BU! woot.

Share Your Experiences, Read About Other Experiences. Please keep posts organized by school and expected year of graduation.
User avatar
burtonrideclub
Posts: 165
Joined: Mon Mar 03, 2008 6:10 pm

Re: BU! woot.

Postby burtonrideclub » Tue Dec 22, 2009 12:15 pm

Just accepted by phone call. 166, 3.5. Non-URM

tram988
Posts: 1161
Joined: Mon Aug 14, 2006 12:51 pm

Re: BU! woot.

Postby tram988 » Tue Dec 22, 2009 12:16 pm

burtonrideclub wrote:Just accepted by phone call. 166, 3.5. Non-URM

Congrats! Yay they are calling today!!!

finalaspects
Posts: 1866
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 12:21 am

Re: BU! woot.

Postby finalaspects » Tue Dec 22, 2009 12:18 pm

did ANY splitters get a call?????

User avatar
NancyBotwin
Posts: 1085
Joined: Wed Jun 10, 2009 5:43 pm

Re: BU! woot.

Postby NancyBotwin » Tue Dec 22, 2009 12:19 pm

finalaspects wrote:did ANY splitters get a call?????


No, they haven't touched us yet - except a couple people above 3.3:

http://bu.lawschoolnumbers.com/applicants/0910/?lsat2=180&lsatR=true&lsat1=167&lgpa1=1.00&lgpa2=3.40&status=3,4,5,6,7,8&type=jd&sort=gpa_lsdas

User avatar
UFMatt
Posts: 404
Joined: Sun Jul 26, 2009 2:59 pm

Re: BU! woot.

Postby UFMatt » Tue Dec 22, 2009 12:21 pm

finalaspects wrote:did ANY splitters get a call?????


I got the call last week, and I'm a splitter (i.e. LSAT > 75, GPA <25). I don't have a public LSN profile, but my GPA seems to be right at the cutoff of people in so far.
Last edited by UFMatt on Tue Dec 22, 2009 12:23 pm, edited 1 time in total.

MissLucky
Posts: 903
Joined: Mon Sep 21, 2009 4:48 pm

Re: BU! woot.

Postby MissLucky » Tue Dec 22, 2009 12:22 pm

burtonrideclub wrote:Just accepted by phone call. 166, 3.5. Non-URM


CONGRATS! complete date?

User avatar
Kiersten1985
Posts: 784
Joined: Fri Jul 31, 2009 3:36 pm

Re: BU! woot.

Postby Kiersten1985 » Tue Dec 22, 2009 12:25 pm

UFMatt wrote:
finalaspects wrote:did ANY splitters get a call?????


I got the call last week, and I'm a splitter (i.e. LSAT > 75, GPA <25). I don't have a public LSN profile, but my GPA seems to be right at the cutoff of people in so far.


/\ /\ /\

Reason why LSN cannot be used definitively.

finalaspects
Posts: 1866
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 12:21 am

Re: BU! woot.

Postby finalaspects » Tue Dec 22, 2009 12:25 pm

UFMatt wrote:
finalaspects wrote:did ANY splitters get a call?????


I got the call last week, and I'm a splitter (i.e. LSAT > 75, GPA <25). I don't have a public LSN profile, but my GPA seems to be right at the cutoff of people in so far.


guessing you have at least a 3.3 gpa?

User avatar
UFMatt
Posts: 404
Joined: Sun Jul 26, 2009 2:59 pm

Re: BU! woot.

Postby UFMatt » Tue Dec 22, 2009 12:32 pm

finalaspects wrote:
UFMatt wrote:
finalaspects wrote:did ANY splitters get a call?????


I got the call last week, and I'm a splitter (i.e. LSAT > 75, GPA <25). I don't have a public LSN profile, but my GPA seems to be right at the cutoff of people in so far.


guessing you have at least a 3.3 gpa?


Yeah, 3.3X.

jocelyne
Posts: 160
Joined: Tue Nov 11, 2008 4:15 am

Re: BU! woot.

Postby jocelyne » Tue Dec 22, 2009 12:39 pm

Do they mention scholly info when they call? Good luck guys and congratz to those who got in!

User avatar
DrGuano
Posts: 192
Joined: Thu Dec 17, 2009 1:13 pm

Re: BU! woot.

Postby DrGuano » Tue Dec 22, 2009 12:47 pm

tram988 wrote:
DrGuano wrote:
dms87 wrote:Via a practicing lawyer from Boston, he would take BC over BU; however, he is 40+, and what most here seem to be finding out is that the younger lawyers realize BU's quickly improving reputation. The guys in their 40s, though, are probably the ones becoming partner and controlling a lot of the higher now, no? I'm not intending to stir anything up, just sharing what I was told and trying to get opinions.


