U Chicago 2010

Share Your Experiences, Read About Other Experiences. Please keep posts organized by school and expected year of graduation.
User avatar
crackberry
Posts: 3252
Joined: Thu Sep 17, 2009 3:23 pm

Re: U Chicago 2010

Postby crackberry » Wed Feb 10, 2010 8:33 pm

The WL emails are all the same people.

User avatar
opus127
Posts: 196
Joined: Fri Oct 30, 2009 7:04 pm

Re: U Chicago 2010

Postby opus127 » Wed Feb 10, 2010 8:40 pm

crackberry wrote:The WL emails are all the same people.

Thanks for the info.

User avatar
crackberry
Posts: 3252
Joined: Thu Sep 17, 2009 3:23 pm

Re: U Chicago 2010

Postby crackberry » Wed Feb 10, 2010 8:45 pm

eas331 wrote:
crackberry wrote:The WL emails are all the same people.

Thanks for the info.

You and I have exactly the same numbers (to the same one-hundreth of a GPA point). I think we'd be near the top of their WL pile. I've already withdrawn, but if you want Chicago, you should definitely pursue it.

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

Re: U Chicago 2010

Postby TheWire » Wed Feb 10, 2010 8:48 pm

crackberry wrote:
eas331 wrote:
crackberry wrote:The WL emails are all the same people.

Thanks for the info.

You and I have exactly the same numbers (to the same one-hundreth of a GPA point). I think we'd be near the top of their WL pile. I've already withdrawn, but if you want Chicago, you should definitely pursue it.


Crack, i got the WL too...do you think it could have anything to do with the fact that cali residents would self-select schools from the coasts?

User avatar
crackberry
Posts: 3252
Joined: Thu Sep 17, 2009 3:23 pm

Re: U Chicago 2010

Postby crackberry » Wed Feb 10, 2010 8:50 pm

TheWire wrote:
crackberry wrote:
eas331 wrote:
crackberry wrote:The WL emails are all the same people.

Thanks for the info.

You and I have exactly the same numbers (to the same one-hundreth of a GPA point). I think we'd be near the top of their WL pile. I've already withdrawn, but if you want Chicago, you should definitely pursue it.


Crack, i got the WL too...do you think it could have anything to do with the fact that cali residents would self-select schools from the coasts?

Haha maybe? BioE was also WLed and I would have thought at least one of us would have gotten in.

Chicago definitely takes some California kids though.

User avatar
opus127
Posts: 196
Joined: Fri Oct 30, 2009 7:04 pm

Re: U Chicago 2010

Postby opus127 » Wed Feb 10, 2010 8:51 pm

TheWire wrote:
crackberry wrote:
eas331 wrote:
crackberry wrote:The WL emails are all the same people.

Thanks for the info.

You and I have exactly the same numbers (to the same one-hundreth of a GPA point). I think we'd be near the top of their WL pile. I've already withdrawn, but if you want Chicago, you should definitely pursue it.


Crack, i got the WL too...do you think it could have anything to do with the fact that cali residents would self-select schools from the coasts?


Speaking of self-selecting, I did my undergrad at that other good university in the Chicago area -- you know, where students are well-rounded and stuff... Maybe the U of C knew I'd have a hard time swallowing my prejudices, even though I know their law school is outstanding. :wink:

User avatar
js87
Posts: 434
Joined: Tue Jul 01, 2008 11:42 pm

Re: U Chicago 2010

Postby js87 » Wed Feb 10, 2010 8:52 pm

TheWire wrote:
crackberry wrote:
eas331 wrote:
crackberry wrote:The WL emails are all the same people.

Thanks for the info.

You and I have exactly the same numbers (to the same one-hundreth of a GPA point). I think we'd be near the top of their WL pile. I've already withdrawn, but if you want Chicago, you should definitely pursue it.


Crack, i got the WL too...do you think it could have anything to do with the fact that cali residents would self-select schools from the coasts?


I got WL'd with identical numbers to you from the east coast (South FL). Maybe the coast theory is correct. Or maybe my application sucked :|

User avatar
crackberry
Posts: 3252
Joined: Thu Sep 17, 2009 3:23 pm

Re: U Chicago 2010

Postby crackberry » Wed Feb 10, 2010 8:57 pm

At the risk of sounding extremely immodest, I am shocked by some of the applicants Chicago is WLing this cycle, including myself. My best guesses are A) they know some of us aren't interested and it's a very selective form of YP or B) something about our applications rubbed them the wrong way.

