UC Davis c/o 2017 Applicants (2013-2014)

Share Your Experiences, Read About Other Experiences. Please keep posts organized by school and expected year of graduation.
User avatar
Jamesta25
Posts: 56
Joined: Thu Jan 23, 2014 4:09 pm

Re: UC Davis c/o 2017 Applicants (2013-2014)

Postby Jamesta25 » Tue Mar 11, 2014 10:25 am

Moonlight wrote:
fallingwater wrote:Unfortunately UC Hastings seems like it's on a long-term downward decline in USN rankings. Probably a trend since before 2009. It had a high point (#19) in 1992. What's happening with this school?

Meanwhile UC Davis moved up 2 spots (#36). Sure it wasn't where it was in 2010-2012, but at least there's some improvement. I heard that their number of apps actually increased this year, although it's probably due to the fee waiver. Since Davis and Hastings are often deemed virtually the same school in terms of prospects (at least on TLS), does anyone think recent events change anything? Is Davis now objectively more favorable?

Also, USC is down 2 points (#20 tied with UMN). This doesn't seem very surprising as both USC's and UCLA's rankings have fluctuated in the top 25 for awhile. However in the current state of law school admissions, does anyone think this might be good news for those of us who are still waiting on a decision?


Here's what I took away from these changes. I think its questionnable that Davis went up 2 slots considering they had a hard time getting their full 200 some students last year. I think the Fee Waiver is a way to drive up the game and help their rankings. I'm not sure if Davis is objectively more favorable although if they are competing in Sacramento market then that's going to be way easier than San Francisco market relatively speaking.

I'm also thinking that with this employment aspect of the ranking, it's kind of unfair for schools in California because our markets are so much more saturated than say Indiana (picking a random state).

Moonlight - I was where you were at about a month or so ago; trying to justify and defend Hastings in the wake of lots of criticism and negativity, so I get where you are coming from. I'd like to respond to some of the things you said.

I don't think it's reasonable to rip Davis in the light of the USNews rankings to make yourself feel better about Hastings. Whether you want to admit it or not, Davis does have a higher employment rating than Hastings by over 10%, which is significant. This could also be because of lower class size but regardless, it's the reality. I've spoken with a recent Davis alum who told me that the majority of his classmates ended up in SF, not Sacramento, so I don't think your point about Davis having an easier time placing in Sacramento is true. It's also not "unfair" for schools in California due to market saturation, it's the reality. There's no point bemoaning that - it's a choice we are making to stay in a highly-desirable area with many people competing for these legal jobs.

Hastings does have a solid reputation in the Bay Area and I'm confident that any of the UCs would provide a high quality legal education. I personally am strongly leaning towards Davis in light of major scholarship offers and a myriad of other reasons I'm learning about Davis like the smaller class size and communal feel that many students speak of, the strong emphasis on social justice, the seemingly strong placement in the Bay Area, and quite honestly, their presentation. While I am obviously not going to choose a law school based on presentation, Hastings has sent me duplicate emails for almost every email I've received from them, including my scholarship offer and even some with typos. While we likely won't be interacting with the admissions offices once we matriculate, presentation is something I really value and I believe says something about how a university views themselves and how they want others to perceive them.

Moonlight
Posts: 753
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 2:19 am

Re: UC Davis c/o 2017 Applicants (2013-2014)

Postby Moonlight » Tue Mar 11, 2014 12:04 pm

Jamesta25 wrote:Moonlight - I was where you were at about a month or so ago; trying to justify and defend Hastings in the wake of lots of criticism and negativity, so I get where you are coming from. I'd like to respond to some of the things you said.