Partners do not control hiring at firms. The Chief Legal Recruiting Officer is responsible for these decisions and they are all up to date with the rankings/reputations of the schools they draw from. Partners get a chance to interview those going for associate positions and their input is critical, but the decision ultimately falls on the head of recruiting. The head of recruiting is also responsible for offering interviews. So in this instance unless BC is a feeder for a specific firm BU's better rank/numbers/rep would win out.

I absolutely disagree. If there are two students, one from BU and another from BC, with equivalent class rank, I dont think BU automatically takes precedence. These schools are roughly equal. Additionally, their LSAT median is both 166. BU's GPA median is .2 more than BC..not very significant. BU is a tad bit more national, with ties to NYC and California. BC is primarily Boston. If in the above example you were talking about the NYC or Cali market then that would be different.


This reminds me of the washington and lee v. william and mary debate. The schools are roughly equal but then comes lay prestige. Unfortunately, BC wins lay prestige hands down.

I dont want you to think im advocating BC here. I am trying to make an unbiased choice myself between these schools. It is just very difficult because they are so equivalent. For me its going to come down to "feel".


Sorry I mentioned earlier that I work in a top 10 firm in Manhattan. Strictly speaking from a NY perspective there. Based on my firm alone it would seem that either BU carries more recruiting weight for those looking for work outside Boston (10 BU associates, 3 partners to 2 BC associates, 0 partners).

User avatar
burtonrideclub
Posts: 165
Joined: Mon Mar 03, 2008 6:10 pm

Re: BU! woot.

Postby burtonrideclub » Tue Dec 22, 2009 12:49 pm

MissLucky wrote:
burtonrideclub wrote:Just accepted by phone call. 166, 3.5. Non-URM


CONGRATS! complete date?


Complete date 12/3

Burger in a can
Posts: 1116
Joined: Thu Sep 17, 2009 11:21 pm

Re: BU! woot.

Postby Burger in a can » Tue Dec 22, 2009 12:53 pm

DrGuano wrote:Sorry I mentioned earlier that I work in a top 10 firm in Manhattan. Strictly speaking from a NY perspective there. Based on my firm alone it would seem that either BU carries more recruiting weight for those looking for work outside Boston (10 BU associates, 3 partners to 2 BC associates, 0 partners).


All that information does is convince me that partners DO have a lot to do with the hiring process. In fact, being that there are 2 BC associates and no BC partners, I think BC looks more impressive than BU in this particular instance.

User avatar
DrGuano
Posts: 192
Joined: Thu Dec 17, 2009 1:13 pm

Re: BU! woot.

Postby DrGuano » Tue Dec 22, 2009 1:10 pm

Burger in a can wrote:
DrGuano wrote:Sorry I mentioned earlier that I work in a top 10 firm in Manhattan. Strictly speaking from a NY perspective there. Based on my firm alone it would seem that either BU carries more recruiting weight for those looking for work outside Boston (10 BU associates, 3 partners to 2 BC associates, 0 partners).


All that information does is convince me that partners DO have a lot to do with the hiring process. In fact, being that there are 2 BC associates and no BC partners, I think BC looks more impressive than BU in this particular instance.


There are also two Pace associates and 0 Pace partners. Not to knock Pace, but Pace is not more impressive than either of those schools.

Usually a low associate/non-existent partner tally at a top firm means not a high ranked school, but the associates did exceptionally well. I volunteered to help escort the summer associate interviewees from interview to interview around the office and legal recruiting would give us their resumes to make conversation. People coming from Pace/NY and other tier 2/3 schools were always in the top 5 of their class. So the low BC associate # is due to those two having exceptional GPAs/backgrounds.

tram988
Posts: 1161
Joined: Mon Aug 14, 2006 12:51 pm

Re: BU! woot.

Postby tram988 » Tue Dec 22, 2009 1:21 pm

DrGuano wrote:
tram988 wrote:
DrGuano wrote:
dms87 wrote:Via a practicing lawyer from Boston, he would take BC over BU; however, he is 40+, and what most here seem to be finding out is that the younger lawyers realize BU's quickly improving reputation. The guys in their 40s, though, are probably the ones becoming partner and controlling a lot of the higher now, no? I'm not intending to stir anything up, just sharing what I was told and trying to get opinions.


