michigan 2010 applicants Forum

[holborn]

what's the likelihood that michigan would YP someone who wrote a why michigan? not that i'm saying they'll YP me becuase i'm not above their 75th for GPA, but just in general...

I worry about that too! We seem to have the same LSAT score. Hence why I'm asking so many questions about the Why Michigan essay...

[hopefulincal]

No worries if your status checker date changes and you can't get into the site--the date updates every day (except for Sunday, I believe). Anyways, the date means nothing, so no worries!

Thanks for the info and kind words. People on TLS have been so helpful during this whole nerve-wrecking process.

[irie]

question to those who wrote the Why Michigan essay:

Did you focus on why you wanted Michigan, why michigan should want you, or give equal weight to both? I'm having trouble finding the right balance. Especially because I have so many things to say about why I love Michigan.

I wrote about why I want Michigan, but focused on what about Michigan makes is perfect for me. Match made in heaven and all that...

I think if you just gush about how awesome it is from an objective standpoint it just sounds like ass-kissing, and could be taken straight from their website. Better to make it personal.

i reenacted the "You Complete Me" scene from Jerry Maguire and sent it to Dean Z. on a dvd one day after applications began. i still can not log in to the accepted students site. my life is average.

[gahthelaw]

what's the likelihood that michigan would YP someone who wrote a why michigan? not that i'm saying they'll YP me becuase i'm not above their 75th for GPA, but just in general...

I worry about that too! We seem to have the same LSAT score. Hence why I'm asking so many questions about the Why Michigan essay...

mine was basically 'michigan is great for me becuase michigan is great with these things that i like a lot.' my understanding was always that it isn't so much what you put into the why X essays that matters so much as that you took the time to write them. a highly ranked and well respected law school has an inkling of why you want to go there anyway.

[crackberry]

I'm going to get ridiculed for this, but whatever, here goes.

Here's a novel idea that Michigan's machinations have given the most credence to thus far (though Harvard has done the same to a lesser extent): this is less of a numbers game than people on TLS are even remotely willing to consider. Sure, you're not getting into good schools with a 150, 2.0, but your numbers can't make you an "auto-admit" unless they are seriously really high (177+, 3.9+).

We've seen Michigan admit people of the same ethnic and (presumably) socioeconomic background who applied at all different dates with scores that range from 167-179 and 3.5-4.0. (Harvard has also interviewed plenty of kids with LSATs at or below their 25th LSAT and neglected to interview a bunch who are at or above median.) So sure, schools probably have unofficial "cut-offs," but if you're above the cut-off, other stuff (resume, life experience, LORs, PS, Why X) really do matter. I understand that schools care about their rankings — and I'm not saying that numbers are unimportant or even that they aren't the most important factor — but I think everyone on this site devalues other "soft" factors too much. (And given that TLS puts virtually no weight on softs, this isn't saying much.)

Put it this way: If I were an adcomm, I'd be way, way more interested in someone with a 3.8, 170 who has actually done things with his life, taken a few years off from UG to get some actual experience and perspective, has great recommendations, proves himself to be a great writer and shows some leadership skills than I would in a 4.0, 175 coming straight from UG who clearly spends all his time in the library and never got to know his professors or get involved with anything but his own schoolwork. The first example is an interesting person. The second is a lifeless machine.

I could clearly be wrong, but people seem to be so flabbergasted that others with slightly lower numbers are getting in ahead of them. This would seem to be a viable explanation.

[holborn]

I'm going to get ridiculed for this, but whatever, here goes.

Here's a novel idea that Michigan's machinations have given the most credence to thus far (though Harvard has done the same to a lesser extent): this is less of a numbers game than people on TLS are even remotely willing to consider. Sure, you're not getting into good schools with a 150, 2.0, but your numbers can't make you an "auto-admit" unless they are seriously really high (177+, 3.9+).

We've seen Michigan admit people of the same ethnic and (presumably) socioeconomic background who applied at all different dates with scores that range from 167-179 and 3.5-4.0. (Harvard has also interviewed plenty of kids with LSATs at or below their 25th LSAT and neglected to interview a bunch who are at or above median.) So sure, schools probably have unofficial "cut-offs," but if you're above the cut-off, other stuff (resume, life experience, LORs, PS, Why X) really do matter. I understand that schools care about their rankings — and I'm not saying that numbers are unimportant or even that they aren't the most important factor — but I think everyone on this site devalues other "soft" factors too much. (And given that TLS puts virtually no weight on softs, this isn't saying much.)