I don't think it's reasonable to rip Davis in the light of the USNews rankings to make yourself feel better about Hastings. Whether you want to admit it or not, Davis does have a higher employment rating than Hastings by over 10%, which is significant. This could also be because of lower class size but regardless, it's the reality. I've spoken with a recent Davis alum who told me that the majority of his classmates ended up in SF, not Sacramento, so I don't think your point about Davis having an easier time placing in Sacramento is true. It's also not "unfair" for schools in California due to market saturation, it's the reality. There's no point bemoaning that - it's a choice we are making to stay in a highly-desirable area with many people competing for these legal jobs.

Hastings does have a solid reputation in the Bay Area and I'm confident that any of the UCs would provide a high quality legal education. I personally am strongly leaning towards Davis in light of major scholarship offers and a myriad of other reasons I'm learning about Davis like the smaller class size and communal feel that many students speak of, the strong emphasis on social justice, the seemingly strong placement in the Bay Area, and quite honestly, their presentation. While I am obviously not going to choose a law school based on presentation, Hastings has sent me duplicate emails for almost every email I've received from them, including my scholarship offer and even some with typos. While we likely won't be interacting with the admissions offices once we matriculate, presentation is something I really value and I believe says something about how a university views themselves and how they want others to perceive them.


If you think its about making myself feel better, than you've misunderstood. I'm not trying to make myself feel better. But I am and have been skeptical about Davis since the beginning. I seriously didn't even know they existed until the fee waiver they sent me. Considering the information of the ranks is based on the class two years ago, I think we'll see the impact of their 142 people class in two year's time. The sudden drop in number of people applying and attending to Davis is a point of concern regardless of where we stand.

When I spoke of the CA market, I was referring to our CA schools in comparison out of state schools so it's a fair point since the employment stat is compared as if it were equal across the board when it's not in that regard. I haven't seen many Davis grads in the Bay Area at least not in the big firms associate classes or even some of the middle sized firms associate classes. UC Davis has horrible presentation. All they ever send is their webinar flyer and its almost the same every time. There's nothing new or refreshing about what they present as far as the admissions office goes. But yea it really doesn't matter since we won't interact with admissions much after we matriculate. The employment rate according to the news ranking is interesting. It's very different than the stats given by ABA I think. I'll have to compare but it seems like it's significantly different,.

bobloblaw0227
Posts: 57
Joined: Fri Jan 10, 2014 7:28 pm

Re: UC Davis c/o 2017 Applicants (2013-2014)

Postby bobloblaw0227 » Tue Mar 11, 2014 12:49 pm

Moonlight wrote:
fallingwater wrote:Unfortunately UC Hastings seems like it's on a long-term downward decline in USN rankings. Probably a trend since before 2009. It had a high point (#19) in 1992. What's happening with this school?

Meanwhile UC Davis moved up 2 spots (#36). Sure it wasn't where it was in 2010-2012, but at least there's some improvement. I heard that their number of apps actually increased this year, although it's probably due to the fee waiver. Since Davis and Hastings are often deemed virtually the same school in terms of prospects (at least on TLS), does anyone think recent events change anything? Is Davis now objectively more favorable?

Also, USC is down 2 points (#20 tied with UMN). This doesn't seem very surprising as both USC's and UCLA's rankings have fluctuated in the top 25 for awhile. However in the current state of law school admissions, does anyone think this might be good news for those of us who are still waiting on a decision?


Here's what I took away from these changes. I think its questionnable that Davis went up 2 slots considering they had a hard time getting their full 200 some students last year. I think the Fee Waiver is a way to drive up the game and help their rankings. I'm not sure if Davis is objectively more favorable although if they are competing in Sacramento market then that's going to be way easier than San Francisco market relatively speaking.

I'm also thinking that with this employment aspect of the ranking, it's kind of unfair for schools in California because our markets are so much more saturated than say Indiana (picking a random state).


1. I don't think it's a bad thing that Davis had low enrollment numbers last year, it just means they didn't reach further into the applicant pool for stats lower than their medians. Applications have been way down for the last two years, so it makes sense that there are not as many people applying with Davis' numbers, and hence fewer students in a class.

