Top Law Schools

DR 12/14 was EAC 11/13. I have a question for all of you who have called in. Someone is going to call the Admissions office for me tomorrow at 8 AM - that's when they open right?

This person is wondering if any other information besides your name is necessary. Do they need you LSAC #? I really appreciate it.

DR 12/14 EAC 11/19 171 3.2

Wonder if I'll call...what if they keep a log of all the people who call before 10 days and ding the waitlisters? haha

edit, corrected eac date

krispykitten wrote:
--ImageRemoved--


i love you anyway

Haha I actually didn't make that one, but shame on me for posting it without seeing the foul apostrophe.

Burger in a can wrote:

krispykitten wrote:
--ImageRemoved--


i love you anyway

Haha I actually didn't make that one, but shame on me for posting it without seeing the foul apostrophe.

It's ok, I'll do my best to forgive you

billyez wrote:DR 12/14 was EAC 11/13. I have a question for all of you who have called in. Someone is going to call the Admissions office for me tomorrow at 8 AM - that's when they open right?

This person is wondering if any other information besides your name is necessary. Do they need you LSAC #? I really appreciate it.

nope- they just ask for your name. they are pretty nice about it thankfully.

Thanks.

TruckerD wrote:MrsTrucker: Hey all, got a question. D and I are going to be out of the state from next week till after the new year. He hasn't gone DR, but since he is EA, would it be out of line for him to call on Friday to see if they have reached a decision?

anyone?

TruckerD wrote:

TruckerD wrote:MrsTrucker: Hey all, got a question. D and I are going to be out of the state from next week till after the new year. He hasn't gone DR, but since he is EA, would it be out of line for him to call on Friday to see if they have reached a decision?

anyone?

Go for it-- I can't imagine it'll be a problem.

krispykitten wrote:

TruckerD wrote:

TruckerD wrote:MrsTrucker: Hey all, got a question. D and I are going to be out of the state from next week till after the new year. He hasn't gone DR, but since he is EA, would it be out of line for him to call on Friday to see if they have reached a decision?

anyone?

Go for it-- I can't imagine it'll be a problem.

MrsTrucker: Thank you Krispy. Now, I just have to convince D that it's okay.

Damn they really held onto all their splitter apps till the last minute didn't they? There's nothing to compare myself to on LSN except a couple holds.

The precedent has been set that it's okay to e-mail them for a decision if your not going to be at your address. Someone here already told them they wouldn't be at their mailing address and they got a PDF e-mailed instead.

EAC November 18. Just went DR 12/14. ~170/~3.8

billyez wrote:The precedent has been set that it's okay to e-mail them for a decision if your not going to be at your address. Someone here already told them they wouldn't be at their mailing address and they got a PDF e-mailed instead.

Yes, this was me. However, I didn't ask for my decision, just asked that they send my letter home instead of school.

That being said, I'm sure they will tell you your decision if you explain to them that you will not be able to receive your letter.

People are to be talking about how Cornell was mean to 168s last year and how 168 is so terrible for Cornell, but, it's Cornell's 75%. Last year, only 25% of people who matriculated had a 168 or more on the LSAT. Is that not the case?

DR 12/14. Previously EAC 10/28.

Based on the negativity surrounding the 168s from last year I checked my status with a frown on my face and am currently frowning. I am nervous sure, but the best I can hope for is a WL apparently, right? So FML.

Goodnight!

-HL

Chrysander wrote:People are to be talking about how Cornell was mean to 168s last year and how 168 is so terrible for Cornell, but, it's Cornell's 75%. Last year, only 25% of people who matriculated had a 168 or more on the LSAT. Is that not the case?

The full official statistics of Cornell's cycle last year also means that around 50% of Cornell's admits had an LSAT of 166 or 167. However, LSN stats (and the graph) don't reflect what actually happened last year.

Well that's fine, but the fact remains that most admits to Cornell did not have an LSAT higher than 168. Therefore, while Cornell may be placing many 168s on reserve, the inference must be made that they will be drawing heavily on their reserve list. Obviously they want to increase their numbers and their best bet is to admit those who improve their numbers significantly, hope people accept, and then as people decline or it becomes clear to them that their class will not be filled with 170s and whatnot, then they turn to the list they knew they'd ultimately be drawing heavily upon.

TWoodWil wrote:

Chrysander wrote:People are to be talking about how Cornell was mean to 168s last year and how 168 is so terrible for Cornell, but, it's Cornell's 75%. Last year, only 25% of people who matriculated had a 168 or more on the LSAT. Is that not the case?

The full official statistics of Cornell's cycle last year also means that around 50% of Cornell's admits had an LSAT of 166 or 167. However, LSN stats (and the graph) don't reflect what actually happened last year.

Yeah, I'm thinking they're waiting to decide on the 167's till the very end... which could make for an interesting Christmas. Has anyone been waitlisted, or are they just holding people?

Chrysander wrote:Well that's fine, but the fact remains that most admits to Cornell did not have an LSAT higher than 168. Therefore, while Cornell may be placing many 168s on reserve, the inference must be made that they will be drawing heavily on their reserve list. Obviously they want to increase their numbers and their best bet is to admit those who improve their numbers significantly, hope people accept, and then as people decline or it becomes clear to them that their class will not be filled with 170s and whatnot, then they turn to the list they knew they'd ultimately be drawing heavily upon.

I'm interested in this. How do you know that most of Cornell's admits did not have an LSAT higher than a 168? Is there a table or "grid" that demonstrates this?

I was under the impression that the majority of Cornell's admits would have LSATs higher than 168, but that at least 51 percent of its marticulants had an LSAT score of 167 or lower.

Please clarify?

ksumi wrote:

TWoodWil wrote:

Chrysander wrote:People are to be talking about how Cornell was mean to 168s last year and how 168 is so terrible for Cornell, but, it's Cornell's 75%. Last year, only 25% of people who matriculated had a 168 or more on the LSAT. Is that not the case?

The full official statistics of Cornell's cycle last year also means that around 50% of Cornell's admits had an LSAT of 166 or 167. However, LSN stats (and the graph) don't reflect what actually happened last year.

Yeah, I'm thinking they're waiting to decide on the 167's till the very end... which could make for an interesting Christmas. Has anyone been waitlisted, or are they just holding people?

so my 164/4.0 is an auto reject?

Apologies. I meant matriculants. If you go to LSAC they post all the results.

My status says decision on 12/14. I intend to remain in control of my emotions and just await the letter.

Good luck to everyone who went DR last night! (off the top of my head: krispy, dignan, irishman, cougarlive, aetennis, clint, billy, beef dubs, person with sunflowers, HL, and the dude above me with the creepy Obama vulcan pic)

Still manning Fort 11/13. I don't expect to get in and would be happy with a WL, but jeez Cornell! Why not just wait until xmas day to really make it sting?!

badwithpseudonyms wrote:Good luck to everyone who went DR last night!

+1. Fingers crossed for you at 8 AM, and for the admissions office lady who is facing a flood of phone calls at that hour.

T-minus thirty minutes before 7:00 AM when the Cornell offices open on my part of the country. I believe New York is an hour ahead of Texas.

Oh, darlin', please love me as I love you.