The pattern seems to be a batch every ~3 weeks, so I'd guess the 26th or so.beef wellington wrote:I've been complete for 10 weeks today. Ready for my ding now. When are us UR 1/30s expecting to get a decision?
U Chicago 2010 Forum
- AngryAvocado
- Posts: 774
- Joined: Sun Jul 19, 2009 11:22 pm
Re: U Chicago 2010
- jks289
- Posts: 1415
- Joined: Sun Nov 01, 2009 9:42 pm
Re: U Chicago 2010
I agree. But I think there is a huge trap some people with specific goals fall into. They write PS and diversity statements about why they will make a good lawyer. In reality, the reviewer is looking for someone who will make a good law student. These are two different things.AngryAvocado wrote:To clarify, I don't think it's of tremendous importance, but I do think it's a "soft" that counts for a little more than is commonly perceived (especially if you have the background/experience to back up your interest and your goals align with the strengths of that particular school). The importance of having clearly defined career goals might be a tad inflated by the fact that applications are up so much and many people seem to be applying simply because they lack a better alternative.blue5385 wrote:I was a little worried that I was too specific about my career goals in my PS and should have been a little more vague -- it's good to know you believe you actually benefited from doing this.AngryAvocado wrote:One thing this cycle has taught me is that the importance of having unique and/or clearly defined career goals is understated. That factor has been one of the few common denominators I've consistently seen among people that have gotten into "reach" schools.
Also, I didn't think adcomms took factors like this into much consideration, but I wonder if U of C will give weight to the fact that I will live/work in Chicago after graduating from LS and would therefore be likely to choose the school that has the best local rep (aka, them).
FWIW, I didn't include specific or unique career aspirations anywhere in my application. It's just something I've noticed over the past few weeks.
-
- Posts: 895
- Joined: Sun Sep 27, 2009 3:23 am
Re: U Chicago 2010
That seems like they are not really taking the big picture into account. I think they do take into consideration whether or not you will be a good lawyer in addition to taking into consideration whether or not you will be a good law student. There wouldn't be anything good in it for them if they turned out outstanding law students who were poor lawyers.jks289 wrote:I agree. But I think there is a huge trap some people with specific goals fall into. They write PS and diversity statements about why they will make a good lawyer. In reality, the reviewer is looking for someone who will make a good law student. These are two different things.
- booboo
- Posts: 1032
- Joined: Tue Oct 20, 2009 10:39 pm
Re: U Chicago 2010
I would like to believe the probability of being a good law student and being a bad lawyer to be low...blue5385 wrote:That seems like they are not really taking the big picture into account. I think they do take into consideration whether or not you will be a good lawyer in addition to taking into consideration whether or not you will be a good law student. There wouldn't be anything good in it for them if they turned out outstanding law students who were poor lawyers.jks289 wrote:I agree. But I think there is a huge trap some people with specific goals fall into. They write PS and diversity statements about why they will make a good lawyer. In reality, the reviewer is looking for someone who will make a good law student. These are two different things.
Kind of defeats the purpose of the school.
-
- Posts: 895
- Joined: Sun Sep 27, 2009 3:23 am
Re: U Chicago 2010
.booboo wrote:I would like to believe the probability of being a good law student and being a bad lawyer to be low...blue5385 wrote:That seems like they are not really taking the big picture into account. I think they do take into consideration whether or not you will be a good lawyer in addition to taking into consideration whether or not you will be a good law student. There wouldn't be anything good in it for them if they turned out outstanding law students who were poor lawyers.jks289 wrote:I agree. But I think there is a huge trap some people with specific goals fall into. They write PS and diversity statements about why they will make a good lawyer. In reality, the reviewer is looking for someone who will make a good law student. These are two different things.
Kind of defeats the purpose of the school.
Last edited by blue5385 on Thu Feb 11, 2010 2:08 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Want to continue reading?
Register now to search topics and post comments!
