Minnesota c/o 2016 Applicants (2012-2013 cycle)

Share Your Experiences, Read About Other Experiences. Please keep posts organized by school and expected year of graduation.
User avatar
sublime
Posts: 15395
Joined: Sun Mar 10, 2013 12:21 pm

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

Postby sublime » Tue Mar 19, 2013 12:57 am

..

User avatar
romanticegotist
Posts: 1755
Joined: Thu Jan 10, 2013 4:15 pm

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

Postby romanticegotist » Tue Mar 19, 2013 9:23 am

Acceptance package came in the mail and a FULL RIDE (WTF) along with it. I laughed out loud and said "I forgive you for your '167 or bust' hubris now." But now I've got some decisions to make....

wannabelawstudent
Posts: 2588
Joined: Sat Aug 13, 2011 7:33 pm

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

Postby wannabelawstudent » Tue Mar 19, 2013 11:12 am

romanticegotist wrote:Acceptance package came in the mail and a FULL RIDE (WTF) along with it. I laughed out loud and said "I forgive you for your '167 or bust' hubris now." But now I've got some decisions to make....


Congrats man! That's so strange that when they were gunning for a 167 they didnt give out full rides, now everyone with a 166 is getting them....interesting.

User avatar
romanticegotist
Posts: 1755
Joined: Thu Jan 10, 2013 4:15 pm

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

Postby romanticegotist » Tue Mar 19, 2013 2:42 pm

wannabelawstudent wrote:
romanticegotist wrote:Acceptance package came in the mail and a FULL RIDE (WTF) along with it. I laughed out loud and said "I forgive you for your '167 or bust' hubris now." But now I've got some decisions to make....


Congrats man! That's so strange that when they were gunning for a 167 they didnt give out full rides, now everyone with a 166 is getting them....interesting.


Yeah they have certainly done some strange things this cycle, but I'm not gonna spend too much time questioning it. Do you think it would work if the 167s now came in and asked 'hey, where's my money?!'

wannabelawstudent
Posts: 2588
Joined: Sat Aug 13, 2011 7:33 pm

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

Postby wannabelawstudent » Tue Mar 19, 2013 2:57 pm

romanticegotist wrote:
wannabelawstudent wrote:
romanticegotist wrote:Acceptance package came in the mail and a FULL RIDE (WTF) along with it. I laughed out loud and said "I forgive you for your '167 or bust' hubris now." But now I've got some decisions to make....


Congrats man! That's so strange that when they were gunning for a 167 they didnt give out full rides, now everyone with a 166 is getting them....interesting.


Yeah they have certainly done some strange things this cycle, but I'm not gonna spend too much time questioning it. Do you think it would work if the 167s now came in and asked 'hey, where's my money?!'

I'd hope so but it doesnt sound like anyone is having very much luck, maybe after the first deposit.

User avatar
Nova
Posts: 9116
Joined: Sun Apr 15, 2012 8:55 pm

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

Postby Nova » Tue Mar 19, 2013 4:26 pm

romanticegotist wrote:
wannabelawstudent wrote:
romanticegotist wrote:Acceptance package came in the mail and a FULL RIDE (WTF) along with it. I laughed out loud and said "I forgive you for your '167 or bust' hubris now." But now I've got some decisions to make....


Congrats man! That's so strange that when they were gunning for a 167 they didnt give out full rides, now everyone with a 166 is getting them....interesting.


Yeah they have certainly done some strange things this cycle, but I'm not gonna spend too much time questioning it. Do you think it would work if the 167s now came in and asked 'hey, where's my money?!'

No. The 167s dont have 3.8s too, dude.

User avatar
romanticegotist
Posts: 1755
Joined: Thu Jan 10, 2013 4:15 pm

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

Postby romanticegotist » Tue Mar 19, 2013 5:59 pm

Nova wrote:
romanticegotist wrote:
wannabelawstudent wrote:
romanticegotist wrote:Acceptance package came in the mail and a FULL RIDE (WTF) along with it. I laughed out loud and said "I forgive you for your '167 or bust' hubris now." But now I've got some decisions to make....


Congrats man! That's so strange that when they were gunning for a 167 they didnt give out full rides, now everyone with a 166 is getting them....interesting.


