Texas 2011-2012 Applicants

Share Your Experiences, Read About Other Experiences. Please keep posts organized by school and expected year of graduation.
iamrobk
Posts: 485
Joined: Sat Oct 01, 2011 6:31 pm

Re: Texas 2011-2012 Applicants

Postby iamrobk » Sun Nov 20, 2011 3:16 pm

outsidethescope wrote:Wow. A lot of these rejections are surprising. What happens if in their push to become a solid T14, they dramatically reduce class size? I can't see this not happening--with test takers decreasing. There's no way this seems sustainable.

Aye, seems like a very odd strategy for them. I can't see them tying for 14th with Georgetown increasing their applications enough to make up for the big drop in LSAT test takers and being much more selective... I can only hope it doesn't backfire on them if/when they realize their yield drops dramatically.

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

Re: Texas 2011-2012 Applicants

Postby msblaw89 » Sun Nov 20, 2011 3:18 pm

Yea, if UT only excepts 172+ 3.7+ OOS... well those numbers will get you into a much better ranked school that UT... so I don't think they would end up matriculating

iamrobk
Posts: 485
Joined: Sat Oct 01, 2011 6:31 pm

Re: Texas 2011-2012 Applicants

Postby iamrobk » Sun Nov 20, 2011 3:19 pm

msblaw89 wrote:Yea, if UT only excepts 172+ 3.7+ OOS... well those numbers will get you into a much better ranked school that UT... so I don't think they would end up matriculating

Exactly. But time will tell, I suppose.

User avatar
CPM723
Posts: 377
Joined: Fri May 13, 2011 6:46 pm

Re: Texas 2011-2012 Applicants

Postby CPM723 » Sun Nov 20, 2011 3:29 pm

Just sent my app in today. In-state Resident.

User avatar
franklyscarlet
Posts: 2915
Joined: Mon Jun 13, 2011 10:16 pm

Re: Texas 2011-2012 Applicants

Postby franklyscarlet » Sun Nov 20, 2011 3:31 pm

Wake up, read this thread, freakthefuckoutlemur.jpg

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

Re: Texas 2011-2012 Applicants

Postby msblaw89 » Sun Nov 20, 2011 3:36 pm

The lemur didn't post!

User avatar
franklyscarlet
Posts: 2915
Joined: Mon Jun 13, 2011 10:16 pm

Re: Texas 2011-2012 Applicants

Postby franklyscarlet » Sun Nov 20, 2011 3:37 pm

msblaw89 wrote:The lemur didn't post!


Haha sorry, it's a tls abbreviation to just type the name of a well-known meme rather than going looking for it to post it.


But for the record, since I can't find the animated version from my iPad:

Image
Last edited by franklyscarlet on Sun Nov 20, 2011 3:42 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
outsidethescope
Posts: 164
Joined: Mon May 23, 2011 3:06 pm

Re: Texas 2011-2012 Applicants

Postby outsidethescope » Sun Nov 20, 2011 3:41 pm

Image

edited from cats to ducks, because apparently UT applicants genrally hate cats.
Last edited by outsidethescope on Sun Nov 20, 2011 3:45 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
franklyscarlet
Posts: 2915
Joined: Mon Jun 13, 2011 10:16 pm

Re: Texas 2011-2012 Applicants

Postby franklyscarlet » Sun Nov 20, 2011 3:42 pm

Meh. Epipen level allergy to cats. FREAKTHEFUCKOUTMORE.

:D

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

Re: Texas 2011-2012 Applicants

Postby msblaw89 » Sun Nov 20, 2011 3:44 pm

franklyscarlet wrote:Meh. Epipen level allergy to cats. FREAKTHEFUCKOUTMORE.

:D

+1

User avatar
gavinstevens
Posts: 291
Joined: Thu May 13, 2010 6:17 pm

Re: Texas 2011-2012 Applicants

Postby gavinstevens » Sun Nov 20, 2011 3:50 pm

paul34 wrote:I feel as if many of the high numbers that actually got in are also going to have options higher up the rankings chain.

I don't understand, UT.


