GULC 2010 WL'ers Forum
- tommytahoe
- Posts: 548
- Joined: Sat Feb 14, 2009 2:46 pm
Re: GULC 2010 WL'ers
Yeah, I got it.
I ended up at UC Davis with a massive pile of need-based grants $$, so I came out as best as I could imagine absent a miraculous, never-to-be T14 showing.
Good luck, you remaining few...
It's ironic: I head to DC tomorrow for 6 weeks, and I was going to swing by the Admissions Office on Thursday or Friday —not with expectations, but just to introduce myself, see if I could check out the campus, slip 'em each a Benjamin or two.
This email foiled my plans.
I ended up at UC Davis with a massive pile of need-based grants $$, so I came out as best as I could imagine absent a miraculous, never-to-be T14 showing.
Good luck, you remaining few...
It's ironic: I head to DC tomorrow for 6 weeks, and I was going to swing by the Admissions Office on Thursday or Friday —not with expectations, but just to introduce myself, see if I could check out the campus, slip 'em each a Benjamin or two.
This email foiled my plans.
-
- Posts: 3
- Joined: Wed Jun 09, 2010 6:51 pm
Re: GULC 2010 WL'ers
tram988 wrote:Wow they kept me. Craziness. Sorry to those released.
So did you get in, or did they just not send you an email today? Also, for anyone who wants to post, what did "The Last" email say, if I could ask?
-
- Posts: 173
- Joined: Tue Sep 22, 2009 12:34 am
Re: GULC 2010 WL'ers
Jamaica88 wrote:what exactly did this email say???
Dear NAME,
I regret to inform you that the Committee on Admissions is unable to offer you admission to Georgetown University Law Center this fall. Your placement on the Waiting List reflected our confidence in the strength of your application. At this time, however, we have received deposits from more applicants than we have seats available in the first year class. Consequently, we are unable to extend an offer of admission to you this year.
We appreciate your interest in our program and wish you success in your future endeavors.
Sincerely,
Andrew Cornblatt
Dean of Admissions
Georgetown Law
- MURPH
- Posts: 850
- Joined: Wed Dec 10, 2008 12:20 am
Re: GULC 2010 WL'ers
Good luck at UC Davistommytahoe wrote:Yeah, I got it.
I ended up at UC Davis with a massive pile of need-based grants $$, so I came out as best as I could imagine absent a miraculous, never-to-be T14 showing.
Good luck, you remaining few...
It's ironic: I head to DC tomorrow for 6 weeks, and I was going to swing by the Admissions Office on Thursday or Friday —not with expectations, but just to introduce myself, see if I could check out the campus, slip 'em each a Benjamin or two.
This email foiled my plans.
-
- Posts: 1160
- Joined: Mon Aug 14, 2006 12:51 pm
Re: GULC 2010 WL'ers
Ah sorry that was ambiguous. I did not get in in still on the waiting list.yeahdoz wrote:tram988 wrote:Wow they kept me. Craziness. Sorry to those released.
So did you get in, or did they just not send you an email today? Also, for anyone who wants to post, what did "The Last" email say, if I could ask?
Want to continue reading?
Register now to search topics and post comments!
Absolutely FREE!
Already a member? Login
- Thirteen
- Posts: 25405
- Joined: Mon Dec 07, 2009 4:53 pm
Re: GULC 2010 WL'ers
PirateCap'n wrote:Got it too. I was on the regular waitlist.SummerLaw wrote:Just got the final email... ouch
Anyone else?
- lateforthesky16
- Posts: 225
- Joined: Mon Jan 19, 2009 11:05 pm
Re: GULC 2010 WL'ers
tommytahoe wrote:Yeah, I got it.
I ended up at UC Davis with a massive pile of need-based grants $$, so I came out as best as I could imagine absent a miraculous, never-to-be T14 showing.
Good luck, you remaining few...
It's ironic: I head to DC tomorrow for 6 weeks, and I was going to swing by the Admissions Office on Thursday or Friday —not with expectations, but just to introduce myself, see if I could check out the campus, slip 'em each a Benjamin or two.
This email foiled my plans.
got the email too, looks like i'll be joining you at Davis!
