Page 50 of 130

Re: Chicago c/o 2016 Applicants (2012-2013)

Posted: Thu Jan 24, 2013 1:37 pm
by VeeD101
UtilityMonster wrote:Lol, check out their ASW RSVP page - this is hilarious:
Gender preference for overnight host: *

Female
Male
No preference

I would prefer the following activity outside of the scheduled ASW programming: *

I would prefer to go out and socialize.
I would prefer to watch a movie or stay in for the evening.
I'm flexible and will go with the flow.
Don't worry about me; I plan to keep myself occupied.
Uhhh, I'll take a lovely lady, and, uh, don't worry about me - I'll keep myself occupied. :wink:
:lol:

Re: Chicago c/o 2016 Applicants (2012-2013)

Posted: Thu Jan 24, 2013 2:01 pm
by robot_socrates
Got my invite to interview! November applicant, initial UR 1/9.

Re: Chicago c/o 2016 Applicants (2012-2013)

Posted: Thu Jan 24, 2013 2:03 pm
by LSATSCORES2012
Got an interview invite! :) Complete 11/2, UR 1/3, submitted early Sept (they were waiting for Oct. LSAT), 170/3.86.

For those who also got invites, please fill out

Re: Chicago c/o 2016 Applicants (2012-2013)

Posted: Thu Jan 24, 2013 2:04 pm
by trojandave
UtilityMonster wrote:Lol, check out their ASW RSVP page - this is hilarious:
Gender preference for overnight host: *

Female
Male
No preference

I would prefer the following activity outside of the scheduled ASW programming: *

I would prefer to go out and socialize.
I would prefer to watch a movie or stay in for the evening.
I'm flexible and will go with the flow.
Don't worry about me; I plan to keep myself occupied.
Uhhh, I'll take a lovely lady, and, uh, don't worry about me - I'll keep myself occupied. :wink:
You sir, win the ASW award and are awarded a Ruby. On the flip side, I bet if you check "I would prefer to watch a movie or stay in for the evening" they revoke your acceptance.

Re: Chicago c/o 2016 Applicants (2012-2013)

Posted: Thu Jan 24, 2013 2:08 pm
by 02889
I just got an interview invite! Complete 11/1, UR 1/3. I thought I was either auto-ding or at best auto-WL given that I have no high LSAT to counter my meh GPA. Chicago was such an unlikely possibility that I haven't even researched the school at all. Guess I'll have to start!

Congrats to everyone who's been admitted so far. And for those who were rejected or waitlisted, I expect to be joining you very soon.

Re: Chicago c/o 2016 Applicants (2012-2013)

Posted: Thu Jan 24, 2013 2:16 pm
by Yukos
trojandave wrote: On the flip side, I bet if you check "I would prefer to watch a movie or stay in for the evening" they revoke your acceptance.
I think that would just mean you're going to fit in perfectly at UChi :lol:

Re: Chicago c/o 2016 Applicants (2012-2013)

Posted: Thu Jan 24, 2013 2:23 pm
by 20141023
.

Re: Chicago c/o 2016 Applicants (2012-2013)

Posted: Thu Jan 24, 2013 2:35 pm
by twinkletoes16
Regulus wrote:
Yukos wrote:
trojandave wrote: On the flip side, I bet if you check "I would prefer to watch a movie or stay in for the evening" they revoke your acceptance.
I think that would just mean you're going to fit in perfectly at UChi :lol:
Yukos, that wasn't nice and it wasn't funny. At the University of Chicago, we neither watch movies nor stay in our homes. Instead, we go to the library where we can actively engage in rigorous, solitary scholarship. Please do not ever make the mistake of associating us with "movies" or "lives at home" again because it is really damaging to our image.


ahahahahaha

Re: Chicago c/o 2016 Applicants (2012-2013)

Posted: Thu Jan 24, 2013 2:40 pm
by Yukos
Regulus wrote:
Yukos wrote:
trojandave wrote: On the flip side, I bet if you check "I would prefer to watch a movie or stay in for the evening" they revoke your acceptance.
I think that would just mean you're going to fit in perfectly at UChi :lol:
Yukos, that wasn't nice and it wasn't funny. At the University of Chicago, we neither watch movies nor stay in our homes. Instead, we go to the library where we can actively engage in rigorous, solitary scholarship. Please do not ever make the mistake of associating us with "movies" or "lives at home" again because it is really damaging to our image.
180.