2. How does giving out fee waivers boost your USNWR?

3. I don't understand your point about employment stats... Isn't the point of employment stats to show how many law students get jobs? So potential law students can get an idea of how hard it is to get jobs? The legal market in a given location is definitely tied to employment prospects, and I think it's pretty justifiable to factor that into ranking a law school.

Moonlight
Posts: 753
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 2:19 am

Re: UC Davis c/o 2017 Applicants (2013-2014)

Postby Moonlight » Tue Mar 11, 2014 12:54 pm

bobloblaw0227 wrote:
1. I don't think it's a bad thing that Davis had low enrollment numbers last year, it just means they didn't reach further into the applicant pool for stats lower than their medians. Applications have been way down for the last two years, so it makes sense that there are not as many people applying with Davis' numbers, and hence fewer students in a class.

2. How does giving out fee waivers boost your USNWR?

3. I don't understand your point about employment stats... Isn't the point of employment stats to show how many law students get jobs? So potential law students can get an idea of how hard it is to get jobs? The legal market in a given location is definitely tied to employment prospects, and I think it's pretty justifiable to factor that into ranking a law school.


Well what I was surprised about was how they still admitted a significant number but the matriculating group was so much smaller than they anticipated. I think they wanted 220 but only got 140 something people.

I was thinking that Fee Waivers increases number of applicants which allows them to potentially deny more and increase their selectivity which is part of the ranking methodology I believe.

Oh no doubt employment stats should be figured into the rankings but my thought is that CA law schools and NY law schools for example will always face steeper competition for employment due to the markets they are in as opposed to schools in less competitive markets and thus the percentage of employment will be less favorable to CA and NY schools as opposed to say schools in Arizona where they have just the 2 ABA law schools. That's what I was getting at by "fair" since its factored into the score the same weight despite the different markets. It doesn't allow students to see that the employment rate may be higher but is lower because of that region specifically as opposed to because of the school. Does that kind of make sense?

bobloblaw0227
Posts: 57
Joined: Fri Jan 10, 2014 7:28 pm

Re: UC Davis c/o 2017 Applicants (2013-2014)

Postby bobloblaw0227 » Tue Mar 11, 2014 1:10 pm

Moonlight wrote:
bobloblaw0227 wrote:
1. I don't think it's a bad thing that Davis had low enrollment numbers last year, it just means they didn't reach further into the applicant pool for stats lower than their medians. Applications have been way down for the last two years, so it makes sense that there are not as many people applying with Davis' numbers, and hence fewer students in a class.

2. How does giving out fee waivers boost your USNWR?

3. I don't understand your point about employment stats... Isn't the point of employment stats to show how many law students get jobs? So potential law students can get an idea of how hard it is to get jobs? The legal market in a given location is definitely tied to employment prospects, and I think it's pretty justifiable to factor that into ranking a law school.


Well what I was surprised about was how they still admitted a significant number but the matriculating group was so much smaller than they anticipated. I think they wanted 220 but only got 140 something people.

I was thinking that Fee Waivers increases number of applicants which allows them to potentially deny more and increase their selectivity which is part of the ranking methodology I believe.

Oh no doubt employment stats should be figured into the rankings but my thought is that CA law schools and NY law schools for example will always face steeper competition for employment due to the markets they are in as opposed to schools in less competitive markets and thus the percentage of employment will be less favorable to CA and NY schools as opposed to say schools in Arizona where they have just the 2 ABA law schools. That's what I was getting at by "fair" since its factored into the score the same weight despite the different markets. It doesn't allow students to see that the employment rate may be higher but is lower because of that region specifically as opposed to because of the school. Does that kind of make sense?


I get your point about matriculation, but this could also be because of scholarship offers. Just because they admitted a bunch of people, doesn't mean they made it a sweet deal to attend.

I think every school sent out more fee waivers this year, but you could be right.