Put it this way: If I were an adcomm, I'd be way, way more interested in someone with a 3.8, 170 who has actually done things with his life, taken a few years off from UG to get some actual experience and perspective, has great recommendations, proves himself to be a great writer and shows some leadership skills than I would in a 4.0, 175 coming straight from UG who clearly spends all his time in the library and never got to know his professors or get involved with anything but his own schoolwork. The first example is an interesting person. The second is a lifeless machine.

I could clearly be wrong, but people seem to be so flabbergasted that others with slightly lower numbers are getting in ahead of them. This would seem to be a viable explanation.

+1

[irie]

The first example is an interesting person. The second is a lifeless machine.

I could clearly be wrong, but people seem to be so flabbergasted that others with slightly lower numbers are getting in ahead of them. This would seem to be a viable explanation.

but lifeless machines are the ones that make order of the coif, law review, and go on to become big swing dick rainmakers. half the partners in my firm are lifeless machines

[Kretzy]

I'm going to get ridiculed for this, but whatever, here goes.

Here's a novel idea that Michigan's machinations have given the most credence to thus far (though Harvard has done the same to a lesser extent): this is less of a numbers game than people on TLS are even remotely willing to consider. Sure, you're not getting into good schools with a 150, 2.0, but your numbers can't make you an "auto-admit" unless they are seriously really high (177+, 3.9+).

We've seen Michigan admit people of the same ethnic and (presumably) socioeconomic background who applied at all different dates with scores that range from 167-179 and 3.5-4.0. (Harvard has also interviewed plenty of kids with LSATs at or below their 25th LSAT and neglected to interview a bunch who are at or above median.) So sure, schools probably have unofficial "cut-offs," but if you're above the cut-off, other stuff (resume, life experience, LORs, PS, Why X) really do matter. I understand that schools care about their rankings — and I'm not saying that numbers are unimportant or even that they are the most important factor — but I think everyone on this site devalues other "soft" factors too much. (And given that TLS puts virtually no weight on softs, this isn't saying much.)

Put it this way: If I were an adcomm, I'd be way, way more interested in someone with a 3.8, 170 who has actually done things with his life, taken a few years off from UG to get some actual experience and perspective, has great recommendations, proves himself to be a great writer and shows some leadership skills than I would in a 4.0, 175 coming straight from UG who clearly spends all his time in the library and never got to know his professors or get involved with anything but his own schoolwork. The first example is an interesting person. The second is a lifeless machine.

I could clearly be wrong, but people seem to be so flabbergasted that others with slightly lower numbers are getting in ahead of them. This would seem to be a viable explanation.

I actually hope this is true, and think that for a lot of schools (Michigan and UVA included) you're very right.

[owhlcn]

I'm going to get ridiculed for this, but whatever, here goes.

Here's a novel idea that Michigan's machinations have given the most credence to thus far (though Harvard has done the same to a lesser extent): this is less of a numbers game than people on TLS are even remotely willing to consider. Sure, you're not getting into good schools with a 150, 2.0, but your numbers can't make you an "auto-admit" unless they are seriously really high (177+, 3.9+).

We've seen Michigan admit people of the same ethnic and (presumably) socioeconomic background who applied at all different dates with scores that range from 167-179 and 3.5-4.0. (Harvard has also interviewed plenty of kids with LSATs at or below their 25th LSAT and neglected to interview a bunch who are at or above median.) So sure, schools probably have unofficial "cut-offs," but if you're above the cut-off, other stuff (resume, life experience, LORs, PS, Why X) really do matter. I understand that schools care about their rankings — and I'm not saying that numbers are unimportant or even that they aren't the most important factor — but I think everyone on this site devalues other "soft" factors too much. (And given that TLS puts virtually no weight on softs, this isn't saying much.)

Put it this way: If I were an adcomm, I'd be way, way more interested in someone with a 3.8, 170 who has actually done things with his life, taken a few years off from UG to get some actual experience and perspective, has great recommendations, proves himself to be a great writer and shows some leadership skills than I would in a 4.0, 175 coming straight from UG who clearly spends all his time in the library and never got to know his professors or get involved with anything but his own schoolwork. The first example is an interesting person. The second is a lifeless machine.

