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

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

Postby Crowing » Sat Feb 23, 2013 5:34 pm

reallysearch wrote:
Crowing wrote:
mambar wrote:Yep. But no denials!


Yeah so much for "any outcome being possible." GG Chicago.

Though I guess that could still be true. Maybe nobody stood up and took their pants off in the middle of their interview yet.


I know someone who was interviewed and rejected.... I guess it's just the self-reporting nature of the spreadsheet has made the result quite biased. But overall it's quite a positive sign to be invited.


Interesting - were they ED or RD?

User avatar
reallysearch
Posts: 106
Joined: Sat Jun 23, 2012 1:57 am

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

Postby reallysearch » Sat Feb 23, 2013 5:48 pm

Crowing wrote:
reallysearch wrote:
Crowing wrote:
mambar wrote:Yep. But no denials!


Yeah so much for "any outcome being possible." GG Chicago.

Though I guess that could still be true. Maybe nobody stood up and took their pants off in the middle of their interview yet.


I know someone who was interviewed and rejected.... I guess it's just the self-reporting nature of the spreadsheet has made the result quite biased. But overall it's quite a positive sign to be invited.


Interesting - were they ED or RD?


ED

NoChainz
Posts: 104
Joined: Mon May 21, 2012 10:15 am

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

Postby NoChainz » Sat Feb 23, 2013 7:31 pm

I'm guessing that given how far behind UChicago Admissions is compared to last year, the interview is an increasingly good sign. I don't remember anyone getting an acceptance in this thread without an interview. They have to catch up at some point because most schools are giving a much faster/efficient turn-around and IMO it is making them less competitive to applicants. I'd have to guess a big reason they are behind is because of the interviews. They either have to cut back on the interviews or have more admissions staff do the interviews (which I think they are already doing) or both in order to catch up.

Given that they only just sent out interview invites to the early-December completes, if they continue at the current pace they will send out the rest of December invites in early/mid-March. Obviously not a realistic option given they will still have to do the Jan/Feb completes...Something has to give, my guess is the amount of interviews and how they are used. Potentially wishful/hopeful thinking on my part though... 8)

User avatar
Jaqen
Posts: 949
Joined: Wed Mar 21, 2012 6:23 am

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

Postby Jaqen » Sat Feb 23, 2013 8:06 pm

NoChainz wrote:I'm guessing that given how far behind UChicago Admissions is compared to last year, the interview is an increasingly good sign. I don't remember anyone getting an acceptance in this thread without an interview. They have to catch up at some point because most schools are giving a much faster/efficient turn-around and IMO it is making them less competitive to applicants. I'd have to guess a big reason they are behind is because of the interviews. They either have to cut back on the interviews or have more admissions staff do the interviews (which I think they are already doing) or both in order to catch up.

Given that they only just sent out interview invites to the early-December completes, if they continue at the current pace they will send out the rest of December invites in early/mid-March. Obviously not a realistic option given they will still have to do the Jan/Feb completes...Something has to give, my guess is the amount of interviews and how they are used. Potentially wishful/hopeful thinking on my part though... 8)


Legit enough for me. :D

User avatar
jbagelboy
Posts: 9647
Joined: Thu Nov 29, 2012 7:57 pm

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

Postby jbagelboy » Sat Feb 23, 2013 8:07 pm

Withdrawing my application by email after the interview invite; didn't schedule one. Hopefully this means they will extend the interview invitation to someone else and give them a greater chance at admission.

Chicago seems like a great law school but I'm pretty sure I would not take it at sticker over the options I have at this point and I'm not in the running for a Ruby. Don't mean to sound haughty at all but that's the way it is. Maybe if Chicago had given me a decision a month ago I would have kept it as a serious consideration. I'm sure others feel similarly about the delay. Hopefully they will improve their system in future years! Good luck to everyone and peace!

User avatar
Emma.
Posts: 2401
Joined: Sun Oct 05, 2008 7:57 pm

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

Postby Emma. » Sat Feb 23, 2013 8:12 pm

jbagelboy wrote:Withdrawing my application by email after the interview invite; didn't schedule one. Hopefully this means they will extend the interview invitation to someone else and give them a greater chance at admission.