Absolutely FREE!
Already a member? Login
- ndirish2010
- Posts: 2985
- Joined: Mon Dec 14, 2009 4:41 pm
Re: U Chicago 2010
Wow, I'm 3.66/168 and I'm pretty sure that I'll be dinged anyway but at least that gives me some hope that they actually read the applications.mi-chan17 wrote:169/3.5ndirish2010 wrote: What were those auto ding stats? Were you above one of the medians?
Below the 25th percentile in GPA and at the 25th for the LSAT. I was was nowhere near their medians.
I honestly don't know. I liked my PS, but I assume that most applicants like what they submitted. I did an addendum for my GPA, and maybe that helped? I did something right on the resume I sent? I sure wish I knew, but in any event I'm glad that they didn't just ding me.blue5385 wrote:people with low numbers who thought they were going to be dinged but were instead accepted or waitlisted, what do you think swayed the adcomms in your favor (apart from factors like URM status)?
- Tangerine Gleam
- Posts: 1280
- Joined: Wed Jul 01, 2009 4:50 pm
Re: U Chicago 2010
I'm not sure if I agree with a need for one's career goals to be unique and/or clearly stated in their P.S.
I think it'd be more accurate to say that it's important to elucidate some sort of drive or origin or purpose for your interest in pursuing a legal education, even if you're hardly clear on what you'll use it for.
And hell, people write great personal statements that make no mention of the law or law school. I think it's less about what you say and more about how you say it -- making good use of two blank pages to convince the reader that you have a clue. I think that's as specific as we can afford to get in making accurate assessments of "what law schools want" from a personal statement.
I think it'd be more accurate to say that it's important to elucidate some sort of drive or origin or purpose for your interest in pursuing a legal education, even if you're hardly clear on what you'll use it for.
And hell, people write great personal statements that make no mention of the law or law school. I think it's less about what you say and more about how you say it -- making good use of two blank pages to convince the reader that you have a clue. I think that's as specific as we can afford to get in making accurate assessments of "what law schools want" from a personal statement.
- booboo
- Posts: 1032
- Joined: Tue Oct 20, 2009 10:39 pm
Re: U Chicago 2010
I love Tangerine Gleam's posts.Tangerine Gleam wrote:I'm not sure if I agree with a need for one's career goals to be unique and/or clearly stated in their P.S.
I think it'd be more accurate to say that it's important to elucidate some sort of drive or origin or purpose for your interest in pursuing a legal education, even if you're hardly clear on what you'll use it for.
And hell, people write great personal statements that make no mention of the law or law school. I think it's less about what you say and more about how you say it -- making good use of two blank pages to convince the reader that you have a clue. I think that's as specific as we can afford to get in making accurate assessments of "what law schools want" from a personal statement.
-
- Posts: 895
- Joined: Sun Sep 27, 2009 3:23 am
Re: U Chicago 2010
+1. I think it can be helpful to tie in why you would like to attend law school at some point in the PS, but I think it should be about an experience that shaped you as a person whether or not that experience ties into the practice of law.Tangerine Gleam wrote:I'm not sure if I agree with a need for one's career goals to be unique and/or clearly stated in their P.S.
I think it'd be more accurate to say that it's important to elucidate some sort of drive or origin or purpose for your interest in pursuing a legal education, even if you're hardly clear on what you'll use it for.
And hell, people write great personal statements that make no mention of the law or law school. I think it's less about what you say and more about how you say it -- making good use of two blank pages to convince the reader that you have a clue. I think that's as specific as we can afford to get in making accurate assessments of "what law schools want" from a personal statement.
