Top Law Schools

Texasboundanddown wrote:

rdcws000 wrote:

Texasboundanddown wrote:So have people come to a conclusion on whether being reviewed twice is a good or bad thing? I'm only "in review" once and that was at the end of March. Think we will hear anything anytime soon?

Are you a FT or PT app?

I am staying optimistic even though I am one whose review date recently changed.

I am of the opinion though, that since some applications are accepted with only one level of review, the date change could indicate a lack of confidence in the applicant, or at least a lack of willingness to commit to a decision to accept.

On the other hand, I have seen some whose decision date changed eventually receive an acceptance.

Bottom line, all we can do is guess, and look at last year's history.

FT. I applied later remember? Like February late. Hahah. After looking at some of the last years cycle (like you) I kind of came to the conclusion you did. I had multiple changes last year and I ended up WL'ed late (may 8th actually). By multiple I mean three, haha. They offered me PT cosideration, and I said yes, but never sent a letter confirming cause I kinda still wanted FT. Ended up retaking, did muuuch better, and then reapplied. You told me to stay the course haha and I agreed.

I think if your date changes three times then they like you, but the numbers aren't enough. Twice or once I think means good things and you can kinda either count on a WL or acceptance, so good luck!

I also disagree that we are the on the fence candidates since, tbh, for the people that sent their stuff in late jan-feb there haven't been all that many acceptances (unless you count the obvious 169+, 3.35+ people). We're just the middle of the pack people that they need to take time to review.

BleedBlue83 wrote:

Texasboundanddown wrote:

rdcws000 wrote:

Texasboundanddown wrote:So have people come to a conclusion on whether being reviewed twice is a good or bad thing? I'm only "in review" once and that was at the end of March. Think we will hear anything anytime soon?

Are you a FT or PT app?

I am staying optimistic even though I am one whose review date recently changed.

I am of the opinion though, that since some applications are accepted with only one level of review, the date change could indicate a lack of confidence in the applicant, or at least a lack of willingness to commit to a decision to accept.

On the other hand, I have seen some whose decision date changed eventually receive an acceptance.

Bottom line, all we can do is guess, and look at last year's history.

FT. I applied later remember? Like February late. Hahah. After looking at some of the last years cycle (like you) I kind of came to the conclusion you did. I had multiple changes last year and I ended up WL'ed late (may 8th actually). By multiple I mean three, haha. They offered me PT cosideration, and I said yes, but never sent a letter confirming cause I kinda still wanted FT. Ended up retaking, did muuuch better, and then reapplied. You told me to stay the course haha and I agreed.

I think if your date changes three times then they like you, but the numbers aren't enough. Twice or once I think means good things and you can kinda either count on a WL or acceptance, so good luck!

I also disagree that we are the on the fence candidates since, tbh, for the people that sent their stuff in late jan-feb there haven't been all that many acceptances (unless you count the obvious 169+, 3.35+ people). We're just the middle of the pack people that they need to take time to review.

Good point.

I hope you're right. I applied early February and it's certainly not unreasonable that they didn't have time to carefully review all apps before the first seat deadline.

A handful of pages back, someone started a discussion on the timing of one's application submission: whether or not it was advantageous to submit closer to the deadline or not. My opinions is that only those with fantastic numbers should submit early.

Procrastinators unite tomorrow.

FB567 wrote:I just got my financial aid package. It is pitiful considering the tuition increase and my next to nothing EFC. Did anyone else get theirs?

BleedBlue83 wrote:

RyShermanJ wrote:

BleedBlue83 wrote: Off-topic, but some sports food for thought: http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/print?id ... type=story

The Beasts of the East unquestionably maintain "greatest division in football" honors.

Only a Cowboys fan could read the article and take away that they declared NFC East the best division in football. The article says that there was a debate in 2009 on which was a better division NFC East or AFC South (which the Texans are a part of). Nowhere else in the article does it even address the greatest division in football much less “unquestionably” crown a winner. I understand that the rest of Texas somehow became Cowboy territory but please leave Houston out of it.

I wasn't saying that the article declared the NFC East the best division in football. I was making that assertion independently.

Since you're interested in being properly educated on the subject, out of 44 Super Bowls the East has represented the NFC in 19 (43%) of them. Of 23 NFC Super Bowl wins, 11 (48%) belong to teams from the East. That's almost half on both counts.

Houston Texans fans can stay Houston Texans fans. I enjoy listening to them rant and rave about how much the Cowboys suck during preseason and at start of the season, only to cram their feet in their mouths when another pathetic Texans season unfolds. It's like clockwork, and I take great pleasure in listening to a playoff-less fanbase wallow in self-loathing and frustration after talking preseason junk that they can't back up.

