University of Colorado 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.
User avatar
ManoftheHour
Posts: 3401
Joined: Tue Jan 22, 2013 6:03 pm

University of Colorado c/o 2017 Applicants (2013-2014 Cycle)

Postby ManoftheHour » Mon Nov 18, 2013 3:46 pm

Class of 2016 Key Stats:

LSAT: 158/162/164
GPA: 3.29/3.58/3.73
Class Size: 184

Image

Image


Applied 10/30.

I am thinking about a permanent relocation. Visited the state several times and would love to be a part of it post law school life.

rduffy5
Posts: 47
Joined: Thu May 23, 2013 9:54 pm

Re: University of Colorado c/o 2017 Applicants (2013-2014 Cycle)

Postby rduffy5 » Mon Nov 18, 2013 5:23 pm

Checking in

AndiDail
Posts: 58
Joined: Tue Apr 23, 2013 8:30 pm

Re: University of Colorado c/o 2017 Applicants (2013-2014 Cycle)

Postby AndiDail » Tue Nov 19, 2013 4:25 pm

Checking in. Application is in review as of 11/13. :)

User avatar
TheJanitor6203
Posts: 811
Joined: Sun Nov 04, 2012 5:12 pm

Re: University of Colorado c/o 2017 Applicants (2013-2014 Cycle)

Postby TheJanitor6203 » Tue Nov 19, 2013 4:34 pm

Application under review since 11/15. If I go here it will be a permanent relocation for me as well.

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

Re: University of Colorado c/o 2017 Applicants (2013-2014 Cycle)

Postby ManoftheHour » Tue Nov 19, 2013 5:45 pm

TheJanitor6203 wrote:Application under review since 11/15. If I go here it will be a permanent relocation for me as well.


I love CA but everything is TTToo expensive.

User avatar
LeDique
Posts: 12715
Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2010 2:10 pm

Re: University of Colorado c/o 2017 Applicants (2013-2014 Cycle)

Postby LeDique » Tue Nov 19, 2013 5:50 pm

As always, I am here to answer any questions you may have. Please ask ones that I will respond to negatively so I can find out if admissions will go through my posts to figure out who I am and yell at me.

jac101689
Posts: 139
Joined: Thu Oct 25, 2012 2:10 pm

Re: University of Colorado c/o 2017 Applicants (2013-2014 Cycle)

Postby jac101689 » Tue Nov 19, 2013 6:02 pm

LeDique wrote:As always, I am here to answer any questions you may have. Please ask ones that I will respond to negatively so I can find out if admissions will go through my posts to figure out who I am and yell at me.


Fantastic avatar.

User avatar
LeDique
Posts: 12715
Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2010 2:10 pm

Re: University of Colorado c/o 2017 Applicants (2013-2014 Cycle)

Postby LeDique » Tue Nov 19, 2013 6:10 pm

Wait, let me just go ahead and tell you why CU is the worst and you shouldn't come here:

(1) EVERY class has a forced median, regardless of size. It does not matter if there are literally 6 people in the class. It is curved. Yes, this happens basically every semester. There are other classes were professors acknowledge grading is near impossible so they just say "I'm going to likely give everyone a B+. If that's a problem, talk to me and/or gtfo."

(2) Similarly, you cannot designate any classes as pass/fail.

(3) Limit on PRACTICAL EXPERIENCE credits.

Lord Randolph McDuff
Posts: 1587
Joined: Wed Jun 08, 2011 4:37 pm

Re: University of Colorado c/o 2017 Applicants (2013-2014 Cycle)

Postby Lord Randolph McDuff » Tue Nov 19, 2013 7:42 pm

LeDique wrote:Wait, let me just go ahead and tell you why CU is the worst and you shouldn't come here:

(1) EVERY class has a forced median, regardless of size. It does not matter if there are literally 6 people in the class. It is curved. Yes, this happens basically every semester. There are other classes were professors acknowledge grading is near impossible so they just say "I'm going to likely give everyone a B+. If that's a problem, talk to me and/or gtfo."

(2) Similarly, you cannot designate any classes as pass/fail.

(3) Limit on PRACTICAL EXPERIENCE credits.


CU 3L here. Agree with 1 and 3. But LeDique, come on. You want to take pass/fail classes in law school? I want a pony and twelve-hundred dollars.

