U Chicago 2010

Share Your Experiences, Read About Other Experiences. Please keep posts organized by school and expected year of graduation.
User avatar
TheWire
Posts: 480
Joined: Tue Oct 20, 2009 9:24 pm

Re: U Chicago 2010

Postby TheWire » Wed Feb 10, 2010 2:01 am

eas331 wrote:
puppleberry finn wrote:
eas331 wrote:I can't believe I contributed to a tangent.


you will do so well at chicago


Ouch! :wink:


Anybody higher the both 75% from sept. - nov. completion dates still UR?

User avatar
puppleberry finn
Posts: 1036
Joined: Mon Feb 23, 2009 7:03 pm

Re: U Chicago 2010

Postby puppleberry finn » Wed Feb 10, 2010 10:27 am

TheWire wrote:Anybody higher the both 75% from sept. - nov. completion dates still UR?


me

User avatar
D Brooks
Posts: 585
Joined: Sat Sep 13, 2008 1:02 pm

Re: U Chicago 2010

Postby D Brooks » Wed Feb 10, 2010 12:36 pm

Calls/emails/smoke signals today?

User avatar
somewhatwayward
Posts: 1446
Joined: Wed Sep 30, 2009 5:10 pm

Re: U Chicago 2010

Postby somewhatwayward » Wed Feb 10, 2010 12:50 pm

homing pigeons, i think

User avatar
GobiasIndustries
Posts: 358
Joined: Tue Nov 24, 2009 7:56 pm

Re: U Chicago 2010

Postby GobiasIndustries » Wed Feb 10, 2010 12:56 pm

Poison darts - they sent their operatives out around 9am CST I think. If you wake up, you're in. If not...

arb44
Posts: 32
Joined: Sat Oct 03, 2009 11:53 pm

Re: U Chicago 2010

Postby arb44 » Wed Feb 10, 2010 1:00 pm

no mail:

Due to the storm the Postal Service is suspending delivery and collections throughout the region. The decision affects delivery and collections for all of Maryland, Washington DC, Northern Virginia down to Richmond and west to Charlottesville.

from:
http://www.usps.com/communications/news ... pdates.htm

Edit: for people in D.C. like me

User avatar
D Brooks
Posts: 585
Joined: Sat Sep 13, 2008 1:02 pm

Re: U Chicago 2010

Postby D Brooks » Wed Feb 10, 2010 1:11 pm

arb44 wrote:no mail:

Due to the storm the Postal Service is suspending delivery and collections throughout the region. The decision affects delivery and collections for all of Maryland, Washington DC, Northern Virginia down to Richmond and west to Charlottesville.

from:
http://www.usps.com/communications/news ... pdates.htm

Edit: for people in D.C. like me


Good thing Chicago is a completely paperless admissions process. Sucks with respect to receiving other decisions though.

User avatar
TaipeiMort
Posts: 874
Joined: Tue Jun 02, 2009 11:51 pm

Re: U Chicago 2010

Postby TaipeiMort » Wed Feb 10, 2010 1:42 pm

johnstuartmill wrote:
crackberry wrote:
Kretzy wrote:
managamy wrote:
Not a Reese fan; she's too American and un-exotic to me compared with Catherine Zeta-Jones or Eva Mendes, for example. But still it's pretty creditable for Stanford.

I don't want to get married--ever--but I would seriously reconsider if my tar or a few other foreign ladies were an option. :wink:


I'd kind of like to...

Maybe Ryan will come available sometime in the future. And, you know, the laws'll change.

Next time it gets voted on in California it'll be legal. Only reason Prop 8 passed in 2008 was that Obama was on the ballot and many of the (liberal but very anti-gay) minorities who usually stay at home on election day came out to vote. That's a gross oversimplification, but one that does a decent job of explaining Prop 8's otherwise seemingly unlikely passage.

There's also the fact that the Yes on 8 campaign was very good at using California's social libertarianism against itself. My ex-girlfriend's mom, who's Catholic but still quite liberal in social issues (e.g. abortion), voted for Proposition 8 because she believed that without it, churches opposed to same-sex marriage would be forced to officiate over them. She voted for Prop. 8 on libertarian grounds, as weird as that sounds to you and me.

But yeah, California will probably be the first state to legalize gay marriage by referendum. Gay marriage only lost by 5 percentage points in 2008. By the time it gets on the ballot (likely in 2012), four more years of young voters -- who supported gay marriage by 2:1 --will be on the rolls, and four more years of old, anti-gay voters dying will have transpired. The demographic logic alone warrants a strong presumption in favor of a win for gay marriage in 2012, and when you also consider that the Mormon Church regrets its involvement in 2008 and is thus unlikely to donate $20 million and its grassroots force again, the legalization of gay marriage in California looks like an inevitability.