RyShermanJ wrote:

BleedBlue83 wrote:

RyShermanJ wrote:

BleedBlue83 wrote: Off-topic, but some sports food for thought: http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/print?id ... type=story

The Beasts of the East unquestionably maintain "greatest division in football" honors.

Only a Cowboys fan could read the article and take away that they declared NFC East the best division in football. The article says that there was a debate in 2009 on which was a better division NFC East or AFC South (which the Texans are a part of). Nowhere else in the article does it even address the greatest division in football much less “unquestionably” crown a winner. I understand that the rest of Texas somehow became Cowboy territory but please leave Houston out of it.

I wasn't saying that the article declared the NFC East the best division in football. I was making that assertion independently.

Since you're interested in being properly educated on the subject, out of 44 Super Bowls the East has represented the NFC in 19 (43%) of them. Of 23 NFC Super Bowl wins, 11 (48%) belong to teams from the East. That's almost half on both counts.

Houston Texans fans can stay Houston Texans fans. I enjoy listening to them rant and rave about how much the Cowboys suck during preseason and at start of the season, only to cram their feet in their mouths when another pathetic Texans season unfolds. It's like clockwork, and I take great pleasure in listening to a playoff-less fanbase wallow in self-loathing and frustration after talking preseason junk that they can't back up.

You are bringing up irrelevant information to support your argument. The Cowboys, Giants, Eagles, and Redskins records over the past 44 years has little to do with the supporting your argument as unquestionably maintaining "greatest division in football" honors. The article you attached states the contrary it says that the NFC West or the AFC South can be argued are the best divisions in football. I would consider this to mean that the “Beast” can be disputed as the greatest division in football. Have these four teams been great over the past 44 years? Absolutely. But the statistics over the past 44 years cannot be used as justification as maintaining dominance. Especially when considering the other division that was also named in the article contains two expansion teams that have been around for the past 8 years.

Maybe you did not understand what I was saying in my previous post; I was not making the argument that the Texans are a better team than the Cowboys. I was referring to this being a University of Houston thread. The University of Houston is located in the city of Houston which has a professional football team that is not the Dallas Cowboys. I am not sure why you would post something about the Dallas Cowboys on a Houston thread. I am from the Houston area so I root for the Houston Texans like I rooted for the Oilers before them and like I continue to root for the Astros even though they are terrible this year. I am not a fair weather fan and it is pretty weak to root for a team that you have no connection to. I would figure that the majority of people applying to this school are either from the Houston area or planning on living there afterwords. So, I would hope that many of them would feel the same.

bauer12 wrote:Just heard back, "decision rendered - denied", bummer, I guess its stcl w/ $10,000+/yr

jgrin wrote:

bauer12 wrote:Just heard back, "decision rendered - denied", bummer, I guess its stcl w/ $10,000+/yr

did they just e-mail you? or did you just see it on your status check? if so then when did it change?

PT/FT?

Stats?

jgrin wrote:

bauer12 wrote:Just heard back, "decision rendered - denied", bummer, I guess its stcl w/ $10,000+/yr

did they just e-mail you? or did you just see it on your status check? if so then when did it change?

PT/FT?

Stats?

bauer12 wrote:My numbers were 160 - 3.4

I had some good softs including a letter from a close family friend who is a UH law prof. He went to lunch the other day with Dean Alderman and they discussed my ap for a moment. I thought it would be enough to get me over the hump. I guess not... especially considering several people were waitlisted/accepted with less. This admissions game is a mystery to me..

Is it possible to request PT consideration?

As for the rest of you planning on attending stcl... see you in the fall.

BleedBlue83 wrote:My file just reported "Decision Letter Mailed" this morning, but status still shows "File in Review".

My fate has also now been decided. I'll post the outcome as soon as the status has been updated.

BleedBlue83 wrote:My file just reported "Decision Letter Mailed" this morning, but status still shows "File in Review".

My fate has also now been decided. I'll post the outcome as soon as the status has been updated.

BleedBlue83 wrote:My file just reported "Decision Letter Mailed" this morning, but status still shows "File in Review".

My fate has also now been decided. I'll post the outcome as soon as the status has been updated.

raperez129 wrote:

BleedBlue83 wrote:My file just reported "Decision Letter Mailed" this morning, but status still shows "File in Review".

My fate has also now been decided. I'll post the outcome as soon as the status has been updated.

Decision Letter Mailed; is that under your mailings section??

Mine still has nothing new under mailings, and no change to file date, since it went in review for the first time on 3/29/10. Maybe my file is lost somewhere, or in the trash.

With the recent flurry of non-positive activity, I am officially now terrified....