Stanford C/O 2020 Applicants (2016-2017 Cycle)

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

Why do you think you STILL haven't heard from S?

MS9 is about to confirm any second ..... COUNTERCYCLE
26
28%
My app was so bad that Dean Deal wants to make it SEEM like I have a chance when in reality she is punishing me for having her read it
22
24%
S won't be outdone by Y (battle for who can hold onto apps the longest)
36
39%
glitch in my status checker and I actually went DLS months ago
9
10%
 
Total votes: 93

Rigo

Diamond
Posts: 16642
Joined: Sun Jul 06, 2014 3:19 pm

Re: Stanford C/O 2020 Applicants (2016-2017 Cycle)

Postby Rigo » Fri Feb 10, 2017 10:56 am

Playersball has pretty good stats FOR ANYONE too and is well within the 25-75 range for Stanford so if that's not merit, I don't know what is.

There's a big difference between recognizing that URM admissions aren't completely analogous to non-URM admissions (which was my reaction upthread; sorry to anyone who misinterpreted my unclear post) and chalking up URM status as some sort of sufficient condition to admission regardless of numbers and other soft factors.

User avatar
Litt1tUp

Bronze
Posts: 249
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2017 8:07 pm

Re: Stanford C/O 2020 Applicants (2016-2017 Cycle)

Postby Litt1tUp » Fri Feb 10, 2017 11:15 am

Stanford picked you, so get out there and ball, player 8)

You got TLS excited for you and supporting you Playersball! At the end of the day, the haters are on the outside looking in!

Rigo

Diamond
Posts: 16642
Joined: Sun Jul 06, 2014 3:19 pm

Re: Stanford C/O 2020 Applicants (2016-2017 Cycle)

Postby Rigo » Fri Feb 10, 2017 11:16 am

Now please just let some less qualified people (i.e. me) in!

Monday

Silver
Posts: 784
Joined: Mon Nov 07, 2016 9:36 am

Re: Stanford C/O 2020 Applicants (2016-2017 Cycle)

Postby Monday » Fri Feb 10, 2017 11:17 am

.
Last edited by Monday on Wed May 10, 2017 11:50 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Mr_Chukes

Silver
Posts: 1160
Joined: Wed Dec 14, 2016 5:01 pm

Re: Stanford C/O 2020 Applicants (2016-2017 Cycle)

Postby Mr_Chukes » Fri Feb 10, 2017 11:17 am

Litt1tUp wrote:Stanford picked you, so get out there and ball, player 8)

You got TLS excited for you and supporting you Playersball! At the end of the day, the haters are on the outside looking in!

Love this post lol. Laughed at get out there and ball.

User avatar
SmallK

Bronze
Posts: 186
Joined: Fri Jun 24, 2016 10:09 am

Re: Stanford C/O 2020 Applicants (2016-2017 Cycle)

Postby SmallK » Fri Feb 10, 2017 11:21 am

A mentor once told me that no one would admit someone unless they believed they would succeed -- a school doesn't set people up for failure. Playersball, this was your ability, full stop. Go kick a$$ in Cali!

User avatar
Litt1tUp

Bronze
Posts: 249
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2017 8:07 pm

Re: Stanford C/O 2020 Applicants (2016-2017 Cycle)

Postby Litt1tUp » Fri Feb 10, 2017 11:23 am

Rigo wrote:Now please just let some over qualified people (i.e. me) in!


I think you meant that. Never lower your worth, my friend!

User avatar
pretzeltime

Gold
Posts: 1993
Joined: Sat May 07, 2016 6:57 pm

Re: Stanford C/O 2020 Applicants (2016-2017 Cycle)

Postby pretzeltime » Fri Feb 10, 2017 11:24 am

lol I love all of these people rushing to playersball's defense and he's like not on TLS and doesn't give a shit about some rando BECAUSE HE JUST GOT INTO STANFORD AND IS PROBABLY IN A BATHTUB FILLED WITH CHAMPAGNE RIGHT NOW

Rigo

Diamond
Posts: 16642
Joined: Sun Jul 06, 2014 3:19 pm

Re: Stanford C/O 2020 Applicants (2016-2017 Cycle)

Postby Rigo » Fri Feb 10, 2017 11:25 am

Litt1tUp wrote:
Rigo wrote:Now please just let some over qualified people (i.e. me) in!

I think you meant that. Never lower your worth, my friend!

Haha thanks! I'm the coolest 25th% LSAT you'll ever meet, Stanny! I'm big league!

User avatar
forum_user

Silver
Posts: 844
Joined: Wed Oct 28, 2015 9:40 am

Re: Stanford C/O 2020 Applicants (2016-2017 Cycle)

Postby forum_user » Fri Feb 10, 2017 11:31 am

pretzeltime wrote:lol I love all of these people rushing to playersball's defense and he's like not on TLS and doesn't give a shit about some rando BECAUSE HE JUST GOT INTO STANFORD AND IS PROBABLY IN A BATHTUB FILLED WITH CHAMPAGNE RIGHT NOW

For anyone interested, the standard bathtub is about 40 gallons in volume, which is about 150 liters. With a standard bottle size of .75L, it would take about 200 bottles to fill up your bathtub with champagne.