I could clearly be wrong, but people seem to be so flabbergasted that others with slightly lower numbers are getting in ahead of them. This would seem to be a viable explanation.

+1

+ a lot, #s are important but so is everything else about a person

[gossipgirl]

I'm going to get ridiculed for this, but whatever, here goes.

Here's a novel idea that Michigan's machinations have given the most credence to thus far (though Harvard has done the same to a lesser extent): this is less of a numbers game than people on TLS are even remotely willing to consider. Sure, you're not getting into good schools with a 150, 2.0, but your numbers can't make you an "auto-admit" unless they are seriously really high (177+, 3.9+).

We've seen Michigan admit people of the same ethnic and (presumably) socioeconomic background who applied at all different dates with scores that range from 167-179 and 3.5-4.0. (Harvard has also interviewed plenty of kids with LSATs at or below their 25th LSAT and neglected to interview a bunch who are at or above median.) So sure, schools probably have unofficial "cut-offs," but if you're above the cut-off, other stuff (resume, life experience, LORs, PS, Why X) really do matter. I understand that schools care about their rankings — and I'm not saying that numbers are unimportant or even that they aren't the most important factor — but I think everyone on this site devalues other "soft" factors too much. (And given that TLS puts virtually no weight on softs, this isn't saying much.)

Put it this way: If I were an adcomm, I'd be way, way more interested in someone with a 3.8, 170 who has actually done things with his life, taken a few years off from UG to get some actual experience and perspective, has great recommendations, proves himself to be a great writer and shows some leadership skills than I would in a 4.0, 175 coming straight from UG who clearly spends all his time in the library and never got to know his professors or get involved with anything but his own schoolwork. The first example is an interesting person. The second is a lifeless machine.

I could clearly be wrong, but people seem to be so flabbergasted that others with slightly lower numbers are getting in ahead of them. This would seem to be a viable explanation.

This could be true, but I have a few problems with it:

1) Your assumption is that in this higher tier that Michigan has to choose from, there are enough candidates that they can admit only those that have superior "other" factors.
2) You also assume that the number of "other" factors candidates is also high; I'm not sure we have any reason to believe this is true.
3) You assume that many of the people on TLS complaining about not getting in over lower scorers are the types who stay in the library and do nothing. From my experience in UG, it's actually true that the higher scorers are also the ones that do more on campus; the notion that high scorers are stuck up in the library is a misguided belief only applicable to a small number of high scoring students.

Now, could it be true that softs are more important than TLS thinks? Certainly, but not to the extent your post implies.

[NancyBotwin]

I'm going to get ridiculed for this, but whatever, here goes.

Here's a novel idea that Michigan's machinations have given the most credence to thus far (though Harvard has done the same to a lesser extent): this is less of a numbers game than people on TLS are even remotely willing to consider. Sure, you're not getting into good schools with a 150, 2.0, but your numbers can't make you an "auto-admit" unless they are seriously really high (177+, 3.9+).

We've seen Michigan admit people of the same ethnic and (presumably) socioeconomic background who applied at all different dates with scores that range from 167-179 and 3.5-4.0. (Harvard has also interviewed plenty of kids with LSATs at or below their 25th LSAT and neglected to interview a bunch who are at or above median.) So sure, schools probably have unofficial "cut-offs," but if you're above the cut-off, other stuff (resume, life experience, LORs, PS, Why X) really do matter. I understand that schools care about their rankings — and I'm not saying that numbers are unimportant or even that they aren't the most important factor — but I think everyone on this site devalues other "soft" factors too much. (And given that TLS puts virtually no weight on softs, this isn't saying much.)

Put it this way: If I were an adcomm, I'd be way, way more interested in someone with a 3.8, 170 who has actually done things with his life, taken a few years off from UG to get some actual experience and perspective, has great recommendations, proves himself to be a great writer and shows some leadership skills than I would in a 4.0, 175 coming straight from UG who clearly spends all his time in the library and never got to know his professors or get involved with anything but his own schoolwork. The first example is an interesting person. The second is a lifeless machine.

I could clearly be wrong, but people seem to be so flabbergasted that others with slightly lower numbers are getting in ahead of them. This would seem to be a viable explanation.

+1

+ a lot, #s are important but so is everything else about a person

+1. Look at this person. From her numbers alone she shouldn't have gotten in to the schools she did, so softs must count for something:

http://lawschoolnumbers.com/mightyaphrodite

[Jay-Electronica]

I'm going to get ridiculed for this, but whatever, here goes.

