Texas c/o 2017 Applicants (2013-2014 cycle)

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

Which city is your 180 destination for employment?

Austin
15
26%
Houston
8
14%
DFW
15
26%
San Antonio
3
5%
Other TX
0
No votes
Out of state Tri-state area
4
7%
Out of state CA area
10
18%
Out of state Chicago area
1
2%
Out of state Midwest area
1
2%
Out of state flyover state
0
No votes
 
Total votes: 57

BigZuck
Posts: 10880
Joined: Tue Sep 04, 2012 9:53 am

Re: Texas c/o 2017 Applicants (2013-2014 cycle)

Postby BigZuck » Wed Jan 29, 2014 5:15 pm

Attax wrote:
abolin wrote:LSAT- right at 25%
GPA- >75%
Been complete and under review since October 11. Texas resident. Haven't been dinged yet. Assuming that's a good sign?


They may be holding to see how the class turns out. Probably a good thing, it seems that they ding once you are below 167 pretty independently of GPA so far, unless URM. Meaning you aren't ding worthy, but I think they're trying to up the LSAT median and then will work on GPA after that. I would take lack of a ding as a good sign at this point considering this graph.

http://texas.lawschoolnumbers.com/stats/1314

Good luck! Plus as a TX resident here I submitted 11/30 and was accepted on 12/17.

To build upon it, I drew a mental trend line through the previous data (not linear, more evident of exponential decay really) and the following data from last year's admissions gave me the following numbers for a certain "autoadmittance" as in nearly everyone at this X LSAT and above the GPA indicated were admitted. There are some outliers (and of course many below), but it is more of a way to gauge from last year. However, so far for this year, it seems as if 167+ is in, and that below 167 GPA is mostly irrelevant so far. I'd take that as a sign that reverse splitters who are being held will have a better chance later on.

GPA LSAT
3.83 163
3.8 164
3.75 165
3.7 166
3.64 167
3.4 168
3.3 169
any 170


Interesting. All the more reason for reverse splitters to pull themselves up by their bootstraps, score higher on the LSAT, and punch their own ticket to UT (or whereever it is that they want to attend).

User avatar
Attax
Posts: 3589
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 10:59 am

Re: Texas c/o 2017 Applicants (2013-2014 cycle)

Postby Attax » Wed Jan 29, 2014 5:23 pm

BigZuck wrote:
Attax wrote:
abolin wrote:LSAT- right at 25%
GPA- >75%
Been complete and under review since October 11. Texas resident. Haven't been dinged yet. Assuming that's a good sign?


They may be holding to see how the class turns out. Probably a good thing, it seems that they ding once you are below 167 pretty independently of GPA so far, unless URM. Meaning you aren't ding worthy, but I think they're trying to up the LSAT median and then will work on GPA after that. I would take lack of a ding as a good sign at this point considering this graph.

http://texas.lawschoolnumbers.com/stats/1314

Good luck! Plus as a TX resident here I submitted 11/30 and was accepted on 12/17.

To build upon it, I drew a mental trend line through the previous data (not linear, more evident of exponential decay really) and the following data from last year's admissions gave me the following numbers for a certain "autoadmittance" as in nearly everyone at this X LSAT and above the GPA indicated were admitted. There are some outliers (and of course many below), but it is more of a way to gauge from last year. However, so far for this year, it seems as if 167+ is in, and that below 167 GPA is mostly irrelevant so far. I'd take that as a sign that reverse splitters who are being held will have a better chance later on.

GPA LSAT
3.83 163
3.8 164
3.75 165
3.7 166
3.64 167
3.4 168
3.3 169
any 170


Interesting. All the more reason for reverse splitters to pull themselves up by their bootstraps, score higher on the LSAT, and punch their own ticket to UT (or whereever it is that they want to attend).


Definitely, I think that reverse splitters really would probably be well suited, especially if not a URM (which all those below 167 who were admitted seem to be) to send in a LOInterest as well as make themselves seem genuinely interested in UT. From what I've gathered in my communications with them, YP is very high this year.

Similar data for this year from what is so far available:

LSAT GPA
>167 >2.0
166 3.8
165 3.72 (if non URM)


160/3.55 is the only reported non-URM less than a 165 who was admitted.

