Stanford c/o 2017 (2013-2014 applicants)

Share Your Experiences, Read About Other Experiences. Please keep posts organized by school and expected year of graduation.

Have you been admitted?

Yes
76
21%
No
288
79%
 
Total votes: 364

Instinctive
Posts: 436
Joined: Fri Oct 05, 2012 11:23 pm

Re: Stanford c/o 2017 (2013-2014 applicants)

Postby Instinctive » Wed Mar 12, 2014 11:13 am

wtrc wrote:
KatyMarie wrote:
gta wrote:
Seoulless wrote:According to the google doc, the average turnaround time for a decision is 70 days.


Tomorrow is day #70 for me :shock:


I'll hit my 100th day of being Under Review in two days..


I'm past four months, and met a bunch of people this past weekend that are at 5+. :shock:


Also past 4 months. I applied to the GSB in January and already heard back………..SLS please make a decision for me!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

User avatar
wtrc
Posts: 2057
Joined: Mon May 30, 2011 9:37 pm

Re: Stanford c/o 2017 (2013-2014 applicants)

Postby wtrc » Wed Mar 12, 2014 11:15 am

Jessasaurus wrote:
barrelofmonkeys wrote:
There were early submitters still hearing back well into April, especially if waitlist.

ETA: This cat, for instance, complete 11/08 (ahem) didn't hear back until April 30, and that was a straight rejection.


This is terrifying.


The 169 provides some solace. Like, schools were like "yo we can't afford another 169...." but then they are like "Will be first in family to graduate from college, triple Major, studied abroad 3 times, participated in the National Student Exchange for a year at UNM, first Truman Finalist at my school, taken graduate classes as an undergrad, participated in a summer AmeriCorps program, mentor at-risk youth in WV, work w/ Amnesty International, constant work experience since turning 16, interned with WV Legislature, U.S. Senator Rockefeller, and the WV Democratic Party this election season."

And they are like OK let's make this work

Then they are like powwww there are so few 171+ scorers this cycle

Reject.

User avatar
EquallyWrong
Posts: 3213
Joined: Wed Jan 29, 2014 6:19 pm

Re: Stanford c/o 2017 (2013-2014 applicants)

Postby EquallyWrong » Wed Mar 12, 2014 11:25 am

wtrc wrote:
Jessasaurus wrote:
barrelofmonkeys wrote:
There were early submitters still hearing back well into April, especially if waitlist.

ETA: This cat, for instance, complete 11/08 (ahem) didn't hear back until April 30, and that was a straight rejection.


This is terrifying.


The 169 provides some solace. Like, schools were like "yo we can't afford another 169...." but then they are like "Will be first in family to graduate from college, triple Major, studied abroad 3 times, participated in the National Student Exchange for a year at UNM, first Truman Finalist at my school, taken graduate classes as an undergrad, participated in a summer AmeriCorps program, mentor at-risk youth in WV, work w/ Amnesty International, constant work experience since turning 16, interned with WV Legislature, U.S. Senator Rockefeller, and the WV Democratic Party this election season."

And they are like OK let's make this work

Then they are like powwww there are so few 171+ scorers this cycle

Reject.

Reading that italicized CV made me dizzy. Did see 169 and made a little sigh of relief, then feelings of guilt.
Bit worried that in the Stanford 2018 thread there will be links to my profile as the tragic worst case scenario everyone is praying to avoid.

User avatar
lastsamurai
Posts: 978
Joined: Tue Jun 25, 2013 11:17 am

Re: Stanford c/o 2017 (2013-2014 applicants)

Postby lastsamurai » Wed Mar 12, 2014 11:30 am

EquallyWrong wrote:Reading that italicized CV made me dizzy. Did see 169 and made a little sigh of relief, then feelings of guilt.
Bit worried that in the Stanford 2018 thread there will be links to my profile as the tragic worst case scenario everyone is praying to avoid.


Just looked at your profile...is all of that info accurate??

User avatar
EquallyWrong
Posts: 3213
Joined: Wed Jan 29, 2014 6:19 pm

Re: Stanford c/o 2017 (2013-2014 applicants)

Postby EquallyWrong » Wed Mar 12, 2014 11:52 am

lastsamurai wrote:
EquallyWrong wrote:Reading that italicized CV made me dizzy. Did see 169 and made a little sigh of relief, then feelings of guilt.
Bit worried that in the Stanford 2018 thread there will be links to my profile as the tragic worst case scenario everyone is praying to avoid.


Just looked at your profile...is all of that info accurate??

