Chicago c/o 2016 Applicants (2012-2013)

Share Your Experiences, Read About Other Experiences. Please keep posts organized by school and expected year of graduation.
wisteria
Posts: 285
Joined: Fri Nov 02, 2012 4:43 am

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

Postby wisteria » Tue Feb 05, 2013 5:51 pm

risa wrote:From Twitter about an hour ago:

@UChicagoLawApps Message to current applicants: If you went complete in late Nov./early Dec. but your complete date was updated to 1/31 (to be continued)... (Continued) Don't worry about it. You will be assigned for review based on your original complete date. System issue, no effect on your app.


Well, Risa, there goes our "auto-accept" theory. :)

onionz
Posts: 407
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2012 11:22 pm

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

Postby onionz » Tue Feb 05, 2013 5:55 pm

LSATSCORES2012 wrote:
risa wrote:From Twitter about an hour ago:

@UChicagoLawApps Message to current applicants: If you went complete in late Nov./early Dec. but your complete date was updated to 1/31 (to be continued)... (Continued) Don't worry about it. You will be assigned for review based on your original complete date. System issue, no effect on your app.

I feel like Chicago actively checks TLS... how else would they know that people were wondering about this? They always seem to know what people on TLS are thinking, and respond accordingly. Another example is when everyone was freaking out about the delayed decisions in early January, and on the next wave of invites they specified when the next wave of decisions would roll out.


Eh, from my experience with Northwestern and other schools, they seem to reference "callers" much more frequently. For every few of us whining on TLS, there are brave, non-TLS souls who call for every little thing.

User avatar
LSATSCORES2012
Posts: 770
Joined: Mon Jul 02, 2012 2:12 pm

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

Postby LSATSCORES2012 » Tue Feb 05, 2013 5:59 pm

onionz wrote:
LSATSCORES2012 wrote:
risa wrote:From Twitter about an hour ago:

@UChicagoLawApps Message to current applicants: If you went complete in late Nov./early Dec. but your complete date was updated to 1/31 (to be continued)... (Continued) Don't worry about it. You will be assigned for review based on your original complete date. System issue, no effect on your app.

I feel like Chicago actively checks TLS... how else would they know that people were wondering about this? They always seem to know what people on TLS are thinking, and respond accordingly. Another example is when everyone was freaking out about the delayed decisions in early January, and on the next wave of invites they specified when the next wave of decisions would roll out.


Eh, from my experience with Northwestern and other schools, they seem to reference "callers" much more frequently. For every few of us whining on TLS, there are brave, non-TLS souls who call for every little thing.

Do people who don't go on TLS actually refresh their pages 10x an hour? LSAT logic:

Obsessively check status checkers -> Obsessive -> TLS

ETA: Oh, I see.

Image

jym_dawg
Posts: 294
Joined: Tue Aug 07, 2012 10:09 pm

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

Postby jym_dawg » Tue Feb 05, 2013 6:25 pm

winter.is.coming, Winter is Here


I lol'd at these two users. Well played, winter(s).

sarah2013
Posts: 10
Joined: Wed Feb 06, 2013 6:12 am

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

Postby sarah2013 » Wed Feb 06, 2013 6:16 am

bit of an awkward situation - need advice!

I was WL'ed at Chicago about two weeks ago. My numbers are pretty low for Chicago so I'm absolutely ecstatic and definitely want to try to get in. They said I can send a LOCI if I want to.

The problem is that I had to go abroad unexpectedly because of a death in the family and didn't get around to much else. So to them, it probably looks like I couldn't be bothered to reply in two weeks. I'm about to send in the LOCI and I'm wondering if I should explain the delay. Or will that sound whiney / is a two week delay too insignificant to mention??

vzapana
Posts: 530
Joined: Sat Oct 13, 2012 2:54 pm

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

Postby vzapana » Wed Feb 06, 2013 7:09 am

sarah2013 wrote:bit of an awkward situation - need advice!

I was WL'ed at Chicago about two weeks ago. My numbers are pretty low for Chicago so I'm absolutely ecstatic and definitely want to try to get in. They said I can send a LOCI if I want to.

