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
Lavitz
Posts: 3094
Joined: Mon May 31, 2010 1:39 am

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

Postby Lavitz » Sat May 04, 2013 10:18 pm

Crowing wrote:one would think the admissions office would try to compensate for an expected higher yield rate.

I think you give the admissions office too much credit. :wink:

No, but you may be right. This is what I counted on LSN:

Last year: 163 admitted, 84 withdrew, 18 attending
This year: 153 admitted, 70 withdrew, 19 attending

Probably not statistically significant, but it's all I've got. Slightly smaller number of admits, less people reporting withdrawals so far, yet roughly the same number of people committing. So that could mean they'd need to pull roughly the same number from the WL as last year.

Unlike last year though, they still have a pile of some January apps to go through. Not to mention the reports from ASW of unexpectedly high turnout. So while they may still pull from the WL, I'm still expecting them to pull at least slightly less people than last year.

FlowBro
Posts: 334
Joined: Tue Aug 14, 2012 5:15 pm

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

Postby FlowBro » Sun May 05, 2013 2:10 am

Decisions early next week?

User avatar
jvincent11
Posts: 207
Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2013 1:38 pm

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

Postby jvincent11 » Sun May 05, 2013 3:31 am

FlowBro wrote:Decisions early next week?


I mean sure it's possible, but who knows. I definitely expect a decision by Friday night though.

FlowBro
Posts: 334
Joined: Tue Aug 14, 2012 5:15 pm

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

Postby FlowBro » Sun May 05, 2013 3:43 am

I hope you are right! At this point, I just want to know if I am in or WL or if they maybe want an interview. Don't even want to think about negotiating a scolly if I were to get accepted.

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

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

Postby Crowing » Sun May 05, 2013 9:06 am

Also I could be being naive, but I don't see why #5 USNWR vs. T#4 USNWR would (not just should which is a given, but would) mean anything to anyone - I mean the school didn't even pass any others in rank. Hell it's still 5th on the list since it's sorted alphabetically; the visual arrangement probably appeals just as much as the actual rankings to anybody shallow enough to take them seriously.

I guess I could see the killer LST stats from this year being of some influence (though I suppose I see that as an instance of "would" but still not "should" since while employment data certainly matters, a single year fluctuation shouldn't be blown out of proportion).

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

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

Postby Big Dog » Sun May 05, 2013 10:48 am

Also I could be being naive, but I don't see why #5 USNWR vs. T#4 USNWR would (not just should which is a given, but would) mean anything to anyone


Not naive, just practical. The vast majority of applicants are east coasters, and they would prefer Columbia (and even NYU) at the same price as a LS in fly-over country. One ranking spot is meaningless to 99.9% of the populace. Chicago's emphasis on interviewing most applicants will affect their yield -- by how much remains to be seen -- but one spot in USNews? No reason to think it will matter.

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

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

Postby Emma. » Sun May 05, 2013 1:39 pm

Big Dog wrote:
Also I could be being naive, but I don't see why #5 USNWR vs. T#4 USNWR would (not just should which is a given, but would) mean anything to anyone


Not naive, just practical. The vast majority of applicants are east coasters, and they would prefer Columbia (and even NYU) at the same price as a LS in fly-over country. One ranking spot is meaningless to 99.9% of the populace. Chicago's emphasis on interviewing most applicants will affect their yield -- by how much remains to be seen -- but one spot in USNews? No reason to think it will matter.


You might think that, but the last time UChicago bumped up a spot (2010) the entering class that year ended up overenrolled.

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

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

Postby LSATSCORES2012 » Sun May 05, 2013 7:10 pm

Emma. wrote:
Big Dog wrote:
Also I could be being naive, but I don't see why #5 USNWR vs. T#4 USNWR would (not just should which is a given, but would) mean anything to anyone


Not naive, just practical. The vast majority of applicants are east coasters, and they would prefer Columbia (and even NYU) at the same price as a LS in fly-over country. One ranking spot is meaningless to 99.9% of the populace. Chicago's emphasis on interviewing most applicants will affect their yield -- by how much remains to be seen -- but one spot in USNews? No reason to think it will matter.


