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
WhiteyCakes
Posts: 1390
Joined: Mon Mar 05, 2012 2:38 pm

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

Postby WhiteyCakes » Wed Dec 05, 2012 10:34 am

lawschoolboundfuture wrote:What kinds of questions do they ask?



Read the rest of the page. This is what all of us have been wondering. Supposedly there were interviews done on Monday, but nobody has reported back

User avatar
2014
Posts: 5834
Joined: Sat Jun 05, 2010 3:53 pm

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

Postby 2014 » Wed Dec 05, 2012 12:51 pm

Give them some time. Sounds like this was the first week and I imagine they only do a few a day so people might want to let enough happen to not automatically out themselves.

User avatar
mtrrw
Posts: 67
Joined: Mon Oct 24, 2011 9:05 am

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

Postby mtrrw » Wed Dec 05, 2012 2:35 pm

WhiteyCakes wrote:
lawschoolboundfuture wrote:What kinds of questions do they ask?



Read the rest of the page. This is what all of us have been wondering. Supposedly there were interviews done on Monday, but nobody has reported back


Mine is this week as well...if I don't come back with some details know they did something to me. lol

Not sure what they could do over Skype, but this silence from those who have done their's already is eery.

User avatar
pacifica
Posts: 207
Joined: Sun Oct 09, 2011 5:34 pm

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

Postby pacifica » Wed Dec 05, 2012 3:10 pm

2014 wrote:Give them some time. Sounds like this was the first week and I imagine they only do a few a day so people might want to let enough happen to not automatically out themselves.


Probably this. During the first week of JS1s at HLS, there was a lot of radio silence over interview content as well. I'm sure by this weekend, there'll be a lot of chatter on interview questions.

Although I doubt there will be that many curve balls, I'm more curious how they plan on filling 20 whole minutes, especially since they said we asking them questions "might happen if there's time." NWU Law had an entire list of questions (25 maybe?) and they went through almost all of it with me and it took only about 25 minutes, so I'd be very curious how Chicago approaches this.

User avatar
UtilityMonster
Posts: 315
Joined: Sat Dec 03, 2011 3:16 pm

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

Postby UtilityMonster » Wed Dec 05, 2012 3:36 pm

My guess is the interviewees were asked hardball questions about minutia on their applications, got tripped up by the questions, and don't want to help later applicants because they did so poorly themselves. It makes me think Chicago may be a ruthlessly competitive school (I'm sure their grading system does not help this one bit).

Also, this: "Look at the camera during the interview, not at the image on the screen."

I'll also be sure to wear a uniform to school every day and walk in a straight line in the hallway without talking. Are they unaware that it is totally unnatural to stare at a small camera while you are talking to someone? I derive an incredible amount of information from the people I talk to's facial expressions in conversation.

While I'm at it, why is U Chicago so inhospitable in their correspondence with applicants? If they are trying to exemplify Krugman's "Very Serious People," which goes along with their reputation as being free market ideologues, they are doing one hell of a job. :|

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

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

Postby Rahviveh » Wed Dec 05, 2012 3:40 pm

UtilityMonster wrote:My guess is the interviewees were asked hardball questions about minutia on their applications, got tripped up by the questions, and don't want to help later applicants because they did so poorly themselves. It makes me think Chicago may be a ruthlessly competitive school (I'm sure their grading system does not help this one bit).

Also, this: "Look at the camera during the interview, not at the image on the screen."

I'll also be sure to wear a uniform to school every day and walk in a straight line in the hallway without talking. Are they unaware that it is totally unnatural to stare at a small camera while you are talking to someone? I derive an incredible amount of information from the people I talk to's facial expressions in conversation.

While I'm at it, why is U Chicago so inhospitable in their correspondence with applicants? If they are trying to exemplify Krugman's "Very Serious People," which goes along with their reputation as being free market ideologues, they are doing one hell of a job. :|


Its a law school. I'd rather them be straightforward than put on that fake facade that Michigan markets to applicants. At the end of the day once you're admitted you'll never see these adcoms again.

shntn
Posts: 5319
Joined: Sun Jun 10, 2012 1:45 pm

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

Postby shntn » Wed Dec 05, 2012 3:42 pm

UtilityMonster wrote:Also, this: "Look at the camera during the interview, not at the image on the screen."

Well I certainly LOL'd.

User avatar
2014
Posts: 5834
Joined: Sat Jun 05, 2010 3:53 pm

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

Postby 2014 » Wed Dec 05, 2012 6:34 pm

UtilityMonster wrote: It makes me think Chicago may be a ruthlessly competitive school (I'm sure their grading system does not help this one bit).