User avatar
Savage13
Posts: 79
Joined: Tue Feb 10, 2009 3:06 am

Re: Texas c/o 2017 Applicants (2013-2014 cycle)

Postby Savage13 » Wed Jan 29, 2014 6:02 pm

IN! Just got the call. I'm a 17X/2.XX splitter, so I was not holding my breath. Hopefully that bodes well for other splitters. :D

User avatar
Attax
Posts: 3589
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 10:59 am

Re: Texas c/o 2017 Applicants (2013-2014 cycle)

Postby Attax » Wed Jan 29, 2014 6:03 pm

Savage13 wrote:IN! Just got the call. I'm a 17X/2.XX splitter, so I was not holding my breath. Hopefully that bodes well for other splitters. :D


Oh it does, out of the 3 "woah can't believe they got in when looking at past trends" here:

http://texas.lawschoolnumbers.com/stats/1314

2 of us are here on TLS :D

Congrats on admittance!

abolin
Posts: 4
Joined: Wed Jan 29, 2014 1:50 pm

Re: Texas c/o 2017 Applicants (2013-2014 cycle)

Postby abolin » Thu Jan 30, 2014 1:35 pm

Attax wrote:
abolin wrote:LSAT- right at 25%
GPA- >75%
Been complete and under review since October 11. Texas resident. Haven't been dinged yet. Assuming that's a good sign?


They may be holding to see how the class turns out. Probably a good thing, it seems that they ding once you are below 167 pretty independently of GPA so far, unless URM. Meaning you aren't ding worthy, but I think they're trying to up the LSAT median and then will work on GPA after that. I would take lack of a ding as a good sign at this point considering this graph.

http://texas.lawschoolnumbers.com/stats/1314

Good luck! Plus as a TX resident here I submitted 11/30 and was accepted on 12/17.

To build upon it, I drew a mental trend line through the previous data (not linear, more evident of exponential decay really) and the following data from last year's admissions gave me the following numbers for a certain "autoadmittance" as in nearly everyone at this X LSAT and above the GPA indicated were admitted. There are some outliers (and of course many below), but it is more of a way to gauge from last year. However, so far for this year, it seems as if 167+ is in, and that below 167 GPA is mostly irrelevant so far. I'd take that as a sign that reverse splitters who are being held will have a better chance later on.

GPA LSAT
3.83 163
3.8 164
3.75 165
3.7 166
3.64 167
3.4 168
3.3 169
any 170


Makes sense! Graph was definitely helpful, so thanks for that. May submit a Why Texas soon. I just hate waiting so long if I'm going to get dinged anyway! Just be straight up with me! haha

User avatar
blink
Posts: 428
Joined: Sat Jul 10, 2010 10:14 pm

Re: Texas c/o 2017 Applicants (2013-2014 cycle)

Postby blink » Fri Jan 31, 2014 12:50 pm

How quickly after submitting the requested optional Why UT? essay did people hear back?

User avatar
cannibal ox
Posts: 2944
Joined: Wed Jun 12, 2013 11:49 pm

Re: Texas c/o 2017 Applicants (2013-2014 cycle)

Postby cannibal ox » Fri Jan 31, 2014 12:54 pm

Submitted my Why UT? on a Thursday night, acknowledged as received on Friday, accepted the next Monday, got a call with the official acceptance on Wednesday (status checker and letters in the mail show I was accepted Monday but they didn't call me or change the status checker until later).

User avatar
blink
Posts: 428
Joined: Sat Jul 10, 2010 10:14 pm

Re: Texas c/o 2017 Applicants (2013-2014 cycle)

Postby blink » Fri Jan 31, 2014 1:04 pm

cannibal ox wrote:Submitted my Why UT? on a Thursday night, acknowledged as received on Friday, accepted the next Monday, got a call with the official acceptance on Wednesday (status checker and letters in the mail show I was accepted Monday but they didn't call me or change the status checker until later).


Thanks! Any word on scholarships?

User avatar
cannibal ox
Posts: 2944
Joined: Wed Jun 12, 2013 11:49 pm

Re: Texas c/o 2017 Applicants (2013-2014 cycle)

Postby cannibal ox » Fri Jan 31, 2014 1:40 pm

You should be considered within 4 week of an acceptance, if it's been longer, you aren't getting an offer.

kobe1020
Posts: 419
Joined: Fri Apr 19, 2013 1:43 am

Re: Texas c/o 2017 Applicants (2013-2014 cycle)

Postby kobe1020 » Fri Jan 31, 2014 2:01 pm

cannibal ox wrote:Submitted my Why UT? on a Thursday night, acknowledged as received on Friday, accepted the next Monday, got a call with the official acceptance on Wednesday (status checker and letters in the mail show I was accepted Monday but they didn't call me or change the status checker until later).


were you invited to write this or you just voluntarily decided to write it? thanks !

