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
2014
Posts: 5831
Joined: Sat Jun 05, 2010 3:53 pm

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

Postby 2014 » Sun Jan 20, 2013 2:46 pm

USNWR is a valid reason but don't be a moron and list it explicitly. Reference the resources and faculty that come with being a top school or compare it favorably to its peers (ie location, class size, job placement, w/e). Those convey you are aware of USNWR while referencing the few merits of the ranking methodology rather than the overall stupid list.

WalkingPlato
Posts: 171
Joined: Mon Jul 02, 2012 10:51 pm

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

Postby WalkingPlato » Sun Jan 20, 2013 2:47 pm

App went complete Mid-November. No change in status since. No interview. Ouch.

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

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

Postby Big Dog » Sun Jan 20, 2013 2:52 pm

I was under the impressions we were talking about listing listing USNWR as one of several reasons for applying.


See, that's the thing about those really short-answer questions/prompts. After spending countless hours polishing the personal statement, many applicants skip over the short answer q's and don't think them through.

Even listing USNews as one of ten reasons for applying is one wasted reason, and one in particular that top law schools do not want to see. But more importantly, it's a waste of a chance to show your fit for that LS -- what you, the applicant, bring to the table, what you can add to the class based on interests, etc.

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

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

Postby Crowing » Sun Jan 20, 2013 3:18 pm

Obviously schools know that USNWR ranking is important to a lot of applicants; after all they put so much effort into gaming those rankings every year. But mentioning it is a wasted opportunity to distinguish yourself. What then distinguishes Chicago to you over CLS and NYU? Or even worse, does that mean that if you're admitted at HYS then Chicago is totally off your radar?

User avatar
Audeamus
Posts: 430
Joined: Thu Nov 29, 2012 10:28 pm

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

Postby Audeamus » Sun Jan 20, 2013 3:45 pm

2014 wrote:USNWR is a valid reason but don't be a moron and list it explicitly. Reference the resources and faculty that come with being a top school or compare it favorably to its peers (ie location, class size, job placement, w/e). Those convey you are aware of USNWR while referencing the few merits of the ranking methodology rather than the overall stupid list.


I would totally agree with you except that for Chicago's application they only give you a certain set of options for which you check a corresponding box...

User avatar
Audeamus
Posts: 430
Joined: Thu Nov 29, 2012 10:28 pm

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

Postby Audeamus » Sun Jan 20, 2013 3:46 pm

Big Dog wrote:
I was under the impressions we were talking about listing listing USNWR as one of several reasons for applying.


See, that's the thing about those really short-answer questions/prompts. After spending countless hours polishing the personal statement, many applicants skip over the short answer q's and don't think them through.

Even listing USNews as one of ten reasons for applying is one wasted reason, and one in particular that top law schools do not want to see. But more importantly, it's a waste of a chance to show your fit for that LS -- what you, the applicant, bring to the table, what you can add to the class based on interests, etc.


How exactly are you supposed to do that when the question is set up as it is on the Chicago application?

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

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

Postby Big Dog » Sun Jan 20, 2013 3:49 pm

^^seek out Chicago's online view book. They will list/emphasize what is (clearly) important to them. (Hint: the important terms are in marroon.)

http://www.law.uchicago.edu/prospective/viewbook

User avatar
Audeamus
Posts: 430
Joined: Thu Nov 29, 2012 10:28 pm

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

Postby Audeamus » Sun Jan 20, 2013 3:56 pm

Big Dog wrote:^^seek out Chicago's online view book. They will list/emphasize what is (clearly) important to them. (Hint: the important terms are in marroon.)

http://www.law.uchicago.edu/prospective/viewbook



Wait, it's possible I'm confused about what we were talking about. Are we talking about what you should say in a "Why Chicago" addenda? If we are, I'm totally with you. I thought we were talking about the question "What prompted you to apply to this law school" for which the answers are constrained by the options they provide.