Yeah they have certainly done some strange things this cycle, but I'm not gonna spend too much time questioning it. Do you think it would work if the 167s now came in and asked 'hey, where's my money?!'

No. The 167s dont have 3.8s too, dude.


haha fair, and the 167s didn't chide the admissions director over the phone for over-emphasizing the LSAT median (which this guy may or may not have done :twisted: ).


On an unrelated note, I seem to recall a point in this thread, maybe it was another one, where a biglaw alum talked for a bit about the MN legal market. Anyone know what pages that was on?

wannabelawstudent
Posts: 2588
Joined: Sat Aug 13, 2011 7:33 pm

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

Postby wannabelawstudent » Tue Mar 19, 2013 6:02 pm

romanticegotist wrote:
haha fair, and the 167s didn't chide the admissions director over the phone for over-emphasizing the LSAT median (which this guy may or may not have done :twisted: ).


Did you really? I want details haha....

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

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

Postby jbagelboy » Tue Mar 19, 2013 6:04 pm

wannabelawstudent wrote:
romanticegotist wrote:
haha fair, and the 167s didn't chide the admissions director over the phone for over-emphasizing the LSAT median (which this guy may or may not have done :twisted: ).


Did you really? I want details haha....


Minnesota may have just decided to stop giving a shit about its LSAT median halfway through the cycle. 172 here with an equal or lower aid award than tons of mid 160's

kdb
Posts: 26
Joined: Wed Dec 12, 2012 12:50 pm

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

Postby kdb » Tue Mar 19, 2013 7:38 pm

Like a few others here, I was initially waitlisted, accepted via phone call, then received the admit packet in the mail informing me about a full ride (!!!!!) I wish I always came home from work to such good news!

User avatar
BitterSplitter
Posts: 244
Joined: Wed Nov 07, 2012 2:17 am

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

Postby BitterSplitter » Tue Mar 19, 2013 7:42 pm

.
Last edited by BitterSplitter on Thu Jun 13, 2013 3:01 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
dproduct
Posts: 4087
Joined: Tue Dec 27, 2011 8:58 pm

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

Postby dproduct » Tue Mar 19, 2013 7:44 pm

Seems like 166, above the 25th but below median yields the 84k scholarship. 166 above the median is a full-ride.

kdb
Posts: 26
Joined: Wed Dec 12, 2012 12:50 pm

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

Postby kdb » Tue Mar 19, 2013 7:51 pm

BitterSplitter wrote:
kdb wrote:Like a few others here, I was initially waitlisted, accepted via phone call, then received the admit packet in the mail informing me about a full ride (!!!!!) I wish I always came home from work to such good news!


what range is your GPA in?


3.75 and, I don't know how much it mattered,, but I had strong softs, a post-college fellowship and work experience.

User avatar
sublime
Posts: 15395
Joined: Sun Mar 10, 2013 12:21 pm

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

Postby sublime » Tue Mar 19, 2013 10:57 pm

..

User avatar
Presidentjlh
Posts: 868
Joined: Mon Dec 03, 2012 6:07 am

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

Postby Presidentjlh » Tue Mar 19, 2013 11:00 pm

Sounds like I should expect an 84k scholarship then.

User avatar
romanticegotist
Posts: 1755
Joined: Thu Jan 10, 2013 4:15 pm

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

Postby romanticegotist » Wed Mar 20, 2013 9:48 am

I'm getting the impression that nobody in the admissions office follows TLS, or they'd know that we know the scholarships are wonky all of a sudden. Still, congrats to new admits!

historicrep
Posts: 94
Joined: Mon Jan 14, 2013 7:38 pm

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

Postby historicrep » Wed Mar 20, 2013 10:44 am

romanticegotist wrote:I'm getting the impression that nobody in the admissions office follows TLS, or they'd know that we know the scholarships are wonky all of a sudden. Still, congrats to new admits!

Yeah, it is frustrating to me a bit... wish they were open to negotiation.

User avatar
minnbills
Posts: 3153
Joined: Thu Sep 02, 2010 2:04 pm

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

Postby minnbills » Wed Mar 20, 2013 10:59 am

historicrep wrote:
romanticegotist wrote:I'm getting the impression that nobody in the admissions office follows TLS, or they'd know that we know the scholarships are wonky all of a sudden. Still, congrats to new admits!