Here's a novel idea that Michigan's machinations have given the most credence to thus far (though Harvard has done the same to a lesser extent): this is less of a numbers game than people on TLS are even remotely willing to consider. Sure, you're not getting into good schools with a 150, 2.0, but your numbers can't make you an "auto-admit" unless they are seriously really high (177+, 3.9+).

We've seen Michigan admit people of the same ethnic and (presumably) socioeconomic background who applied at all different dates with scores that range from 167-179 and 3.5-4.0. (Harvard has also interviewed plenty of kids with LSATs at or below their 25th LSAT and neglected to interview a bunch who are at or above median.) So sure, schools probably have unofficial "cut-offs," but if you're above the cut-off, other stuff (resume, life experience, LORs, PS, Why X) really do matter. I understand that schools care about their rankings — and I'm not saying that numbers are unimportant or even that they aren't the most important factor — but I think everyone on this site devalues other "soft" factors too much. (And given that TLS puts virtually no weight on softs, this isn't saying much.)

Put it this way: If I were an adcomm, I'd be way, way more interested in someone with a 3.8, 170 who has actually done things with his life, taken a few years off from UG to get some actual experience and perspective, has great recommendations, proves himself to be a great writer and shows some leadership skills than I would in a 4.0, 175 coming straight from UG who clearly spends all his time in the library and never got to know his professors or get involved with anything but his own schoolwork. The first example is an interesting person. The second is a lifeless machine.

I could clearly be wrong, but people seem to be so flabbergasted that others with slightly lower numbers are getting in ahead of them. This would seem to be a viable explanation.

+1

+ a lot, #s are important but so is everything else about a person

+1
Very refreshing to hear. I have the same mindset, TLS definitely devalues softs too much.

[crackberry]

+1. Look at this person. From her numbers alone she shouldn't have gotten in to the schools she did, so softs must count for something:

http://lawschoolnumbers.com/mightyaphrodite

Well I think mightyaphrodite was URM but I could be mistaken.

[crackberry]

I actually hope this is true, and think that for a lot of schools (Michigan and UVA included) you're very right.

Yeah it better be true. I'd much rather be surrounded by interesting people who got 10 questions wrong on the LSAT than by so-called "gunners" who got 5 wrong. Also, there are times when I think I am the sole reason New Belgium is as successful as it is.

[crackberry]

The first example is an interesting person. The second is a lifeless machine.

I could clearly be wrong, but people seem to be so flabbergasted that others with slightly lower numbers are getting in ahead of them. This would seem to be a viable explanation.

but lifeless machines are the ones that make order of the coif, law review, and go on to become big swing dick rainmakers. half the partners in my firm are lifeless machines

And interesting people are the ones that go on to change the world. Hence why schools like Stanford and Yale are such "black boxes." (Of course on TLS, the definition of "black box" is: a school that doesn't admit solely based on numbers."

[gahthelaw]

I'm going to get ridiculed for this, but whatever, here goes.

Here's a novel idea that Michigan's machinations have given the most credence to thus far (though Harvard has done the same to a lesser extent): this is less of a numbers game than people on TLS are even remotely willing to consider. Sure, you're not getting into good schools with a 150, 2.0, but your numbers can't make you an "auto-admit" unless they are seriously really high (177+, 3.9+).

We've seen Michigan admit people of the same ethnic and (presumably) socioeconomic background who applied at all different dates with scores that range from 167-179 and 3.5-4.0. (Harvard has also interviewed plenty of kids with LSATs at or below their 25th LSAT and neglected to interview a bunch who are at or above median.) So sure, schools probably have unofficial "cut-offs," but if you're above the cut-off, other stuff (resume, life experience, LORs, PS, Why X) really do matter. I understand that schools care about their rankings — and I'm not saying that numbers are unimportant or even that they aren't the most important factor — but I think everyone on this site devalues other "soft" factors too much. (And given that TLS puts virtually no weight on softs, this isn't saying much.)

Put it this way: If I were an adcomm, I'd be way, way more interested in someone with a 3.8, 170 who has actually done things with his life, taken a few years off from UG to get some actual experience and perspective, has great recommendations, proves himself to be a great writer and shows some leadership skills than I would in a 4.0, 175 coming straight from UG who clearly spends all his time in the library and never got to know his professors or get involved with anything but his own schoolwork. The first example is an interesting person. The second is a lifeless machine.