- tommytahoe
- Posts: 548
- Joined: Sat Feb 14, 2009 2:46 pm
Re: GULC 2010 WL'ers
sweet. We should be stoked. Great school. Check out the King Hall fb page, keep an eye out for Tom.lateforthesky16 wrote:tommytahoe wrote:Yeah, I got it.
I ended up at UC Davis with a massive pile of need-based grants $$, so I came out as best as I could imagine absent a miraculous, never-to-be T14 showing.
Good luck, you remaining few...
It's ironic: I head to DC tomorrow for 6 weeks, and I was going to swing by the Admissions Office on Thursday or Friday —not with expectations, but just to introduce myself, see if I could check out the campus, slip 'em each a Benjamin or two.
This email foiled my plans.
got the email too, looks like i'll be joining you at Davis!
- SilverE2
- Posts: 929
- Joined: Wed Aug 20, 2008 10:04 pm
Re: GULC 2010 WL'ers
So was everyone who wasn't removed on the SPWL originally?
- Encyclopedia Brown
- Posts: 595
- Joined: Fri Oct 16, 2009 7:25 am
Re: GULC 2010 WL'ers
Nope. I was PWL originally and wasn't removed. As I mentioned a few pages back, the original WL designations of SPWL, PWL, and WL don't seem to mean anything anymore.SilverE2 wrote:So was everyone who wasn't removed on the SPWL originally?
- SilverE2
- Posts: 929
- Joined: Wed Aug 20, 2008 10:04 pm
Re: GULC 2010 WL'ers
Well, I thought the same...until I saw a bunch of people who stayed post that they were SPWL.Encyclopedia Brown wrote:Nope. I was PWL originally and wasn't removed. As I mentioned a few pages back, the original WL designations of SPWL, PWL, and WL don't seem to mean anything anymore.SilverE2 wrote:So was everyone who wasn't removed on the SPWL originally?
I'm just a bit confused, I sent a bunch of LOCIs, visited, and seemed to have pretty strong numbers for the PT program. I guess they didn't like me for some reason, or my LSAT wasn't high enough to offset my GPA. *sigh*
- tommytahoe
- Posts: 548
- Joined: Sat Feb 14, 2009 2:46 pm
Re: GULC 2010 WL'ers
I know, it must be a pain in the ass. But you never know how they stir their witches' brews in those admissions offices. the whole they re looking for may be different from thwe sum of the applicant's parts.SilverE2 wrote:Well, I thought the same...until I saw a bunch of people who stayed post that they were SPWL.Encyclopedia Brown wrote:Nope. I was PWL originally and wasn't removed. As I mentioned a few pages back, the original WL designations of SPWL, PWL, and WL don't seem to mean anything anymore.SilverE2 wrote:So was everyone who wasn't removed on the SPWL originally?
I'm just a bit confused, I sent a bunch of LOCIs, visited, and seemed to have pretty strong numbers for the PT program. I guess they didn't like me for some reason, or my LSAT wasn't high enough to offset my GPA. *sigh*
Also, keep in mind that late in the waitlist game, their Class of 2013 needs become narrowed, particular. Need high LSAT, period, need high GPA, period. Need URM boost, or non-trad boost. Who knows. The fact you got released could just mean that there is little that separates many of the folks remaining on the waitlist —i.e., outside of some very high LSAT folks, a big cluster. Seen that way, your being released ceases to be a rejection, and just a matter of their having to make close calls with the pressure of a mega-overenrolled class.
I know why I got released: 163 LSAT. I was the pluto of outliers, drifting far away from all the activity, until Andy Cornblatt finally realized I am not an applicant planet, but rather an applicant cluster of semi-connected matter and rocks.
- Regionality
- Posts: 789
- Joined: Thu Feb 25, 2010 5:13 am
Re: GULC 2010 WL'ers
wicked metaphor.tommytahoe wrote:I know, it must be a pain in the ass. But you never know how they stir their witches' brews in those admissions offices. the whole they re looking for may be different from thwe sum of the applicant's parts.SilverE2 wrote:Well, I thought the same...until I saw a bunch of people who stayed post that they were SPWL.Encyclopedia Brown wrote:Nope. I was PWL originally and wasn't removed. As I mentioned a few pages back, the original WL designations of SPWL, PWL, and WL don't seem to mean anything anymore.SilverE2 wrote:So was everyone who wasn't removed on the SPWL originally?