User avatar
cannibal ox
Posts: 2944
Joined: Wed Jun 12, 2013 11:49 pm

Re: Texas c/o 2017 Applicants (2013-2014 cycle)

Postby cannibal ox » Fri Jan 31, 2014 2:19 pm

Invited to write it, but I'm sure they'd accept one if you wanted to write it.

BigZuck
Posts: 10880
Joined: Tue Sep 04, 2012 9:53 am

Re: Texas c/o 2017 Applicants (2013-2014 cycle)

Postby BigZuck » Fri Jan 31, 2014 4:33 pm

Writing Why X statements or including it on your app somehow is pretty credited for all applications IMO. And if you can't think of a decent Why X (or you can't fake it enough if you're just trying to use that school for scholarship negotiation purposes) then I honestly wouldn't even bother applying to that school.

As I remember it though, the UT application was pretty sparse so you might have to send the Why X as a seperate addendum.

gimmedanger
Posts: 67
Joined: Fri Sep 06, 2013 8:28 pm

Re: Texas c/o 2017 Applicants (2013-2014 cycle)

Postby gimmedanger » Fri Jan 31, 2014 6:26 pm

Just got a phone call, I'm in!

Was asked for a Why UT submission, sent it yesterday, got the call today. Woo!

User avatar
Attax
Posts: 3589
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 10:59 am

Re: Texas c/o 2017 Applicants (2013-2014 cycle)

Postby Attax » Fri Jan 31, 2014 6:54 pm

DON'T GIVE UP HOPE ON SCHOLARSHIPS

Dean Ingram said 4 weeks, I just got an email with scholarship info. $7,000/year.

tweetybird
Posts: 14
Joined: Wed Jan 22, 2014 12:16 pm

Re: Texas c/o 2017 Applicants (2013-2014 cycle)

Postby tweetybird » Fri Jan 31, 2014 7:08 pm

I submitted my application 2 weeks ago, and still haven't gotten a status checker. Does anyone know when they send those out?

User avatar
angels2fly
Posts: 428
Joined: Mon Oct 28, 2013 8:15 pm

Re: Texas c/o 2017 Applicants (2013-2014 cycle)

Postby angels2fly » Fri Jan 31, 2014 8:08 pm

what would people say are peer schools to negotiate with UT for?

BigZuck
Posts: 10880
Joined: Tue Sep 04, 2012 9:53 am

Re: Texas c/o 2017 Applicants (2013-2014 cycle)

Postby BigZuck » Fri Jan 31, 2014 8:29 pm

angels2fly wrote:what would people say are peer schools to negotiate with UT for?


Any T14 is good to use and probably what motivates them the most. Vandy, UCLA, and USC might do the trick as well. Problem is its kind of hard (IMO) to say UT is your top choice alongside a school like USC.

WUSTL's random "FULL RIDES FOR EVERYBODY!!!" last year also motivated them but that might have been a one time only thing. Dean Ingram didn't seem particularly happy with them and their shenanigans.

User avatar
BentleyLittle
Posts: 482
Joined: Mon Jun 25, 2012 9:25 pm

Re: Texas c/o 2017 Applicants (2013-2014 cycle)

Postby BentleyLittle » Fri Jan 31, 2014 8:32 pm

BigZuck wrote:
angels2fly wrote:what would people say are peer schools to negotiate with UT for?


Any T14 is good to use and probably what motivates them the most. Vandy, UCLA, and USC might do the trick as well. Problem is its kind of hard (IMO) to say UT is your top choice alongside a school like USC.

WUSTL's random "FULL RIDES FOR EVERYBODY!!!" last year also motivated them but that might have been a one time only thing. Dean Ingram didn't seem particularly happy with them and their shenanigans.


What about UH/SMU?

BigZuck
Posts: 10880
Joined: Tue Sep 04, 2012 9:53 am

Re: Texas c/o 2017 Applicants (2013-2014 cycle)

Postby BigZuck » Fri Jan 31, 2014 8:38 pm

BentleyLittle wrote:
BigZuck wrote:
angels2fly wrote:what would people say are peer schools to negotiate with UT for?


Any T14 is good to use and probably what motivates them the most. Vandy, UCLA, and USC might do the trick as well. Problem is its kind of hard (IMO) to say UT is your top choice alongside a school like USC.

WUSTL's random "FULL RIDES FOR EVERYBODY!!!" last year also motivated them but that might have been a one time only thing. Dean Ingram didn't seem particularly happy with them and their shenanigans.


What about UH/SMU?


Always worth a shot. I would have to imagine that they would only be motivated by large scholarships from those schools however. UT likes to spin their affordability for instate students (lulz at 33K a year being affordable) and while those are both decent schools, there is a pretty sizeable gap between them and UT. If you can't get accepted to a school ranked in the top 20 or so I would definitely throw apps at UH, SMU, and Baylor to see if you can use those as leverage. It's better than nothing.

