Page 76 of 130
Re: Chicago c/o 2016 Applicants (2012-2013)
Posted: Fri Feb 15, 2013 9:33 pm
by WaitingandHopeful
GoldenGriffin wrote:Submitted back in November, still haven't gone under review yet.
Same. I imagine there will be a wave of new URs on Monday or Tuesday now that this batch is out.
Re: Chicago c/o 2016 Applicants (2012-2013)
Posted: Fri Feb 15, 2013 9:44 pm
by Rahviveh
Congrats everyone! Feel free to join us in the c/o 2016 thread
http://www.top-law-schools.com/forums/v ... 3&t=200475
Re: Chicago c/o 2016 Applicants (2012-2013)
Posted: Fri Feb 15, 2013 10:29 pm
by Nala7892
I'm in too! Applied 11/2, interview 2/13! 170/3.76. I'm so excited right now
Re: Chicago c/o 2016 Applicants (2012-2013)
Posted: Fri Feb 15, 2013 11:45 pm
by sokomofo
.
Re: Chicago c/o 2016 Applicants (2012-2013)
Posted: Fri Feb 15, 2013 11:52 pm
by Dr. Gaius Baltar
No decision. Not that I'm sour-grapesing or anything, it's just that I've never been to Chicago and only have what I hear on NPR to go off. Are people liable to get shot in Hyde Park?
Re: Chicago c/o 2016 Applicants (2012-2013)
Posted: Sat Feb 16, 2013 12:09 am
by grapefruits
Ironically they gave un-promised decisions, but not the pseudo-promised twitter update. Anyhow, I have nothing to complain about, but think about all the poor, isolated, TLSless masses!
Re: Chicago c/o 2016 Applicants (2012-2013)
Posted: Sat Feb 16, 2013 12:31 am
by amsong
Waitlisted, no interview. I'm not all that surprised. If anything, I'm happy I wasn't dinged.
Re: Chicago c/o 2016 Applicants (2012-2013)
Posted: Sat Feb 16, 2013 1:24 am
by shakespeare
In via email.
Interview invitation late Jan.
Interview mid-Feb.
Contrary to what some people have been saying, I actually loved my interview. I thought my interviewer was personable and engaging. Overall, I thought it was a great conversation, and it felt like both didn't want it to end.
PM for details.
Re: Chicago c/o 2016 Applicants (2012-2013)
Posted: Sat Feb 16, 2013 1:57 am
by Dr. Gaius Baltar
shakespeare wrote:In via email.
Interview invitation late Jan.
Interview mid-Feb.
Contrary to what some people have been saying, I actually loved my interview. I thought my interviewer was personable and engaging. Overall, I thought it was a great conversation, and it felt like both didn't want it to end.
PM for details.
Several people on here confessed to loving their interview(er) as well earlier today.
I thought mine was great too.
Re: Chicago c/o 2016 Applicants (2012-2013)
Posted: Sat Feb 16, 2013 1:59 am
by Crowing
Dr. Gaius Baltar wrote:shakespeare wrote:In via email.
Interview invitation late Jan.
Interview mid-Feb.
Contrary to what some people have been saying, I actually loved my interview. I thought my interviewer was personable and engaging. Overall, I thought it was a great conversation, and it felt like both didn't want it to end.
PM for details.
Several people on here confessed to loving their interview(er) as well earlier today.
I thought mine was great too.
Well some people who had Dean Perry didn't seem to enjoy the experience too much.
As for people who had... the other person... well...
Re: Chicago c/o 2016 Applicants (2012-2013)
Posted: Sat Feb 16, 2013 2:05 am
by MacB
I had Dean Perry and loved the interview.
...wait, not LOVED loved. Don't judge me.
Re: Chicago c/o 2016 Applicants (2012-2013)
Posted: Sat Feb 16, 2013 2:08 am
by Jaqen
MacB wrote:I had Dean Perry and loved the interview.
I was expecting ice cold death stares, but nah. It was pleasant.
Re: Chicago c/o 2016 Applicants (2012-2013)
Posted: Sat Feb 16, 2013 2:39 am
by risa
Jaqen wrote:MacB wrote:I had Dean Perry and loved the interview.
I was expecting ice cold death stares, but nah. It was pleasant.
ditto.
also, I owe someone a snickerdoodle.