User avatar
Lavitz
Posts: 3096
Joined: Mon May 31, 2010 1:39 am

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

Postby Lavitz » Sun Jan 20, 2013 3:59 pm

Big Dog wrote:^^seek out Chicago's online view book. They will list/emphasize what is (clearly) important to them. (Hint: the important terms are in marroon.)

http://www.law.uchicago.edu/prospective/viewbook

We're discussing a "check the boxes that apply" question and USNWR was one of the few options. Others included internet, school website, law school forum visit, relatives, pre-law advisers, etc. There were no options for ideas, community, faculty, clinics or Hyde Park.

I don't see how checking the USNWR box is going to make a significant difference, especially if you've conveyed genuine interest elsewhere in the app and in your interview.

User avatar
Audeamus
Posts: 430
Joined: Thu Nov 29, 2012 10:28 pm

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

Postby Audeamus » Sun Jan 20, 2013 4:00 pm

Audeamus wrote:
Big Dog wrote:^^seek out Chicago's online view book. They will list/emphasize what is (clearly) important to them. (Hint: the important terms are in marroon.)

http://www.law.uchicago.edu/prospective/viewbook



Wait, it's possible I'm confused about what we were talking about. Are we talking about what you should say in a "Why Chicago" addenda? If we are, I'm totally with you. I thought we were talking about the question "What prompted you to apply to this law school" for which the answers are constrained by the options they provide.


Additionally, I agree the "Academic Interest" question, which is a short answer, should absolutely not include any mention of rankings and should be highly specific to the applicant's interest in Chicago.

User avatar
2014
Posts: 5831
Joined: Sat Jun 05, 2010 3:53 pm

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

Postby 2014 » Sun Jan 20, 2013 4:56 pm

Audeamus wrote:
2014 wrote:USNWR is a valid reason but don't be a moron and list it explicitly. Reference the resources and faculty that come with being a top school or compare it favorably to its peers (ie location, class size, job placement, w/e). Those convey you are aware of USNWR while referencing the few merits of the ranking methodology rather than the overall stupid list.


I would totally agree with you except that for Chicago's application they only give you a certain set of options for which you check a corresponding box...

Fair enough, would say don't check that box.

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

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

Postby Big Dog » Sun Jan 20, 2013 5:01 pm

We're discussing a "check the boxes that apply" question and USNWR was one of the few options. Others included internet, school website, law school forum visit, relatives, pre-law advisers, etc.


Right. And it shouldn't be too hard to rank order them in the preference of the Admissions reader(s). :D

(I can guarantee you that none of the admissions readers would check the 'USNews' box is they were applying to LS today.)

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

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

Postby 20141023 » Sun Jan 20, 2013 5:06 pm

.
Last edited by 20141023 on Mon Feb 16, 2015 3:43 pm, edited 3 times in total.

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

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

Postby 20141023 » Sun Jan 20, 2013 5:17 pm

.
Last edited by 20141023 on Mon Feb 16, 2015 3:43 pm, edited 1 time in total.

one_by_one
Posts: 277
Joined: Wed Jun 20, 2012 2:10 pm

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

Postby one_by_one » Sun Jan 20, 2013 6:22 pm

/
Last edited by one_by_one on Fri Jul 17, 2015 1:12 pm, edited 1 time in total.

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 » Sun Jan 20, 2013 6:27 pm

kappycaft1 wrote:'


Got this too and I was almost tempted, until I realized that once I got a BigLaw job out of a T14 I could by myself a hundred iPads. This is like that experiment where they sit a kid in front of a marshmallow and tell him he'll get another if he doesn't eat it for 20 minutes. I'm sure some kid will eat it, but it sure as hell won't be me.

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

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

Postby grapefruits » Sun Jan 20, 2013 6:42 pm

2014 wrote:
Audeamus wrote:
2014 wrote:USNWR is a valid reason but don't be a moron and list it explicitly. Reference the resources and faculty that come with being a top school or compare it favorably to its peers (ie location, class size, job placement, w/e). Those convey you are aware of USNWR while referencing the few merits of the ranking methodology rather than the overall stupid list.


