Top Law Schools

TLS: Most schools with a part-time program have modified the size and admission standards of those programs in response to the change in the USNWR rankings counting part-time programs in their statistics. Will Georgetown follow suit?

We've made no changes, and we don't plan to. We have terrific students there, they tend to be older, so the weight being put on their numbers is a bit less since there's more time they've been away, but we're proud of what we're doing, and we're not changing the program.


Thank god...

I'm in the both PT/FT boat. Still holding strong (dare I say strong?).. Now that I look back on things, I probably should have chosen to apply just PT with my numbers. There is not a flying pig's chance in hell that I am going to be accepted to the FT program. FT? When snowballs fly.

On a different note: I too am shocked that the 168/3.5 was waitlisted for the PT program. What the heck.

-HL

Hopefullawstudent wrote:I'm in the both PT/FT boat. Still holding strong (dare I say strong?).. Now that I look back on things, I probably should have chosen to apply just PT with my numbers. There is not a flying pig's chance in hell that I am going to be accepted to the FT program. FT? When snowballs fly.

On a different note: I too am shocked that the 168/3.5 was waitlisted for the PT program. What the heck.

-HL

It's not just me, if you look a few posts before mine those with similar numbers were waitlisted as well. I think they're definitely trying to raise their parttime numbers, regardless of what was said in the interview. How they're planning on getting a 3.7/169 (for example) to attend their parttime program remains to be seen though...

SilverE2 wrote:

Hopefullawstudent wrote:I'm in the both PT/FT boat. Still holding strong (dare I say strong?).. Now that I look back on things, I probably should have chosen to apply just PT with my numbers. There is not a flying pig's chance in hell that I am going to be accepted to the FT program. FT? When snowballs fly.

On a different note: I too am shocked that the 168/3.5 was waitlisted for the PT program. What the heck.

-HL

It's not just me, if you look a few posts before mine those with similar numbers were waitlisted as well. I think they're definitely trying to raise their parttime numbers, regardless of what was said in the interview. How they're planning on getting a 3.7/169 (for example) to attend their parttime program remains to be seen though...

I really don't see how they waitlisted you with those numbers. Damn.

Not to be a Debbie Downer, but I wouldn't put too much faith in that interview. G-town is on the threshold of the T14 at the moment, and something tells me they are pretty focused on retaining that spot. I'd be shocked if the PT numbers didn't increase substantially this year.

AngryAvocado wrote:Not to be a Debbie Downer, but I wouldn't put too much faith in that interview. G-town is on the threshold of the T14 at the moment, and something tells me they are pretty focused on retaining that spot. I'd be shocked if the PT numbers didn't increase substantially this year.

yeah but they need to have a PT applicant pool with the #s they are seeking.

ki3ngar0o wrote:Just received waitlist email too, full-time, DR 11/20

what a crappy way to start the holidays!

+1. Got the same email.

I've got mixed emotions about being UR several times and not having gotten a DR or an e-mail yet...Not sure what to think.

Philaw wrote:I've got mixed emotions about being UR several times and not having gotten a DR or an e-mail yet...Not sure what to think.

UR once and I think I'm going to get WL.

MissLucky wrote:

AngryAvocado wrote:Not to be a Debbie Downer, but I wouldn't put too much faith in that interview. G-town is on the threshold of the T14 at the moment, and something tells me they are pretty focused on retaining that spot. I'd be shocked if the PT numbers didn't increase substantially this year.

yeah but they need to have a PT applicant pool with the #s they are seeking.

Exactly. There are very few, if any, 169 3.7 applicants who would opt to keep their jobs and go to GULC PT rather than head to Michigan FT. I'm sure they will be aggressive in trying to improve their PT medians, but as many of their PT accepts opt for higher ranked schools or peer/lower ranked school w/ $$ GULC will be pulling heavily from what is sure to become a ~1000 people deep waitlist.

MissLucky wrote:

AngryAvocado wrote:Not to be a Debbie Downer, but I wouldn't put too much faith in that interview. G-town is on the threshold of the T14 at the moment, and something tells me they are pretty focused on retaining that spot. I'd be shocked if the PT numbers didn't increase substantially this year.

yeah but they need to have a PT applicant pool with the #s they are seeking.

Which very well could happen if all these predictions about the increased number of applicants are even partially correct. Even if they aren't, G-town has other measures to use like cutting the class size a bit or focusing more on courting WL/Rejected FT applicants.

I'm not saying their numbers are going to suddenly skyrocket, but I do think the gap between PT and FT will be less noticeable. I've got my fingers crossed for you guys (and myself) too, but I just don't buy the Dean's answer. I hope I'm wrong.

AngryAvocado wrote:

MissLucky wrote:

AngryAvocado wrote:Not to be a Debbie Downer, but I wouldn't put too much faith in that interview. G-town is on the threshold of the T14 at the moment, and something tells me they are pretty focused on retaining that spot. I'd be shocked if the PT numbers didn't increase substantially this year.

yeah but they need to have a PT applicant pool with the #s they are seeking.