- jks289
- Posts: 1415
- Joined: Sun Nov 01, 2009 9:42 pm
Re: U Chicago 2010
I more intended to say, that an applicant doesn't have great perspective on their potential as a lawyer. That is for the school to bring out, teach, and mold in them. Applicants do however have experience of themselves as students. I think Chicago may take a more academic approach to admissions. It is common for people with specific career goals to talk about their vision of themselves as a lawyer (an imaginary thing that may or may not happen), and overlook the attributes that make them good law students (mental agility, passion, creativity, ability to work with complication texts, etc). Not to say that a good law student doesn't become a good lawyer.blue5385 wrote:I'd say people who are good at the theoretical aspects of law but don't possess key skills like knowing how to litigate or negotiate are people like this. They are more common than you might think -- I know a few at the firm I work at, who went to T6 schools & excelled academically but don't possess skills like this, which is detrimental because we are on a litigation team.booboo wrote:I would like to believe the probability of being a good law student and being a bad lawyer to be low...blue5385 wrote:That seems like they are not really taking the big picture into account. I think they do take into consideration whether or not you will be a good lawyer in addition to taking into consideration whether or not you will be a good law student. There wouldn't be anything good in it for them if they turned out outstanding law students who were poor lawyers.jks289 wrote:I agree. But I think there is a huge trap some people with specific goals fall into. They write PS and diversity statements about why they will make a good lawyer. In reality, the reviewer is looking for someone who will make a good law student. These are two different things.
Kind of defeats the purpose of the school.
-
- Posts: 895
- Joined: Sun Sep 27, 2009 3:23 am
Re: U Chicago 2010
I agree with you more now that you clarified -- I do think adcomms are looking for those qualities in applicants since they are the basic qualities required to succeed both in law school & as a lawyer. I also think they take into account people's visions of themselves as lawyers in judging whether or not an applicant would be a good fit for the school.jks289 wrote:I more intended to say, that an applicant doesn't have great perspective on their potential as a lawyer. That is for the school to bring out, teach, and mold in them. Applicants do however have experience of themselves as students. I think Chicago may take a more academic approach to admissions. It is common for people with specific career goals to talk about their vision of themselves as a lawyer (an imaginary thing that may or may not happen), and overlook the attributes that make them good law students (mental agility, passion, creativity, ability to work with complication texts, etc). Not to say that a good law student doesn't become a good lawyer.
- Tangerine Gleam
- Posts: 1280
- Joined: Wed Jul 01, 2009 4:50 pm
Re: U Chicago 2010
Haha, thanks, a-Boo Boo.
- AngryAvocado
- Posts: 774
- Joined: Sun Jul 19, 2009 11:22 pm
Re: U Chicago 2010
Absolutely. As I said, I didn't include any career aspirations in my personal statement (or anywhere else on my application for that matter), and I've been fortunate enough to get into some great schools. I also don't think you should just fabricate career goals just because you think that's what law schools want to hear, or to focus on them to the detriment of telling your "story." I do think, however, that if your story happens to align with your career goals and those career goals are unique and/or happen to align well with the strength of the school, it can be a notable "soft" factor in your favor. Significant enough, at least, that it seems like it's helped more than a few people get into their reaches this cycle.Tangerine Gleam wrote:I'm not sure if I agree with a need for one's career goals to be unique and/or clearly stated in their P.S.
I think it'd be more accurate to say that it's important to elucidate some sort of drive or origin or purpose for your interest in pursuing a legal education, even if you're hardly clear on what you'll use it for.
And hell, people write great personal statements that make no mention of the law or law school. I think it's less about what you say and more about how you say it -- making good use of two blank pages to convince the reader that you have a clue. I think that's as specific as we can afford to get in making accurate assessments of "what law schools want" from a personal statement.
I think it all boils down to the fact that schools are looking for people who will both succeed in the classroom and in the profession. Having well thought-out career plans indicates that you're not just going to law school for lack of a better alternative (which isn't altogether uncommon ITE), and that you've put some consideration into what your end goal is and how you're going to get there-- both of which, I'd argue, suggest that the candidate might be a better law student and future lawyer than someone with slightly better numbers but every indication that he's doing this solely because Plan A (and possibly Plan B and C) fell through.