The problem is that I had to go abroad unexpectedly because of a death in the family and didn't get around to much else. So to them, it probably looks like I couldn't be bothered to reply in two weeks. I'm about to send in the LOCI and I'm wondering if I should explain the delay. Or will that sound whiney / is a two week delay too insignificant to mention??


First, I'm sorry for your loss. Second, sending a LOCI even a month later wouldn't be a problem. Take more time if you need it; just make sure the LOCI is great.

sarah2013
Posts: 10
Joined: Wed Feb 06, 2013 6:12 am

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

Postby sarah2013 » Wed Feb 06, 2013 10:13 am

that's good to know. thanks for the advice!!

User avatar
WinterIsHere
Posts: 26
Joined: Fri Nov 02, 2012 5:05 pm

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

Postby WinterIsHere » Wed Feb 06, 2013 5:29 pm

jym_dawg wrote:
winter.is.coming, Winter is Here


I lol'd at these two users. Well played, winter(s).


Telling it like it is.

Substance: thanks to all those who offered advice on interviews, it was incredibly helpful. All the questions that I was asked were already covered in the various threads. Hoping to hear back in the mid-February decisions.

User avatar
ssanonymous
Posts: 513
Joined: Mon Nov 05, 2012 2:27 pm

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

Postby ssanonymous » Wed Feb 06, 2013 9:00 pm

Still not UR and I went complete 12/07...

20141023
Posts: 3072
Joined: Mon Jun 18, 2012 12:17 am

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

Postby 20141023 » Wed Feb 06, 2013 10:38 pm

.
Last edited by 20141023 on Mon Feb 16, 2015 2:19 pm, edited 2 times in total.

User avatar
Dany
Posts: 11580
Joined: Mon Sep 28, 2009 3:00 pm

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

Postby Dany » Wed Feb 06, 2013 10:41 pm

They definitely read TLS.

User avatar
Crowing
Posts: 2636
Joined: Fri Feb 10, 2012 4:20 pm

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

Postby Crowing » Thu Feb 07, 2013 12:15 am

Imo admissions offices should hire one person to scour the internets full-time, link applicants to online tags, and monitor their behavior. It would make a lot of sense for gaming the rankings; with TLS and LSN you could find out a lot about applicants' true desires to go to specific schools, if they're expecting a significant scholarship to sway their decision, and their levels of aspieness. I bet doing this would improve yield. I guess it's not exactly ethical, but we already know that most schools don't care about that.

Forget going to LS to be a lawyer; I just need the ins to an admissions committee so I can be a full-time internet sleuth.

User avatar
JXander
Posts: 960
Joined: Tue Oct 16, 2012 10:23 am

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

Postby JXander » Thu Feb 07, 2013 9:27 am

Crowing wrote:Imo admissions offices should hire one person to scour the internets full-time, link applicants to online tags, and monitor their behavior. It would make a lot of sense for gaming the rankings; with TLS and LSN you could find out a lot about applicants' true desires to go to specific schools, if they're expecting a significant scholarship to sway their decision, and their levels of aspieness. I bet doing this would improve yield. I guess it's not exactly ethical, but we already know that most schools don't care about that..

I'm pretty sure some schools already do this. Several admissions deans have started the applicant thread for their own school.

onionz
Posts: 407
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2012 11:22 pm

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

Postby onionz » Thu Feb 07, 2013 10:09 am

JXander wrote:
Crowing wrote:Imo admissions offices should hire one person to scour the internets full-time, link applicants to online tags, and monitor their behavior. It would make a lot of sense for gaming the rankings; with TLS and LSN you could find out a lot about applicants' true desires to go to specific schools, if they're expecting a significant scholarship to sway their decision, and their levels of aspieness. I bet doing this would improve yield. I guess it's not exactly ethical, but we already know that most schools don't care about that..

I'm pretty sure some schools already do this. Several admissions deans have started the applicant thread for their own school.


Yea the bottom feeder schools do that. But Tls is around 10% of applicants to the t14 so that's not a lot of people to work with. They check to get an idea of what people are saying but I think trying to tie applicants with users is an absurd theory. I don't think even bad schools are doing more than getting their name out there.