Partners do not control hiring at firms. The Chief Legal Recruiting Officer is responsible for these decisions and they are all up to date with the rankings/reputations of the schools they draw from. Partners get a chance to interview those going for associate positions and their input is critical, but the decision ultimately falls on the head of recruiting. The head of recruiting is also responsible for offering interviews. So in this instance unless BC is a feeder for a specific firm BU's better rank/numbers/rep would win out.

I absolutely disagree. If there are two students, one from BU and another from BC, with equivalent class rank, I dont think BU automatically takes precedence. These schools are roughly equal. Additionally, their LSAT median is both 166. BU's GPA median is .2 more than BC..not very significant. BU is a tad bit more national, with ties to NYC and California. BC is primarily Boston. If in the above example you were talking about the NYC or Cali market then that would be different.


This reminds me of the washington and lee v. william and mary debate. The schools are roughly equal but then comes lay prestige. Unfortunately, BC wins lay prestige hands down.

I dont want you to think im advocating BC here. I am trying to make an unbiased choice myself between these schools. It is just very difficult because they are so equivalent. For me its going to come down to "feel".


Sorry I mentioned earlier that I work in a top 10 firm in Manhattan. Strictly speaking from a NY perspective there. Based on my firm alone it would seem that either BU carries more recruiting weight for those looking for work outside Boston (10 BU associates, 3 partners to 2 BC associates, 0 partners).


Not a problem. I agree with BU being the better choice for the NYC market. We are on the same page :)

Burger in a can
Posts: 1116
Joined: Thu Sep 17, 2009 11:21 pm

Re: BU! woot.

Postby Burger in a can » Tue Dec 22, 2009 1:55 pm

DrGuano wrote:
Burger in a can wrote:
DrGuano wrote:Sorry I mentioned earlier that I work in a top 10 firm in Manhattan. Strictly speaking from a NY perspective there. Based on my firm alone it would seem that either BU carries more recruiting weight for those looking for work outside Boston (10 BU associates, 3 partners to 2 BC associates, 0 partners).


All that information does is convince me that partners DO have a lot to do with the hiring process. In fact, being that there are 2 BC associates and no BC partners, I think BC looks more impressive than BU in this particular instance.


There are also two Pace associates and 0 Pace partners. Not to knock Pace, but Pace is not more impressive than either of those schools.

Usually a low associate/non-existent partner tally at a top firm means not a high ranked school, but the associates did exceptionally well. I volunteered to help escort the summer associate interviewees from interview to interview around the office and legal recruiting would give us their resumes to make conversation. People coming from Pace/NY and other tier 2/3 schools were always in the top 5 of their class. So the low BC associate # is due to those two having exceptional GPAs/backgrounds.


I stand corrected! I still wonder what the situation would be like if there weren't any partners who went to BU though.

User avatar
OneKnight
Posts: 429
Joined: Fri Oct 16, 2009 9:00 pm

Re: BU! woot.

Postby OneKnight » Tue Dec 22, 2009 2:15 pm

jocelyne wrote:Do they mention scholly info when they call? Good luck guys and congratz to those who got in!


They didn't mention it because it comes in the admit package in the mail. That said, if I had been more steady of mind, I probably would have asked and they might have given me the info over the phone because they were super nice.

User avatar
DrGuano
Posts: 192
Joined: Thu Dec 17, 2009 1:13 pm

Re: BU! woot.

Postby DrGuano » Tue Dec 22, 2009 2:59 pm

Burger in a can wrote:
DrGuano wrote:
Burger in a can wrote:
DrGuano wrote:Sorry I mentioned earlier that I work in a top 10 firm in Manhattan. Strictly speaking from a NY perspective there. Based on my firm alone it would seem that either BU carries more recruiting weight for those looking for work outside Boston (10 BU associates, 3 partners to 2 BC associates, 0 partners).


All that information does is convince me that partners DO have a lot to do with the hiring process. In fact, being that there are 2 BC associates and no BC partners, I think BC looks more impressive than BU in this particular instance.


There are also two Pace associates and 0 Pace partners. Not to knock Pace, but Pace is not more impressive than either of those schools.

Usually a low associate/non-existent partner tally at a top firm means not a high ranked school, but the associates did exceptionally well. I volunteered to help escort the summer associate interviewees from interview to interview around the office and legal recruiting would give us their resumes to make conversation. People coming from Pace/NY and other tier 2/3 schools were always in the top 5 of their class. So the low BC associate # is due to those two having exceptional GPAs/backgrounds.


I stand corrected! I still wonder what the situation would be like if there weren't any partners who went to BU though.


Top 25 is a big deal at this firm despite the menial difference. I don't get it...but anyway, unless BC crosses that threshold I don't think it would make a difference.