Register now!
Resources to assist law school applicants, students & graduates.
It's still FREE!
Already a member? Login
- jks289
- Posts: 1415
- Joined: Sun Nov 01, 2009 9:42 pm
Re: U Chicago 2010
Have any of you picked up Martha Nussbaum's "Liberty of Conscience," by the way? It will get you really excited about the possibility of attending Chicago and being in her classes. The school should pass it out on admitted students day. I hugely recommend.
-
- Posts: 209
- Joined: Fri Nov 13, 2009 12:05 pm
Re: U Chicago 2010
At some point today my status changed from UR 2/2 (my first UR) to UR 2/11.
Their app doesn't say anything about calls tomorrow, so I'm not sure what to think, but just thought I'd mention it.
Their app doesn't say anything about calls tomorrow, so I'm not sure what to think, but just thought I'd mention it.
-
- Posts: 2422
- Joined: Sat Mar 29, 2008 4:19 pm
Re: U Chicago 2010
Did anyone accepted on 2/5 receive the admissions packet yet? Mine says it was mailed 2/5, but I haven't received anything yet.
- Fancy Pants
- Posts: 231
- Joined: Thu Aug 13, 2009 5:32 pm
Re: U Chicago 2010
Nope. Not yet.dakatz wrote:Did anyone accepted on 2/5 receive the admissions packet yet? Mine says it was mailed 2/5, but I haven't received anything yet.
Get unlimited access to all forums and topics
Register now!
I'm pretty sure I told you it's FREE...
Already a member? Login
- johnstuartmill
- Posts: 211
- Joined: Fri May 22, 2009 9:53 pm
Re: U Chicago 2010
Nussbaum is the shit. Once I get a little money, I'm going to buy as many books of hers I can.jks289 wrote:Have any of you picked up Martha Nussbaum's "Liberty of Conscience," by the way? It will get you really excited about the possibility of attending Chicago and being in her classes. The school should pass it out on admitted students day. I hugely recommend.
- CardinalRules
- Posts: 2332
- Joined: Wed Nov 18, 2009 5:20 pm
Re: U Chicago 2010
This thread is ominously quiet.
- lsathalon
- Posts: 216
- Joined: Sun Feb 08, 2009 2:37 pm
Re: U Chicago 2010
managamy wrote:This thread is ominously quiet.
The calm before the storm...oh, wait, it will be ~3 more weeks before another storm...
-
- Posts: 221
- Joined: Thu Sep 11, 2008 8:00 pm
Re: U Chicago 2010
A bunch of us are still licking our waitlist wounds...managamy wrote:This thread is ominously quiet.
Communicate now with those who not only know what a legal education is, but can offer you worthy advice and commentary as you complete the three most educational, yet challenging years of your law related post graduate life.
Register now, it's still FREE!
Already a member? Login
- CardinalRules
- Posts: 2332
- Joined: Wed Nov 18, 2009 5:20 pm
Re: U Chicago 2010
Really? Too bad.lsathalon wrote:managamy wrote:This thread is ominously quiet.
The calm before the storm...oh, wait, it will be ~3 more weeks before another storm...
- Jericwithers
- Posts: 2194
- Joined: Tue Jul 28, 2009 9:34 pm
Re: U Chicago 2010
Does Chicago rank the waitlist?
-
- Posts: 254
- Joined: Thu Oct 08, 2009 3:23 pm
Re: U Chicago 2010
Anybody complete at the end of Dec (say, 12/29) gone under review yet?
- nattybro
- Posts: 123
- Joined: Fri Oct 30, 2009 1:07 pm
Re: U Chicago 2010
I'm complete 12/15, still not under review. This feels like it's taking forever.legalnoeagle wrote:Anybody complete at the end of Dec (say, 12/29) gone under review yet?
Seriously? What are you waiting for?
Now there's a charge.
Just kidding ... it's still FREE!
Already a member? Login