Which very well could happen if all these predictions about the increased number of applicants are even partially correct. Even if they aren't, G-town has other measures to use like cutting the class size a bit or focusing more on courting WL/Rejected FT applicants.

I'm not saying their numbers are going to suddenly skyrocket, but I do think we're going to see a noticeable boost in selectivity this cycle. I've got my fingers crossed for you guys (and myself) too, but I just don't buy the Dean's answer. I hope I'm wrong.

what interview are you referring to? link please?

MissLucky wrote:

AngryAvocado wrote:

MissLucky wrote:

AngryAvocado wrote:Not to be a Debbie Downer, but I wouldn't put too much faith in that interview. G-town is on the threshold of the T14 at the moment, and something tells me they are pretty focused on retaining that spot. I'd be shocked if the PT numbers didn't increase substantially this year.

yeah but they need to have a PT applicant pool with the #s they are seeking.

Which very well could happen if all these predictions about the increased number of applicants are even partially correct. Even if they aren't, G-town has other measures to use like cutting the class size a bit or focusing more on courting WL/Rejected FT applicants.

I'm not saying their numbers are going to suddenly skyrocket, but I do think we're going to see a noticeable boost in selectivity this cycle. I've got my fingers crossed for you guys (and myself) too, but I just don't buy the Dean's answer. I hope I'm wrong.

what interview are you referring to? link please?

It's the TLS interview with the GULC Dean that vasiok mentioned above.

Here's the link: http://www.top-law-schools.com/andy-cor ... rview.html

AngryAvocado wrote:Not to be a Debbie Downer, but I wouldn't put too much faith in that interview. G-town is on the threshold of the T14 at the moment, and something tells me they are pretty focused on retaining that spot. I'd be shocked if the PT numbers didn't increase substantially this year.

I'm not so sure - while speaking with Caroline Springer at a law school forum she told me that they do not expect to increase their medians for PT admissions this year despite the new ranking method. In hopes of getting a fee waiver I had mentioned my numbers (75% LSAT, median GPA for FT) so I don't see what motivation she would have to deny that the PT division might be more competitive this year.

From what I've seen on past threads it seems that G-town has always been a bit unpredictable with PT admissions - possibly more likely to accept working individuals with slightly lower numbers than those straight out of undergrad

Hopefullawstudent wrote:On a different note: I too am shocked that the 168/3.5 was waitlisted for the PT program. What the heck.

What the heck indeed! I'm 168/3.45 and thought I had a good shot at PT. If they ever review my application, that is. Stuck at complete since 11/4.

danidancer wrote:

Hopefullawstudent wrote:On a different note: I too am shocked that the 168/3.5 was waitlisted for the PT program. What the heck.

What the heck indeed! I'm 168/3.45 and thought I had a good shot at PT. If they ever review my application, that is. Stuck at complete since 11/4.

lol i'm still stuck at complete since 11/3 too. i'm going to brush off all this talk of elevating the PT #s and totally take Dean Cornblatt's word

Those would got WL'ed and were PT, did the email make a distinction that you were specifically on a PT WL?

mellifluouslyso wrote:

AngryAvocado wrote:Not to be a Debbie Downer, but I wouldn't put too much faith in that interview. G-town is on the threshold of the T14 at the moment, and something tells me they are pretty focused on retaining that spot. I'd be shocked if the PT numbers didn't increase substantially this year.

I'm not so sure - while speaking with Caroline Springer at a law school forum she told me that they do not expect to increase their medians for PT admissions this year despite the new ranking method. In hopes of getting a fee waiver I had mentioned my numbers (75% LSAT, median GPA for FT) so I don't see what motivation she would have to deny that the PT division might be more competitive this year.

From what I've seen on past threads it seems that G-town has always been a bit unpredictable with PT admissions - possibly more likely to accept working individuals with slightly lower numbers than those straight out of undergrad

Admissions committees always downplay the impact of the rankings on their decisions, so that is hardly surprising. Would you have expected her to say "Yes, we expect a big jump thanks to the change in the way a magazine calculates it's rankings"?

The fact of the matter is that they could afford to be more "unpredictable" in years past because PT numbers were largely (or completely) ignored by the rankings. We've already seen some "surprising" waitlists, and I wouldn't be shocked if that sort of selectivity soon becomes more the norm than the exception.

On the upside, pt progs have been notoriously horrible about scholly $, thinking working folk can pay - that's why they lower stats to accept - let more in to make more $ for the main prog. But after the usnews thing last year, in june I got almost a full-ride offer to a pt - the fin aid person sounded shocked when discussing it. So maybe gulc will woo higher number with $

Um, I happen to be open to that...

Though it seems there are a bunch of 168's who ap'd this year (myself included)

AngryAvocado wrote:

mellifluouslyso wrote:

AngryAvocado wrote:Not to be a Debbie Downer, but I wouldn't put too much faith in that interview. G-town is on the threshold of the T14 at the moment, and something tells me they are pretty focused on retaining that spot. I'd be shocked if the PT numbers didn't increase substantially this year.