Exactly. I think the earlier 173/3.5 rejection poster got into Michigan (but not UT!). It looks like there'll be a plenty of Cornell acceptance/Texas reject combos. Weird.

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

Re: Texas 2011-2012 Applicants

Postby msblaw89 » Sun Nov 20, 2011 3:55 pm

outsidethescope wrote:Image

edited from cats to ducks, because apparently UT applicants genrally hate cats.

Love it!

User avatar
franklyscarlet
Posts: 2915
Joined: Mon Jun 13, 2011 10:16 pm

Re: Texas 2011-2012 Applicants

Postby franklyscarlet » Sun Nov 20, 2011 3:57 pm

Ducks I totally approve of.

User avatar
outsidethescope
Posts: 164
Joined: Mon May 23, 2011 3:06 pm

Re: Texas 2011-2012 Applicants

Postby outsidethescope » Sun Nov 20, 2011 3:59 pm

I will remember. Texas-ducks, not cats.

User avatar
ThreeRivers
Posts: 1142
Joined: Thu Sep 01, 2011 12:54 am

Re: Texas 2011-2012 Applicants

Postby ThreeRivers » Sun Nov 20, 2011 4:15 pm

Yea... this would make sense if UT was trying to get this insane super class / and waitlisted some of these others in case it doesn't work. Just complete rejection on some of these might back fire

law2015
Posts: 398
Joined: Tue Jun 07, 2011 4:29 pm

Re: Texas 2011-2012 Applicants

Postby law2015 » Sun Nov 20, 2011 4:22 pm

gavinstevens wrote:
paul34 wrote:I feel as if many of the high numbers that actually got in are also going to have options higher up the rankings chain.

I don't understand, UT.


Exactly. I think the earlier 173/3.5 rejection poster got into Michigan (but not UT!). It looks like there'll be a plenty of Cornell acceptance/Texas reject combos. Weird.


I think you are referring to me, but yeah I already have received acceptances from Michigan and Cornell within the t14 so don't think that there was anything wrong with my app or anything. Their approach during a down cycle in applications just puzzles me.

User avatar
gavinstevens
Posts: 291
Joined: Thu May 13, 2010 6:17 pm

Re: Texas 2011-2012 Applicants

Postby gavinstevens » Sun Nov 20, 2011 4:25 pm

law2015 wrote:
gavinstevens wrote:
paul34 wrote:I feel as if many of the high numbers that actually got in are also going to have options higher up the rankings chain.

I don't understand, UT.


Exactly. I think the earlier 173/3.5 rejection poster got into Michigan (but not UT!). It looks like there'll be a plenty of Cornell acceptance/Texas reject combos. Weird.


I think you are referring to me, but yeah I already have received acceptances from Michigan and Cornell within the t14 so don't think that there was anything wrong with my app or anything. Their approach during a down cycle in applications just puzzles me.


I was. Congrats on Michigan though!

law2015
Posts: 398
Joined: Tue Jun 07, 2011 4:29 pm

Re: Texas 2011-2012 Applicants

Postby law2015 » Sun Nov 20, 2011 4:35 pm

gavinstevens wrote:
law2015 wrote:
gavinstevens wrote:
paul34 wrote:I feel as if many of the high numbers that actually got in are also going to have options higher up the rankings chain.

I don't understand, UT.


Exactly. I think the earlier 173/3.5 rejection poster got into Michigan (but not UT!). It looks like there'll be a plenty of Cornell acceptance/Texas reject combos. Weird.


I think you are referring to me, but yeah I already have received acceptances from Michigan and Cornell within the t14 so don't think that there was anything wrong with my app or anything. Their approach during a down cycle in applications just puzzles me.


I was. Congrats on Michigan though!


Thanks

ccmbr006
Posts: 168
Joined: Fri Nov 26, 2010 3:34 am

Re: Texas 2011-2012 Applicants

Postby ccmbr006 » Sun Nov 20, 2011 6:01 pm

Trying to get my application in today, but I've got a question for everybody:

How long of a résumé did you all submit? I know their application says up to three pages, but did anybody submit more than one?