3.9 is rounded up from high 3.8. Other than that, yes. No criminal record, personal statement vetted, some interesting softs mostly enviro, etc. Might've been a bad rec, but Berkeley was my main target anyway...getting in to Stanford would be the icing on the cake and an unexpected surprise. Please, no more PMs asking about character defects or if I'm BSing my stats. Underperformance likely due to off putting attitude, impertinence not befitting an aspirant, or my grim and unsmiling slavic demeanor.

User avatar
lastsamurai
Posts: 978
Joined: Tue Jun 25, 2013 11:17 am

Re: Stanford c/o 2017 (2013-2014 applicants)

Postby lastsamurai » Wed Mar 12, 2014 11:57 am

Well at least you got one of your top choices. It's just obviously a bit surprising given those numbers how you've fared at the top. I'll keep my fingers crossed for SLS for you

hill
Posts: 4
Joined: Thu Jan 30, 2014 2:18 pm

Re: Stanford c/o 2017 (2013-2014 applicants)

Postby hill » Wed Mar 12, 2014 12:03 pm

lastsamurai wrote:Well at least you got one of your top choices. It's just obviously a bit surprising given those numbers how you've fared at the top. I'll keep my fingers crossed for SLS for you


The really ironic thing is that of all schools, he/she got into Berkeley. If it was a "character flaw", bad LoR, or whatever, you'd think it would have turned out the opposite.

IrishJew
Posts: 331
Joined: Tue Oct 08, 2013 12:39 pm

Re: Stanford c/o 2017 (2013-2014 applicants)

Postby IrishJew » Wed Mar 12, 2014 12:10 pm

3iggam wrote:I check everyday.


Sorry, dude. Hope you have other good choices.

IrishJew
Posts: 331
Joined: Tue Oct 08, 2013 12:39 pm

Re: Stanford c/o 2017 (2013-2014 applicants)

Postby IrishJew » Wed Mar 12, 2014 12:14 pm

EquallyWrong wrote:
3iggam wrote:I check everyday.

Cue ominous music, cut to the surprised and terrified faces of people with November complete dates who avoided the first round of DLSes.
Young Ingenue: "But Professor, I thought we were safe!"
The Professor: "My dear, this is Stanford...none of us are safe."
(Flash of lightning, electricity briefly cuts out. When lights return 3iggam lies motionless on the ground.)
Square Jawed Captain of the Yale Football Team: (taking the situation in hand and checking for his pulse) My word, he's DLSed! (Rumble of thunder, end scene as those still in the parlor eye each other with suspicion and concern)


+1 for post

+5 for use of ingenue

User avatar
EquallyWrong
Posts: 3213
Joined: Wed Jan 29, 2014 6:19 pm

Re: Stanford c/o 2017 (2013-2014 applicants)

Postby EquallyWrong » Wed Mar 12, 2014 12:19 pm

hill wrote:
lastsamurai wrote:Well at least you got one of your top choices. It's just obviously a bit surprising given those numbers how you've fared at the top. I'll keep my fingers crossed for SLS for you


The really ironic thing is that of all schools, he/she got into Berkeley. If it was a "character flaw", bad LoR, or whatever, you'd think it would have turned out the opposite.

I think it is really more subtle than just "character flaw." More like: "well, he doesn't sound like he'd be a good fit with our student body given the way he presents himself here." I used the same personal statement for everyone, so I think it just resonated more in their particular culture of, to quote them, "'elite' without the 'attitude.'" My guess is some people, Harvard, take a lot of pride in what they are dismissing as "attitude." I thought being an idiot savant on the LSATs would be my golden ticket with a lot of these places, but let that be a lesson that even the so called numbers whores take into consideration "holistic" factors.

IrishJew
Posts: 331
Joined: Tue Oct 08, 2013 12:39 pm

Re: Stanford c/o 2017 (2013-2014 applicants)

Postby IrishJew » Wed Mar 12, 2014 12:22 pm

koalacity wrote:I was just about to post about how I felt like calls would be coming soon since it'd been a while, and then I checked LSN: http://lawschoolnumbers.com/glib_monster

Calls came today, but apparently not to TLSers :(.


Whaa?!

But he's a January person with great stats, so probably first review anyway. Doesn't make a different for us holdsters.

IrishJew
Posts: 331
Joined: Tue Oct 08, 2013 12:39 pm

Re: Stanford c/o 2017 (2013-2014 applicants)

Postby IrishJew » Wed Mar 12, 2014 12:24 pm

wealtheow wrote:
barrelofmonkeys wrote:
wtrc wrote:Legal researchers out there: Last year, any idea when the early completes (September to November) heard back by? I wouldn't think that much longer, with ASW around the corner, right?