Chicago seems like a great law school but I'm pretty sure I would not take it at sticker over the options I have at this point and I'm not in the running for a Ruby. Don't mean to sound haughty at all but that's the way it is. Maybe if Chicago had given me a decision a month ago I would have kept it as a serious consideration. I'm sure others feel similarly about the delay. Hopefully they will improve their system in future years! Good luck to everyone and peace!


Good luck. Hope you realize there is a huge range of $$ available between sticker and a Rubenstein though. The Rubenstein scholarship is funded separately from the school's normal endowment, so it actually frees up a bunch of extra money for merit aid.

User avatar
Jaqen
Posts: 949
Joined: Wed Mar 21, 2012 6:23 am

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

Postby Jaqen » Sat Feb 23, 2013 8:14 pm

jbagelboy wrote:Withdrawing my application by email after the interview invite; didn't schedule one. Hopefully this means they will extend the interview invitation to someone else and give them a greater chance at admission.

Chicago seems like a great law school but I'm pretty sure I would not take it at sticker over the options I have at this point and I'm not in the running for a Ruby. Don't mean to sound haughty at all but that's the way it is. Maybe if Chicago had given me a decision a month ago I would have kept it as a serious consideration. I'm sure others feel similarly about the delay. Hopefully they will improve their system in future years! Good luck to everyone and peace!


I, for one, salute your choice.

User avatar
Jaqen
Posts: 949
Joined: Wed Mar 21, 2012 6:23 am

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

Postby Jaqen » Sat Feb 23, 2013 8:15 pm

Emma. wrote:
jbagelboy wrote:Withdrawing my application by email after the interview invite; didn't schedule one. Hopefully this means they will extend the interview invitation to someone else and give them a greater chance at admission.

Chicago seems like a great law school but I'm pretty sure I would not take it at sticker over the options I have at this point and I'm not in the running for a Ruby. Don't mean to sound haughty at all but that's the way it is. Maybe if Chicago had given me a decision a month ago I would have kept it as a serious consideration. I'm sure others feel similarly about the delay. Hopefully they will improve their system in future years! Good luck to everyone and peace!


Good luck. Hope you realize there is a huge range of $$ available between sticker and a Rubenstein though. The Rubenstein scholarship is funded separately from the school's normal endowment, so it actually frees up a bunch of extra money for merit aid.


Though this is true.

User avatar
Lavitz
Posts: 3098
Joined: Mon May 31, 2010 1:39 am

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

Postby Lavitz » Sat Feb 23, 2013 8:15 pm

jbagelboy wrote:Withdrawing my application by email after the interview invite; didn't schedule one. Hopefully this means they will extend the interview invitation to someone else and give them a greater chance at admission.

Chicago seems like a great law school but I'm pretty sure I would not take it at sticker over the options I have at this point and I'm not in the running for a Ruby. Don't mean to sound haughty at all but that's the way it is. Maybe if Chicago had given me a decision a month ago I would have kept it as a serious consideration. I'm sure others feel similarly about the delay. Hopefully they will improve their system in future years! Good luck to everyone and peace!

Or maybe everyone else will follow suit and withdraw out of spite. Then Chicago will have to come crawling back, begging on hands and knees, offering me fistfuls of money to attend...Wait, what were we talking about again?

Oh yeah, so you withdrew. Emma is right about the $$, but I guess it doesn't hurt if you're absolutely set on NYU. Good for you.

User avatar
jbagelboy
Posts: 9647
Joined: Thu Nov 29, 2012 7:57 pm

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

Postby jbagelboy » Sat Feb 23, 2013 8:29 pm

Lavitz wrote:Oh yeah, so you withdrew. Emma is right about the $$, but I guess it doesn't hurt if you're absolutely set on NYU. Good for you.


I know there's more scholarships out there, just like every other school, but not any more than I would get at Cal, NYU or Columbia which have already bitten for them from my correspondence -- and this is assuming I would actually get in, which is far from a certain fact. I'm also far from set on NYU or any one school but this does simplify the process so I can move from the waiting for decisions stage to making my own. Just a personal rationalization and everyone can have their own takeaways from this game :).