For what it's worth I've still had a great experience here. Also the practical experience cap is stupid low but I've done a billion internships anyway-- it's just you can't earn more than seven credits for intern/externships.

wunhbty
Posts: 1
Joined: Wed Nov 20, 2013 7:23 pm

Re: University of Colorado c/o 2017 Applicants (2013-2014 Cycle)

Postby wunhbty » Wed Nov 20, 2013 8:31 pm

Another CU 3L here.

I disagree with LeDique that CU is "the worst." My experience has been excellent. I won't get into details, but CU is a great place to attend law school.

LeDique is right that all classes must be curved and you cannot take classes pass/fail. Big deal. His complaint against the practice cap is unjustified, though.

Here's how externships work: a student pays the school tuition, and the school gives the student credit for working for a judge or agency for free. Sometimes this experience is valuable, sometimes it is not. The vast majority of what can be learned in an externship can be learned in 7 credits. If a student wants to gain more specific experience, he can intern for a judge or agency, or work in private practice, on his own time. (This is totally doable during school and we're not even talking about summer positions.) Plus, clinics do not count toward the 7 credit limit (although clinic credits plus the practice cap are capped at 14 credits). Lastly, students can take an unlimited number of practical courses, such as trial advocacy, motions advocacy, contractual drafting, advanced evidence, federal litigation, judicial opinion writing, or a number of other classes.

The practice cap makes a lot of sense in my opinion. The real value of law school flows from classes because the structured approach works very well to distill a large amount of complex information into a short time period. To become comfortable with an area of law, securities regulation or environmental law for example, in practice would take much longer than one semester. In contrast, much of what is learned in externships can be quickly learned in practice. Which is not to say law students shouldn't obtain practical skills while in law school; they should, and it is very easy to do so at CU. The practice cap simply prevents students from pursuing externships to the point of diminishing returns.

One last thing that makes CU great: rising 2Ls and 3Ls can apply for alumni-funded scholarships administered by the school. I think about 75% of students that apply get one or more scholarships. In my experience this is true and the average amount seems to be over $2,000, with quite a few over $5,000. Many CU students end up receiving an additional $4,000, $5,000, or more in scholarships. I think this is great because rising 2Ls and 3Ls are not switching schools--they're captive. Yet, the school still provides significant scholarship money to help them out.
Last edited by wunhbty on Thu Nov 21, 2013 11:56 pm, edited 1 time in total.

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

Re: University of Colorado c/o 2017 Applicants (2013-2014 Cycle)

Postby ManoftheHour » Wed Nov 20, 2013 9:32 pm

viewtopic.php?f=7&t=146613

This is the wrong forum for all that shiz.

User avatar
LeDique
Posts: 12715
Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2010 2:10 pm

Re: University of Colorado c/o 2017 Applicants (2013-2014 Cycle)

Postby LeDique » Wed Nov 20, 2013 9:40 pm

Ok Mr. fascist and and the 3L working for admissions.

Lord Randolph McDuff
Posts: 1587
Joined: Wed Jun 08, 2011 4:37 pm

Re: University of Colorado c/o 2017 Applicants (2013-2014 Cycle)

Postby Lord Randolph McDuff » Wed Nov 20, 2013 11:17 pm

Haha. Guy brings up a rule, becomes fascist. CU students overwhelmingly love CU. I think students/alums voted ourselves the number 1 school in America. Can't remember source..

Also totally disagree on the value of class, but that critique applies to every school. Ask the students who finished top of the class in 1L torts what they remember?? Hardly a thing. For many of us, school is a necessary hurdle to get the network and the credential. If you are an academic, love class, more power to you. You'll love law school. But please don't make bullshit comments about the externship cap saving us from ourselves, or make comments about internships not adding educational value. The networking is INVALUABLE, and tell the student who has completed five jury trials before he/she graduates that they haven't learned much. (Don't. Ya know, better to be thought a fool than open your mouth and remove all doubt)

Wanted to test out that expression not sure if its real.

User avatar
LeDique
Posts: 12715
Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2010 2:10 pm

Re: University of Colorado c/o 2017 Applicants (2013-2014 Cycle)

Postby LeDique » Wed Nov 20, 2013 11:58 pm

U r the fascist, Mr Prosecutor.

User avatar
A. Nony Mouse
Posts: 22835
Joined: Tue Sep 25, 2012 11:51 am

Re: University of Colorado c/o 2017 Applicants (2013-2014 Cycle)

Postby A. Nony Mouse » Thu Nov 21, 2013 12:10 am

While I think the CU 3L does seem to have drunk a little kool-aid, again, this isn't the thread for debating whether CU is worth attending or not - it's for applicants to keep track of acceptances etc.