I guess I don't see the point of classifying the reason employment numbers are the way they are. Objectively speaking, if you are considering the liklihood of getting a job after school, you should focus on employment numbers. If you are worried about location, library volumes, faculty, class size, gender distribution etc., you should look at those numbers. I think the only way to look at employment data is by comparing the rate of employed students, it wouldn't make sense to say "Hastings has a 46% employment rate, which when adjusted for CA's terrible legal market, is actually 90%!" or "Arizona has a 65% employment rate, but there are so many jobs there, that this actually equates to 20%".

Moonlight
Posts: 753
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 2:19 am

Re: UC Davis c/o 2017 Applicants (2013-2014)

Postby Moonlight » Tue Mar 11, 2014 1:16 pm

bobloblaw0227 wrote:I get your point about matriculation, but this could also be because of scholarship offers. Just because they admitted a bunch of people, doesn't mean they made it a sweet deal to attend.

I think every school sent out more fee waivers this year, but you could be right.

I guess I don't see the point of classifying the reason employment numbers are the way they are. Objectively speaking, if you are considering the liklihood of getting a job after school, you should focus on employment numbers. If you are worried about location, library volumes, faculty, class size, gender distribution etc., you should look at those numbers. I think the only way to look at employment data is by comparing the rate of employed students, it wouldn't make sense to say "Hastings has a 46% employment rate, which when adjusted for CA's terrible legal market, is actually 90%!" or "Arizona has a 65% employment rate, but there are so many jobs there, that this actually equates to 20%".


That's absolutely a fair point on the scholarship offers. That could very well be the reason. And yea probably all schools did. Hastings didn't though oddly enough. I don't think Berkeley and USC sent waivers either.

I guess to each their own, but I think comparing the markets is important because it says more about the value of the school's degree.

User avatar
njdevils2626
Posts: 384
Joined: Tue Mar 04, 2014 9:53 pm

Re: UC Davis c/o 2017 Applicants (2013-2014)

Postby njdevils2626 » Tue Mar 11, 2014 1:18 pm

Moonlight wrote:
bobloblaw0227 wrote:
1. I don't think it's a bad thing that Davis had low enrollment numbers last year, it just means they didn't reach further into the applicant pool for stats lower than their medians. Applications have been way down for the last two years, so it makes sense that there are not as many people applying with Davis' numbers, and hence fewer students in a class.

2. How does giving out fee waivers boost your USNWR?

3. I don't understand your point about employment stats... Isn't the point of employment stats to show how many law students get jobs? So potential law students can get an idea of how hard it is to get jobs? The legal market in a given location is definitely tied to employment prospects, and I think it's pretty justifiable to factor that into ranking a law school.


Well what I was surprised about was how they still admitted a significant number but the matriculating group was so much smaller than they anticipated. I think they wanted 220 but only got 140 something people.

I was thinking that Fee Waivers increases number of applicants which allows them to potentially deny more and increase their selectivity which is part of the ranking methodology I believe.

Oh no doubt employment stats should be figured into the rankings but my thought is that CA law schools and NY law schools for example will always face steeper competition for employment due to the markets they are in as opposed to schools in less competitive markets and thus the percentage of employment will be less favorable to CA and NY schools as opposed to say schools in Arizona where they have just the 2 ABA law schools. That's what I was getting at by "fair" since its factored into the score the same weight despite the different markets. It doesn't allow students to see that the employment rate may be higher but is lower because of that region specifically as opposed to because of the school. Does that kind of make sense?



I get what you're trying to say, but the rankings are not a perfect reflection of a school's quality. Just because Davis may prepare students greatly for a legal profession, that is not the question here. Most students are going to law school with the goal of achieving gainful legal employment. Regardless of the school's relative quality, the market in which it places its graduates and the related employment rates are incredibly important factors of consideration and have to be evaluated equally across the board. You can't just boost Davis because it's grads have legal knowledge but no job, that doesn't help anyone.