Re: Chicago c/o 2016 Applicants (2012-2013)

Posted: Thu Jan 24, 2013 2:53 pm
by broadstreet11
Interview request. Complete since November. Updated LSAT 1/3. I imagine the LSAT just got me thrown into a different pile.

Re: Chicago c/o 2016 Applicants (2012-2013)

Posted: Thu Jan 24, 2013 2:56 pm
by twinkletoes16
seems like they're going in chronologicalish order- no dec/jan people invited to interview yet.

Re: Chicago c/o 2016 Applicants (2012-2013)

Posted: Thu Jan 24, 2013 3:10 pm
by efresh88
Invite to interview today 3.87/165 URM MA, dates below

Complete: 11/8
Under Review: 1/9

Re: Chicago c/o 2016 Applicants (2012-2013)

Posted: Thu Jan 24, 2013 3:21 pm
by grapefruits
Is now a good time for 1/9 UR's to conclude that they will not be receiving interview invites? Or are they going out on a rolling basis? I never understand why they don't just do these things all at once.

Re: Chicago c/o 2016 Applicants (2012-2013)

Posted: Thu Jan 24, 2013 3:25 pm
by MAHamlin
Checking in. 4.04/172, non-traditional student. Chicago is one of my very top choices as it is close to my current home (Indianapolis), I have family in the area, and there are excellent opportunities for my wife in her line of work there.

Submitted 12/8/12
Complete 12/19/12
Nothing since...

Re: Chicago c/o 2016 Applicants (2012-2013)

Posted: Thu Jan 24, 2013 4:01 pm
by Crowing
UtilityMonster wrote:Lol, check out their ASW RSVP page - this is hilarious:
Gender preference for overnight host: *

Female
Male
No preference

I would prefer the following activity outside of the scheduled ASW programming: *

I would prefer to go out and socialize.
I would prefer to watch a movie or stay in for the evening.
I'm flexible and will go with the flow.
Don't worry about me; I plan to keep myself occupied.
Uhhh, I'll take a lovely lady, and, uh, don't worry about me - I'll keep myself occupied. :wink:
Why is "I would prefer to immerse myself in rigorous intellectual discovery" not an option? I thought I was going to Chicago, not casualville.

Re: Chicago c/o 2016 Applicants (2012-2013)

Posted: Thu Jan 24, 2013 4:06 pm
by LSATSCORES2012
Sooooo... I don't own a suit. But looks like everyone suggests wearing a suit. I'm a K-JD, so I kinda want to look not immature. I'm also fat, so I want to avoid looking like a slob.

I'm thinking I should go get fitted for a suit...

Re: Chicago c/o 2016 Applicants (2012-2013)

Posted: Thu Jan 24, 2013 4:12 pm
by cwid1391
LSATSCORES2012 wrote:Sooooo... I don't own a suit. But looks like everyone suggests wearing a suit. I'm a K-JD, so I kinda want to look not immature. I'm also fat, so I want to avoid looking like a slob.

I'm thinking I should go get fitted for a suit...
Sooner rather than later. It can take a couple weeks to get a suit back from most places. Though, if you have a sport coat, you could just wear a dress shirt and tie (it doesn't matter about your lower half) and they'd be none the wiser.

Re: Chicago c/o 2016 Applicants (2012-2013)

Posted: Thu Jan 24, 2013 4:13 pm
by 20141023
.

Re: Chicago c/o 2016 Applicants (2012-2013)

Posted: Thu Jan 24, 2013 4:14 pm
by applemaroon
.

Re: Chicago c/o 2016 Applicants (2012-2013)

Posted: Thu Jan 24, 2013 4:16 pm
by nba101790
cwid1391 wrote:
LSATSCORES2012 wrote:Sooooo... I don't own a suit. But looks like everyone suggests wearing a suit. I'm a K-JD, so I kinda want to look not immature. I'm also fat, so I want to avoid looking like a slob.