User avatar
paul34
Posts: 316
Joined: Tue Feb 08, 2011 12:37 am

Re: Texas 2011-2012 Applicants

Postby paul34 » Sun Nov 20, 2011 6:55 pm

.
Last edited by paul34 on Tue Mar 06, 2012 5:29 pm, edited 2 times in total.

User avatar
fltanglab
Posts: 555
Joined: Thu Feb 24, 2011 3:44 pm

Re: Texas 2011-2012 Applicants

Postby fltanglab » Sun Nov 20, 2011 7:02 pm

I called it. Rejected at 5 am this morning via email. 3.1/167 OOS

ccmbr006
Posts: 168
Joined: Fri Nov 26, 2010 3:34 am

Re: Texas 2011-2012 Applicants

Postby ccmbr006 » Sun Nov 20, 2011 7:35 pm

paul34 wrote:One page. Unless you have some super extensive experience, you should really try to compact it to one page. Most people applying to law school simply don't have enough professional and/or academic experience to justify more than a single page resume. If you're a non-trad who has accomplished a lot, though, then you may want to extend onto another page.

Some people say you should only have one page, no matter what, no exceptions, etc. There's so much resume "advice" out there that it's difficult to figure out what advice to actually follow.


Thanks a bunch. This was my last hold up. I figured one page was all I needed; I thought it was pretty bizarre that they were open to the option of more than that. Taking the plunge tonight 3.77/171/OOS/URM

defendthefort
Posts: 41
Joined: Tue Nov 08, 2011 1:20 pm

Re: Texas 2011-2012 Applicants

Postby defendthefort » Sun Nov 20, 2011 8:47 pm

ccmbr006 wrote:
paul34 wrote:One page. Unless you have some super extensive experience, you should really try to compact it to one page. Most people applying to law school simply don't have enough professional and/or academic experience to justify more than a single page resume. If you're a non-trad who has accomplished a lot, though, then you may want to extend onto another page.

Some people say you should only have one page, no matter what, no exceptions, etc. There's so much resume "advice" out there that it's difficult to figure out what advice to actually follow.


Thanks a bunch. This was my last hold up. I figured one page was all I needed; I thought it was pretty bizarre that they were open to the option of more than that. Taking the plunge tonight 3.77/171/OOS/URM
Last edited by defendthefort on Sun Nov 20, 2011 9:27 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
franklyscarlet
Posts: 2915
Joined: Mon Jun 13, 2011 10:16 pm

Re: Texas 2011-2012 Applicants

Postby franklyscarlet » Sun Nov 20, 2011 8:55 pm

defendthefort wrote:
ccmbr006 wrote:
paul34 wrote:One page. Unless you have some super extensive experience, you should really try to compact it to one page. Most people applying to law school simply don't have enough professional and/or academic experience to justify more than a single page resume. If you're a non-trad who has accomplished a lot, though, then you may want to extend onto another page.

Some people say you should only have one page, no matter what, no exceptions, etc. There's so much resume "advice" out there that it's difficult to figure out what advice to actually follow.


Thanks a bunch. This was my last hold up. I figured one page was all I needed; I thought it was pretty bizarre that they were open to the option of more than that. Taking the plunge tonight 3.77/171/OOS/URM


WRONG. I spoke directly to an insider at admissions at UT. If you have the info, fill up as much of those three pages as possible. Everything helps because they will read every last word. Seriously. They don't want a business one page resume.


I find this hard to believe. No one has enough worthwhile/relevant experience to make a 3 page resume (awful formatting aside).

ETA: FWIW, beginning your post with an all caps WRONG is quite rude.
Last edited by franklyscarlet on Sun Nov 20, 2011 9:10 pm, edited 2 times in total.

User avatar
Magnifique1908
Posts: 572
Joined: Mon Feb 18, 2008 11:46 am

Re: Texas 2011-2012 Applicants

Postby Magnifique1908 » Sun Nov 20, 2011 9:02 pm

As a non trad and URM who put herself through school with full time work experience (8 years worth)......stick to one page.

I was admitted oos for what its worth.




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

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot], joezze, lillawyer2, tinafeyclone and 3 guests