I'm not so sure - while speaking with Caroline Springer at a law school forum she told me that they do not expect to increase their medians for PT admissions this year despite the new ranking method. In hopes of getting a fee waiver I had mentioned my numbers (75% LSAT, median GPA for FT) so I don't see what motivation she would have to deny that the PT division might be more competitive this year.

From what I've seen on past threads it seems that G-town has always been a bit unpredictable with PT admissions - possibly more likely to accept working individuals with slightly lower numbers than those straight out of undergrad

Admissions committees always downplay the impact of the rankings on their decisions, so that is hardly surprising. Would you have expected her to say "Yes, we expect a big jump thanks to the change in the way a magazine calculates it's rankings"?

The fact of the matter is that they could afford to be more "unpredictable" in years past because PT numbers were largely (or completely) ignored by the rankings. We've already seen some "surprising" waitlists, and I wouldn't be shocked if that sort of selectivity soon becomes more the norm than the exception.

I don't know - she initiated the numbers talk with PT medians, I mentioned my numbers, then she said they still expect the same medians this year. Granted, you can't blindly believe what someone from admissions says at those kind of events but I don't see why she would hold back from saying it would be more competitive.

Time to analyze this (I know some of you will say I am reading too far into things, but then do yourself a favor and skip this post!):

As someone correctly pointed out, they need to have applicants who are willing and ready to accept PT offers if the admissions committee is ever to raise its medians for the PT program. This might be possible if the PT applicant pool is bigger and more competitive this year than in years past. However, if this logic were true, then we'd have expected the 168/3.5 person to be in with a very high likelihood. Problem is, this person, and others with similar numbers, were waitlisted.

Other reasons aside, this brings us to another, and arguably more plausible, possibility: Since the whole point of raising the PT medians in the first place is to adapt to USNWR's new system, then what is the point in only raising the PT medians by a little bit? In order to make any difference to the school's combined medians at all, Georgetown would have to adjust the PT program so that at least one of its medians is equal to, if not better than, the FT medians. Think about it.

Yet this brings us to another possibility: An alternative way to adjust the PT medians so that they impact the combined medians is to dramatically shrink the size of the PT program. By doing this, they don't have to adjust the numbers at all, but rather they can just minimize the number of matriculants so that the combined school medians are located at people in the FT program who have higher GPA/LSAT numbers than is currently the case.

To me, the last possibility is most likely going to be reality. If this is the case, then I can share two predictions with nearly perfect certainty:

1) The size of the PT program will not increase this year (duh!), and it will likely decrease.
2) The GPA and LSAT needed to be accepted at the PT program will be higher, despite the Dean's assertion to the contrary.

Got a call for an interview today; I'm doing it on Tuesday. Still unsure of why they wanna interview me, but we shall see...

[quote="goodolgil"]Got a call for an interview today; I'm doing it on Tuesday. Still unsure of why they wanna interview me, but we shall see...[/quot

goooooood luck.

Sorry, but there is one more possibility: Given Georgetown's 1L class size, it is entirely possible that combining the PT program with the FT program did NOTHING to impact the combined medians anyway. It could be the case that Georgetown's upper half is so clustered around its medians that adding in 130 or so people with sub-median numbers did nothing to "pull down" the combined school median.

If this were the case, then the 168/3.5 person should have been admitted outright (weak soft factors, severe criminal offenses, etc. notwithstanding).

-HL

Hopefullawstudent wrote:Time to analyze this (I know some of you will say I am reading too far into things, but then do yourself a favor and skip this post!):

As someone correctly pointed out, they need to have applicants who are willing and ready to accept PT offers if the admissions committee is ever to raise its medians for the PT program. This might be possible if the PT applicant pool is bigger and more competitive this year than in years past. However, if this logic were true, then we'd have expected the 168/3.5 person to be in with a very high likelihood. Problem is, this person, and others with similar numbers, were waitlisted.

Other reasons aside, this brings us to another, and arguably more plausible, possibility: Since the whole point of raising the PT medians in the first place is to adapt to USNWR's new system, then what is the point in only raising the PT medians by a little bit? In order to make any difference to the school's combined medians at all, Georgetown would have to adjust the PT program so that at least one of its medians is equal to, if not better than, the FT medians. Think about it.

Yet this brings us to another possibility: An alternative way to adjust the PT medians so that they impact the combined medians is to dramatically shrink the size of the PT program. By doing this, they don't have to adjust the numbers at all, but rather they can just minimize the number of matriculants so that the combined school medians are located at people in the FT program who have higher GPA/LSAT numbers than is currently the case.

To me, the last possibility is most likely going to be reality. If this is the case, then I can share two predictions with nearly perfect certainty:

1) The size of the PT program will not increase this year (duh!), and it will likely decrease.
2) The GPA and LSAT needed to be accepted at the PT program will be higher, despite the Dean's assertion to the contrary.

I stopped reading after the bolded. How does the fact that people with high numbers got waitlisted suggest that the logic isn't true? If anything, that supports the case.