There were early submitters still hearing back well into April, especially if waitlist.

ETA: This cat, for instance, complete 11/08 (ahem) didn't hear back until April 30, and that was a straight rejection.


if said cat had shared his/her lsn username w/ stanford, i'm almost positive it would have been an autoadmit


TROG DOOOOOOOOORRRRR!

IrishJew
Posts: 331
Joined: Tue Oct 08, 2013 12:39 pm

Re: Stanford c/o 2017 (2013-2014 applicants)

Postby IrishJew » Wed Mar 12, 2014 12:29 pm

EquallyWrong wrote:
lastsamurai wrote:
EquallyWrong wrote:Reading that italicized CV made me dizzy. Did see 169 and made a little sigh of relief, then feelings of guilt.
Bit worried that in the Stanford 2018 thread there will be links to my profile as the tragic worst case scenario everyone is praying to avoid.


Just looked at your profile...is all of that info accurate??

3.9 is rounded up from high 3.8. Other than that, yes. No criminal record, personal statement vetted, some interesting softs mostly enviro, etc. Might've been a bad rec, but Berkeley was my main target anyway...getting in to Stanford would be the icing on the cake and an unexpected surprise. Please, no more PMs asking about character defects or if I'm BSing my stats. Underperformance likely due to off putting attitude, impertinence not befitting an aspirant, or my grim and unsmiling slavic demeanor.


Yo, dawg, da's messed up. Glad you at least got into your top choice.

User avatar
JD1776
Posts: 53
Joined: Thu Dec 12, 2013 3:08 pm

Re: Stanford c/o 2017 (2013-2014 applicants)

Postby JD1776 » Wed Mar 12, 2014 1:34 pm

A little movement on LSN including another acceptance from yesterday (a splitter): http://stanford.lawschoolnumbers.com/applicants

User avatar
Nonconsecutive
Posts: 2249
Joined: Thu Sep 27, 2012 4:58 pm

Re: Stanford c/o 2017 (2013-2014 applicants)

Postby Nonconsecutive » Wed Mar 12, 2014 1:58 pm

JD1776 wrote:A little movement on LSN including another acceptance from yesterday (a splitter): http://stanford.lawschoolnumbers.com/applicants


Always love to see that, even with his softs.

User avatar
wtrc
Posts: 2057
Joined: Mon May 30, 2011 9:37 pm

Re: Stanford c/o 2017 (2013-2014 applicants)

Postby wtrc » Wed Mar 12, 2014 2:42 pm

Nonconsecutive wrote:
JD1776 wrote:A little movement on LSN including another acceptance from yesterday (a splitter): http://stanford.lawschoolnumbers.com/applicants


Always love to see that, even with his softs.


I feel like "drone operator" is interesting but a bit err risky, some people aren't exactly jumping out of their seats in happiness when they hear "I participate in this probably internationally illegal program by the US government with a shady legal justification that kills people while I sit safely in a bunker in New Mexico"

:shock:

User avatar
JD1776
Posts: 53
Joined: Thu Dec 12, 2013 3:08 pm

Re: Stanford c/o 2017 (2013-2014 applicants)

Postby JD1776 » Wed Mar 12, 2014 2:45 pm

wtrc wrote:
Nonconsecutive wrote:
JD1776 wrote:A little movement on LSN including another acceptance from yesterday (a splitter): http://stanford.lawschoolnumbers.com/applicants


Always love to see that, even with his softs.


I feel like "drone operator" is interesting but a bit err risky, some people aren't exactly jumping out of their seats in happiness when they hear "I participate in this probably internationally illegal program by the US government with a shady legal justification that kills people while I sit safely in a bunker in New Mexico"

:shock:


On the flip side, he could make major contributions to a course or seminar discussion on the matter. Of course, some of it would be classified. 8)

92653
Posts: 55
Joined: Fri Jul 12, 2013 11:36 pm

Re: Stanford c/o 2017 (2013-2014 applicants)

Postby 92653 » Wed Mar 12, 2014 2:56 pm

JD1776 wrote:
wtrc wrote:
Nonconsecutive wrote:
JD1776 wrote:A little movement on LSN including another acceptance from yesterday (a splitter): http://stanford.lawschoolnumbers.com/applicants


Always love to see that, even with his softs.