User avatar
LSATSCORES2012
Posts: 770
Joined: Mon Jul 02, 2012 2:12 pm

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

Postby LSATSCORES2012 » Thu Feb 07, 2013 10:24 am

onionz wrote:
JXander wrote:
Crowing wrote:Imo admissions offices should hire one person to scour the internets full-time, link applicants to online tags, and monitor their behavior. It would make a lot of sense for gaming the rankings; with TLS and LSN you could find out a lot about applicants' true desires to go to specific schools, if they're expecting a significant scholarship to sway their decision, and their levels of aspieness. I bet doing this would improve yield. I guess it's not exactly ethical, but we already know that most schools don't care about that..

I'm pretty sure some schools already do this. Several admissions deans have started the applicant thread for their own school.


Yea the bottom feeder schools do that. But Tls is around 10% of applicants to the t14 so that's not a lot of people to work with. They check to get an idea of what people are saying but I think trying to tie applicants with users is an absurd theory. I don't think even bad schools are doing more than getting their name out there.

The people on LSN comprise about 10% of the applicants to the T14 (though about 20% of the students admitted to the T14), and the people on TLS are probably more like 15% (25%) (because some don't have LSN accounts). Right now, though, there are 21 members viewing this Acceptances/Denials/Waitlists forum, and 55 guests. This is typical. It isn't unreasonable, then, to think that about 45% of all applicants (60% of all admits - that is, admits are probably more likely to actively participate than applicants) to the T14 are influenced in some way by TLS. In fact, it may be even more, because these guests probably don't spend as much time on TLS as the regulars, or the people who actually go out of their way to make an LSN profile. So for each guest we see, there are possibly 2 actual guests. So, really, it's probably more along the lines of 60-70% of applicants being influenced in some way by TLS (and about 80% of T14 admits).

talesofyore
Posts: 294
Joined: Fri Sep 07, 2012 10:21 pm

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

Postby talesofyore » Thu Feb 07, 2013 10:36 am

onionz wrote:
JXander wrote:
Crowing wrote:Imo admissions offices should hire one person to scour the internets full-time, link applicants to online tags, and monitor their behavior. It would make a lot of sense for gaming the rankings; with TLS and LSN you could find out a lot about applicants' true desires to go to specific schools, if they're expecting a significant scholarship to sway their decision, and their levels of aspieness. I bet doing this would improve yield. I guess it's not exactly ethical, but we already know that most schools don't care about that..

I'm pretty sure some schools already do this. Several admissions deans have started the applicant thread for their own school.


Yea the bottom feeder schools do that. But Tls is around 10% of applicants to the t14 so that's not a lot of people to work with. They check to get an idea of what people are saying but I think trying to tie applicants with users is an absurd theory. I don't think even bad schools are doing more than getting their name out there.



Yale does.

"So, rather than do a traditional "Ask Asha" post this round, I thought I would answer some of the questions -- and correct some of the off-base answers -- which have been circulating in the online forums. Yes, we do read them. And yes, it's not hard to figure out who some of you are. Please be on your best cyber behavior. (And by the way, you guys have way too much time on your hands.)"
http://blogs.law.yale.edu/blogs/admissi ... wered.aspx

Gisney
Posts: 403
Joined: Wed Apr 20, 2011 1:32 pm

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

Postby Gisney » Thu Feb 07, 2013 4:53 pm

talesofyore wrote:

Yale does.

"So, rather than do a traditional "Ask Asha" post this round, I thought I would answer some of the questions -- and correct some of the off-base answers -- which have been circulating in the online forums. Yes, we do read them. And yes, it's not hard to figure out who some of you are. Please be on your best cyber behavior. (And by the way, you guys have way too much time on your hands.)"
http://blogs.law.yale.edu/blogs/admissi ... wered.aspx


"Some read every LSAT writing sample, and swear by it."

:shock:

I did not apply to Yale but for some reason that still freaks me out. Not that I drew a penis or anything on my writing sample but it is far from being something I would want as a significant factor in my admissions process.