You might think that, but the last time UChicago bumped up a spot (2010) the entering class that year ended up overenrolled.

Was that bump over NYU? I don't think there's much difference in lay prestige between Chicago and NYU but there is definitely a difference between Chicago and Columbia (in favor of Columbia), and I think the people who would be influenced by one spot in the rankings would be just as heavily influenced by this. So tying or passing NYU, I think, would have more of an effect on Chicago's yield than tying or passing Columbia.

User avatar
jbagelboy
Posts: 9635
Joined: Thu Nov 29, 2012 7:57 pm

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

Postby jbagelboy » Sun May 05, 2013 7:23 pm

LSATSCORES2012 wrote:
Emma. wrote:
Big Dog wrote:
Also I could be being naive, but I don't see why #5 USNWR vs. T#4 USNWR would (not just should which is a given, but would) mean anything to anyone


Not naive, just practical. The vast majority of applicants are east coasters, and they would prefer Columbia (and even NYU) at the same price as a LS in fly-over country. One ranking spot is meaningless to 99.9% of the populace. Chicago's emphasis on interviewing most applicants will affect their yield -- by how much remains to be seen -- but one spot in USNews? No reason to think it will matter.


You might think that, but the last time UChicago bumped up a spot (2010) the entering class that year ended up overenrolled.

Was that bump over NYU? I don't think there's much difference in lay prestige between Chicago and NYU but there is definitely a difference between Chicago and Columbia (in favor of Columbia), and I think the people who would be influenced by one spot in the rankings would be just as heavily influenced by this. So tying or passing NYU, I think, would have more of an effect on Chicago's yield than tying or passing Columbia.


I do not follow this. Your second and third sentences appear contradictory.

Edit: Ill explain what I mean: I know this is all mass culture psychobabble, but from a mass culture psychobabble perspective, wouldnt UChicago making gains on the school that actually does have higher prestige in your interpretation (CLS) be of greater significance?

IMO chicago presents a veritable alternative to the new york schools for comparable employment prospects, whereas NYU/CLS are extremely similar schools. Many people would either be choosing between nyu and cls, OR go to chicago over both.

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

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

Postby Crowing » Sun May 05, 2013 8:00 pm

I think what he's saying is that Chicago and NYU have similar lay prestige and therefore a bump in the rankings would be a sort of tiebreaker for Chicago. Meanwhile Columbia has higher lay prestige so even though Chicago tied Columbia people won't really be influenced by that ranking shift because in their minds Columbia has always been more preftigious.

That's not my opinion (don't necessarily disagree either though; who the fuck knows about this shit) - just trying to translate.

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

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

Postby LSATSCORES2012 » Sun May 05, 2013 8:13 pm

Assuming, in many people's minds, the ranking of what's important when choosing a school goes USNews Ranking -> Lay Prestige (which is probably something like it is in most people's minds, though I think for many (most?) TLSers this isn't the case because employment is thrown in there), then we have the following two scenarios:

1. (what presumably happened) 5. NYU & 6. Chicago -> 5. Chicago & 5. NYU (Chicago ties NYU) or 5. NYU & 6. Chicago -> 5. Chicago & 6. NYU (Chicago passed NYU)
In this situation, we go from NYU winning the USR -> LP battle to a tie or Chicago winning the USR -> LP battle, which will cause a significant change in the decisions of people choosing between NYU and Chicago.

2. (what just happened) 5. Chicago & 4. Columbia -> 4. Chicago & 4. Columbia
In this situation, we go from Columbia winning the USR -> LP battle to Columbia still winning the USR -> LP battle, because though they are tied in terms of USNews Ranking, Columbia's LP exceeds Chicago's LP.

So I doubt whether tying Columbia would have as large an effect on Chicago's yield as tying or passing NYU would.

