USC c/o 2017 Applicants Thread (2013-2014)

Share Your Experiences, Read About Other Experiences. Please keep posts organized by school and expected year of graduation.
zman
Posts: 500
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 9:31 am

Re: USC c/o 2017 Applicants Thread (2013-2014)

Postby zman » Thu May 22, 2014 7:42 pm

It's a stupid strategy to wait so long to admit people of the waitlist because most will withdraw in a over a month but hey there is a reason they slipped in the rankings.. USC is really bad at gaming them..

User avatar
logicspeaks
Posts: 204
Joined: Sat Nov 30, 2013 2:38 pm

Re: USC c/o 2017 Applicants Thread (2013-2014)

Postby logicspeaks » Thu May 22, 2014 7:42 pm

MikeJD wrote:How many depositers did they have?? over 170?? Quite a few people have already bailed even the ones they offered a full ride according to LSN.

There were reports that they already had over 100 by ASD.

User avatar
Captain Rodeo
Posts: 233
Joined: Sat Jun 16, 2012 1:14 pm

Re: USC c/o 2017 Applicants Thread (2013-2014)

Postby Captain Rodeo » Thu May 22, 2014 8:28 pm

zman wrote:It's a stupid strategy to wait so long to admit people of the waitlist because most will withdraw in a over a month but hey there is a reason they slipped in the rankings.. USC is really bad at gaming them..



Wow, what a tricky situation. They have to see which 1st depositors are admitted off of higher ranked schools WLs, and chose them (most likely for less $) over USC.


Maybe they are expecting (is hoping a possibility?) people withdraw so that their class size is smaller, especially if they have a number like 170 depositors, when, from Law Day I remember being informed they were shooting for 150, or 160, I can't remember.

What do you guys think?

P.S. I do not envy the position of those on WL. Good luck ya'll

GouldGirl
Posts: 30
Joined: Sat Jun 01, 2013 6:46 pm

Re: USC c/o 2017 Applicants Thread (2013-2014)

Postby GouldGirl » Sat May 31, 2014 1:42 pm

Captain Rodeo wrote:
zman wrote:It's a stupid strategy to wait so long to admit people of the waitlist because most will withdraw in a over a month but hey there is a reason they slipped in the rankings.. USC is really bad at gaming them..



Wow, what a tricky situation. They have to see which 1st depositors are admitted off of higher ranked schools WLs, and chose them (most likely for less $) over USC.


Maybe they are expecting (is hoping a possibility?) people withdraw so that their class size is smaller, especially if they have a number like 170 depositors, when, from Law Day I remember being informed they were shooting for 150, or 160, I can't remember.

What do you guys think?

P.S. I do not envy the position of those on WL. Good luck ya'll

GouldGirl
Posts: 30
Joined: Sat Jun 01, 2013 6:46 pm

Re: USC c/o 2017 Applicants Thread (2013-2014)

Postby GouldGirl » Sat May 31, 2014 2:01 pm

USC does not keep it's class size small because it values lower student to teacher ratios. The actual reason is far more self serving. The fact is that all law schools operate in an environment of fewer top LSAT scores than in years past. This is coupled with the reality of fewer applicants across the board. To avoid dipping in the rankings even more Gould has made a strategic decision to admit fewer students so as not lower their LSAT median. Since the LSAT median is critical to US News ranking, admitting fewer students until the legal market rebounds and better applicants enter the pool will keep their ranking from taking an even greater hit. Thus the limited action on the waitlist is not likely to change because Gould is lying low until the market rebounds...until then they will take a smaller class and market the situation as a superior learning environment.
My advice, take scholarship awards from desperate schools like Loyola and Southwestern and land in the top 15 to 10% or better. After the first year transfer to places like UCLA and USC. This is what I did and a few of my friends. Shoot me a PM and we can talk about your particular circumstances and some alternative options you may not have considered.

xJD2017x
Posts: 170
Joined: Wed Jul 24, 2013 7:01 pm

Re: USC c/o 2017 Applicants Thread (2013-2014)