Lord Randolph McDuff
Posts: 1587
Joined: Wed Jun 08, 2011 4:37 pm

Re: University of Colorado c/o 2017 Applicants (2013-2014 Cycle)

Postby Lord Randolph McDuff » Thu Nov 21, 2013 12:14 am

LeDique wrote:U r the fascist, Mr Prosecutor.


Who are you? Also are you drunk?

User avatar
LeDique
Posts: 12715
Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2010 2:10 pm

Re: University of Colorado c/o 2017 Applicants (2013-2014 Cycle)

Postby LeDique » Thu Nov 21, 2013 12:27 am

Sorry modzZz, I forget not everywhere on TLS is the lounge. I will make this serious post, because I think these things are important, and hereafter only reply to direct questions from accepted students about the school.

I was joking by calling it the worst and thought my first post put it into context. Those are really about my only three complaints about CU and they are ways in which CU's policies differ from many other law schools. I think they are bad as a matter of policy, but that doesn't mean you shouldn't attend CU. Nor would knowing those things -- and everything below -- beforehand (and I think I did) change my decision to attend. McDuff is correct is saying that most students love CU. The survey he cites in support is meaningless because it has such a small sample size and relies self-selected responses. The conclusion is accurate though -- it is a great school, and ultimately, I would encourage most folks to attend.

Lord Randolph McDuff wrote:You want to take pass/fail classes in law school? I want a pony and twelve-hundred dollars.


This is a common policy at most law schools through the country. I'm not asking CU to implement some radical new policy and I have mentioned this to Dean Leary, along with both of my other complaints. So it's not like the school doesn't know these are problems.

--
Now, as for this bizarre defense of the practical credit cap (that is an actuality a defense of the externship credit cap), there's so much wrong with your argument that its absurd. First, you identify that some externships are better than others and suggest that some externships are not worthwhile. This is not a reason for an artificially low externship credit cap. It is a reason for better review of externship program applications. CU retains approval power over externship credit. If externships are not valuable, CU should be denying the credits. It does not follow that because "some externships are not valuable" that externship credits should be limited. CU, in fact, already reviews petitions for additional externship credits beyond the 4 by right. So either (a) that petition process is worthless and a hard cap is a better policy or (b) CU already can review externships to determine their value and a cap is unnecessary. Existing policy indicates a hard cap is unnecessary as the standard for approval has been represented to be "an existing government program will be approved" without any further review.

Second, you assert that the vast majority of what can be learned in an externship can be learned in the classroom. McDuff already answered this a bit, but this is a point that absolutely no one believes. I mean borderline literally, no one. Classroom learning and experiential learning are entirely different. One teaches useless academic concepts while the other teaches, by experience, skills that are actually useful in practice. While it is true a very small number of classes offer this without counting toward the cap, these classes (a) generally have extensive waitlists so you cannot substitute them one-for-one for actual experience and (b) are not narrowly tailored to practice areas. Even these so-called practical classes pale in comparison to actually doing the work. Moss's federal litigation class has taught me way less about pre-trial litigation in federal court than actually doing pre-trial litigation in federal court has. I wrote way more opinions for an actual judge than the ONE for the whole semester in the judicial opinion writing class. Comparing these two experiences is not even close to which has (a) taught me more and (b) will be more useful in the future.

Weiser always goes on and on about "building a portfolio." A class does so little to help "build a portfolio" compared to practical experiences. Interviewers don't care about your relevance classroom experience, and you can't tell a good story about learning about the topic in class. You can tell a good story in your interviews about doing the work -- this is not provided by doctrinal or so-called "practical" classes. Y'all should probably try to stay on message.

Third, all of the other things that count towards the experiential cap limit the ability to use it for externships AND clinics. The credit cap is commonly a problem for students, not just those who overachieve or are overly involved. I, for one, cannot receive credit for both an externship and a clinic because I'm already over the cap. They don't force me into a classroom to take classes that will be relevant to my future practice. They force me into the classroom to take classes just for credits that are completely irrelevant to my future practice.

I have no idea what "diminishing returns" mean in practice. It implies there's a point when more experience in practice becomes a bad thing. If you honestly believe that, jesus, I don't know where to start. Maybe firms should be giving their hardest work to first year associates because hey, that fifth year is well past the point of diminishing returns on experience! You know what actually reaches diminishing returns? Classroom time. There is only so much one can learn in a classroom before it becomes useless detail. There is only so much time one can devote to classroom study without branching into topics ranging from arcane to "just not what I want to do" that they will never deal with in practice. Yet, there is no cap on classroom time.