User avatar
pedestrian
Posts: 461
Joined: Sat Jun 18, 2011 9:38 pm

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

Postby pedestrian » Thu Feb 07, 2013 7:02 pm

Gisney wrote:
talesofyore wrote:

Yale does.

"So, rather than do a traditional "Ask Asha" post this round, I thought I would answer some of the questions -- and correct some of the off-base answers -- which have been circulating in the online forums. Yes, we do read them. And yes, it's not hard to figure out who some of you are. Please be on your best cyber behavior. (And by the way, you guys have way too much time on your hands.)"
http://blogs.law.yale.edu/blogs/admissi ... wered.aspx


"Some read every LSAT writing sample, and swear by it."

:shock:

I did not apply to Yale but for some reason that still freaks me out. Not that I drew a penis or anything on my writing sample but it is far from being something I would want as a significant factor in my admissions process.


Mine were both brilliant, but I may as well have used Linear B for all of the luck they will have deciphering my handwriting.

User avatar
cwid1391
Posts: 475
Joined: Wed Feb 15, 2012 10:41 pm

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

Postby cwid1391 » Thu Feb 07, 2013 7:04 pm

pedestrian wrote:
Gisney wrote:
talesofyore wrote:

Yale does.

"So, rather than do a traditional "Ask Asha" post this round, I thought I would answer some of the questions -- and correct some of the off-base answers -- which have been circulating in the online forums. Yes, we do read them. And yes, it's not hard to figure out who some of you are. Please be on your best cyber behavior. (And by the way, you guys have way too much time on your hands.)"
http://blogs.law.yale.edu/blogs/admissi ... wered.aspx


"Some read every LSAT writing sample, and swear by it."

:shock:

I did not apply to Yale but for some reason that still freaks me out. Not that I drew a penis or anything on my writing sample but it is far from being something I would want as a significant factor in my admissions process.


Mine were both brilliant, but I may as well have used Linear B for all of the luck they will have deciphering my handwriting.


I don't know why I didn't think of that strategy... Oh wait, yes I do. It's because I never would have imagined anyone caring what your writing sample said.

onionz
Posts: 407
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2012 11:22 pm

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

Postby onionz » Fri Feb 08, 2013 12:47 pm

LSATSCORES2012 wrote:
onionz wrote:
JXander wrote:
Crowing wrote:Imo admissions offices should hire one person to scour the internets full-time, link applicants to online tags, and monitor their behavior. It would make a lot of sense for gaming the rankings; with TLS and LSN you could find out a lot about applicants' true desires to go to specific schools, if they're expecting a significant scholarship to sway their decision, and their levels of aspieness. I bet doing this would improve yield. I guess it's not exactly ethical, but we already know that most schools don't care about that..

I'm pretty sure some schools already do this. Several admissions deans have started the applicant thread for their own school.


Yea the bottom feeder schools do that. But Tls is around 10% of applicants to the t14 so that's not a lot of people to work with. They check to get an idea of what people are saying but I think trying to tie applicants with users is an absurd theory. I don't think even bad schools are doing more than getting their name out there.

The people on LSN comprise about 10% of the applicants to the T14 (though about 20% of the students admitted to the T14), and the people on TLS are probably more like 15% (25%) (because some don't have LSN accounts). Right now, though, there are 21 members viewing this Acceptances/Denials/Waitlists forum, and 55 guests. This is typical. It isn't unreasonable, then, to think that about 45% of all applicants (60% of all admits - that is, admits are probably more likely to actively participate than applicants) to the T14 are influenced in some way by TLS. In fact, it may be even more, because these guests probably don't spend as much time on TLS as the regulars, or the people who actually go out of their way to make an LSN profile. So for each guest we see, there are possibly 2 actual guests. So, really, it's probably more along the lines of 60-70% of applicants being influenced in some way by TLS (and about 80% of T14 admits).


Wait wait. The initial comment to which I was responding was that adcomms should scour TLS to find people to admit/deny based on their actions:

s; with TLS and LSN you could find out a lot about applicants' true desires to go to specific schools, if they're expecting a significant scholarship to sway their decision, and their levels of aspieness.