Moonlight
Posts: 753
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 2:19 am

Re: UC Davis c/o 2017 Applicants (2013-2014)

Postby Moonlight » Tue Mar 11, 2014 1:20 pm

njdevils2626 wrote:I get what you're trying to say, but the rankings are not a perfect reflection of a school's quality. Just because Davis may prepare students greatly for a legal profession, that is not the question here. Most students are going to law school with the goal of achieving gainful legal employment. Regardless of the school's relative quality, the market in which it places its graduates and the related employment rates are incredibly important factors of consideration and have to be evaluated equally across the board. You can't just boost Davis because it's grads have legal knowledge but no job, that doesn't help anyone.


You may want to reread. I have no intention of boosting Davis.

User avatar
ManoftheHour
Posts: 3401
Joined: Tue Jan 22, 2013 6:03 pm

Re: UC Davis c/o 2017 Applicants (2013-2014)

Postby ManoftheHour » Tue Mar 11, 2014 1:39 pm

fallingwater wrote:Unfortunately UC Hastings seems like it's on a long-term downward decline in USN rankings. Probably a trend since before 2009. It had a high point (#19) in 1992. What's happening with this school?

Meanwhile UC Davis moved up 2 spots (#36). Sure it wasn't where it was in 2010-2012, but at least there's some improvement. I heard that their number of apps actually increased this year, although it's probably due to the fee waiver. Since Davis and Hastings are often deemed virtually the same school in terms of prospects (at least on TLS), does anyone think recent events change anything? Is Davis now objectively more favorable?


Davis is better than Hastings in terms of job prospects. Check LST. It's probably because they don't have a billion people to take care of job wise. Whether intentional or not, Davis' class size was slashed 25% last year compared to the year before.
Last edited by ManoftheHour on Tue Mar 11, 2014 1:40 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
yeslekkkk
Posts: 319
Joined: Sat Nov 23, 2013 1:37 am

Re: UC Davis c/o 2017 Applicants (2013-2014)

Postby yeslekkkk » Tue Mar 11, 2014 1:39 pm

This is a thread to discuss the application process and whatnot for UC Davis, not UC Hastings. Take your UC Hastings vs. UC Davis banter to the thread specifically aimed at that.

It seems there is somewhat of a movement trying to justify attending UC Hastings and being aggressive towards UC Davis. It is a very difficult question with a lot of points to be brought up, but I urge you all to continue discussing it in the Hastings vs. Davis thread.

To be honest, both schools require me to ask some very serious questions. There are so many factors to consider when choosing a law school. There is no objective, clear winner.

User avatar
ManoftheHour
Posts: 3401
Joined: Tue Jan 22, 2013 6:03 pm

Re: UC Davis c/o 2017 Applicants (2013-2014)

Postby ManoftheHour » Tue Mar 11, 2014 1:49 pm

yeslekkkk wrote:There is no objective, clear winner.


lol, yeah there is.

http://www.lstscorereports.com/?school=davis
http://www.lstscorereports.com/?school=hastings

US News Ranking: Advantage Davis. 36th place in Tier 1 vs. somewhere in the Tier 2.
Employment score: Advantage Davis. 46% vs. Hasting's 35.9%.
Unemployment: Advantage Davis. 12.4% vs. Hasting's 25.7%.
Underemployment: Advantage Davis. 27.7% vs. Hasting's 43.3%. That's right. 43.3%. That's almost half their class. Hastings is TTT man.

User avatar
yeslekkkk
Posts: 319
Joined: Sat Nov 23, 2013 1:37 am

Re: UC Davis c/o 2017 Applicants (2013-2014)

Postby yeslekkkk » Tue Mar 11, 2014 1:52 pm

ManoftheHour wrote:
yeslekkkk wrote:There is no objective, clear winner.


lol, yeah there is.

http://www.lstscorereports.com/?school=davis
http://www.lstscorereports.com/?school=hastings

US News Ranking: Advantage Davis. 36th place in Tier 1 vs. somewhere in the Tier 2.
Employment score: Advantage Davis. 46% vs. Hasting's 35.9%.
Unemployment: Advantage Davis. 12.4% vs. Hasting's 25.7%.
Underemployment: Advantage Davis. 27.7% vs. Hasting's 43.3%. That's right. 43.3%. That's almost half their class. Hastings is TTT man.