User avatar
soj

Platinum
Posts: 7890
Joined: Sat Jan 16, 2010 11:10 pm

Removed

Postby soj » Fri Feb 10, 2017 11:33 am

.

User avatar
unrelated

Bronze
Posts: 113
Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2016 1:05 pm

Re: Stanford C/O 2020 Applicants (2016-2017 Cycle)

Postby unrelated » Fri Feb 10, 2017 11:33 am

forum_user wrote:
pretzeltime wrote:lol I love all of these people rushing to playersball's defense and he's like not on TLS and doesn't give a shit about some rando BECAUSE HE JUST GOT INTO STANFORD AND IS PROBABLY IN A BATHTUB FILLED WITH CHAMPAGNE RIGHT NOW

For anyone interested, the standard bathtub is about 40 gallons in volume, which is about 150 liters. With a standard bottle size of .75L, it would take about 200 bottles to fill up your bathtub with champagne.


This is the content I come here for.

lawschool2017712

Bronze
Posts: 119
Joined: Fri Dec 02, 2016 6:38 pm

Re: Stanford C/O 2020 Applicants (2016-2017 Cycle)

Postby lawschool2017712 » Fri Feb 10, 2017 11:33 am

x
Last edited by lawschool2017712 on Wed Feb 22, 2017 12:54 pm, edited 1 time in total.

canafsa

Bronze
Posts: 348
Joined: Sun Sep 04, 2016 2:50 pm

Re: Stanford C/O 2020 Applicants (2016-2017 Cycle)

Postby canafsa » Fri Feb 10, 2017 11:35 am

.
Last edited by canafsa on Wed Feb 15, 2017 6:49 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
unrelated

Bronze
Posts: 113
Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2016 1:05 pm

Re: Stanford C/O 2020 Applicants (2016-2017 Cycle)

Postby unrelated » Fri Feb 10, 2017 11:36 am

soj wrote:helioze is an asshole so i banned him. good luck to you all!


Gonna be honest, that seems a little drastic if that one comment was his only offense.

User avatar
forum_user

Silver
Posts: 844
Joined: Wed Oct 28, 2015 9:40 am

Re: Stanford C/O 2020 Applicants (2016-2017 Cycle)

Postby forum_user » Fri Feb 10, 2017 11:41 am

canafsa wrote:
forum_user wrote:
pretzeltime wrote:lol I love all of these people rushing to playersball's defense and he's like not on TLS and doesn't give a shit about some rando BECAUSE HE JUST GOT INTO STANFORD AND IS PROBABLY IN A BATHTUB FILLED WITH CHAMPAGNE RIGHT NOW

For anyone interested, the standard bathtub is about 40 gallons in volume, which is about 150 liters. With a standard bottle size of .75L, it would take about 200 bottles to fill up your bathtub with champagne.


You dummy, you forgot to account for displacement caused by 75% of his body submerged in the tub.

Spoken like someone who has clearly never filled their bathtub with bubbly. The displacement is part of the luxury!

canafsa

Bronze
Posts: 348
Joined: Sun Sep 04, 2016 2:50 pm

Re: Stanford C/O 2020 Applicants (2016-2017 Cycle)

Postby canafsa » Fri Feb 10, 2017 11:42 am

.
Last edited by canafsa on Wed Feb 15, 2017 6:49 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
soj

Platinum
Posts: 7890
Joined: Sat Jan 16, 2010 11:10 pm

Removed

Postby soj » Fri Feb 10, 2017 11:47 am

.

User avatar
Litt1tUp

Bronze
Posts: 249
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2017 8:07 pm

Re: Stanford C/O 2020 Applicants (2016-2017 Cycle)

Postby Litt1tUp » Fri Feb 10, 2017 11:48 am

canafsa wrote:
forum_user wrote:
canafsa wrote:
forum_user wrote:
pretzeltime wrote:lol I love all of these people rushing to playersball's defense and he's like not on TLS and doesn't give a shit about some rando BECAUSE HE JUST GOT INTO STANFORD AND IS PROBABLY IN A BATHTUB FILLED WITH CHAMPAGNE RIGHT NOW

For anyone interested, the standard bathtub is about 40 gallons in volume, which is about 150 liters. With a standard bottle size of .75L, it would take about 200 bottles to fill up your bathtub with champagne.


You dummy, you forgot to account for displacement caused by 75% of his body submerged in the tub.

Spoken like someone who has clearly never filled their bathtub with bubbly. The displacement is part of the luxury!


Sounds like a good way to get sticky floors if you ask me.