I wouldn't say the Mormon Church regrets its involvement in Prop 8. Actually, while supporting a gay-rights bill in Salt Lake City three months ago, it reaffirmed its position that while it supports gay civil rights and will encourage its members to stand for them while on the ballot, it still stand firmly against gay marriage (and will continue to campaign firmly against it).

Also. I would not assume that the public is trending towards support for gay marriage. Here are four reasons why gay marriage will not be legal in California in 2012:

1) Obama will once again bring out Hispanic and African American voters (who overwhelmingly do not support gay rights or marriage).
2) Libertarian/Fiscally Conservative Voters/Socially Indifferent Voters (which make up a chunk of the likely voter electorate) have been shown to poll pro-gay rights, then vote anti-gay marriage (in protecting Catholic and Mormon churches and other organizations who dispute gay marriage).
3) "Young People" are less pro-gay marriage in the progressive-East-Coast sense than you may think. In a large chunk of California (San Diego, Orange County, South LA, Santa Barbara, Ventura, San Luis Obispo, Salinas, Valleys), the youth electorate is split pro/anti gay marriage and did not trend pro-gay marriage like everyone thought they would. They also tended to jump ship as No-on-8 poll numbers dropped (meaning that the highly-publicized victory for Yes in 2008 may sway many over to the Yes-side).
4) The Supreme Court will likely hear this case regardless of a 2012 vote.

User avatar
dudester
Posts: 344
Joined: Thu Nov 05, 2009 7:23 pm

Re: U Chicago 2010

Postby dudester » Wed Feb 10, 2010 2:06 pm

TaipeiMort wrote:
johnstuartmill wrote:
crackberry wrote:
Kretzy wrote:I'd kind of like to...

Maybe Ryan will come available sometime in the future. And, you know, the laws'll change.

Next time it gets voted on in California it'll be legal. Only reason Prop 8 passed in 2008 was that Obama was on the ballot and many of the (liberal but very anti-gay) minorities who usually stay at home on election day came out to vote. That's a gross oversimplification, but one that does a decent job of explaining Prop 8's otherwise seemingly unlikely passage.

There's also the fact that the Yes on 8 campaign was very good at using California's social libertarianism against itself. My ex-girlfriend's mom, who's Catholic but still quite liberal in social issues (e.g. abortion), voted for Proposition 8 because she believed that without it, churches opposed to same-sex marriage would be forced to officiate over them. She voted for Prop. 8 on libertarian grounds, as weird as that sounds to you and me.

But yeah, California will probably be the first state to legalize gay marriage by referendum. Gay marriage only lost by 5 percentage points in 2008. By the time it gets on the ballot (likely in 2012), four more years of young voters -- who supported gay marriage by 2:1 --will be on the rolls, and four more years of old, anti-gay voters dying will have transpired. The demographic logic alone warrants a strong presumption in favor of a win for gay marriage in 2012, and when you also consider that the Mormon Church regrets its involvement in 2008 and is thus unlikely to donate $20 million and its grassroots force again, the legalization of gay marriage in California looks like an inevitability.


I wouldn't say the Mormon Church regrets its involvement in Prop 8. Actually, while supporting a gay-rights bill in Salt Lake City three months ago, it reaffirmed its position that while it supports gay civil rights and will encourage its members to stand for them while on the ballot, it still stand firmly against gay marriage (and will continue to campaign firmly against it).

Also. I would not assume that the public is trending towards support for gay marriage. Here are four reasons why gay marriage will not be legal in California in 2012:

1) Obama will once again bring out Hispanic and African American voters (who overwhelmingly do not support gay rights or marriage).
2) Libertarian/Fiscally Conservative Voters/Socially Indifferent Voters (which make up a chunk of the likely voter electorate) have been shown to poll pro-gay rights, then vote anti-gay marriage (in protecting Catholic and Mormon churches and other organizations who dispute gay marriage).
3) "Young People" are less pro-gay marriage in the progressive-East-Coast sense than you may think. In a large chunk of California (San Diego, Orange County, South LA, Santa Barbara, Ventura, San Luis Obispo, Salinas, Valleys), the youth electorate is split pro/anti gay marriage and did not trend pro-gay marriage like everyone thought they would. They also tended to jump ship as No-on-8 poll numbers dropped (meaning that the highly-publicized victory for Yes in 2008 may sway many over to the Yes-side).
4) The Supreme Court will likely hear this case regardless of a 2012 vote.