It can't be numbers-related. People with lower numbers than many people on the WL have gotten in, and people with numbers above both medians (and, in some cases, above one 75th and median>other>75) have been WLed.

I think Chicago knows who is a good fit and who is not.

User avatar
Dignan
Posts: 1110
Joined: Sun Feb 08, 2009 5:52 pm

Re: U Chicago 2010

Postby Dignan » Wed Feb 10, 2010 9:05 pm

crackberry wrote:At the risk of sounding extremely immodest, I am shocked by some of the applicants Chicago is WLing this cycle, including myself. My best guesses are A) they know some of us aren't interested and it's a very selective form of YP or B) something about our applications rubbed them the wrong way.

Besides Y and S, Chicago is the only law school in the T10 with a small class size. I've noticed that schools with smaller class sizes tend to make more difficult-to-explain decisions. Even Cornell, which is obviously quite a bit less selective than Chicago, makes some curious choices during the admissions cycle. It makes sense, I guess. When a school has 180 seats to fill instead of 500, they're more free to rely on "will they fit in?" intuitions and other idiosyncratic criteria.

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

Re: U Chicago 2010

Postby TheWire » Wed Feb 10, 2010 9:06 pm

crackberry wrote:At the risk of sounding extremely immodest, I am shocked by some of the applicants Chicago is WLing this cycle, including myself. My best guesses are A) they know some of us aren't interested and it's a very selective form of YP or B) something about our applications rubbed them the wrong way.

It can't be numbers-related. People with lower numbers than many people on the WL have gotten in, and people with numbers above both medians (and, in some cases, above one 75th and median>other>75) have been WLed.

I think Chicago knows who is a good fit and who is not.


I agree. I mean, they kinda hit it on the money...the WLers in this thread don't seem nearly as heart broken as those in other threads. My friend from Berkeley was trying to give me perspective on how Boalt yield like 4 times the amount of cross admits with Michigan. I think in this case, maybe UofC realizes the some people (for varying reasons) aren't necessarily Uber excited about the midwest. FWIW, bioE and I went to high school together, and it seems like our decisions to go to public UG's didn't fly with UofC

User avatar
js87
Posts: 434
Joined: Tue Jul 01, 2008 11:42 pm

Re: U Chicago 2010

Postby js87 » Wed Feb 10, 2010 9:09 pm

crackberry wrote:At the risk of sounding extremely immodest, I am shocked by some of the applicants Chicago is WLing this cycle, including myself. My best guesses are A) they know some of us aren't interested and it's a very selective form of YP or B) something about our applications rubbed them the wrong way.

It can't be numbers-related. People with lower numbers than many people on the WL have gotten in, and people with numbers above both medians (and, in some cases, above one 75th and median>other>75) have been WLed.

I think Chicago knows who is a good fit and who is not.


My last realistic shot at entering legal academia, my dream career, most likely just went out the window, so if they were banking on "A" then they're unfortunately incorrect. That said, I was exactly at medians, an LSAT retaker, and a non URM with less than a year of work experience. I sincerely doubt that I'm YP material.

User avatar
crackberry
Posts: 3252
Joined: Thu Sep 17, 2009 3:23 pm

Re: U Chicago 2010

Postby crackberry » Wed Feb 10, 2010 9:12 pm

js87 wrote:
crackberry wrote:At the risk of sounding extremely immodest, I am shocked by some of the applicants Chicago is WLing this cycle, including myself. My best guesses are A) they know some of us aren't interested and it's a very selective form of YP or B) something about our applications rubbed them the wrong way.

It can't be numbers-related. People with lower numbers than many people on the WL have gotten in, and people with numbers above both medians (and, in some cases, above one 75th and median>other>75) have been WLed.

I think Chicago knows who is a good fit and who is not.


My last realistic shot at entering legal academia, my dream career, most likely just went out the window, so if they were banking on "A" then they're unfortunately incorrect. That said, I was exactly at medians, an LSAT retaker, and a non URM with less than a year of work experience. I sincerely doubt that I'm YP material.

Be #1 in your class next year and transfer to Yale.

Yes I know it's not that simple.