User avatar
sinfiery
Posts: 3308
Joined: Thu Jul 14, 2011 2:55 am

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

Postby sinfiery » Sun Feb 24, 2013 4:54 pm

I've made a very interesting scheduling conflict with my interview. I think I can make it work, but god help me if I get caught.

User avatar
Rahviveh
Posts: 2271
Joined: Mon Aug 06, 2012 12:02 pm

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

Postby Rahviveh » Sun Feb 24, 2013 5:10 pm

I never understand why people withdraw prematurely. There is absolutely zero benefit to withdrawing.

Also never make assumptions about how much money you'll get. For the top schools award amounts can often be random. I know someone whose biggest award was at one of CCN. And there are countless examples where people got more money than they thought they would. Obviously there's also examples of people getting less than their numbers would suggest. You never know until you try.

And finally, the scholarships bagelboy has received are not game changers at all. 37.5k from NYU could easily be beaten by Chi - not to mention Chis projected COA is already significantly lower than NYU. Michs award of almost 70k is much larger but if Chi offered just half that it might be worth considering. While they may not give out a lot of financial aid outside of the Ruby, 30-45k awards are quite common.

Just my opinion. Obviously if you are just not interested in Chicago that's a different story.
Last edited by Rahviveh on Mon Feb 25, 2013 12:42 am, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Cicero76
Posts: 1276
Joined: Mon Aug 13, 2012 9:41 pm

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

Postby Cicero76 » Sun Feb 24, 2013 6:35 pm

sinfiery wrote:I've made a very interesting scheduling conflict with my interview. I think I can make it work, but god help me if I get caught.


Tell me. Tell me now. PM if it's too salacious, but you can't post a teaser like that and not follow through.

User avatar
sinfiery
Posts: 3308
Joined: Thu Jul 14, 2011 2:55 am

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

Postby sinfiery » Sun Feb 24, 2013 6:49 pm

PM'd :mrgreen:

Big Dog
Posts: 1191
Joined: Wed Dec 16, 2009 9:34 pm

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

Postby Big Dog » Sun Feb 24, 2013 6:50 pm

Withdrawing my application by email after the interview invite; didn't schedule one. Hopefully this means they will extend the interview invitation to someone else and give them a greater chance at admission.

Chicago seems like a great law school but I'm pretty sure I would not take it at sticker over the options I have at this point and I'm not in the running for a Ruby. Don't mean to sound haughty at all but that's the way it is. Maybe if Chicago had given me a decision a month ago I would have kept it as a serious consideration. I'm sure others feel similarly about the delay. Hopefully they will improve their system in future years! Good luck to everyone and peace!


Totally understand. But perhaps, just perhaps UofC is dragging this out for a purpose: YP. Not only to the interviews help Chicago find out who is really interested in what they have to offer, but the delayed schedule also accomplishes the same thing.

I've been following TLS for several years now, and the preference for that other C is palpable. Chicago knows that too, and interviews are a way to address that. With a small class, why waste an admission slot on someone who would prefer NYC at the same cost, nearly every time. Not only does it hurt their yield numbers, but also means that someone who really wants the midwest experience will have to come of the WL, and miss ASW.

User avatar
jbagelboy
Posts: 9647
Joined: Thu Nov 29, 2012 7:57 pm

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

Postby jbagelboy » Sun Feb 24, 2013 7:27 pm

ChampagnePapi wrote:I never understand why people withdraw prematurely. There is absolutely zero benefit to withdrawing.



While I feel very marginally guilty about the $100 application fee, this is a very narrow perspective you've articulated: 1) withdrawing might allow someone who has been passed up for an interview or not get in if I took their spot after the interview the opportunity to have that chance. You could argue that this is statistically irrelevant, but remaining in the game just for the possibility of acceptance with little chance of attending seems unnecessarily self-interested (to answer the follow-up question of why one would even initially apply if they took this view, I would answer that no one really knows how their cycle will go and who will bite first so its good to keep options open until you know). 2) While I'm somewhat confident I could BS my way through the interview and make a good enough impression (as a management consultant I'm well accustomed), I would probably be wasting my time and theirs, and simply declining an interview would be nearly equivalent to withdrawing (who does that?). it was probably a mistake to post anything about it in the first place, but its worth noting that if a statistically relevant number of people made similar decisions it could ease the process on both ends for both applicant and reviewer. I just wish we got refunds!