Of course, no one, no matter how much they value these kinds of social structures, would be likely to make their law school decision based upon such a rigid equation, but if there are a lot of people out there, all of whom think in this general mindset, even if it's not such a rigidly rule-based system, then this is what we would expect.

Of course, there's also the fact that I do think that TLS is legitimately changing how people make law school decisions (mostly because I think that we posters are just the tip of the iceberg in terms of who is influenced by what we say - right now, for example, there are three times as many guests browsing this subforum as there are registered users, and four times as many guests on the forum as a whole as there are registered users - assuming they don't browse as long as us, I'd bet that TLS reaches about 70-80% of the applicant pool), and Chicago's being on top of the LST rankings this year might also affect their yield.

FYI, right now Chicago and Stanford are tied on LSN in terms of the biggest yield improvements from last year, and Columbia is third. NYU is last among the top 7 schools. Caveat is, of course, that this is LSN data.

TL;DR
Crowing wrote:Chicago and NYU have similar lay prestige and therefore a bump in the rankings would be a sort of tiebreaker for Chicago. Meanwhile Columbia has higher lay prestige so even though Chicago tied Columbia people won't really be influenced by that ranking shift because in their minds Columbia has always been more preftigious.
and TLS is bigger than we think so maybe I'm wrong.

User avatar
Lavitz
Posts: 3094
Joined: Mon May 31, 2010 1:39 am

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

Postby Lavitz » Sun May 05, 2013 8:43 pm

I can't speak for anyone else but I viewed the jump in the rankings as a proxy for whether or not the administration has its act together.

It was pretty clear that one of the purposes of the Rubies was to increase Chicago's ranking, as admitted here:
Attracting the best and the brightest students to Chicago with full-tuition scholarships will generate a virtuous cycle.[...]The more accomplished a school's faculty and students, the greater its reputation and ranking is likely to be, which means that more top students will be attracted to enroll.

So I've been watching to see whether or not Chicago would succeed in its efforts. If it couldn't at least tie Columbia after several cycles with this new offer--or worse, if NYU tied Chicago despite the Rubies--then yes, I'd be concerned about what would happen to its ranking and its reputation in general after it loses that money.

The fact that the plan worked shows that Chicago is not in decline. Of course, I'm sure the LST data has contributed to this perception as well. So I don't think it was a decisive factor or anything, but I do think the rankings bump may have contributed to the popularity of Chicago this cycle by at least reassuring everyone that Chicago isn't at risk of falling in the rankings anytime soon.

Then again, maybe I was the only one overthinking this and nobody who actually deposited viewed it this way.

Mal Reynolds
Posts: 12630
Joined: Mon Oct 03, 2011 12:16 am

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

Postby Mal Reynolds » Sun May 05, 2013 9:28 pm

Even if ASW was well attended I'm not sure that means Chicago has already over enrolled. But, all else equal, I think there is a definite possibility that an increase in ranking could affect enrollment and yield in the aggregate.

I think you guys are over-thinking this a little. There will absolutely be more acceptances and people will absolutely be taken from the wait list. If last year is any indication, wait list->accepts even got a solid amount of money, although I sure as hell wouldn't like to be waiting come summer time. I don't think it's worthwhile trying to divine whether there will be more or less than last year. Sure, it could be less, and Chicago may have over-enrolled. I think there is an even greater chance that they'll have to pull more from the wait list. There has been a quantifiable drop in admissions standards this year and I think Chicago is trying to deal with that partially by taking longer to give out decisions. They are beholden to HYS and CN at this point and we're basically just waiting for the other shoe to drop. I don't know when that will be, but it will happened.

Having some weird debate about lay prestige, ranking, and reputations of these schools is pretty worthless. There are too many counter-veiling forces at work.

User avatar
Lavitz
Posts: 3094
Joined: Mon May 31, 2010 1:39 am

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

Postby Lavitz » Sun May 05, 2013 9:45 pm

Mal Reynolds wrote:I think you guys are over-thinking this a little.

Yes, I know I am. :lol:
Mal Reynolds wrote:Having some weird debate about lay prestige, ranking, and reputations of these schools is pretty worthless.