Um, you're late to the party. We've moved on.

Any more conjectures on what fate awaits the remaining members of the 2/4 crew?

User avatar
Jericwithers
Posts: 2194
Joined: Tue Jul 28, 2009 9:34 pm

Re: U Chicago 2010

Postby Jericwithers » Wed Feb 10, 2010 2:24 pm

dudester wrote:Any more conjectures on what fate awaits the remaining members of the 2/4 crew?


I'm hoping for a 3rd update and an accentance next batch.

User avatar
mochafury
Posts: 112
Joined: Sun Dec 28, 2008 1:32 am

Re: U Chicago 2010

Postby mochafury » Wed Feb 10, 2010 2:25 pm

^ Hopefully a better fate than that of the 2/Live crew? hth.

User avatar
lsathalon
Posts: 216
Joined: Sun Feb 08, 2009 2:37 pm

Re: U Chicago 2010

Postby lsathalon » Wed Feb 10, 2010 2:28 pm

I bet some are waitlists, and some will probably/hopefully get another update and then some acceptances, some waitlists. The numbers are too good to be flat out rejects, probably.

acecrusher06
Posts: 101
Joined: Sat Oct 31, 2009 10:27 pm

Re: U Chicago 2010

Postby acecrusher06 » Wed Feb 10, 2010 4:25 pm

any updates anyone?

User avatar
johnstuartmill
Posts: 214
Joined: Fri May 22, 2009 9:53 pm

Re: U Chicago 2010

Postby johnstuartmill » Wed Feb 10, 2010 4:32 pm

TaipeiMort wrote:I wouldn't say the Mormon Church regrets its involvement in Prop 8. Actually, while supporting a gay-rights bill in Salt Lake City three months ago, it reaffirmed its position that while it supports gay civil rights and will encourage its members to stand for them while on the ballot, it still stand firmly against gay marriage (and will continue to campaign firmly against it).


I didn't mean to imply that the Church is suddenly pro-gay-marriage or anything like that. I just know how sensitive the Church is about its public image, and given the large backlash against the Church's political involvement, I doubt that they'll approach the 2012 gay marriage battle with the same fervor.

A good parallel to keep in mind is the Church's past racist doctrines: as the Church's position on race became less and less popular, it became less and less outspoken about it, until it repudiated the racist doctrines almost entirely in 1978.

Also. I would not assume that the public is trending towards support for gay marriage. Here are four reasons why gay marriage will not be legal in California in 2012:

1) Obama will once again bring out Hispanic and African American voters (who overwhelmingly do not support gay rights or marriage).
2) Libertarian/Fiscally Conservative Voters/Socially Indifferent Voters (which make up a chunk of the likely voter electorate) have been shown to poll pro-gay rights, then vote anti-gay marriage (in protecting Catholic and Mormon churches and other organizations who dispute gay marriage).
3) "Young People" are less pro-gay marriage in the progressive-East-Coast sense than you may think. In a large chunk of California (San Diego, Orange County, South LA, Santa Barbara, Ventura, San Luis Obispo, Salinas, Valleys), the youth electorate is split pro/anti gay marriage and did not trend pro-gay marriage like everyone thought they would. They also tended to jump ship as No-on-8 poll numbers dropped (meaning that the highly-publicized victory for Yes in 2008 may sway many over to the Yes-side).
4) The Supreme Court will likely hear this case regardless of a 2012 vote.


You're mistaken about the facts. Going point by point:

1) While it's true that African-American voters in California voted for Prop. 8 by wide margins, the Hispanic segment of the electorate was split roughly evenly. (Political scientists believe this is partially attributable to the youth of the Hispanic demographic.) But these figures aren't even immediately relevant to your point, given that exit polls indicated that first-time voters who voted for Obama supported marriage equality by a substantial margin. You seem to forget that Obama also galvanized a lot of young, white voters, who were No on 8's main base of support.

2) I wouldn't be at all surprised if socially-indifferent voters voted for Prop. 8. As I said before, the Yes on 8 campaign did a very good job of turning California's general social libertarianism against itself. Unfortunately for the anti-gay-marriage crowd, Yes on 8 relied on lies to make this case. Remember the ads saying that, if Prop. 8 didn't pass, conservative churches would be forced to officiate over gay marriages? (I think this may be where you get your idea that Prop. 8 would "[protect] Catholic and Mormon churches".) As a matter of law, that claim is absurd. These lies worked in 2008 because the No on 8 campaign was caught on its heels, but it's unlikely that such brazen falsehoods would fool the California electorate twice. Remember my ex-girlfriend's mom? She regrets her Yes on 8 vote for precisely these reasons, and by 2012, she won't be the only one.