And alcohol poisoning? Correct me if I am wrong, but you can absorb alcohol through your skin?

canafsa

Bronze
Posts: 348
Joined: Sun Sep 04, 2016 2:50 pm

Re: Stanford C/O 2020 Applicants (2016-2017 Cycle)

Postby canafsa » Fri Feb 10, 2017 11:52 am

.
Last edited by canafsa on Wed Feb 15, 2017 6:49 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
nimbus cloud

Silver
Posts: 533
Joined: Wed Jan 28, 2015 2:19 am

Re: Stanford C/O 2020 Applicants (2016-2017 Cycle)

Postby nimbus cloud » Fri Feb 10, 2017 11:53 am

.
Last edited by nimbus cloud on Sun Mar 19, 2017 2:10 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
poptart123

Silver
Posts: 1150
Joined: Thu Jun 11, 2015 5:31 pm

Re: Stanford C/O 2020 Applicants (2016-2017 Cycle)

Postby poptart123 » Fri Feb 10, 2017 11:56 am

nimbus cloud wrote:
Litt1tUp wrote:And alcohol poisoning? Correct me if I am wrong, but you can absorb alcohol through your skin?


Based on anecdotal evidence, no alcohol poisoning from champagne baths.


Can confirm. Only a good time.

User avatar
unrelated

Bronze
Posts: 113
Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2016 1:05 pm

Re: Stanford C/O 2020 Applicants (2016-2017 Cycle)

Postby unrelated » Fri Feb 10, 2017 11:57 am

canafsa wrote:
soj wrote:
unrelated wrote:
soj wrote:helioze is an asshole so i banned him. good luck to you all!


Gonna be honest, that seems a little drastic if that one comment was his only offense.

he should have kept his white tears to himself.


Now that's a stupid phrase. You sound even more obnoxious than he was.


+1. Censorship is death.

playersball

Bronze
Posts: 127
Joined: Tue Aug 02, 2016 1:58 am

Re: Stanford C/O 2020 Applicants (2016-2017 Cycle)

Postby playersball » Fri Feb 10, 2017 12:07 pm

So incredible that for one negative remark, there were 7+ positive and supportive people to back me, and all URMs, up.
Thank you to everyone who made it a point to let Helioze know what's really up and to congratulate me! It's great to think that you all will be part of the legal community and potential classmates/colleagues. :D

Also yes, was too busy celebrating with family and friends but unfortunately no champagne bathtubs due to it being a work night. This weekend tho 8)

forum_user wrote:
pretzeltime wrote:lol I love all of these people rushing to playersball's defense and he's like not on TLS and doesn't give a shit about some rando BECAUSE HE JUST GOT INTO STANFORD AND IS PROBABLY IN A BATHTUB FILLED WITH CHAMPAGNE RIGHT NOW

For anyone interested, the standard bathtub is about 40 gallons in volume, which is about 150 liters. With a standard bottle size of .75L, it would take about 200 bottles to fill up your bathtub with champagne.

SmallK wrote:A mentor once told me that no one would admit someone unless they believed they would succeed -- a school doesn't set people up for failure. Playersball, this was your ability, full stop. Go kick a$$ in Cali!
Litt1tUp wrote:Stanford picked you, so get out there and ball, player 8)

You got TLS excited for you and supporting you Playersball! At the end of the day, the haters are on the outside looking in!
Rigo wrote:Playersball has pretty good stats FOR ANYONE too and is well within the 25-75 range for Stanford so if that's not merit, I don't know what is.
There's a big difference between recognizing that URM admissions aren't completely analogous to non-URM admissions (which was my reaction upthread; sorry to anyone who misinterpreted my unclear post) and chalking up URM status as some sort of sufficient condition to admission regardless of numbers and other soft factors.


bartlettadmin wrote:
calpolisci2016 wrote:Seriously. It doesn't even make sense, does helioze think anyone who is a URM and applied to SLS is an auto admit? There's obviously a lot more to it than that.

Helioze should feel ashamed. Very well said, mysterycat.


I wanted to say the same thing when i saw that post so I'm glad it was mentioned. It's not just the sls thread, it's most of the top 5 I'd say where the accomplishments of URMs are really downplayed. Anyway congrats on your acceptance you deserve it!

VapidP wrote:I also don't get the bitterness. Like is a purported "easier" law school admissions cycle really worth all the other shit that URMs have to go through on a daily basis? Almost certainly not. If you are going to reduce someone to their URM status, at least understand the full complexity of what that entails.

mysterycat2020 wrote:
You know I have been absolutely dismayed at the negativity shown towards URMs in these threads. But why should I, this is what folks do when they can hide behind anonymity. You should be ashamed of how you essentially just boiled this person's hard work and accomplishments down to just their URM status. Jealousy can be shown in so many ways and that should not be the spirit of these threads.

User avatar
lawlzschool

Bronze
Posts: 299
Joined: Sun May 01, 2016 8:57 pm

Re: Stanford C/O 2020 Applicants (2016-2017 Cycle)

Postby lawlzschool » Fri Feb 10, 2017 12:07 pm

came here expecting a wave of stanford admits

learned my champagne bathtub dream will require too many years of biglaw (gotta have that dom)

damn

edit: also obviously congrats playersball and props for the positivity in your post ^^



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

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: jotbot91 and 17 guests