Re: Chicago c/o 2016 Applicants (2012-2013)
Posted: Sat Feb 16, 2013 2:43 am
by robot_socrates
Dr. Gaius Baltar wrote:No decision. Not that I'm sour-grapesing or anything, it's just that I've never been to Chicago and only have what I hear on NPR to go off. Are people liable to get shot in Hyde Park?
I mean, if you act stupidly enough, you're liable to get shot anywhere in Chicago. But generally Hyde Park is fine. Source: I'm from Chicago.
Re: Chicago c/o 2016 Applicants (2012-2013)
Posted: Sat Feb 16, 2013 9:02 am
by honeybadger12
Waitlisted yesterday. Weird thing is I withdrew my app three weeks ago and their office confirmed. Is this common? It feels like they're trying to manipulate their acceptance rate...
Re: Chicago c/o 2016 Applicants (2012-2013)
Posted: Sat Feb 16, 2013 9:53 am
by Gisney
Waitlisted yesterday. Surprised because I expected a ding. Under 25% GPA and at median LSAT.
Re: Chicago c/o 2016 Applicants (2012-2013)
Posted: Sat Feb 16, 2013 10:50 am
by vzapana
honeybadger12 wrote:Waitlisted yesterday. Weird thing is I withdrew my app three weeks ago and their office confirmed. Is this common? It feels like they're trying to manipulate their acceptance rate...
you might want to re-confirm your withdrawal - you don't run into any problems in the spring
Re: Chicago c/o 2016 Applicants (2012-2013)
Posted: Sat Feb 16, 2013 10:51 am
by vzapana
Re: Chicago c/o 2016 Applicants (2012-2013)
Posted: Sat Feb 16, 2013 2:04 pm
by reallysearch
I think the self reporting nature has made the spreadsheet a rather biased sample, we only see acceptances and few WL there. (probably people who were dinged just stopped checking the thread)
But it would be useful to find out % who interviewed was rejected...
Re: Chicago c/o 2016 Applicants (2012-2013)
Posted: Sat Feb 16, 2013 2:10 pm
by hhockberger
Dinged yesterday, as expected. Congrats admits!!
Re: Chicago c/o 2016 Applicants (2012-2013)
Posted: Sat Feb 16, 2013 2:10 pm
by Crowing
reallysearch wrote:
I think the self reporting nature has made the spreadsheet a rather biased sample, we only see acceptances and few WL there. (probably people who were dinged just stopped checking the thread)
But it would be useful to find out % who interviewed was rejected...
Yeah I'm sure even WLs are underreported because there were people ITT who reported WL after interview yesterday but there are none on the spreadsheet.
Re: Chicago c/o 2016 Applicants (2012-2013)
Posted: Sat Feb 16, 2013 2:17 pm
by talesofyore
reallysearch wrote:
I think the self reporting nature has made the spreadsheet a rather biased sample, we only see acceptances and few WL there. (probably people who were dinged just stopped checking the thread)
But it would be useful to find out % who interviewed was rejected...
It's still kind of useful if you judge the amount of people who answered 'accepted' vs. the original 'invited to interview' spreadsheet.
Re: Chicago c/o 2016 Applicants (2012-2013)
Posted: Sun Feb 17, 2013 10:46 pm
by 04102014
I want my UR
Re: Chicago c/o 2016 Applicants (2012-2013)
Posted: Mon Feb 18, 2013 5:46 am
by shakespeare
Dr. Gaius Baltar wrote:shakespeare wrote:In via email.
Interview invitation late Jan.
Interview mid-Feb.
Contrary to what some people have been saying, I actually loved my interview. I thought my interviewer was personable and engaging. Overall, I thought it was a great conversation, and it felt like both didn't want it to end.
PM for details.
Several people on here confessed to loving their interview(er) as well earlier today.
I thought mine was great too.
Sry I was refering to much earlier comments. Ppl had said they felt the interviewer was bored and gave one word answers to their questions.
Re: Chicago c/o 2016 Applicants (2012-2013)
Posted: Mon Feb 18, 2013 8:39 am
by Ruthie
I applied late(1/15) and haven't heard anything, though my application is complete. Did those who were rejected get an email? Or just see it on status checker? Mine in probably coming today:(