That is exceedingly different than what % of people actually have logged onto TLS- we are looking at people who actively post on TLS, and realistically, post some sort of identifiable information ever. Additionally, you can't just math your way to an unreasonable 70% of applications having seen TLS forums. You're saying that of the 5000 applicants to Chicago, almost 3500 have logged on to TLS forums? That is completely unreasonable. You're acting as if the guests+members each day are all different and unique. There are like 15 people who make 50% of the posts for any given school's comments. Not 3500. Also, LSN hasn't hit 20% of total admits in a few years.

Anyway, even forgetting your dubious math, considering just the users we have information on. I really don't think the return on investment is there for those adcomms. Just because Yale does that sometimes (don't forget they see far fewer applicants than almost all the other schools here) to see what people are saying about the school, doesn't mean every school can do that to find applicants and people to accept.

(also, I like how you assume there are people on TLS without LSN accounts- what if there are people on LSN without TLS accounts and thus LSN makes up many more people than TLS?)

User avatar
Teflon_Don
Posts: 474
Joined: Tue Feb 14, 2012 7:04 pm

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

Postby Teflon_Don » Fri Feb 08, 2013 2:33 pm

So mid-Feb meaning late next week? Or two weeks from now :(

User avatar
LSATSCORES2012
Posts: 770
Joined: Mon Jul 02, 2012 2:12 pm

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

Postby LSATSCORES2012 » Fri Feb 08, 2013 3:08 pm

onionz wrote:Wait wait. The initial comment to which I was responding was that adcomms should scour TLS to find people to admit/deny based on their actions:

s; with TLS and LSN you could find out a lot about applicants' true desires to go to specific schools, if they're expecting a significant scholarship to sway their decision, and their levels of aspieness.

That is exceedingly different than what % of people actually have logged onto TLS- we are looking at people who actively post on TLS, and realistically, post some sort of identifiable information ever. Additionally, you can't just math your way to an unreasonable 70% of applications having seen TLS forums. You're saying that of the 5000 applicants to Chicago, almost 3500 have logged on to TLS forums? That is completely unreasonable. You're acting as if the guests+members each day are all different and unique. There are like 15 people who make 50% of the posts for any given school's comments. Not 3500. Also, LSN hasn't hit 20% of total admits in a few years.

Anyway, even forgetting your dubious math, considering just the users we have information on. I really don't think the return on investment is there for those adcomms. Just because Yale does that sometimes (don't forget they see far fewer applicants than almost all the other schools here) to see what people are saying about the school, doesn't mean every school can do that to find applicants and people to accept.

(also, I like how you assume there are people on TLS without LSN accounts- what if there are people on LSN without TLS accounts and thus LSN makes up many more people than TLS?)

I got the impression that you were saying that using TLS as a recruiting tool doesn't make sense because there are too few users and that's what I was responding to, though now that I re-read what you said, that may not have been what you meant. But understanding the context of my reply might make it make more sense.

Regarding the numbers - I'm talking about the total guests at any given time. Right now, for example, there are 101 guests looking at this forum - not 101 guests so far today. Regarding the other point on numbers, according to this spreadsheet, many of the T14 seem to have near 20% of total admits on LSN (For the 10-11 cycle, Yale: 12%, Stanford 14%, Harvard 19%, Columbia 18%, Chicago 20%, NYU 17%, Penn 19%, Berkley 18%, UVA 20%, Michigan 21%, Duke 29% (!), Northwestern 17%, Georgetown 17%, Cornell 20% = an average of 19%)

I can't comment on whether or not AdComms could successfully sway TLS users - I've never studied psychology and I probably wouldn't be good at guessing at it :P

And regarding your last comment, that's certainly a possibility. I couldn't say. But there are a lot of TLS users who don't have LSN accounts, or if they do they're not under the same name/they aren't linked to in profiles. I would be surprised if at least half of the users who use TLS as a resource for admissions at some point don't make an LSN account. I'd suspect it's at around the 25% level, but that's just a hunch.