That was me trying to be nice. Obviously, Davis outranks Hastings statistically for employment. I just mean that for some people, Hastings might be a better fit.

User avatar
ManoftheHour
Posts: 3401
Joined: Tue Jan 22, 2013 6:03 pm

Re: UC Davis c/o 2017 Applicants (2013-2014)

Postby ManoftheHour » Tue Mar 11, 2014 1:53 pm

Yeah, I get ya. Sorry for adding to the banter.

Seriously, this:


yeslekkkk wrote:This is a thread to discuss the application process and whatnot for UC Davis, not UC Hastings. Take your UC Hastings vs. UC Davis banter to the thread specifically aimed at that.


User avatar
Jamesta25
Posts: 56
Joined: Thu Jan 23, 2014 4:09 pm

Re: UC Davis c/o 2017 Applicants (2013-2014)

Postby Jamesta25 » Tue Mar 11, 2014 2:45 pm

yeslekkkk wrote:This is a thread to discuss the application process and whatnot for UC Davis, not UC Hastings. Take your UC Hastings vs. UC Davis banter to the thread specifically aimed at that.

It seems there is somewhat of a movement trying to justify attending UC Hastings and being aggressive towards UC Davis. It is a very difficult question with a lot of points to be brought up, but I urge you all to continue discussing it in the Hastings vs. Davis thread.

To be honest, both schools require me to ask some very serious questions. There are so many factors to consider when choosing a law school. There is no objective, clear winner.

This is the point I was trying to make in my previous post. The "hostility" or "aggression" towards UC Davis seems to come based on justifying attending Hastings rather than looking at the two schools individually.

I originally was concerned about the drop to around 145 students in this year's class but as others have pointed out, I see it as a reflection of upholding standards. Not only that, but the reduced number of graduates will potentially mean less competition for jobs and a higher employment rate for that class. Wasn't that the point of Hastings cutting their incoming class by 20-25%?

Moving on to UC Davis focused discussion, I'm very much looking forward to visiting and am strongly considering this as a top choice currently. I'd love to hear others' thoughts who have been admitted thus far.

User avatar
ManoftheHour
Posts: 3401
Joined: Tue Jan 22, 2013 6:03 pm

Re: UC Davis c/o 2017 Applicants (2013-2014)

Postby ManoftheHour » Tue Mar 11, 2014 2:48 pm

Moonlight wrote:I'm also thinking that with this employment aspect of the ranking, it's kind of unfair for schools in California because our markets are so much more saturated than say Indiana (picking a random state).


Law school is for getting jobs. Enough said. It's totally fair, and I'm from CA and planning to practice in CA. If schools don't like their rankings tanking, maybe they shouldn't be increasing/maintaining their ridiculously bloated class sizes to add to this saturated clusterfuck that is the CA legal market. Whether intentional or not, Davis' class size went down by 25%. Other schools should be following suit and be rewarded as such. Loyola in LA dropped by 19. It's justified. Just look at their employment prospects.

Quite frankly, employment aspect should be the ONLY aspect of rankings.

fatherjohnmisty
Posts: 1
Joined: Mon Mar 10, 2014 7:05 pm

Re: UC Davis c/o 2017 Applicants (2013-2014)

Postby fatherjohnmisty » Tue Mar 11, 2014 6:47 pm

I was unable to attend the live chat this afternoon with the dean and asst. dean. Did they mention anything about timing for outstanding applications? Anything else worth noting? Thanks!

