. You stating that you see nothing on LSN that supports one school is more holistic than another is based on a minute percentage of applicants that self-report on a website. You are making several assumptions that: 1) the people reporting on LSN are telling the truth (which many are not, proven by the fact their profiles say 'numbers fudged' or the like), 2) those that report on LSN are completely representative of the entire applicant pool, and 3) that a holistic admissions process can be determined looking solely at the numbers of admitted students. Your supposition is actually laughable, as you seem to be saying that you can tell if one school is more or less holistic based on your review of JUST THEIR NUMBERS.

Holistic does not mean admitting people that are "unqualified" due to their numbers. Holistic means rating the whole application without total regard to numbers. Michigan may look for certain things in a file that are more likely to be found in higher number applicants, or vice-versa. There is no way for you or I, or anyone, to know what holistic means to each school. However, Michigan is known, and has been for quite some time, for the collegiality of the class. Another T14 is known for the rigidness of their students, and that school has very similar medians to Michigan. Why does Michigan have a reputation for being a much more friendly campus? Maybe it is because Michigan chooses students based on something other than numbers, maybe it is because Michigan gets lucky year after year, or maybe a combination of both. However, if Michigan says they use a holistic process and they attempt to find students that are both academically qualified AND going to be a good "fit", who are we to say that is bull shit? Dean Z actually said in one of her interviews that one of the criteria she uses when evaluating applicants is whether or not she would want to go to dinner with them. Obviously, that is very subjective criteria, but it also seems to be working as Michigan is still a place known for its collegiality.

So, although you may not like to believe that Michigan is more holistic than other schools based on a minute percentage of self-selecting, self-reporting individuals, I'll choose to believe what Michigan is saying: They are holistic and they choose students based upon academic ability AND fit.

User avatar
soj
Posts: 7735
Joined: Sat Jan 16, 2010 11:10 pm

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

Postby soj » Sat Feb 25, 2012 4:42 pm

ScrabbleChamp wrote:I think the sentiment that he was getting at is that several people WL'd by Mich were accepted to higher ranked schools (NYU, Chicago, Columbia, etc...). As such, if it were just a numbers game, then anyone admitted to the T6 would also get admitted to Michigan. Obviously, an admit to Berkeley may not also get Harvard, but if you have Harvard, you should have Berkeley in a numbers only world.

You're probably right about Harvard and Berkeley, but I'm not sure about CCN and Michigan. Even in a purely numbers-based framework, different schools weight LSAT and GPA differently. The fact that some people get into CCN but get waitlisted at Michigan doesn't prove that Michigan is holistic.

ScrabbleChamp wrote:Also, using LSN to justify any argument is ridiculous. Harvard gets about 8000 applications a year, but only 641 are represented on LSN. You can go through the entire T14 and you get a similar percentage. You stating that you see nothing on LSN that supports one school is more holistic than another is based on a minute percentage of applicants that self-report on a website. You are making several assumptions that: 1) the people reporting on LSN are telling the truth (which many are not, proven by the fact their profiles say 'numbers fudged' or the like), 2) those that report on LSN are completely representative of the entire applicant pool, and 3) that a holistic admissions process can be determined looking solely at the numbers of admitted students. Your supposition is actually laughable, as you seem to be saying that you can tell if one school is more or less holistic based on your review of JUST THEIR NUMBERS.

I agree LSN is flawed for all those reasons, and I agree my argument would be flawed if I tried to use LSN to prove that Michigan is not holistic, or that Michigan is equally holistic as UVA or Penn. My original statement was actually: "I'm prepared to agree that Michigan might be holistic in reviewing non-URM applicants at or above one or both medians, but not any more than I'm prepared to agree the same about UVA and Penn." In fact, my statement indicates a pretty healthy dose of skepticism toward LSN data. As for other evidence like Dean Z's statements or first-hand accounts from current students (and trust me, I visited Michigan and experienced this myself), I think deans and students at some other schools make a pretty solid case about collegiality and holistic review, too. Again, I see no reason to believe Michigan is more holistic or collegial than its peer schools.