I could clearly be wrong, but people seem to be so flabbergasted that others with slightly lower numbers are getting in ahead of them. This would seem to be a viable explanation.

i would love for this to be true, because it would give me a way better shot than my numbers would suggest at places where i'm borderline.

i think a lot of it is that some of us (of course, naively, because we don't really know anything about admissions) thought we had a good enough package overall, as both people and data points, to be in somewhere in that first group of qualified, fairly interesting people for certain schools. and then there's just good old fashioned neuroses!

(at least for me it's completely making me nervous that all the stuff i thought was cool and interesting is actually neither and making me want to seize my apps back from all the T6s I applied to before i become the butt of a running joke among the academic elite.)

[crackberry]

This could be true, but I have a few problems with it:

1) Your assumption is that in this higher tier that Michigan has to choose from, there are enough candidates that they can admit only those that have superior "other" factors.
2) You also assume that the number of "other" factors candidates is also high; I'm not sure we have any reason to believe this is true.
3) You assume that many of the people on TLS complaining about not getting in over lower scorers are the types who stay in the library and do nothing. From my experience in UG, it's actually true that the higher scorers are also the ones that do more on campus; the notion that high scorers are stuck up in the library is a misguided belief only applicable to a small number of high scoring students.

Now, could it be true that softs are more important than TLS thinks? Certainly, but not to the extent your post implies.

Point taken, but I'm not saying that the high numbers kids won't eventually get in. In fact, they probably will, but a greater consideration of "soft" factors could be the reason that people with lower scores also get in. My point is that when people think the sky is falling because someone with an LSAT score a couple points below theirs got in, they should take a step back and realize that one's LSAT score (and GPA) are not the sole criteria by which admissions decisions are made.

[owhlcn]

This could be true, but I have a few problems with it:

1) Your assumption is that in this higher tier that Michigan has to choose from, there are enough candidates that they can admit only those that have superior "other" factors.
2) You also assume that the number of "other" factors candidates is also high; I'm not sure we have any reason to believe this is true.
3) You assume that many of the people on TLS complaining about not getting in over lower scorers are the types who stay in the library and do nothing. From my experience in UG, it's actually true that the higher scorers are also the ones that do more on campus; the notion that high scorers are stuck up in the library is a misguided belief only applicable to a small number of high scoring students.

Now, could it be true that softs are more important than TLS thinks? Certainly, but not to the extent your post implies.

Point taken, but I'm not saying that the high numbers kids won't eventually get in. In fact, they probably will, but a greater consideration of "soft" factors could be the reason that people with lower scores also get in. My point is that when people think the sky is falling because someone with an LSAT score a couple points below theirs got in, they should take a step back and realize that one's LSAT score (and GPA) are not the sole criteria by which admissions decisions are made.

amen crackberry

[owhlcn]

also, is it killing anyone else that the word "decision" is always on the status checker page right above "complete"? every time i log in and see "regular decision" my heart stops a little bit and then i realize i'm an idiot.

[protokurios]

also, is it killing anyone else that the word "decision" is always on the status checker page right above "complete"? every time i log in and see "regular decision" my heart stops a little bit and then i realize i'm an idiot.

+1

[annabell]

How long after submission did it take people to:
(a) get a complete email? Do they do these?
(b) get the status checker email?

I applied at the start of November (early first week) and haven't gotten anything other than a received email. Is this normal?

[NancyBotwin]

How long after submission did it take people to:
(a) get a complete email? Do they do these?
(b) get the status checker email?

I applied at the start of November (early first week) and haven't gotten anything other than a received email. Is this normal?

Yup. I'm in the same boat.

[owhlcn]

How long after submission did it take people to:
(a) get a complete email? Do they do these?
(b) get the status checker email?

I applied at the start of November (early first week) and haven't gotten anything other than a received email. Is this normal?

yeah, totally normal. mich doesn't do a complete email, it's just the received email and then 2-3 weeks later a status checker. i was received on 11/3 and didn't get a checker till 11/19.

[Lincoln]

How long after submission did it take people to:
(a) get a complete email? Do they do these?
(b) get the status checker email?

I applied at the start of November (early first week) and haven't gotten anything other than a received email. Is this normal?

Yup. I'm in the same boat.

I'm a week behind you, but yeah.

[mugwump]

Same here...awaiting the status checker.