User avatar
elterrible78
Posts: 1108
Joined: Mon Mar 12, 2012 3:09 am

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

Postby elterrible78 » Sun Feb 24, 2013 8:21 pm

jbagelboy wrote:
ChampagnePapi wrote:I never understand why people withdraw prematurely. There is absolutely zero benefit to withdrawing.



While I feel very marginally guilty about the $100 application fee, this is a very narrow perspective you've articulated: 1) withdrawing might allow someone who has been passed up for an interview or not get in if I took their spot after the interview the opportunity to have that chance. You could argue that this is statistically irrelevant, but remaining in the game just for the possibility of acceptance with little chance of attending seems unnecessarily self-interested (to answer the follow-up question of why one would even initially apply if they took this view, I would answer that no one really knows how their cycle will go and who will bite first so its good to keep options open until you know). 2) While I'm somewhat confident I could BS my way through the interview and make a good enough impression (as a management consultant I'm well accustomed), I would probably be wasting my time and theirs, and simply declining an interview would be nearly equivalent to withdrawing (who does that?). it was probably a mistake to post anything about it in the first place, but its worth noting that if a statistically relevant number of people made similar decisions it could ease the process on both ends for both applicant and reviewer. I just wish we got refunds!


I think the bolded is a really excellent point. I withdrew from schools for this very reason (and initially applied for the same reason jbagelboy cites). Why jam up the pipeline if you know you're not going to go? Somebody probably really wants that spot, and if you're sure you won't go, why not make that person's life a little easier and less stressful?

User avatar
Rahviveh
Posts: 2271
Joined: Mon Aug 06, 2012 12:02 pm

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

Postby Rahviveh » Sun Feb 24, 2013 8:32 pm

jbagelboy wrote:
ChampagnePapi wrote:I never understand why people withdraw prematurely. There is absolutely zero benefit to withdrawing.



While I feel very marginally guilty about the $100 application fee, this is a very narrow perspective you've articulated: 1) withdrawing might allow someone who has been passed up for an interview or not get in if I took their spot after the interview the opportunity to have that chance. You could argue that this is statistically irrelevant, but remaining in the game just for the possibility of acceptance with little chance of attending seems unnecessarily self-interested (to answer the follow-up question of why one would even initially apply if they took this view, I would answer that no one really knows how their cycle will go and who will bite first so its good to keep options open until you know). 2) While I'm somewhat confident I could BS my way through the interview and make a good enough impression (as a management consultant I'm well accustomed), I would probably be wasting my time and theirs, and simply declining an interview would be nearly equivalent to withdrawing (who does that?). it was probably a mistake to post anything about it in the first place, but its worth noting that if a statistically relevant number of people made similar decisions it could ease the process on both ends for both applicant and reviewer. I just wish we got refunds!


Like I said, even if you have zero interest in attending it makes no sense to withdraw. The first time I applied I remember only applying to a certain school because they gave me a fee waiver. I wasn't interested in going there at all. It turns out that once the acceptances rolled in they were the only ones to give me a large scholarship. I was able to use that as leverage for the schools I actually did want to attend.

In your case you will never know if Chicago could have given you a lot of money that can be used as leverage against NYU or Michigan. You have less potential for leverage now than you did before. There is so much opportunity this cycle for scholarship negotiations and extracting as much aid as possible that it makes no sense to needlessly give up on potentially getting tens of thousands of dollars. It was just discussed in this thread a few pages ago that someone with a 3.6/171 tried to withdraw from Chicago and got over 100k in response. Do you think that was expected?

Not trying to pick on you and your decisions been made but for future applicants you should not be withdrawing unless you already have huge scholarship offers elsewhere. If you think by withdrawing you are doing someone else a favor - well you really aren't. Once deposit deadlines roll around decisions will have to be made at that point anyway. Its possible you are speeding up the process but in the grand scheme of things outside of TLS neurosis that doesn't really matter.