ScrabbleChamp wrote:Holistic does not mean admitting people that are "unqualified" due to their numbers. Holistic means rating the whole application without total regard to numbers. Michigan may look for certain things in a file that are more likely to be found in higher number applicants, or vice-versa. There is no way for you or I, or anyone, to know what holistic means to each school. However, Michigan is known, and has been for quite some time, for the collegiality of the class. Another T14 is known for the rigidness of their students, and that school has very similar medians to Michigan. Why does Michigan have a reputation for being a much more friendly campus? Maybe it is because Michigan chooses students based on something other than numbers, maybe it is because Michigan gets lucky year after year, or maybe a combination of both. However, if Michigan says they use a holistic process and they attempt to find students that are both academically qualified AND going to be a good "fit", who are we to say that is bull shit? Dean Z actually said in one of her interviews that one of the criteria she uses when evaluating applicants is whether or not she would want to go to dinner with them. Obviously, that is very subjective criteria, but it also seems to be working as Michigan is still a place known for its collegiality.

I think I've made it pretty clear that I also don't claim to know all the factors that go into admissions decisions. For all I know, collegiality could fit be a major factor that determines why some people get in while others with better numbers don't. But again: I'm not convinced this is unique to Michigan.

ScrabbleChamp wrote:So, although you may not like to believe that Michigan is more holistic than other schools based on a minute percentage of self-selecting, self-reporting individuals, I'll choose to believe what Michigan is saying: They are holistic and they choose students based upon academic ability AND fit.

I don't believe Michigan is more holistic because there's no reason to believe otherwise--to do so would be unfair to other schools. It's not like I'm mining LSN data hoping to find reasons to hate on Michigan.

User avatar
smokeylarue
Posts: 408
Joined: Sat Oct 30, 2010 3:55 pm

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

Postby smokeylarue » Sat Feb 25, 2012 4:57 pm

Don't have a dog in this fight, but Berkeley I think is the only school in the T-14 that can claim legitimate holistic admissions.

User avatar
Liquox
Posts: 273
Joined: Thu Jan 19, 2012 3:46 pm

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

Postby Liquox » Sat Feb 25, 2012 5:03 pm

dudes, chill out.

why are y'all debating the t14 acceptance/rejection processes? it's not like we're changing anything. michigan being 'holistic' (or not) isn't going to add stuff to your resumes; doing stuff adds stuff to your resume. and besides, all we applicants can do is send app, plant self in chair, and pay them when results come out. enjoy the wait. introduce your butt to a nice couch. the other two things cost money.

User avatar
ru1ess
Posts: 64
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2009 12:39 am

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

Postby ru1ess » Sat Feb 25, 2012 5:12 pm

smokeylarue wrote:Don't have a dog in this fight, but Berkeley I think is the only school in the T-14 that can claim legitimate holistic admissions.


That's what I thought, until I received my rejection letter a few weeks ago.. Lol, this admissions game can be really unpredictable.. Like everything, it's pretty subjective. In at Harvard, Georgetown and out at Berkeley.. yep

User avatar
luxxe
Posts: 830
Joined: Sat Jul 11, 2009 11:12 am

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

Postby luxxe » Sat Feb 25, 2012 5:19 pm

ru1ess wrote:
smokeylarue wrote:Don't have a dog in this fight, but Berkeley I think is the only school in the T-14 that can claim legitimate holistic admissions.


That's what I thought, until I received my rejection letter a few weeks ago.. Lol, this admissions game can be really unpredictable.. Like everything, it's pretty subjective. In at Harvard, Georgetown and out at Berkeley.. yep


Because you getting rejected means that the school isn't holistic....? I don't know/care about Berkeley, but that is a pretty weak reason to come to that conclusion.

User avatar
ru1ess
Posts: 64
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2009 12:39 am

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

Postby ru1ess » Sat Feb 25, 2012 5:35 pm

luxxe wrote:
ru1ess wrote:
smokeylarue wrote:Don't have a dog in this fight, but Berkeley I think is the only school in the T-14 that can claim legitimate holistic admissions.


That's what I thought, until I received my rejection letter a few weeks ago.. Lol, this admissions game can be really unpredictable.. Like everything, it's pretty subjective. In at Harvard, Georgetown and out at Berkeley.. yep


Because you getting rejected means that the school isn't holistic....? I don't know/care about Berkeley, but that is a pretty weak reason to come to that conclusion.