User avatar
crackberry
Posts: 3252
Joined: Thu Sep 17, 2009 3:23 pm

Re: U Chicago 2010

Postby crackberry » Wed Feb 10, 2010 9:13 pm

Dignan wrote:
crackberry wrote:At the risk of sounding extremely immodest, I am shocked by some of the applicants Chicago is WLing this cycle, including myself. My best guesses are A) they know some of us aren't interested and it's a very selective form of YP or B) something about our applications rubbed them the wrong way.

Besides Y and S, Chicago is the only law school in the T10 with a small class size. I've noticed that schools with smaller class sizes tend to make more difficult-to-explain decisions. Even Cornell, which is obviously quite a bit less selective than Chicago, makes some curious choices during the admissions cycle. It makes sense, I guess. When a school has 180 seats to fill instead of 500, they're more free to rely on "will they fit in?" intuitions and other idiosyncratic criteria.

Credited.

User avatar
BioEBear2010
Posts: 745
Joined: Wed Nov 19, 2008 7:05 pm

Re: U Chicago 2010

Postby BioEBear2010 » Wed Feb 10, 2010 9:13 pm

Crack, I think you've hit the nail on the head with this "fitting in" thing. As Dignan mentioned, Chicago is small and has the ability to be more selective in terms of non-quantitative criteria.

And Wire, just because Chicago doesn't seem to love the UCs doesn't mean they're not awesome :D

js87 wrote:My last realistic shot at entering legal academia, my dream career, most likely just went out the window, so if they were banking on "A" then they're unfortunately incorrect. That said, I was exactly at medians, an LSAT retaker, and a non URM with less than a year of work experience. I sincerely doubt that I'm YP material.

Sorry to hear this, js.

WhatUpKells
Posts: 88
Joined: Fri Jul 10, 2009 2:49 pm

Re: U Chicago 2010

Postby WhatUpKells » Wed Feb 10, 2010 9:14 pm

js87 wrote:
crackberry wrote:At the risk of sounding extremely immodest, I am shocked by some of the applicants Chicago is WLing this cycle, including myself. My best guesses are A) they know some of us aren't interested and it's a very selective form of YP or B) something about our applications rubbed them the wrong way.

It can't be numbers-related. People with lower numbers than many people on the WL have gotten in, and people with numbers above both medians (and, in some cases, above one 75th and median>other>75) have been WLed.

I think Chicago knows who is a good fit and who is not.


My last realistic shot at entering legal academia, my dream career, most likely just went out the window, so if they were banking on "A" then they're unfortunately incorrect. That said, I was exactly at medians, an LSAT retaker, and a non URM with less than a year of work experience. I sincerely doubt that I'm YP material.


This. My cycle is driving me insane.

User avatar
opus127
Posts: 196
Joined: Fri Oct 30, 2009 7:04 pm

Re: U Chicago 2010

Postby opus127 » Wed Feb 10, 2010 9:15 pm

js87 wrote:
My last realistic shot at entering legal academia, my dream career, most likely just went out the window, so if they were banking on "A" then they're unfortunately incorrect. That said, I was exactly at medians, an LSAT retaker, and a non URM with less than a year of work experience. I sincerely doubt that I'm YP material.


Sounds like you should write that extra essay! Good luck!

User avatar
soullesswonder
Posts: 553
Joined: Sat Mar 21, 2009 11:36 pm

Re: U Chicago 2010

Postby soullesswonder » Wed Feb 10, 2010 9:15 pm

crackberry wrote:At the risk of sounding extremely immodest, I am shocked by some of the applicants Chicago is WLing this cycle, including myself. My best guesses are A) they know some of us aren't interested and it's a very selective form of YP or B) something about our applications rubbed them the wrong way.

It can't be numbers-related. People with lower numbers than many people on the WL have gotten in, and people with numbers above both medians (and, in some cases, above one 75th and median>other>75) have been WLed.

I think Chicago knows who is a good fit and who is not.


Maybe I should send the adcomms a note: "Hey guys, while you're plumbing the depths of my soul, can you tell me what season I am?"

Theory: Chicago is putting out more merit money in an effort to pull some applicants away from HYS, and is using the WL as a reserve in case that gambit fails. The WL'ed applicants are not necessarily YP, but their desire didn't jump out for some reason and so the school isn't ready to commit to them just yet.