Your argument here is just bad and you should feel bad. Schools have an incentive to cap experiential credit as they desperately try to pretend the third year of law school is not a massive joke. As they try to maintain their importance. As they try to maintain their relevance. Unfortunately, the legal world is changing and the emphasis on practical experience in hiring in massive these days. To continue such programs disadvantages students in the workplace, and in learning.

--
As to your final point: It's disingenuous to represent that the way you did. The scholarships given out to 0Ls all DROP by at least $4,000 after 1L (unless things have changed). This decision is not without merit: it lowers the risk of attending the first year when students are most likely to drop out, and second, in-state tuition is easily attainable thereafter. I, in fact, think its a pretty good idea. But to frame this as "BONUS MONEY!" is far from reality. The average amount of those scholarships is nowhere near $2,000.

cc: Paul-o.

Lord Randolph McDuff
Posts: 1587
Joined: Wed Jun 08, 2011 4:37 pm

Re: University of Colorado c/o 2017 Applicants (2013-2014 Cycle)

Postby Lord Randolph McDuff » Thu Nov 21, 2013 2:55 am

LeDique wrote:Sorry modzZz, I forget not everywhere on TLS is the lounge. I will make this serious post, because I think these things are important, and hereafter only reply to direct questions from accepted students about the school.

I was joking by calling it the worst and thought my first post put it into context. Those are really about my only three complaints about CU and they are ways in which CU's policies differ from many other law schools. I think they are bad as a matter of policy, but that doesn't mean you shouldn't attend CU. Nor would knowing those things -- and everything below -- beforehand (and I think I did) change my decision to attend. McDuff is correct is saying that most students love CU. The survey he cites in support is meaningless because it has such a small sample size and relies self-selected responses. The conclusion is accurate though -- it is a great school, and ultimately, I would encourage most folks to attend.

Lord Randolph McDuff wrote:You want to take pass/fail classes in law school? I want a pony and twelve-hundred dollars.


This is a common policy at most law schools through the country. I'm not asking CU to implement some radical new policy and I have mentioned this to Dean Leary, along with both of my other complaints. So it's not like the school doesn't know these are problems.

--
Now, as for this bizarre defense of the practical credit cap (that is an actuality a defense of the externship credit cap), there's so much wrong with your argument that its absurd. First, you identify that some externships are better than others and suggest that some externships are not worthwhile. This is not a reason for an artificially low externship credit cap. It is a reason for better review of externship program applications. CU retains approval power over externship credit. If externships are not valuable, CU should be denying the credits. It does not follow that because "some externships are not valuable" that externship credits should be limited. CU, in fact, already reviews petitions for additional externship credits beyond the 4 by right. So either (a) that petition process is worthless and a hard cap is a better policy or (b) CU already can review externships to determine their value and a cap is unnecessary. Existing policy indicates a hard cap is unnecessary as the standard for approval has been represented to be "an existing government program will be approved" without any further review.

Second, you assert that the vast majority of what can be learned in an externship can be learned in the classroom. McDuff already answered this a bit, but this is a point that absolutely no one believes. I mean borderline literally, no one. Classroom learning and experiential learning are entirely different. One teaches useless academic concepts while the other teaches, by experience, skills that are actually useful in practice. While it is true a very small number of classes offer this without counting toward the cap, these classes (a) generally have extensive waitlists so you cannot substitute them one-for-one for actual experience and (b) are not narrowly tailored to practice areas. Even these so-called practical classes pale in comparison to actually doing the work. Moss's federal litigation class has taught me way less about pre-trial litigation in federal court than actually doing pre-trial litigation in federal court has. I wrote way more opinions for an actual judge than the ONE for the whole semester in the judicial opinion writing class. Comparing these two experiences is not even close to which has (a) taught me more and (b) will be more useful in the future.

Weiser always goes on and on about "building a portfolio." A class does so little to help "build a portfolio" compared to practical experiences. Interviewers don't care about your relevance classroom experience, and you can't tell a good story about learning about the topic in class. You can tell a good story in your interviews about doing the work -- this is not provided by doctrinal or so-called "practical" classes. Y'all should probably try to stay on message.