Postby xJD2017x » Sat May 31, 2014 2:19 pm

GouldGirl wrote:USC does not keep it's class size small because it values lower student to teacher ratios. The actual reason is far more self serving. The fact is that all law schools operate in an environment of fewer top LSAT scores than in years past. This is coupled with the reality of fewer applicants across the board. To avoid dipping in the rankings even more Gould has made a strategic decision to admit fewer students so as not lower their LSAT median. Since the LSAT median is critical to US News ranking, admitting fewer students until the legal market rebounds and better applicants enter the pool will keep their ranking from taking an even greater hit. Thus the limited action on the waitlist is not likely to change because Gould is lying low until the market rebounds...until then they will take a smaller class and market the situation as a superior learning environment.
My advice, take scholarship awards from desperate schools like Loyola and Southwestern and land in the top 15 to 10% or better. After the first year transfer to places like UCLA and USC. This is what I did and a few of my friends. Shoot me a PM and we can talk about your particular circumstances and some alternative options you may not have considered.


Loyola and southerwestern dont offer much and obviously it's self-serving to lower class size but it benefits the students with fewer people competiting for the jobs..

MikeJD
Posts: 260
Joined: Tue Apr 22, 2014 5:39 pm

Re: USC c/o 2017 Applicants Thread (2013-2014)

Postby MikeJD » Sat May 31, 2014 2:26 pm

Captain Rodeo wrote:
zman wrote:It's a stupid strategy to wait so long to admit people of the waitlist because most will withdraw in a over a month but hey there is a reason they slipped in the rankings.. USC is really bad at gaming them..



Wow, what a tricky situation. They have to see which 1st depositors are admitted off of higher ranked schools WLs, and chose them (most likely for less $) over USC.


Maybe they are expecting (is hoping a possibility?) people withdraw so that their class size is smaller, especially if they have a number like 170 depositors, when, from Law Day I remember being informed they were shooting for 150, or 160, I can't remember.

What do you guys think?

P.S. I do not envy the position of those on WL. Good luck ya'll


I'm pretty sure at least 5 people have already gotten off the waitlist elsewhere and going there from what I have seen on the FB page.

User avatar
unodostres
Posts: 551
Joined: Fri Nov 15, 2013 1:01 pm

Re: USC c/o 2017 Applicants Thread (2013-2014)

Postby unodostres » Sat May 31, 2014 7:30 pm

GouldGirl wrote:USC does not keep it's class size small because it values lower student to teacher ratios. The actual reason is far more self serving. The fact is that all law schools operate in an environment of fewer top LSAT scores than in years past. This is coupled with the reality of fewer applicants across the board. To avoid dipping in the rankings even more Gould has made a strategic decision to admit fewer students so as not lower their LSAT median. Since the LSAT median is critical to US News ranking, admitting fewer students until the legal market rebounds and better applicants enter the pool will keep their ranking from taking an even greater hit. Thus the limited action on the waitlist is not likely to change because Gould is lying low until the market rebounds...until then they will take a smaller class and market the situation as a superior learning environment.
My advice, take scholarship awards from desperate schools like Loyola and Southwestern and land in the top 15 to 10% or better. After the first year transfer to places like UCLA and USC. This is what I did and a few of my friends. Shoot me a PM and we can talk about your particular circumstances and some alternative options you may not have considered.


you do realize that the smaller class sizes make for better chances of getting a job?

and that advice is horrible to bank on a transfer or get stuck at some ttt. then if you do transfer, youre stuck with 100k min for the next 2 years of law school. so most likely close to 150k in debt with interest and a small shot at getting a firm job to even manage that debt. horrible.

User avatar
rion91
Posts: 962
Joined: Wed Nov 30, 2011 12:58 pm

Re: USC c/o 2017 Applicants Thread (2013-2014)

Postby rion91 » Wed Jun 11, 2014 3:15 pm

badump

User avatar
bloomingtea
Posts: 74
Joined: Wed Dec 11, 2013 12:35 am

Re: USC c/o 2017 Applicants Thread (2013-2014)

Postby bloomingtea » Tue Jul 01, 2014 2:26 am

Was a waitlist mass-email recently sent?