My point, which I think you'd agree with even if you wouldn't agree that the number is as high as 60%, is that it is likely that more than 10% of T14 admits are influenced by TLS. Probably about 10% of T14 admits actively use TLS, but there are others - perhaps twice, perhaps three times, perhaps even more - that occasionally visit or view as guests.

Of course, we can't really know, and that's the undeniable fact here. But we can guess, which is something TLS is good at doing :D
Last edited by LSATSCORES2012 on Fri Feb 08, 2013 3:28 pm, edited 1 time in total.

onionz
Posts: 407
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2012 11:22 pm

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

Postby onionz » Fri Feb 08, 2013 3:25 pm

LSATSCORES2012 wrote:
onionz wrote:Wait wait. The initial comment to which I was responding was that adcomms should scour TLS to find people to admit/deny based on their actions:

s; with TLS and LSN you could find out a lot about applicants' true desires to go to specific schools, if they're expecting a significant scholarship to sway their decision, and their levels of aspieness.

That is exceedingly different than what % of people actually have logged onto TLS- we are looking at people who actively post on TLS, and realistically, post some sort of identifiable information ever. Additionally, you can't just math your way to an unreasonable 70% of applications having seen TLS forums. You're saying that of the 5000 applicants to Chicago, almost 3500 have logged on to TLS forums? That is completely unreasonable. You're acting as if the guests+members each day are all different and unique. There are like 15 people who make 50% of the posts for any given school's comments. Not 3500. Also, LSN hasn't hit 20% of total admits in a few years.

Anyway, even forgetting your dubious math, considering just the users we have information on. I really don't think the return on investment is there for those adcomms. Just because Yale does that sometimes (don't forget they see far fewer applicants than almost all the other schools here) to see what people are saying about the school, doesn't mean every school can do that to find applicants and people to accept.

(also, I like how you assume there are people on TLS without LSN accounts- what if there are people on LSN without TLS accounts and thus LSN makes up many more people than TLS?)

I got the impression that you were saying that using TLS as a recruiting tool doesn't make sense because there are too few users and that's what I was responding to, though now that I re-read what you said, that may not have been what you meant. But understanding the context of my reply might make it make more sense.

Regarding the numbers - I'm talking about the total guests at any given time. Right now, for example, there are 101 guests looking at this forum - not 101 guests so far today. Regarding the other point on numbers, according to this spreadsheet, many of the T14 seem to have near 20% of total admits on LSN.

I can't comment on whether or not AdComms could successfully sway TLS users - I've never studied psychology and I probably wouldn't be good at guessing at it :P

And regarding your last comment, that's certainly a possibility. I couldn't say. But there are a lot of TLS users who don't have LSN accounts, or if they do they're not under the same name/they aren't linked to in profiles.

My point, which I think you'd agree with even if you wouldn't agree that the number is as high as 60%, is that it is likely that more than 10% of T14 admits are influenced by TLS. Probably about 10% of T14 admits actively use TLS, but there are others - perhaps twice, perhaps three times, perhaps even more - that occasionally visit or view as guests.

Of course, we can't really know, and that's the undeniable fact here. But we can guess, which is something TLS is good at doing :D


Yes, I totally agree that TLS has influence on a critical proportion of applicants to the t-14, even if we disagree about the exact number. I merely said that the bottom feeder school start threads specifically to get their name out there (thus supporting your point about its reach) and schools may read it to get an idea of what people say about them, but do not use it for active recruiting.

User avatar
Mr. Elshal
Posts: 611
Joined: Thu Sep 20, 2012 11:30 pm

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

Postby Mr. Elshal » Fri Feb 08, 2013 6:06 pm

Just withdrew and sent in my deposit for HLS. It's been a good run, guys, and I'm glad to have had the chance to be neurotic together!

User avatar
risa
Posts: 466
Joined: Sun Nov 11, 2012 4:03 am

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

Postby risa » Fri Feb 08, 2013 7:04 pm

Interview invite just now by email!
Submitted: 11/12
Complete 1: 11/28
Complete 2: 1/31
UR: 2/4




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