3) With regard to the general pro-gay attitudes of the under-30s, the polling data speaks for itself: Young voters supported gay marriage by a 2:1 margin. This is so strongly supported by the evidence that you can't dispute it without casting doubt on the entire enterprise of election forecasting. Frankly, I'm surprised that you're taking the position you do here.

4) I don't see what the Supreme Court has to do with this, unless you believe that the Court will strike down gay marriage as unconstitutional. Needless to say, that's about as unlikely as unlikely gets.

Taipei, you've left the most salient empirical fact unaddressed: gay marriage bans have been losing support by one or two points every year pretty much everywhere, including California. Unless you can identify some mechanism by which this trend would reverse itself, your position that gay marriage will not be legal in California soon is simply wishful thinking.

User avatar
hiromoto45
Posts: 881
Joined: Sun Sep 27, 2009 2:05 pm

Re: U Chicago 2010

Postby hiromoto45 » Wed Feb 10, 2010 5:03 pm

How long does it take to go UR once complete?

User avatar
TheWire
Posts: 480
Joined: Tue Oct 20, 2009 9:24 pm

Re: U Chicago 2010

Postby TheWire » Wed Feb 10, 2010 5:11 pm

hiromoto45 wrote:How long does it take to go UR once complete?


Well...up to now, it has been taking months. I'd think because the entire applicant pool is in now, maybe things will speed up a little. But don't expect a quick turn around from UofC

User avatar
holybartender
Posts: 435
Joined: Sun Sep 27, 2009 2:06 pm

Re: U Chicago 2010

Postby holybartender » Wed Feb 10, 2010 6:24 pm

I wonder what happened to that whole "early next week" thing.

tamlyric
Posts: 656
Joined: Wed Jul 15, 2009 10:21 pm

Re: U Chicago 2010

Postby tamlyric » Wed Feb 10, 2010 6:25 pm

holybartender wrote:I wonder what happened to that whole "early next week" thing.


+1 :|

blue5385
Posts: 895
Joined: Sun Sep 27, 2009 3:23 am

Re: U Chicago 2010

Postby blue5385 » Wed Feb 10, 2010 6:26 pm

hiromoto45 wrote:How long does it take to go UR once complete?


Based on the last few people who have reported going UR, two months and one day. (Not like I have been following this thread obsessively while waiting to go UR or anything...)

User avatar
Saya
Posts: 194
Joined: Mon Sep 21, 2009 12:33 am

Re: U Chicago 2010

Postby Saya » Wed Feb 10, 2010 7:01 pm

Waitlisted.

:cry:

User avatar
rockchalk86
Posts: 528
Joined: Thu Oct 15, 2009 10:16 am

Re: U Chicago 2010

Postby rockchalk86 » Wed Feb 10, 2010 7:01 pm

Waitlisted... :(

User avatar
Jericwithers
Posts: 2194
Joined: Tue Jul 28, 2009 9:34 pm

Re: U Chicago 2010

Postby Jericwithers » Wed Feb 10, 2010 7:04 pm

Ouch, also waitlisted. Didn't get an email, but the status checker says so.

2 waitlists in one day. It's still better than a hold.

User avatar
Kronk
Posts: 28128
Joined: Sat Dec 27, 2008 9:18 pm

Re: U Chicago 2010

Postby Kronk » Wed Feb 10, 2010 7:05 pm

Jericwithers wrote:Ouch, also waitlisted. Didn't get an email, but the status checker says so.

2 waitlists in one day. It's still better than a hold.


I'm shocked. Dang, man.

User avatar
Jericwithers
Posts: 2194
Joined: Tue Jul 28, 2009 9:34 pm

Re: U Chicago 2010

Postby Jericwithers » Wed Feb 10, 2010 7:07 pm

Kronk wrote:
Jericwithers wrote:Ouch, also waitlisted. Didn't get an email, but the status checker says so.

2 waitlists in one day. It's still better than a hold.


I'm literally shocked. Dang, man.


Eh, it's not that surprising. LSAT is too low. Thanks though.

acecrusher06
Posts: 101
Joined: Sat Oct 31, 2009 10:27 pm

Re: U Chicago 2010

Postby acecrusher06 » Wed Feb 10, 2010 7:08 pm

hmmm i wonder what this means for those who didn't hear yet and are part of the 2/4 crowd




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

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Anon.y.mousse., fattsdomino, Keilz, lawcapture and 14 guests