I think the key is to be sincere. Dean Ingram says that if you want to be a Longhorn then she's interested in helping you out.

User avatar
BentleyLittle
Posts: 482
Joined: Mon Jun 25, 2012 9:25 pm

Re: Texas c/o 2017 Applicants (2013-2014 cycle)

Postby BentleyLittle » Fri Jan 31, 2014 8:44 pm

BigZuck wrote:
BentleyLittle wrote:
BigZuck wrote:
angels2fly wrote:what would people say are peer schools to negotiate with UT for?


Any T14 is good to use and probably what motivates them the most. Vandy, UCLA, and USC might do the trick as well. Problem is its kind of hard (IMO) to say UT is your top choice alongside a school like USC.

WUSTL's random "FULL RIDES FOR EVERYBODY!!!" last year also motivated them but that might have been a one time only thing. Dean Ingram didn't seem particularly happy with them and their shenanigans.


What about UH/SMU?


Always worth a shot. I would have to imagine that they would only be motivated by large scholarships from those schools however. UT likes to spin their affordability for instate students (lulz at 33K a year being affordable) and while those are both decent schools, there is a pretty sizeable gap between them and UT. If you can't get accepted to a school ranked in the top 20 or so I would definitely throw apps at UH, SMU, and Baylor to see if you can use those as leverage. It's better than nothing.

I think the key is to be sincere. Dean Ingram says that if you want to be a Longhorn then she's interested in helping you out.


Nice, thanks for the info. I love Texas 8)

kobe1020
Posts: 419
Joined: Fri Apr 19, 2013 1:43 am

Re: Texas c/o 2017 Applicants (2013-2014 cycle)

Postby kobe1020 » Fri Jan 31, 2014 9:34 pm

BigZuck wrote:
BentleyLittle wrote:
BigZuck wrote:
angels2fly wrote:what would people say are peer schools to negotiate with UT for?


Any T14 is good to use and probably what motivates them the most. Vandy, UCLA, and USC might do the trick as well. Problem is its kind of hard (IMO) to say UT is your top choice alongside a school like USC.

WUSTL's random "FULL RIDES FOR EVERYBODY!!!" last year also motivated them but that might have been a one time only thing. Dean Ingram didn't seem particularly happy with them and their shenanigans.


What about UH/SMU?


Always worth a shot. I would have to imagine that they would only be motivated by large scholarships from those schools however. UT likes to spin their affordability for instate students (lulz at 33K a year being affordable) and while those are both decent schools, there is a pretty sizeable gap between them and UT. If you can't get accepted to a school ranked in the top 20 or so I would definitely throw apps at UH, SMU, and Baylor to see if you can use those as leverage. It's better than nothing.

I think the key is to be sincere. Dean Ingram says that if you want to be a Longhorn then she's interested in helping you out.


Can't be happier to hear these words!!! Well first I'll have to wait for them to admit me :D

User avatar
Attax
Posts: 3589
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 10:59 am

Re: Texas c/o 2017 Applicants (2013-2014 cycle)

Postby Attax » Sat Feb 01, 2014 4:17 pm

angels2fly wrote:what would people say are peer schools to negotiate with UT for?


UH/SMU, T14, WUStL

What I do know is they do not consider Baylor a peer school, so I would assume Tech, Texas A&M, etc., aren't peer simply because they're in state.

User avatar
outlawscr10
Posts: 256
Joined: Thu Oct 31, 2013 1:37 pm

Re: Texas c/o 2017 Applicants (2013-2014 cycle)

Postby outlawscr10 » Mon Feb 03, 2014 2:30 pm

deleted
Last edited by outlawscr10 on Mon Feb 03, 2014 3:16 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
McAvoy
Posts: 1584
Joined: Sun Oct 20, 2013 10:33 pm

Re: Texas c/o 2017 Applicants (2013-2014 cycle)

Postby McAvoy » Mon Feb 03, 2014 3:11 pm

deleted
Last edited by McAvoy on Mon Feb 03, 2014 3:14 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
outlawscr10
Posts: 256
Joined: Thu Oct 31, 2013 1:37 pm

Re: Texas c/o 2017 Applicants (2013-2014 cycle)

Postby outlawscr10 » Mon Feb 03, 2014 3:14 pm

deleted
Last edited by outlawscr10 on Mon Feb 03, 2014 3:16 pm, edited 1 time in total.




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

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: dannij and 19 guests