User avatar
banjo
Posts: 1345
Joined: Wed Nov 30, 2011 8:00 pm

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

Postby banjo » Sun Feb 24, 2013 9:03 pm

jbagelboy wrote:with little chance of attending


I'm genuinely curious why. We haven't even had ASW yet -- how can you be so sure you'd pick C or N or another T14 over Chicago?

grapefruits
Posts: 181
Joined: Fri Jan 11, 2013 7:13 pm

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

Postby grapefruits » Sun Feb 24, 2013 10:24 pm

ChampagnePapi wrote:
jbagelboy wrote:
ChampagnePapi wrote:I never understand why people withdraw prematurely. There is absolutely zero benefit to withdrawing.



While I feel very marginally guilty about the $100 application fee, this is a very narrow perspective you've articulated: 1) withdrawing might allow someone who has been passed up for an interview or not get in if I took their spot after the interview the opportunity to have that chance. You could argue that this is statistically irrelevant, but remaining in the game just for the possibility of acceptance with little chance of attending seems unnecessarily self-interested (to answer the follow-up question of why one would even initially apply if they took this view, I would answer that no one really knows how their cycle will go and who will bite first so its good to keep options open until you know). 2) While I'm somewhat confident I could BS my way through the interview and make a good enough impression (as a management consultant I'm well accustomed), I would probably be wasting my time and theirs, and simply declining an interview would be nearly equivalent to withdrawing (who does that?). it was probably a mistake to post anything about it in the first place, but its worth noting that if a statistically relevant number of people made similar decisions it could ease the process on both ends for both applicant and reviewer. I just wish we got refunds!


Like I said, even if you have zero interest in attending it makes no sense to withdraw. The first time I applied I remember only applying to a certain school because they gave me a fee waiver. I wasn't interested in going there at all. It turns out that once the acceptances rolled in they were the only ones to give me a large scholarship. I was able to use that as leverage for the schools I actually did want to attend.

In your case you will never know if Chicago could have given you a lot of money that can be used as leverage against NYU or Michigan. You have less potential for leverage now than you did before. There is so much opportunity this cycle for scholarship negotiations and extracting as much aid as possible that it makes no sense to needlessly give up on potentially getting tens of thousands of dollars. It was just discussed in this thread a few pages ago that someone with a 3.6/171 tried to withdraw from Chicago and got over 100k in response. Do you think that was expected?

Not trying to pick on you and your decisions been made but for future applicants you should not be withdrawing unless you already have huge scholarship offers elsewhere. If you think by withdrawing you are doing someone else a favor - well you really aren't. Once deposit deadlines roll around decisions will have to be made at that point anyway. Its possible you are speeding up the process but in the grand scheme of things outside of TLS neurosis that doesn't really matter.


I withdrew from Penn and Berkeley after being wait listed because I knew that I would not attend. A) I got peace of mind, because I was able to eliminate them from consideration B) I made it easier on the adcomms C) I possibly helped a fellow applicant get a favorable decision they may have not received/helped them receive it sooner D) I can, for the rest of my life, say that I was never rejected to any law school I applied to/ I never had to open/view a rejection letter

Also, don't forget about the law of diminishing returns. If you have 10 acceptances and 3 6-figure scholarship offers, what kind of additional leverage do you expect to get from another admissions offer? Columbia is enough to leverage NYU; Columbia + UChi seems to me like you're just baiting them. As has often been mentioned on this forum, law schools will not be impressed by you having been admitted to other law schools.

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

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

Postby cwid1391 » Sun Feb 24, 2013 11:45 pm

grapefruits wrote: law schools will not be impressed by you having been admitted to other law schools.


Are you saying in terms of scholarship negotiations?

User avatar
Rahviveh
Posts: 2271
Joined: Mon Aug 06, 2012 12:02 pm

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

Postby Rahviveh » Sun Feb 24, 2013 11:50 pm

cwid1391 wrote:
grapefruits wrote: law schools will not be impressed by you having been admitted to other law schools.


Are you saying in terms of scholarship negotiations?

I hope not, because that's completely wrong.