User avatar
Jamesta25
Posts: 56
Joined: Thu Jan 23, 2014 4:09 pm

Re: UC Davis c/o 2017 Applicants (2013-2014)

Postby Jamesta25 » Tue Mar 11, 2014 10:31 pm

fatherjohnmisty wrote:I was unable to attend the live chat this afternoon with the dean and asst. dean. Did they mention anything about timing for outstanding applications? Anything else worth noting? Thanks!

From Assistant Dean Kristen Mercado: "I know many of you are still awaiting decisions -- we are working hard to send decisions as quickly as possible and decisions are going out multiple times each week and will continue this month and early next month. For those who applied by the February 1st priority deadline, we anticipate sending those decisions by the end of the month, with those applying after February 1st to follow shortly thereafter."

The transcript of the entire webchat from today can be found here: http://www.law.ucdavis.edu/chat/index.html

User avatar
Jamesta25
Posts: 56
Joined: Thu Jan 23, 2014 4:09 pm

Re: UC Davis c/o 2017 Applicants (2013-2014)

Postby Jamesta25 » Wed Mar 12, 2014 7:41 am

Interesting, Dean Johnson also wrote that applications are WAY up this year. Didn't think I'd hear of any school increasing apps with the downturn in applicants.

Moonlight
Posts: 753
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 2:19 am

Re: UC Davis c/o 2017 Applicants (2013-2014)

Postby Moonlight » Wed Mar 12, 2014 11:05 am

Jamesta25 wrote:Interesting, Dean Johnson also wrote that applications are WAY up this year. Didn't think I'd hear of any school increasing apps with the downturn in applicants.


Yea that is surprising that he wrote that.

User avatar
ManoftheHour
Posts: 3401
Joined: Tue Jan 22, 2013 6:03 pm

Re: UC Davis c/o 2017 Applicants (2013-2014)

Postby ManoftheHour » Wed Mar 12, 2014 4:58 pm

Jamesta25 wrote:Interesting, Dean Johnson also wrote that applications are WAY up this year. Didn't think I'd hear of any school increasing apps with the downturn in applicants.


That's not surprising at all. Application fee was waived for everyone. It doesn't matter to people like us TLSers (who solicit fee waivers from every school we apply to anyway), but the general population is clueless about requesting fee waivers. It's crazy how many people pay for app fees. lol. I got a fee waiver from Georgetown and down just because I asked. But I also know a girl last year that sent out 10 apps and paid for all of them, even apps for her safety schools.

purplethunder
Posts: 34
Joined: Wed Jan 08, 2014 10:15 pm

Re: UC Davis c/o 2017 Applicants (2013-2014)

Postby purplethunder » Wed Mar 12, 2014 9:44 pm

Waitlisted today via status checker :(

Sent in my response/LOCI

Brb crying

User avatar
Cal Trask
Posts: 4720
Joined: Tue Nov 19, 2013 7:40 pm

Re: UC Davis c/o 2017 Applicants (2013-2014)

Postby Cal Trask » Wed Mar 12, 2014 9:54 pm

Waitlist via status checker.

Moonlight
Posts: 753
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 2:19 am

Re: UC Davis c/o 2017 Applicants (2013-2014)

Postby Moonlight » Wed Mar 12, 2014 10:03 pm

Content Deleted
Last edited by Moonlight on Sat Jul 11, 2015 1:32 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Dingo Starr
Posts: 228
Joined: Thu Dec 26, 2013 4:50 am

Re: UC Davis c/o 2017 Applicants (2013-2014)

Postby Dingo Starr » Wed Mar 12, 2014 10:06 pm

Dinged.

Moonlight
Posts: 753
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 2:19 am

Re: UC Davis c/o 2017 Applicants (2013-2014)

Postby Moonlight » Wed Mar 12, 2014 10:06 pm

Dingo Starr wrote:Dinged.


Really? You and I aren't that different stats wise...




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

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot], RickyBunny, ThorB and 18 guests