User avatar
rion91
Posts: 962
Joined: Wed Nov 30, 2011 12:58 pm

Re: USC c/o 2017 Applicants Thread (2013-2014)

Postby rion91 » Tue Jul 01, 2014 3:14 am

bloomingtea wrote:Was a waitlist mass-email recently sent?

I got one

User avatar
emitremmus
Posts: 51
Joined: Wed Feb 26, 2014 3:28 pm

Re: USC c/o 2017 Applicants Thread (2013-2014)

Postby emitremmus » Tue Jul 01, 2014 12:20 pm

bloomingtea wrote:Was a waitlist mass-email recently sent?


yes

MikeJD
Posts: 260
Joined: Tue Apr 22, 2014 5:39 pm

Re: USC c/o 2017 Applicants Thread (2013-2014)

Postby MikeJD » Tue Jul 01, 2014 4:11 pm

I think most schools have 2nd deposit due, they should know by now if they will have any waitlist activity.

civalj
Posts: 14
Joined: Tue Nov 19, 2013 2:29 pm

Re: USC c/o 2017 Applicants Thread (2013-2014)

Postby civalj » Wed Jul 02, 2014 3:38 pm

rion91 wrote:
bloomingtea wrote:Was a waitlist mass-email recently sent?

I got one


Is anyone realistically going to accept admission this late in the game off the waitlist?

MikeJD
Posts: 260
Joined: Tue Apr 22, 2014 5:39 pm

Re: USC c/o 2017 Applicants Thread (2013-2014)

Postby MikeJD » Wed Jul 02, 2014 6:03 pm

civalj wrote:
rion91 wrote:
bloomingtea wrote:Was a waitlist mass-email recently sent?

I got one


Is anyone realistically going to accept admission this late in the game off the waitlist?



A lot of schools have probably just started waitlist activity because most schools had 2nd deposite due on the 1st although how many will accept we shall see. I dont think USC will have much activity.

Southwestee
Posts: 4
Joined: Thu Jun 12, 2014 10:35 pm

Re: USC c/o 2017 Applicants Thread (2013-2014)

Postby Southwestee » Wed Jul 09, 2014 6:06 pm

unodostres wrote:
GouldGirl wrote:USC does not keep it's class size small because it values lower student to teacher ratios. The actual reason is far more self serving. The fact is that all law schools operate in an environment of fewer top LSAT scores than in years past. This is coupled with the reality of fewer applicants across the board. To avoid dipping in the rankings even more Gould has made a strategic decision to admit fewer students so as not lower their LSAT median. Since the LSAT median is critical to US News ranking, admitting fewer students until the legal market rebounds and better applicants enter the pool will keep their ranking from taking an even greater hit. Thus the limited action on the waitlist is not likely to change because Gould is lying low until the market rebounds...until then they will take a smaller class and market the situation as a superior learning environment.
My advice, take scholarship awards from desperate schools like Loyola and Southwestern and land in the top 15 to 10% or better. After the first year transfer to places like UCLA and USC. This is what I did and a few of my friends. Shoot me a PM and we can talk about your particular circumstances and some alternative options you may not have considered.


you do realize that the smaller class sizes make for better chances of getting a job?

and that advice is horrible to bank on a transfer or get stuck at some ttt. then if you do transfer, youre stuck with 100k min for the next 2 years of law school. so most likely close to 150k in debt with interest and a small shot at getting a firm job to even manage that debt. horrible.

GouldGirl
Posts: 30
Joined: Sat Jun 01, 2013 6:46 pm

Re: USC c/o 2017 Applicants Thread (2013-2014)

Postby GouldGirl » Wed Jul 09, 2014 6:11 pm

unodostres wrote:
GouldGirl wrote:USC does not keep it's class size small because it values lower student to teacher ratios. The actual reason is far more self serving. The fact is that all law schools operate in an environment of fewer top LSAT scores than in years past. This is coupled with the reality of fewer applicants across the board. To avoid dipping in the rankings even more Gould has made a strategic decision to admit fewer students so as not lower their LSAT median. Since the LSAT median is critical to US News ranking, admitting fewer students until the legal market rebounds and better applicants enter the pool will keep their ranking from taking an even greater hit. Thus the limited action on the waitlist is not likely to change because Gould is lying low until the market rebounds...until then they will take a smaller class and market the situation as a superior learning environment.
My advice, take scholarship awards from desperate schools like Loyola and Southwestern and land in the top 15 to 10% or better. After the first year transfer to places like UCLA and USC. This is what I did and a few of my friends. Shoot me a PM and we can talk about your particular circumstances and some alternative options you may not have considered.