I wasn't saying that it was not holistic, bc my numbers are obviously there for Berkeley.. I was stating that these decisions are very subjective, and that it can be a lot more unpredictable then some tend to put on. It really isn't just a numbers game, but some softs are valued by some and not so much by others.

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

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

Postby Campagnolo » Sat Feb 25, 2012 5:48 pm

I find it amazing that y'all can do so well on the LSAT without knowing the difference between a sufficient condition and a necessary condition.

Numbers are necessary.

I have no idea how applicants are evaluated, but I think it should be clear to anyone that when someone above both 75% marks is wait listed or dinged that numbers are only necessary. For example: I was dinged at Notre Dame. It's a fantastic institution churning out smart lawyers and I would have loved to go there. It happens. I don't take it personally. They don't think I'm a terrible person, just that I'm not right for their institution based on some unknown qualification.

Maybe you used the wrong typeface on your application? Maybe a recommender was luke warm? Maybe the person reading your file was cranky that day because their husband didn't notice her new shoes and you paid the price? Maybe your LSAC number has 666 in it?

I don't understand this debate, and I don't understand folks getting butt hurt when they have so many awesome options on the table. Seriously. I got the wait list from my top top choice this cycle, but it's not personal. It stings, but you just gotta move on.

Image
(I'm already sorry if I hurt anyone's feelings in this rant)

User avatar
chem
Posts: 867
Joined: Thu Mar 03, 2011 8:14 pm

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

Postby chem » Sat Feb 25, 2012 7:19 pm

Checking in with a WL

User avatar
ru1ess
Posts: 64
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2009 12:39 am

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

Postby ru1ess » Sat Feb 25, 2012 10:25 pm

Campagnolo wrote:I find it amazing that y'all can do so well on the LSAT without knowing the difference between a sufficient condition and a necessary condition.

Numbers are necessary.

I have no idea how applicants are evaluated, but I think it should be clear to anyone that when someone above both 75% marks is wait listed or dinged that numbers are only necessary. For example: I was dinged at Notre Dame. It's a fantastic institution churning out smart lawyers and I would have loved to go there. It happens. I don't take it personally. They don't think I'm a terrible person, just that I'm not right for their institution based on some unknown qualification.

Maybe you used the wrong typeface on your application? Maybe a recommender was luke warm? Maybe the person reading your file was cranky that day because their husband didn't notice her new shoes and you paid the price? Maybe your LSAC number has 666 in it?

I don't understand this debate, and I don't understand folks getting butt hurt when they have so many awesome options on the table. Seriously. I got the wait list from my top top choice this cycle, but it's not personal. It stings, but you just gotta move on.

Image
(I'm already sorry if I hurt anyone's feelings in this rant)


I feel it..

User avatar
Smumps
Posts: 332
Joined: Sat Dec 03, 2011 1:37 pm

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

Postby Smumps » Sat Feb 25, 2012 11:10 pm

ru1ess wrote:
smokeylarue wrote:Don't have a dog in this fight, but Berkeley I think is the only school in the T-14 that can claim legitimate holistic admissions.


That's what I thought, until I received my rejection letter a few weeks ago.. Lol, this admissions game can be really unpredictable.. Like everything, it's pretty subjective. In at Harvard, Georgetown and out at Berkeley.. yep


This doesn't make any sense. Because you were rejected (and below the GPA median), it means Berkeley is not holistic? What?

I agree with the poster a bit above. Holistic doesn't mean your numbers are disregarded in order to prioritize softs/whatever. It means that factors besides GPA/LSAT go into the decision making process. If Michigan is "holistic," will it take a 3.6/165 over a 3.9/173? Not likely. But it might give a golden ticket to a candidate that doesn't have particularly stellar numbers.

I think that I've completely outperformed my numbers this cycle (which are weak). If it was only #'s based, I'd have fewer options.

justicefishy
Posts: 497
Joined: Mon Jan 02, 2012 12:02 pm

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

Postby justicefishy » Sat Feb 25, 2012 11:35 pm

Smumps wrote:
ru1ess wrote:
smokeylarue wrote:Don't have a dog in this fight, but Berkeley I think is the only school in the T-14 that can claim legitimate holistic admissions.