Yeah, it is frustrating to me a bit... wish they were open to negotiation.


They do negotiate with some people.

NIUmelk
Posts: 50
Joined: Thu Jan 24, 2013 9:13 pm

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

Postby NIUmelk » Wed Mar 20, 2013 11:27 am

minnbills wrote:
historicrep wrote:
romanticegotist wrote:I'm getting the impression that nobody in the admissions office follows TLS, or they'd know that we know the scholarships are wonky all of a sudden. Still, congrats to new admits!

Yeah, it is frustrating to me a bit... wish they were open to negotiation.


They do negotiate with some people.



They do? I tried to negotiate, and it seemed to me in the e-mail that they did not even consider it.

User avatar
alwayssunnyinfl
Posts: 4100
Joined: Tue Mar 13, 2012 9:34 pm

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

Postby alwayssunnyinfl » Wed Mar 20, 2013 11:28 am

NIUmelk wrote:
minnbills wrote:
historicrep wrote:
romanticegotist wrote:I'm getting the impression that nobody in the admissions office follows TLS, or they'd know that we know the scholarships are wonky all of a sudden. Still, congrats to new admits!

Yeah, it is frustrating to me a bit... wish they were open to negotiation.


They do negotiate with some people.



They do? I tried to negotiate, and it seemed to me in the e-mail that they did not even consider it.


minnbills wrote:They do negotiate with some people.

User avatar
Xs20
Posts: 821
Joined: Fri Dec 28, 2012 8:03 pm

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

Postby Xs20 » Wed Mar 20, 2013 11:40 am

I sent a negotiation email yesterday. Will report back with their response.

historicrep
Posts: 94
Joined: Mon Jan 14, 2013 7:38 pm

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

Postby historicrep » Wed Mar 20, 2013 12:23 pm

minnbills wrote:
historicrep wrote:
romanticegotist wrote:I'm getting the impression that nobody in the admissions office follows TLS, or they'd know that we know the scholarships are wonky all of a sudden. Still, congrats to new admits!

Yeah, it is frustrating to me a bit... wish they were open to negotiation.


They do negotiate with some people.

Yeah, I understand that, I'm talking at a wider level.

If the 167 isn't all that important to them anymore in this cycle, that's that.

wannabelawstudent
Posts: 2588
Joined: Sat Aug 13, 2011 7:33 pm

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

Postby wannabelawstudent » Wed Mar 20, 2013 12:28 pm

historicrep wrote:
minnbills wrote:
historicrep wrote:
romanticegotist wrote:I'm getting the impression that nobody in the admissions office follows TLS, or they'd know that we know the scholarships are wonky all of a sudden. Still, congrats to new admits!

Yeah, it is frustrating to me a bit... wish they were open to negotiation.


They do negotiate with some people.

Yeah, I understand that, I'm talking at a wider level.

If the 167 isn't all that important to them anymore in this cycle, that's that.

I just find it ironic that they were so "167 or die" but didn't offer the kinda money they're giving 166 now, it's kinda a slap in the face. They could've had my 167 (and I'm sure a few others) for a full ride.

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

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

Postby jbagelboy » Wed Mar 20, 2013 12:57 pm

wannabelawstudent wrote:I just find it ironic that they were so "167 or die" but didn't offer the kinda money they're giving 166 now, it's kinda a slap in the face. They could've had my 167 (and I'm sure a few others) for a full ride.


I think the full rides are only going out to above median GPAs. Even so, it is a pretty big slap in the face to high lsats. Seems like getting a scholarship package early (december) was a deathknell if you wanted a full ride... there were hardly any offered at that time. Seems it's preferable to apply very late in the cycle to Minnesota with median numbers when they will do anything to grab you.

that said, congrats to all the new admitted students!

historicrep
Posts: 94
Joined: Mon Jan 14, 2013 7:38 pm

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

Postby historicrep » Wed Mar 20, 2013 2:33 pm

I absolutely agree... a full tuition ride would have had me signing a lease. $84,000 is great, need to see if they'll be beaten by Indiana or Washington now.




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

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Christinabruin, JazzyMac, Kaziende, Long shot hero and 5 guests