You made a guess at the reason for people not replying here which I might add is very low on the realm of plausible explanations, proceeded to accept it as true and then judge the school about it? This school is no more competitive than any other school with the exception of like Yale where its debatable if you are even taking law classes.
While I'm at it, why is U Chicago so inhospitable in their correspondence with applicants? If they are trying to exemplify Krugman's "Very Serious People," which goes along with their reputation as being free market ideologues, they are doing one hell of a job. :|

Who is more hospitable and what do they do that is more accommodating?

Anonymous4444
Posts: 631
Joined: Sat Sep 29, 2012 11:41 pm

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

Postby Anonymous4444 » Wed Dec 05, 2012 6:37 pm

2014 wrote:
UtilityMonster wrote: It makes me think Chicago may be a ruthlessly competitive school (I'm sure their grading system does not help this one bit).

You made a guess at the reason for people not replying here which I might add is very low on the realm of plausible explanations, proceeded to accept it as true and then judge the school about it? This school is no more competitive than any other school with the exception of like Yale where its debatable if you are even taking law classes.
While I'm at it, why is U Chicago so inhospitable in their correspondence with applicants? If they are trying to exemplify Krugman's "Very Serious People," which goes along with their reputation as being free market ideologues, they are doing one hell of a job. :|

Who is more hospitable and what do they do that is more accommodating?


yeah i gotta agree. i dont think much can be implied by tring to tell you where to look so that interviewer can see your eyes....
but eyes are pathways to the soul. You dont think they are trying to steal applicant souls......whoaaaa

User avatar
Greenandgold
Posts: 259
Joined: Mon Jun 27, 2011 12:45 pm

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

Postby Greenandgold » Wed Dec 05, 2012 7:03 pm

UtilityMonster wrote:My guess is the interviewees were asked hardball questions about minutia on their applications, got tripped up by the questions, and don't want to help later applicants because they did so poorly themselves. It makes me think Chicago may be a ruthlessly competitive school (I'm sure their grading system does not help this one bit).

Also, this: "Look at the camera during the interview, not at the image on the screen."

I'll also be sure to wear a uniform to school every day and walk in a straight line in the hallway without talking. Are they unaware that it is totally unnatural to stare at a small camera while you are talking to someone? I derive an incredible amount of information from the people I talk to's facial expressions in conversation.

While I'm at it, why is U Chicago so inhospitable in their correspondence with applicants? If they are trying to exemplify Krugman's "Very Serious People," which goes along with their reputation as being free market ideologues, they are doing one hell of a job. :|


The funniest thing about this is that you're mocking them for giving you advice that will help you. Look wherever you want man. Heck show up to the interview wearing a tank top and basketball shorts. Just don't expect to make a very good impression.

Also not sure why you think that our grading system makes us more competitive than any of our peer schools.

User avatar
SaintsTheMetal
Posts: 429
Joined: Mon Mar 05, 2012 5:08 am

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

Postby SaintsTheMetal » Wed Dec 05, 2012 7:06 pm

Greenandgold wrote:
UtilityMonster wrote:My guess is the interviewees were asked hardball questions about minutia on their applications, got tripped up by the questions, and don't want to help later applicants because they did so poorly themselves. It makes me think Chicago may be a ruthlessly competitive school (I'm sure their grading system does not help this one bit).

Also, this: "Look at the camera during the interview, not at the image on the screen."

I'll also be sure to wear a uniform to school every day and walk in a straight line in the hallway without talking. Are they unaware that it is totally unnatural to stare at a small camera while you are talking to someone? I derive an incredible amount of information from the people I talk to's facial expressions in conversation.

While I'm at it, why is U Chicago so inhospitable in their correspondence with applicants? If they are trying to exemplify Krugman's "Very Serious People," which goes along with their reputation as being free market ideologues, they are doing one hell of a job. :|


The funniest thing about this is that you're mocking them for giving you advice that will help you. Look wherever you want man. Heck show up to the interview wearing a tank top and basketball shorts. Just don't expect to make a very good impression.

Also not sure why you think that our grading system makes us more competitive than any of our peer schools.


I'm confused, where are people seeing this look at the camera advice? All I saw was the Interview FAQ and the Chicago Skype Instructions thing, neither of which said this...

ps. I'd also much rather do an in-person interview... but it is what it is.

User avatar
djwjddl
Posts: 476
Joined: Thu Oct 27, 2011 1:50 pm

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

Postby djwjddl » Wed Dec 05, 2012 7:14 pm

SaintsTheMetal wrote:
Greenandgold wrote:
UtilityMonster wrote:My guess is the interviewees were asked hardball questions about minutia on their applications, got tripped up by the questions, and don't want to help later applicants because they did so poorly themselves. It makes me think Chicago may be a ruthlessly competitive school (I'm sure their grading system does not help this one bit).