Unless I'm trying to get my post count up to 1000 for that banner in North's thread.* :wink:


*Without going into the Lounge

Mal Reynolds
Posts: 12630
Joined: Mon Oct 03, 2011 12:16 am

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

Postby Mal Reynolds » Sun May 05, 2013 9:51 pm

Lavitz wrote:*Without going into the Lounge


You're gonna have to at some point-it's inevitable. There's only so much time you can spend in the on-topics. You'll get a nice welcome if you start your own thread.

User avatar
Lavitz
Posts: 3094
Joined: Mon May 31, 2010 1:39 am

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

Postby Lavitz » Sun May 05, 2013 10:11 pm

Mal Reynolds wrote:You're gonna have to at some point-it's inevitable. There's only so much time you can spend in the on-topics. You'll get a nice welcome if you start your own thread.

Hah, thanks for the advice.

toothbrush
Posts: 2388
Joined: Thu Jul 05, 2012 2:21 pm

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

Postby toothbrush » Sun May 05, 2013 10:32 pm

Lavitz wrote:
Mal Reynolds wrote:You're gonna have to at some point-it's inevitable. There's only so much time you can spend in the on-topics. You'll get a nice welcome if you start your own thread.

Hah, thanks for the advice.

Don't do this. The lounge isn't a nice place.

User avatar
Lavitz
Posts: 3094
Joined: Mon May 31, 2010 1:39 am

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

Postby Lavitz » Sun May 05, 2013 10:38 pm

toothbrush wrote:Don't do this. The lounge isn't a nice place.

If anything, I'd probably just stick to the fitness thread. They seem pretty chill.

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

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

Postby JXander » Mon May 06, 2013 11:58 am

UR1, 4/17; UR2 4/26; UR3 5/6.

Is the decision typically made on the day of the third UR?

User avatar
TripTrip
Posts: 2737
Joined: Fri Sep 07, 2012 9:52 am

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

Postby TripTrip » Mon May 06, 2013 12:08 pm

Mal Reynolds wrote:
Lavitz wrote:*Without going into the Lounge


You're gonna have to at some point-it's inevitable. There's only so much time you can spend in the on-topics. You'll get a nice welcome if you start your own thread.

Bleh.

The A/D/W board is much nicer than the lounge.

aja8576
Posts: 16
Joined: Sun Mar 31, 2013 1:45 pm

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

Postby aja8576 » Mon May 06, 2013 12:14 pm

JXander wrote:UR1, 4/17; UR2 4/26; UR3 5/6.

Is the decision typically made on the day of the third UR?


Same here. UR3 on 5/6/2013.

nba101790
Posts: 475
Joined: Wed Jan 16, 2013 5:05 pm

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

Postby nba101790 » Mon May 06, 2013 12:16 pm

Same.

User avatar
Belgorn
Posts: 37
Joined: Fri Jun 22, 2012 2:45 pm

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

Postby Belgorn » Mon May 06, 2013 12:25 pm

Samsies.

User avatar
CaptainLeela
Posts: 4896
Joined: Wed Feb 27, 2013 10:11 am

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

Postby CaptainLeela » Mon May 06, 2013 12:26 pm

Movement from a 3/29 forgotten! I think we've got the clearing house wave arriving today!

ETA: 5/6 is only UR2 for me...oh boy...
Last edited by CaptainLeela on Mon May 06, 2013 3:26 pm, edited 1 time in total.

fivestarfolds
Posts: 537
Joined: Thu Dec 06, 2012 4:06 pm

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

Postby fivestarfolds » Mon May 06, 2013 12:36 pm

Yeah, I just went UR3


Submitted 1/4
Complete 1/17
UR1 3/29
UR2 4/23
UR3 5/6




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

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Baidu [Spider], blahblah123, carlos_danger, curry4bfast, dietcoke1, emirleee, lawschool2017712, mm2368, mudiverse, okf731, pleaseclassof2020, proteinshake, Smc1994, vho1791, yuppitsme and 41 guests