If I'm anywhere close to the truth (disclaimer: probably not), then there could be some significant WL action in March and April

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

Re: U Chicago 2010

Postby Jericwithers » Wed Feb 10, 2010 9:16 pm

I have to say my PS was perfect to fit in at Chicago if they took it seriously. However, my numbers are what kept me out. Also I'm not sure if I would pay sticker at any school, so maybe they followed me on this board and figured that out.

stopscreaming
Posts: 42
Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2010 9:20 pm

Re: U Chicago 2010

Postby stopscreaming » Wed Feb 10, 2010 9:20 pm

Dignan wrote:
crackberry wrote:At the risk of sounding extremely immodest, I am shocked by some of the applicants Chicago is WLing this cycle, including myself. My best guesses are A) they know some of us aren't interested and it's a very selective form of YP or B) something about our applications rubbed them the wrong way.

Besides Y and S, Chicago is the only law school in the T10 with a small class size. I've noticed that schools with smaller class sizes tend to make more difficult-to-explain decisions. Even Cornell, which is obviously quite a bit less selective than Chicago, makes some curious choices during the admissions cycle. It makes sense, I guess. When a school has 180 seats to fill instead of 500, they're more free to rely on "will they fit in?" intuitions and other idiosyncratic criteria.


As one of the aforementioned people who got in with lower numbers, I think that the second explanation sounds right. My U of C acceptance letter was the first one I have seen which actually seemed tailored to me specifically. "You were chosen because of..." Even with Michigan, where Dean Z adds hand written notes, nothing was this specific.

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 9:22 pm

:shock:



now am terrified re: WLs.

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

Re: U Chicago 2010

Postby TheWire » Wed Feb 10, 2010 9:29 pm

BioEBear2010 wrote:Crack, I think you've hit the nail on the head with this "fitting in" thing. As Dignan mentioned, Chicago is small and has the ability to be more selective in terms of non-quantitative criteria.

And Wire, just because Chicago doesn't seem to love the UCs doesn't mean they're not awesome :D

js87 wrote:My last realistic shot at entering legal academia, my dream career, most likely just went out the window, so if they were banking on "A" then they're unfortunately incorrect. That said, I was exactly at medians, an LSAT retaker, and a non URM with less than a year of work experience. I sincerely doubt that I'm YP material.

Sorry to hear this, js.


Bio...
Of course; not like I'm trippin' about future prospects.

If i get into berk. ill be there to visit and u should kick it with me and Mr.Trojan-boalt. I'm gonna show you how to slay them bitches...ask our boy, my advice has paid dividends for him @ boalt. Imagine the tools I can supply you with to dominate an entire undergrad...

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 9:32 pm

puppleberry finn wrote::shock:



now am terrified re: WLs.


Don't be. Rejection email will arrive soon enough. hth.

DanInALionsDen
Posts: 296
Joined: Tue Oct 13, 2009 1:00 am

Re: U Chicago 2010

Postby DanInALionsDen » Wed Feb 10, 2010 9:56 pm

My status checker has said "Application Received" since 01/06. Should I send them an email to find out why I still haven't gone complete or is this the standard length?

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 9:56 pm

DanInALionsDen wrote:My status checker has said "Application Received" since 01/06. Should I send them an email to find out why I still haven't gone complete or is this the standard length?


I was at app received for months.

User avatar
mi-chan17
Posts: 428
Joined: Sat Oct 10, 2009 3:55 am

Re: U Chicago 2010

Postby mi-chan17 » Thu Feb 11, 2010 12:30 am

stopscreaming wrote:
Dignan wrote:
crackberry wrote:At the risk of sounding extremely immodest, I am shocked by some of the applicants Chicago is WLing this cycle, including myself. My best guesses are A) they know some of us aren't interested and it's a very selective form of YP or B) something about our applications rubbed them the wrong way.

Besides Y and S, Chicago is the only law school in the T10 with a small class size. I've noticed that schools with smaller class sizes tend to make more difficult-to-explain decisions. Even Cornell, which is obviously quite a bit less selective than Chicago, makes some curious choices during the admissions cycle. It makes sense, I guess. When a school has 180 seats to fill instead of 500, they're more free to rely on "will they fit in?" intuitions and other idiosyncratic criteria.


As one of the aforementioned people who got in with lower numbers, I think that the second explanation sounds right. My U of C acceptance letter was the first one I have seen which actually seemed tailored to me specifically. "You were chosen because of..." Even with Michigan, where Dean Z adds hand written notes, nothing was this specific.


I got WL'd today with numbers that, by all rights, should have gotten me dinged straight out. I may actually start to believe that they're even reading our applications. There's no other reason for them to have kept me, really.




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