Also, this: "Look at the camera during the interview, not at the image on the screen."

I'll also be sure to wear a uniform to school every day and walk in a straight line in the hallway without talking. Are they unaware that it is totally unnatural to stare at a small camera while you are talking to someone? I derive an incredible amount of information from the people I talk to's facial expressions in conversation.

While I'm at it, why is U Chicago so inhospitable in their correspondence with applicants? If they are trying to exemplify Krugman's "Very Serious People," which goes along with their reputation as being free market ideologues, they are doing one hell of a job. :|


The funniest thing about this is that you're mocking them for giving you advice that will help you. Look wherever you want man. Heck show up to the interview wearing a tank top and basketball shorts. Just don't expect to make a very good impression.

Also not sure why you think that our grading system makes us more competitive than any of our peer schools.


I'm confused, where are people seeing this look at the camera advice? All I saw was the Interview FAQ and the Chicago Skype Instructions thing, neither of which said this...

ps. I'd also much rather do an in-person interview... but it is what it is.



Read the pdf link below the Skype instructions.

User avatar
oaken
Posts: 339
Joined: Mon Oct 24, 2011 11:27 am

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

Postby oaken » Wed Dec 05, 2012 7:59 pm

still not complete...

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

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

Postby banjo » Wed Dec 05, 2012 8:13 pm

ChampagnePapi wrote:
UtilityMonster wrote:My guess is the interviewees were asked hardball questions about minutia on their applications, got tripped up by the questions, and don't want to help later applicants because they did so poorly themselves. It makes me think Chicago may be a ruthlessly competitive school (I'm sure their grading system does not help this one bit).

Also, this: "Look at the camera during the interview, not at the image on the screen."

I'll also be sure to wear a uniform to school every day and walk in a straight line in the hallway without talking. Are they unaware that it is totally unnatural to stare at a small camera while you are talking to someone? I derive an incredible amount of information from the people I talk to's facial expressions in conversation.

While I'm at it, why is U Chicago so inhospitable in their correspondence with applicants? If they are trying to exemplify Krugman's "Very Serious People," which goes along with their reputation as being free market ideologues, they are doing one hell of a job. :|


Its a law school. I'd rather them be straightforward than put on that fake facade that Michigan markets to applicants. At the end of the day once you're admitted you'll never see these adcoms again.


I'm glad that someone else is annoyed by Michigan's "what the what" strategy this year. The handwritten notes, the two separate viewbook mailings, the overly casual tone of all those emails. I'm glad Chicago doesn't bombard people with marketing materials.

More importantly, I really like this Tina Fey clip on Chicago the city: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/04/0 ... 08151.html

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

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

Postby 20141023 » Wed Dec 05, 2012 8:23 pm

.
Last edited by 20141023 on Mon Feb 16, 2015 5:16 am, edited 3 times in total.

User avatar
spicyyoda17
Posts: 320
Joined: Thu Jul 12, 2012 6:02 pm

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

Postby spicyyoda17 » Wed Dec 05, 2012 8:44 pm

I'm going to come out and let it be known - I had an interview with Chicago this week!

I can put to rest the rumors put forth by some in this thread that we were asked to not talk about it and that the questions were exceptionally challenging. Neither of these thoughts is true. It was a very standard law school interview. The questions fell in line with questions asked at other law school interviews (e.g. why law, why chicago, something you're proud of, work experience, diversity, opportunity to ask questions, etc.).

In my opinion, there were no curveballs and nothing that would trip up an interviewee that has properly thought about why he or she wants to go to law school and why Chicago would be a good fit.

For me, it was a very comfortable interview and not stressful at all. It definitely made me more excited about the opportunity to be a student there.

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

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

Postby Rahviveh » Wed Dec 05, 2012 9:02 pm

spicyyoda17 wrote:I'm going to come out and let it be known - I had an interview with Chicago this week!

I can put to rest the rumors put forth by some in this thread that we were asked to not talk about it and that the questions were exceptionally challenging. Neither of these thoughts is true. It was a very standard law school interview. The questions fell in line with questions asked at other law school interviews (e.g. why law, why chicago, something you're proud of, work experience, diversity, opportunity to ask questions, etc.).

In my opinion, there were no curveballs and nothing that would trip up an interviewee that has properly thought about why he or she wants to go to law school and why Chicago would be a good fit.