That's what I thought, until I received my rejection letter a few weeks ago.. Lol, this admissions game can be really unpredictable.. Like everything, it's pretty subjective. In at Harvard, Georgetown and out at Berkeley.. yep


This doesn't make any sense. Because you were rejected (and below the GPA median), it means Berkeley is not holistic? What?

I agree with the poster a bit above. Holistic doesn't mean your numbers are disregarded in order to prioritize softs/whatever. It means that factors besides GPA/LSAT go into the decision making process. If Michigan is "holistic," will it take a 3.6/165 over a 3.9/173? Not likely. But it might give a golden ticket to a candidate that doesn't have particularly stellar numbers.

I think that I've completely outperformed my numbers this cycle (which are weak). If it was only #'s based, I'd have fewer options.


+1 here. I got WL'd, but I was accepted to UVA and Penn, both of which were major reaches for me if it was purely numbers based. They look at more than just raw scores it seems.

User avatar
existenz
Posts: 927
Joined: Tue Dec 22, 2009 3:06 am

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

Postby existenz » Sat Feb 25, 2012 11:47 pm

soj, I got into Michigan and was rejected by UVA, Penn, Berkeley, CCN. This is all the evidence I need to establish that Michigan has the greatest admissions process in all of the T10.

User avatar
soj
Posts: 7735
Joined: Sat Jan 16, 2010 11:10 pm

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

Postby soj » Sat Feb 25, 2012 11:55 pm

existenz wrote:soj, I got into Michigan and was rejected by UVA, Penn, Berkeley, CCN. This is all the evidence I need to establish that Michigan has the greatest admissions process in all of the T10.

I agree, your acceptance is a huge factor in Michigan's favor. :mrgreen:

User avatar
DaftAndDirect
Posts: 381
Joined: Fri Jan 28, 2011 4:28 pm

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

Postby DaftAndDirect » Sun Feb 26, 2012 8:01 am

existenz wrote:soj, I got into Michigan and was rejected by UVA, Penn, Berkeley, CCN. This is all the evidence I need to establish that Michigan has the greatest admissions process in all of the T10.


Sometimes I think the deans of MVP (definitely not B because no one wants to invite that tree-hugger to the party) get together in a seedy looking restaurant (a la "Thank You For Smoking") and trade applicants like baseball cards to craft their respective ideal classes.

smoneill88
Posts: 115
Joined: Fri Apr 30, 2010 2:23 am

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

Postby smoneill88 » Sun Feb 26, 2012 10:22 pm

hey guys, not to break the chain of distress that seems to being goin on in this thread right now, but i was accepted about a month ago and was wondering when i should expect to start hearing word about scholarships? and if i should have heard by now, when you think i should start reaching out to try and get some?

thank you

ahnhub
Posts: 578
Joined: Fri Jun 10, 2011 3:14 pm

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

Postby ahnhub » Sun Feb 26, 2012 10:29 pm

smoneill88 wrote:hey guys, not to break the chain of distress that seems to being goin on in this thread right now, but i was accepted about a month ago and was wondering when i should expect to start hearing word about scholarships? and if i should have heard by now, when you think i should start reaching out to try and get some?

thank you


I got a letter with my award 3 weeks after my acceptance. Log into ASW click on 'Mail and Money' it may show you your award, as well.

User avatar
UnamSanctam
Posts: 7175
Joined: Mon Mar 21, 2011 3:17 am

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

Postby UnamSanctam » Sun Feb 26, 2012 10:31 pm

smoneill88 wrote:hey guys, not to break the chain of distress that seems to being goin on in this thread right now, but i was accepted about a month ago and was wondering when i should expect to start hearing word about scholarships? and if i should have heard by now, when you think i should start reaching out to try and get some?

thank you


You would have heard back within 2 weeks if they were going to offer you money. It's not Michigan's practice to negotiate scholarship money once they make the offer, but the exception to this rule is those who are offered nothing yet have money from a peer school. In that case, it's worth attempting to negotiate, but I'm not sure if you'll end up getting anything out of them.




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

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Baidu [Spider], hellohalo, Photomike2, Why???, XUMickeal and 25 guests