U Chicago 2010

Share Your Experiences, Read About Other Experiences. Please keep posts organized by school and expected year of graduation.
User avatar
AngryAvocado
Posts: 776
Joined: Sun Jul 19, 2009 11:22 pm

Re: U Chicago 2010

Postby AngryAvocado » Thu Feb 11, 2010 12:45 pm

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?


The pattern seems to be a batch every ~3 weeks, so I'd guess the 26th or so.

User avatar
jks289
Posts: 1415
Joined: Sun Nov 01, 2009 9:42 pm

Re: U Chicago 2010

Postby jks289 » Thu Feb 11, 2010 12:48 pm

AngryAvocado wrote:
blue5385 wrote:
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.


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.

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).


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.

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.


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.

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

Re: U Chicago 2010

Postby blue5385 » Thu Feb 11, 2010 12:55 pm

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.


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.

User avatar
booboo
Posts: 1032
Joined: Tue Oct 20, 2009 10:39 pm

Re: U Chicago 2010

Postby booboo » Thu Feb 11, 2010 12:58 pm

blue5385 wrote:
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.


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.


I would like to believe the probability of being a good law student and being a bad lawyer to be low...

Kind of defeats the purpose of the school.

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

Re: U Chicago 2010

Postby blue5385 » Thu Feb 11, 2010 1:00 pm

booboo wrote:
blue5385 wrote:
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.


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.


I would like to believe the probability of being a good law student and being a bad lawyer to be low...

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.

User avatar
ndirish2010
Posts: 2950
Joined: Mon Dec 14, 2009 4:41 pm

Re: U Chicago 2010

Postby ndirish2010 » Thu Feb 11, 2010 1:01 pm

mi-chan17 wrote:
ndirish2010 wrote:What were those auto ding stats? Were you above one of the medians?


169/3.5
Below the 25th percentile in GPA and at the 25th for the LSAT. I was was nowhere near their medians.

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)?


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. :)


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.

User avatar
Tangerine Gleam
Posts: 1349
Joined: Wed Jul 01, 2009 4:50 pm

Re: U Chicago 2010

Postby Tangerine Gleam » Thu Feb 11, 2010 1:02 pm

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.

User avatar
booboo
Posts: 1032
Joined: Tue Oct 20, 2009 10:39 pm

Re: U Chicago 2010

Postby booboo » Thu Feb 11, 2010 1:03 pm

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 love Tangerine Gleam's posts.

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

Re: U Chicago 2010

Postby blue5385 » Thu Feb 11, 2010 1:07 pm

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.


+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.

User avatar
jks289
Posts: 1415
Joined: Sun Nov 01, 2009 9:42 pm

Re: U Chicago 2010

Postby jks289 » Thu Feb 11, 2010 1:10 pm

blue5385 wrote:
booboo wrote:
blue5385 wrote:
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.


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.


I would like to believe the probability of being a good law student and being a bad lawyer to be low...

Kind of defeats the purpose of the school.


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.


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

Re: U Chicago 2010

Postby blue5385 » Thu Feb 11, 2010 1:13 pm

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.


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.

User avatar
Tangerine Gleam
Posts: 1349
Joined: Wed Jul 01, 2009 4:50 pm

Re: U Chicago 2010

Postby Tangerine Gleam » Thu Feb 11, 2010 1:16 pm

Haha, thanks, a-Boo Boo.

User avatar
AngryAvocado
Posts: 776
Joined: Sun Jul 19, 2009 11:22 pm

Re: U Chicago 2010

Postby AngryAvocado » Thu Feb 11, 2010 1:23 pm

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.


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.

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.

User avatar
jks289
Posts: 1415
Joined: Sun Nov 01, 2009 9:42 pm

Re: U Chicago 2010

Postby jks289 » Thu Feb 11, 2010 3:09 pm

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.

dms87
Posts: 209
Joined: Fri Nov 13, 2009 12:05 pm

Re: U Chicago 2010

Postby dms87 » Fri Feb 12, 2010 1:02 am

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.

dakatz
Posts: 2460
Joined: Sat Mar 29, 2008 4:19 pm

Re: U Chicago 2010

Postby dakatz » Fri Feb 12, 2010 1:07 am

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.

User avatar
Fancy Pants
Posts: 231
Joined: Thu Aug 13, 2009 5:32 pm

Re: U Chicago 2010

Postby Fancy Pants » Fri Feb 12, 2010 1:08 am

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.


Nope. Not yet.

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

Re: U Chicago 2010

Postby johnstuartmill » Fri Feb 12, 2010 4:02 am

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.

Nussbaum is the shit. Once I get a little money, I'm going to buy as many books of hers I can.

User avatar
CardinalRules
Posts: 2332
Joined: Wed Nov 18, 2009 5:20 pm

Re: U Chicago 2010

Postby CardinalRules » Fri Feb 12, 2010 9:11 pm

This thread is ominously quiet.

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

Re: U Chicago 2010

Postby lsathalon » Fri Feb 12, 2010 9:59 pm

managamy wrote:This thread is ominously quiet.



The calm before the storm...oh, wait, it will be ~3 more weeks before another storm...

insidethetwenty
Posts: 221
Joined: Thu Sep 11, 2008 8:00 pm

Re: U Chicago 2010

Postby insidethetwenty » Fri Feb 12, 2010 10:04 pm

managamy wrote:This thread is ominously quiet.


A bunch of us are still licking our waitlist wounds...

User avatar
CardinalRules
Posts: 2332
Joined: Wed Nov 18, 2009 5:20 pm

Re: U Chicago 2010

Postby CardinalRules » Fri Feb 12, 2010 10:15 pm

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...


Really? Too bad.

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

Re: U Chicago 2010

Postby Jericwithers » Fri Feb 12, 2010 10:55 pm

Does Chicago rank the waitlist?

legalnoeagle
Posts: 297
Joined: Thu Oct 08, 2009 3:23 pm

Re: U Chicago 2010

Postby legalnoeagle » Sat Feb 13, 2010 11:33 am

Anybody complete at the end of Dec (say, 12/29) gone under review yet?

User avatar
nattybro
Posts: 123
Joined: Fri Oct 30, 2009 1:07 pm

Re: U Chicago 2010

Postby nattybro » Sat Feb 13, 2010 2:29 pm

legalnoeagle wrote:Anybody complete at the end of Dec (say, 12/29) gone under review yet?


I'm complete 12/15, still not under review. This feels like it's taking forever.




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

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Christinabruin, hwwong and 5 guests