For me, it was a very comfortable interview and not stressful at all. It definitely made me more excited about the opportunity to be a student there.

Thanks for posting this, confirmed my expectations. Good luck!

User avatar
mtrrw
Posts: 67
Joined: Mon Oct 24, 2011 9:05 am

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

Postby mtrrw » Wed Dec 05, 2012 9:30 pm

ChampagnePapi wrote:
spicyyoda17 wrote:I'm going to come out and let it be known - I had an interview with Chicago this week!

I can put to rest the rumors put forth by some in this thread that we were asked to not talk about it and that the questions were exceptionally challenging. Neither of these thoughts is true. It was a very standard law school interview. The questions fell in line with questions asked at other law school interviews (e.g. why law, why chicago, something you're proud of, work experience, diversity, opportunity to ask questions, etc.).

In my opinion, there were no curveballs and nothing that would trip up an interviewee that has properly thought about why he or she wants to go to law school and why Chicago would be a good fit.

For me, it was a very comfortable interview and not stressful at all. It definitely made me more excited about the opportunity to be a student there.

Thanks for posting this, confirmed my expectations. Good luck!


+1 Thank your for posting!!!!

User avatar
rehsalt
Posts: 75
Joined: Mon Apr 09, 2012 4:32 pm

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

Postby rehsalt » Wed Dec 05, 2012 9:53 pm

banjo wrote:
I'm glad that someone else is annoyed by Michigan's "what the what" strategy this year. The handwritten notes, the two separate viewbook mailings, the overly casual tone of all those emails. I'm glad Chicago doesn't bombard people with marketing materials.

More importantly, I really like this Tina Fey clip on Chicago the city: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/04/0 ... 08151.html


You're not the only one annoyed with that cloying strategy. At the end of the day it's just not nice to raise people's hopes when the majority of applicants will be waitlisted or denied.

+1 on the Tina Fey clip

ht2988
Posts: 482
Joined: Wed Sep 08, 2010 11:07 pm

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

Postby ht2988 » Wed Dec 05, 2012 11:50 pm

Finally, my app went complete today. Submitted 11/16.

wisteria
Posts: 285
Joined: Fri Nov 02, 2012 4:43 am

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

Postby wisteria » Wed Dec 05, 2012 11:58 pm

Finally complete too! Submitted 11/19

User avatar
LaMuSayonga
Posts: 168
Joined: Thu Jul 26, 2012 6:55 pm

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

Postby LaMuSayonga » Thu Dec 06, 2012 12:03 am

spicyyoda17 wrote:I'm going to come out and let it be known - I had an interview with Chicago this week!

I can put to rest the rumors put forth by some in this thread that we were asked to not talk about it and that the questions were exceptionally challenging. Neither of these thoughts is true. It was a very standard law school interview. The questions fell in line with questions asked at other law school interviews (e.g. why law, why chicago, something you're proud of, work experience, diversity, opportunity to ask questions, etc.).

In my opinion, there were no curveballs and nothing that would trip up an interviewee that has properly thought about why he or she wants to go to law school and why Chicago would be a good fit.

For me, it was a very comfortable interview and not stressful at all. It definitely made me more excited about the opportunity to be a student there.


This. Also, my interviewer could not have been nicer.

Cherries2013
Posts: 27
Joined: Sat Nov 03, 2012 5:33 pm

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

Postby Cherries2013 » Thu Dec 06, 2012 1:06 pm

So, do people actually go "under review" on the status checker at Chicago?

I've been "application complete" since early Oct.

EDIT: sorry, just realized they do. So what's up with the delay? Or is this normal? How long did it take everyone else to go under review? Thankss!!
Last edited by Cherries2013 on Thu Dec 06, 2012 1:08 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
djwjddl
Posts: 476
Joined: Thu Oct 27, 2011 1:50 pm

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

Postby djwjddl » Thu Dec 06, 2012 1:07 pm

Cherries2013 wrote:So, do people actually go "under review" on the status checker at Chicago?

I've been "application complete" since early Oct.


yes

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

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

Postby Dany » Thu Dec 06, 2012 1:28 pm

ChampagnePapi wrote:Its a law school. I'd rather them be straightforward than put on that fake facade that Michigan markets to applicants. At the end of the day once you're admitted you'll never see these adcoms again.

While I agree that UtilityMonster is being ridiculous, I'm a 2L and still talk to admissions people all the time. Dean Perry goes running with students, and is always around if you want to chat or are sick and want some Emergen-C. :lol:




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

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Baidu [Spider], bcapace, gilmoregirrrl, Google [Bot], Kungfu Wontons, themouse92, Veil of Ignorance and 20 guests