I would totally agree with you except that for Chicago's application they only give you a certain set of options for which you check a corresponding box...

Fair enough, would say don't check that box.


Why tell an obvious lie about something stupid? I was pretty convinced when I was applying that they only asked as a test to see who would lie and who wouldn't. If I was reading apps I would definitely count not checking the box against an applicant. Be honest with yourselves, if Chicago was ranked 25th in usnwr none of us would have applied.

ETA: rather it would have, at the very least, significantly affected people's reasons for applying.

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

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

Postby Big Dog » Sun Jan 20, 2013 7:14 pm

I was pretty convinced when I was applying that they only asked as a test to see who would lie and who wouldn't. If I was reading apps I would definitely count not checking the box against an applicant.


Except Chicago may not even care about where else you are applying. In another thread (or blog, I can't remember), someone reported that CRS has questions 'grouped', and if a LS wants an answer to one specific question, they have to accept the whole group of questions that come with that specific q, regardless if they care about the other q's.

Of course, the challenge will be to figure out which question(s) of the group, Chicago really cared about. :lol:

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

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

Postby Anonymous4444 » Sun Jan 20, 2013 7:32 pm

40 hours left until decisions.. im calling it

User avatar
Lavitz
Posts: 3096
Joined: Mon May 31, 2010 1:39 am

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

Postby Lavitz » Sun Jan 20, 2013 7:42 pm

Big Dog wrote:Except Chicago may not even care about where else you are applying. In another thread (or blog, I can't remember), someone reported that CRS has questions 'grouped', and if a LS wants an answer to one specific question, they have to accept the whole group of questions that come with that specific q, regardless if they care about the other q's.

Of course, the challenge will be to figure out which question(s) of the group, Chicago really cared about. :lol:

Yeah, it's actually on page 3 of this thread.
honeybadger12 wrote:--LinkRemoved--
Thoughts on leaving #1 and/or #6 blank on section 8 of the app?

User avatar
Audeamus
Posts: 430
Joined: Thu Nov 29, 2012 10:28 pm

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

Postby Audeamus » Sun Jan 20, 2013 7:51 pm

Lavitz wrote:
Big Dog wrote:^^seek out Chicago's online view book. They will list/emphasize what is (clearly) important to them. (Hint: the important terms are in marroon.)

http://www.law.uchicago.edu/prospective/viewbook

We're discussing a "check the boxes that apply" question and USNWR was one of the few options. Others included internet, school website, law school forum visit, relatives, pre-law advisers, etc. There were no options for ideas, community, faculty, clinics or Hyde Park.

I don't see how checking the USNWR box is going to make a significant difference, especially if you've conveyed genuine interest elsewhere in the app and in your interview.


Precisely. Thank you, Lavitz. You're explanation was far clearer than mine.

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

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

Postby reallysearch » Sun Jan 20, 2013 9:34 pm

During my interview, I was asked "as an ED applicant, how did you make this decision to commit to Chicago". I spent 8-10 minutes elaborating my answer and I think I was able to convince her that my commitment to Chicago was a well-informed decision.

I guess the whole "Why Chicago" question isn't just for YP, since I was ED and YP was not relevant. It felt like they were looking for people who want Chicago for the "right" reasons (besides USNWR ranking)

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

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

Postby nba101790 » Mon Jan 21, 2013 2:26 pm

So my application is still under "received," but there's a box under fees for a class deposit. Anyone else have this?

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

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

Postby Anonymous4444 » Mon Jan 21, 2013 2:27 pm

yeah everyone... page like 25 we had this
sorry :)

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

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

Postby nba101790 » Mon Jan 21, 2013 2:28 pm

Anonymous4444 wrote:yeah everyone... page like 25 we had this
sorry :)


Haha sorry for not reading through all 40 pages, but thanks for confirming.




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

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: amberb94, bigv, brinicolec, hammy393, jhatche2, Leahmealone, NotAGolfer, yuppitsme and 16 guests