Third, all of the other things that count towards the experiential cap limit the ability to use it for externships AND clinics. The credit cap is commonly a problem for students, not just those who overachieve or are overly involved. I, for one, cannot receive credit for both an externship and a clinic because I'm already over the cap. They don't force me into a classroom to take classes that will be relevant to my future practice. They force me into the classroom to take classes just for credits that are completely irrelevant to my future practice.

I have no idea what "diminishing returns" mean in practice. It implies there's a point when more experience in practice becomes a bad thing. If you honestly believe that, jesus, I don't know where to start. Maybe firms should be giving their hardest work to first year associates because hey, that fifth year is well past the point of diminishing returns on experience! You know what actually reaches diminishing returns? Classroom time. There is only so much one can learn in a classroom before it becomes useless detail. There is only so much time one can devote to classroom study without branching into topics ranging from arcane to "just not what I want to do" that they will never deal with in practice. Yet, there is no cap on classroom time.

Your argument here is just bad and you should feel bad. Schools have an incentive to cap experiential credit as they desperately try to pretend the third year of law school is not a massive joke. As they try to maintain their importance. As they try to maintain their relevance. Unfortunately, the legal world is changing and the emphasis on practical experience in hiring in massive these days. To continue such programs disadvantages students in the workplace, and in learning.

--
As to your final point: It's disingenuous to represent that the way you did. The scholarships given out to 0Ls all DROP by at least $4,000 after 1L (unless things have changed). This decision is not without merit: it lowers the risk of attending the first year when students are most likely to drop out, and second, in-state tuition is easily attainable thereafter. I, in fact, think its a pretty good idea. But to frame this as "BONUS MONEY!" is far from reality. The average amount of those scholarships is nowhere near $2,000.

cc: Paul-o.


Drops the Mic. And he's out.

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

Re: University of Colorado c/o 2017 Applicants (2013-2014 Cycle)

Postby Cal Trask » Thu Nov 21, 2013 6:02 pm

A little awkward posting in the midst of everything else in this thread, but just checking in. Currently "Under Review", so hopefully I'll be hearing soon. Best of luck to everyone.

csargean
Posts: 61
Joined: Thu Aug 23, 2012 5:20 pm

Re: University of Colorado c/o 2017 Applicants (2013-2014 Cycle)

Postby csargean » Sun Nov 24, 2013 12:13 pm

Checking in as well! Best of luck all.

User avatar
montanamonkey
Posts: 19
Joined: Tue Oct 29, 2013 1:07 pm

Re: University of Colorado c/o 2017 Applicants (2013-2014 Cycle)

Postby montanamonkey » Sun Nov 24, 2013 1:48 pm

In this morning via email! So happy to have my first acceptance.

User avatar
TheJanitor6203
Posts: 811
Joined: Sun Nov 04, 2012 5:12 pm

Re: University of Colorado c/o 2017 Applicants (2013-2014 Cycle)

Postby TheJanitor6203 » Sun Nov 24, 2013 4:56 pm

montanamonkey wrote:In this morning via email! So happy to have my first acceptance.

You got an acceptance on a Sunday?

User avatar
montanamonkey
Posts: 19
Joined: Tue Oct 29, 2013 1:07 pm

Re: University of Colorado c/o 2017 Applicants (2013-2014 Cycle)

Postby montanamonkey » Sun Nov 24, 2013 4:59 pm

TheJanitor6203 wrote:
montanamonkey wrote:In this morning via email! So happy to have my first acceptance.

You got an acceptance on a Sunday?


Yep. The email came through at 5:14am MST.

User avatar
TheJanitor6203
Posts: 811
Joined: Sun Nov 04, 2012 5:12 pm

Re: University of Colorado c/o 2017 Applicants (2013-2014 Cycle)

Postby TheJanitor6203 » Sun Nov 24, 2013 5:04 pm

montanamonkey wrote:
TheJanitor6203 wrote:
montanamonkey wrote:In this morning via email! So happy to have my first acceptance.

You got an acceptance on a Sunday?


Yep. The email came through at 5:14am MST.

Well there goes my policy of not checking statuses on the weekend..

User avatar
logical seasoning
Posts: 117
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2013 1:26 am

Re: University of Colorado c/o 2017 Applicants (2013-2014 Cycle)

Postby logical seasoning » Sun Nov 24, 2013 9:18 pm

In this morning as well. They probably sent out acceptances this weekend to people who had auto admit numbers




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

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: apricots, champagnepapi, hammy393, root_beer and 14 guests