I'm thinking I should go get fitted for a suit...
Sooner rather than later. It can take a couple weeks to get a suit back from most places. Though, if you have a sport coat, you could just wear a dress shirt and tie (it doesn't matter about your lower half) and they'd be none the wiser.
Agree that you should definitely get one. However, if you've never worn a suit before, and you feel as though you won't be comfortable in it the first couple times, I wouldn't wear it to an interview. As long as you have on a collared shirt, black shoes, and no jeans, you shouldn't be negatively judged. On the converse, if you wear a suit and feel uncomfortable, that discomfort will show through in your body language possibly to your detriment.

Re: Chicago c/o 2016 Applicants (2012-2013)

Posted: Thu Jan 24, 2013 4:19 pm
by twinkletoes16
nba101790 wrote:
cwid1391 wrote:
LSATSCORES2012 wrote:Sooooo... I don't own a suit. But looks like everyone suggests wearing a suit. I'm a K-JD, so I kinda want to look not immature. I'm also fat, so I want to avoid looking like a slob.

I'm thinking I should go get fitted for a suit...
Sooner rather than later. It can take a couple weeks to get a suit back from most places. Though, if you have a sport coat, you could just wear a dress shirt and tie (it doesn't matter about your lower half) and they'd be none the wiser.
Agree that you should definitely get one. However, if you've never worn a suit before, and you feel as though you won't be comfortable in it the first couple times, I wouldn't wear it to an interview. As long as you have on a collared shirt, black shoes, and no jeans, you shouldn't be negatively judged. On the converse, if you wear a suit and feel uncomfortable, that discomfort will show through in your body language possibly to your detriment.

It's a skype interview, so as long as he has a collared shirt and a sport coat on he would be fine. He could wear boxers and Crocs along with it for ultimate comfort and Chicago would have no idea. If you can't afford one right now, save up- don't rush an investment piece. you'll need one before 1L starts, certainly, but it takes time for fittings and all that.

Re: Chicago c/o 2016 Applicants (2012-2013)

Posted: Thu Jan 24, 2013 4:28 pm
by ajclark1992
I wore a button down, collared shirt and a nice wool sweater. I think you'll be fine as long as you look professional

Edit: I am also fat.

Re: Chicago c/o 2016 Applicants (2012-2013)

Posted: Thu Jan 24, 2013 4:38 pm
by LSATSCORES2012
Thank you so much for the input everyone! I'll see what I can find tonight/tomorrow and go from there.

Re: Chicago c/o 2016 Applicants (2012-2013)

Posted: Thu Jan 24, 2013 5:10 pm
by reallysearch
twinkletoes16 wrote:
nba101790 wrote:
cwid1391 wrote:
LSATSCORES2012 wrote:Sooooo... I don't own a suit. But looks like everyone suggests wearing a suit. I'm a K-JD, so I kinda want to look not immature. I'm also fat, so I want to avoid looking like a slob.

I'm thinking I should go get fitted for a suit...
Sooner rather than later. It can take a couple weeks to get a suit back from most places. Though, if you have a sport coat, you could just wear a dress shirt and tie (it doesn't matter about your lower half) and they'd be none the wiser.
Agree that you should definitely get one. However, if you've never worn a suit before, and you feel as though you won't be comfortable in it the first couple times, I wouldn't wear it to an interview. As long as you have on a collared shirt, black shoes, and no jeans, you shouldn't be negatively judged. On the converse, if you wear a suit and feel uncomfortable, that discomfort will show through in your body language possibly to your detriment.

It's a skype interview, so as long as he has a collared shirt and a sport coat on he would be fine. He could wear boxers and Crocs along with it for ultimate comfort and Chicago would have no idea. If you can't afford one right now, save up- don't rush an investment piece. you'll need one before 1L starts, certainly, but it takes time for fittings and all that.
I actually dressed the full set since I was afraid they might ask me to stand up and walk around in front of the web cam.... Of course that is totally unwarranted, but you know, application panic... :P

Re: Chicago c/o 2016 Applicants (2012-2013)

Posted: Thu Jan 24, 2013 5:12 pm
by Crowing
I did too but it was because I would feel weird being like half suited up.