I feel like "drone operator" is interesting but a bit err risky, some people aren't exactly jumping out of their seats in happiness when they hear "I participate in this probably internationally illegal program by the US government with a shady legal justification that kills people while I sit safely in a bunker in New Mexico"

:shock:


On the flip side, he could make major contributions to a course or seminar discussion on the matter. Of course, some of it would be classified. 8)



Sorry, I know they're in the military and full props to them for serving the country, but as a fellow SLS admit who comes from the part of the world where innocent kids are being killed by robots, I really hope they're not actively a part of that. Knowing SLS has actually been essential to the global movement to raise awareness of how awful this drone stuff is, I can only hope they're doing this to engage with a diversity of perspectives and effect change from within. http://www.livingunderdrones.org/

Every 18+ male in the region attacked is considered a "combatant" by default, according to the NYT: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/29/world/obamas-leadership-in-war-on-al-qaeda.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0 Dozens of children have been killed. Not to get all anti-drone-y on this thread, but this affects me in a very real way.

User avatar
FanOfPosner
Posts: 51
Joined: Sun Jan 12, 2014 9:00 pm

Re: Stanford c/o 2017 (2013-2014 applicants)

Postby FanOfPosner » Wed Mar 12, 2014 3:18 pm

3.9 is rounded up from high 3.8. Other than that, yes. No criminal record, personal statement vetted, some interesting softs mostly enviro, etc. Might've been a bad rec, but Berkeley was my main target anyway...getting in to Stanford would be the icing on the cake and an unexpected surprise. Please, no more PMs asking about character defects or if I'm BSing my stats. Underperformance likely due to off putting attitude, impertinence not befitting an aspirant, or my grim and unsmiling slavic demeanor.


Equally Wrong, I also was aiming for Berkeley while hoping for maybe Stanford, and it's looking like it's likely Boalt for me. I also have an unsmiling slavic demeanor, and I think we'll be friends, should we end up there.

User avatar
corporatebarbarian
Posts: 137
Joined: Tue Dec 03, 2013 6:44 pm

Re: Stanford c/o 2017 (2013-2014 applicants)

Postby corporatebarbarian » Wed Mar 12, 2014 3:19 pm

Yes because in the military you have full say over what job you perform, and Stanford would actually be ENCOURAGING drone strikes by admitting someone who flew them.

Anyway, rant over. I would be hesitant to call someone a "splitter" who got a 3.6x at a service academy. That's equivalent to a 4.0 at most schools.

User avatar
wtrc
Posts: 2057
Joined: Mon May 30, 2011 9:37 pm

Re: Stanford c/o 2017 (2013-2014 applicants)

Postby wtrc » Wed Mar 12, 2014 3:22 pm

corporatebarbarian wrote:Yes because in the military you have full say over what job you perform, and Stanford would actually be ENCOURAGING drone strikes by admitting someone who flew them.

Anyway, rant over. I would be hesitant to call someone a "splitter" who got a 3.6x at a service academy. That's equivalent to a 4.0 at most schools.


Re the second point, schools might consider that, but which school it was doesn't affect their medians.

User avatar
Jessasaurus
Posts: 289
Joined: Thu Nov 07, 2013 4:02 pm

Re: Stanford c/o 2017 (2013-2014 applicants)

Postby Jessasaurus » Wed Mar 12, 2014 3:40 pm

wtrc wrote:
I'm past four months, and met a bunch of people this past weekend that are at 5+. :shock:


I'm at 5+ months. SO MUCH SILENCE

let.me.in.please
Posts: 8
Joined: Tue Jan 28, 2014 7:04 pm

Re: Stanford c/o 2017 (2013-2014 applicants)

Postby let.me.in.please » Wed Mar 12, 2014 4:01 pm

I think the most depressing part of the prolonged wait is that I get to spend so much more time toiling about the internet and researching how beautiful and generally awesome SLS is. It will make the impending doom just that much more depressing.
http://blogs.law.stanford.edu/admission ... 09/08/162/

juicebox
Posts: 105
Joined: Thu Dec 19, 2013 10:07 pm

Re: Stanford c/o 2017 (2013-2014 applicants)

Postby juicebox » Wed Mar 12, 2014 5:42 pm

let.me.in.please wrote:I think the most depressing part of the prolonged wait is that I get to spend so much more time toiling about the internet and researching how beautiful and generally awesome SLS is. It will make the impending doom just that much more depressing.
http://blogs.law.stanford.edu/admission ... 09/08/162/


+1

Also, not knowing what's happening with my file. At least with most other schools we have a general idea of the process.

maghrabi
Posts: 4
Joined: Wed Mar 12, 2014 6:35 pm

Re: Stanford c/o 2017 (2013-2014 applicants)

Postby maghrabi » Thu Mar 13, 2014 10:47 am

checking in. I went complete 157 days ago.




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

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 7 guests