Grapefruits, none of the reasons you stated are compelling enough to pass up on tens of thousands of dollars. Actually for a couple of them you sound like you're trying to be funny.

As for your example - I don't know your personal situation, while you are right that CLS and UCHI with the SAME offers probably doesn't grant you the additional leverage, this is not a position that anyone is in right now since neither school has released financial aid except for the named schollies (and with those the point is moot).

Also a wait list is different - although I'd still just stay on the wait list just in case. Some people are withdrawing without even getting decisions back.

grapefruits
Posts: 181
Joined: Fri Jan 11, 2013 7:13 pm

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

Postby grapefruits » Mon Feb 25, 2013 12:08 am

ChampagnePapi wrote:
cwid1391 wrote:
grapefruits wrote: law schools will not be impressed by you having been admitted to other law schools.


Are you saying in terms of scholarship negotiations?

I hope not, because that's completely wrong.

Grapefruits, none of the reasons you stated are compelling enough to pass up on tens of thousands of dollars. Actually for a couple of them you sound like you're trying to be funny.

As for your example - I don't know your personal situation, while you are right that CLS and UCHI with the SAME offers probably doesn't grant you the additional leverage, this is not a position that anyone is in right now since neither school has released financial aid except for the named schollies (and with those the point is moot).

Also a wait list is different - although I'd still just stay on the wait list just in case. Some people are withdrawing without even getting decisions back.


Perhaps none of the reasons I stated are compelling enough to pass up on "tens of thousands of dollars," I guess that depends though. However, more importantly, you are assuming that an acceptance is worth tens of thousands of dollars, or that an acceptance + scholarship is worth tens of thousands of dollars. Like I said, when coupled with a number of other acceptances and scholarships, I fail to see how it adds anything.

Since I like to try and read opposing arguments fairly, something that people seem to have a very difficult time doing, I will assume that what you are actually claiming is not that an additional acceptance is worth tens of thousands of dollars, but an additional acceptance to a peer/better ranked school, with a larger scholarship, may be worth tens of thousands of dollars. That could be true, it also could be false, it also could be a condition that doesn't obtain. If you want to wait around for that possibility, unsure of what you will do, gum up the system for your peers, deal with the eternal pain of rejection, then that's fine; some people don't mind, others might. I find myself in the latter camp.

ETA: As far as the schools not being impressed with admission to other schools, I meant as an accolade. They don't care. It isn't a plus one. Personally, I think to interpret what I said differently is stupid.

Big Dog
Posts: 1191
Joined: Wed Dec 16, 2009 9:34 pm

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

Postby Big Dog » Mon Feb 25, 2013 12:15 am

We haven't even had ASW yet -- how can you be so sure you'd pick C or N or another T14 over Chicago?


Surprised that someone would even have to ask that question. East Coast preference/(bias?) is paramount, and that coulda/shoulda been learned when applying to undergrad. Many folks will pay (a lot) more to attend school in NYC. It's why NYU & Fordham get away with poor finaid for undergrads, for example.

If the applicants have the $$, why not?

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

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

Postby Crowing » Mon Feb 25, 2013 12:25 am

grapefruits wrote:If you want to wait around for that possibility, unsure of what you will do, gum up the system for your peers, deal with the eternal pain of rejection


I don't really see any of these reasons as being particularly compelling.

I mean you're not losing anything by waiting for one more school if you're waiting for others anyway. And even if your cycle is done otherwise, nothing is stopping you from making preparations for your top choice while keeping other options open. We're still in February after all.

The second argument is probably the best of the three if you look at it in terms of absolutes. But the reality is you're looking at withdrawing 1-2 months earlier; it's not going to kill one stranger out there to have to wait 1-2 months when you could potentially personally benefit greatly financially. And who knows if you withdrawing is even going to necessarily lead to another immediate offer; I'm sure that schools have data indicating typical withdrawal rates and times and fill classes accordingly to compensate.

As for pain of rejection, well I guess that's a personal subject, but getting a ding letter really doesn't bother me when the alternative is essentially dinging yourself by withdrawing.




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

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: canafsa, carlos_danger, KeYe88, lillawyer2, notsolawful, TudoBem and 15 guests