User avatar
Kiersten1985
Posts: 784
Joined: Fri Jul 31, 2009 3:36 pm

Re: BU! woot.

Postby Kiersten1985 » Tue Dec 22, 2009 3:03 pm

DrGuano wrote:
Burger in a can wrote:
DrGuano wrote:Sorry I mentioned earlier that I work in a top 10 firm in Manhattan. Strictly speaking from a NY perspective there. Based on my firm alone it would seem that either BU carries more recruiting weight for those looking for work outside Boston (10 BU associates, 3 partners to 2 BC associates, 0 partners).


All that information does is convince me that partners DO have a lot to do with the hiring process. In fact, being that there are 2 BC associates and no BC partners, I think BC looks more impressive than BU in this particular instance.


I stand corrected! I still wonder what the situation would be like if there weren't any partners who went to BU though.


But I think the bigger point is that there are any BU partners there to begin with. Not just the fact that they have a hand in the hiring process.

Burger in a can
Posts: 1116
Joined: Thu Sep 17, 2009 11:21 pm

Re: BU! woot.

Postby Burger in a can » Tue Dec 22, 2009 3:09 pm

DrGuano wrote:Top 25 is a big deal at this firm despite the menial difference. I don't get it...but anyway, unless BC crosses that threshold I don't think it would make a difference.


Haha ok so if BC can manage to cross that giant threshold between T26 and T25, then your firm might give them a glance? What about the fact that BU didn't break T25, and was outranked by BC, until 2004? Those partners at your firm have only been there for about 5 years?
Last edited by Burger in a can on Tue Dec 22, 2009 3:11 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Pearalegal
Posts: 1433
Joined: Fri Jan 30, 2009 10:50 am

Re: BU! woot.

Postby Pearalegal » Tue Dec 22, 2009 3:11 pm

TLSers vastly overestimate the knowledge that hiring partners and committtes have about schools regarding ranking.

User avatar
H. E. Pennypacker
Posts: 1022
Joined: Thu Oct 15, 2009 2:26 pm

Re: BU! woot.

Postby H. E. Pennypacker » Tue Dec 22, 2009 3:12 pm

Burger in a can wrote:
DrGuano wrote:Top 25 is a big deal at this firm despite the menial difference. I don't get it...but anyway, unless BC crosses that threshold I don't think it would make a difference.


Haha ok so if BC can manage to cross that giant threshold between T26 and T25, then your firm might give them a glace? What about the fact that BU didn't break T25, and was outranked by BC, until 2004? Those partners at your firm have only been there for about 5 years?


Something tells me you'll be going out for your schools moot court team Burger....

Burger in a can
Posts: 1116
Joined: Thu Sep 17, 2009 11:21 pm

Re: BU! woot.

Postby Burger in a can » Tue Dec 22, 2009 3:21 pm

H. E. Pennypacker wrote:
Burger in a can wrote:
DrGuano wrote:Top 25 is a big deal at this firm despite the menial difference. I don't get it...but anyway, unless BC crosses that threshold I don't think it would make a difference.


Haha ok so if BC can manage to cross that giant threshold between T26 and T25, then your firm might give them a glace? What about the fact that BU didn't break T25, and was outranked by BC, until 2004? Those partners at your firm have only been there for about 5 years?


Something tells me you'll be going out for your schools moot court team Burger....


Haha I actually don't even have a pony in this race- I don't really have a reason to prefer one Boston school over the other, and at this point, I don't- I just find it hard to believe that firms really look at the two of them as being drastically different. That being said, I have no evidence/experience to back that up, and I could be totally wrong. But like Pearalegal just suggested, I sort of doubt that law firms have a framed copy of USNWR on their desks... I mean I'm sure ranking matters, but a 6-point difference outside of T14, especially between 2 schools that have switched places in the rankings in the past more than a couple of times, just seems like it would be negligible in real life.

User avatar
SanBun
Posts: 560
Joined: Sun May 31, 2009 10:19 pm

Re: BU! woot.

Postby SanBun » Tue Dec 22, 2009 3:24 pm

Hey everyone! Went complete 12/15, LSAT > 75th, GPA at median. When do you guys think I'll likely hear back???

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

Re: BU! woot.

Postby dms87 » Tue Dec 22, 2009 3:29 pm

Complete 11/24. GPA above median, LSAT > 75th. Wondering why I haven't heard from them yet?




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

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: addie1412, canafsa, champagnepapi, danid83, eastring, Google Adsense [Bot], hammy393, jtn123, mccracal, notausername, proteinshake, sspeckk, texteach, ThorB, tlsfan13, vho1791 and 39 guests