you do realize that the smaller class sizes make for better chances of getting a job?

and that advice is horrible to bank on a transfer or get stuck at some ttt. then if you do transfer, youre stuck with 100k min for the next 2 years of law school. so most likely close to 150k in debt with interest and a small shot at getting a firm job to even manage that debt. horrible.


Cute, you have fallen for SC's story that its small class size increases your chances of landing a job. Whether you transfer or not, law school itself is a gamble (most students will not be A students). I happen to have experience with SC and the job market and big class or small class the jobs worth having go to the top of the class (mainly).

The difference between me and you is that I have experience to back up what I am saying. Of course my advice is no good. you should ignore, infact…I'm sure you know better.

MikeJD
Posts: 260
Joined: Tue Apr 22, 2014 5:39 pm

Re: USC c/o 2017 Applicants Thread (2013-2014)

Postby MikeJD » Wed Jul 09, 2014 6:56 pm

The point is that all schools have smaller class sizes meaning fewer grads for the jobs market.. It's nothing to do with one single school..

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

Re: USC c/o 2017 Applicants Thread (2013-2014)

Postby ManoftheHour » Wed Jul 09, 2014 7:00 pm

Withdrew from this school but just want to say that NO ONE should EVER go to a school with the intent of transferring to another (unless you're okay with staying put after striking out). It works out for the top 10-15% of people at TTTs but that doesn't mean you should gamble.

Retaking the LSAT is much wiser than going to some TTT and trying to transfer.

xJD2017x
Posts: 170
Joined: Wed Jul 24, 2013 7:01 pm

Re: USC c/o 2017 Applicants Thread (2013-2014)

Postby xJD2017x » Wed Jul 09, 2014 7:06 pm

It looks like they will not accept anyone from the waitlist.

User avatar
rion91
Posts: 962
Joined: Wed Nov 30, 2011 12:58 pm

Re: USC c/o 2017 Applicants Thread (2013-2014)

Postby rion91 » Wed Jul 09, 2014 7:31 pm

xJD2017x wrote:It looks like they will not accept anyone from the waitlist.

Who says?

User avatar
logicspeaks
Posts: 204
Joined: Sat Nov 30, 2013 2:38 pm

Re: USC c/o 2017 Applicants Thread (2013-2014)

Postby logicspeaks » Sun Jul 13, 2014 4:42 am

rion91 wrote:
xJD2017x wrote:It looks like they will not accept anyone from the waitlist.

Who says?

I haven't seen anything official but the Facebook group is now ~200 strong and they claimed they wanted to keep the class at ~150. Granted, some of the members are current students.

xJD2017x
Posts: 170
Joined: Wed Jul 24, 2013 7:01 pm

Re: USC c/o 2017 Applicants Thread (2013-2014)

Postby xJD2017x » Mon Jul 14, 2014 1:42 pm

I would say FB is about 130-140 who are going to USC in the fall for sure. The rest is current students, others going to different schools and so on. That's my read before I left the page( I was on the waitlist).

xJD2017x
Posts: 170
Joined: Wed Jul 24, 2013 7:01 pm

Re: USC c/o 2017 Applicants Thread (2013-2014)

Postby xJD2017x » Wed Jul 30, 2014 11:17 am

It looks like they are letting people off the waitlist for those still interested. I'm out for this cycle but like I said for those who care.
Last edited by xJD2017x on Wed Jul 30, 2014 6:22 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
lawschoolyayyy
Posts: 12
Joined: Fri Jul 25, 2014 4:07 am

Re: USC c/o 2017 Applicants Thread (2013-2014)

Postby lawschoolyayyy » Wed Jul 30, 2014 2:49 pm

Joining the party late, but I withdrew. Hope my spot goes to a hopeful waitlisted student!




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