I'm just a bit confused, I sent a bunch of LOCIs, visited, and seemed to have pretty strong numbers for the PT program. I guess they didn't like me for some reason, or my LSAT wasn't high enough to offset my GPA. *sigh*
Also, keep in mind that late in the waitlist game, their Class of 2013 needs become narrowed, particular. Need high LSAT, period, need high GPA, period. Need URM boost, or non-trad boost. Who knows. The fact you got released could just mean that there is little that separates many of the folks remaining on the waitlist —i.e., outside of some very high LSAT folks, a big cluster. Seen that way, your being released ceases to be a rejection, and just a matter of their having to make close calls with the pressure of a mega-overenrolled class.
I know why I got released: 163 LSAT. I was the pluto of outliers, drifting far away from all the activity, until Andy Cornblatt finally realized I am not an applicant planet, but rather an applicant cluster of semi-connected matter and rocks.
Register now!
Resources to assist law school applicants, students & graduates.
It's still FREE!
Already a member? Login
-
- Posts: 1160
- Joined: Mon Aug 14, 2006 12:51 pm
Re: GULC 2010 WL'ers
I'm still here and I am on the normal waitlist.
-
- Posts: 33
- Joined: Wed Oct 21, 2009 8:35 am
Re: GULC 2010 WL'ers
"At this time, however, we have received deposits from more applicants than we have seats available in the first year class."
this seems to be the familiar tune of most waitlists this cycle...
this seems to be the familiar tune of most waitlists this cycle...
- ryguy
- Posts: 328
- Joined: Fri Sep 11, 2009 11:13 am
Re: GULC 2010 WL'ers
I guess I am still in the running.
- stratocophic
- Posts: 2204
- Joined: Tue Dec 22, 2009 6:24 pm
Re: GULC 2010 WL'ers
PWL here as well.SilverE2 wrote:Well, I thought the same...until I saw a bunch of people who stayed post that they were SPWL.Encyclopedia Brown wrote:Nope. I was PWL originally and wasn't removed. As I mentioned a few pages back, the original WL designations of SPWL, PWL, and WL don't seem to mean anything anymore.SilverE2 wrote:So was everyone who wasn't removed on the SPWL originally?
I'm just a bit confused, I sent a bunch of LOCIs, visited, and seemed to have pretty strong numbers for the PT program. I guess they didn't like me for some reason, or my LSAT wasn't high enough to offset my GPA. *sigh*
I'm guessing that the PT program may be set. No other T14 has PT, so that portion of the class won't be jumping ship unless something crazy happens (probably a safe assumption that PT won't get off of higher-up WLs b/c of lower numbers). The FT spots are another story. Something happens higher up the food chain, there's a chance they start losing people. I wouldn't necessarily look at it as being your stats, could be just the nature of the beast.
Get unlimited access to all forums and topics
Register now!
I'm pretty sure I told you it's FREE...
Already a member? Login
-
- Posts: 1160
- Joined: Mon Aug 14, 2006 12:51 pm
Re: GULC 2010 WL'ers
I'm still on the part-time regular waitlist.stratocophic wrote:PWL here as well.SilverE2 wrote:Well, I thought the same...until I saw a bunch of people who stayed post that they were SPWL.Encyclopedia Brown wrote:Nope. I was PWL originally and wasn't removed. As I mentioned a few pages back, the original WL designations of SPWL, PWL, and WL don't seem to mean anything anymore.SilverE2 wrote:So was everyone who wasn't removed on the SPWL originally?
I'm just a bit confused, I sent a bunch of LOCIs, visited, and seemed to have pretty strong numbers for the PT program. I guess they didn't like me for some reason, or my LSAT wasn't high enough to offset my GPA. *sigh*
I'm guessing that the PT program may be set. No other T14 has PT, so that portion of the class won't be jumping ship unless something crazy happens (probably a safe assumption that PT won't get off of higher-up WLs b/c of lower numbers). The FT spots are another story. Something happens higher up the food chain, there's a chance they start losing people. I wouldn't necessarily look at it as being your stats, could be just the nature of the beast.
-
- Posts: 528
- Joined: Thu Oct 23, 2008 8:21 pm
Re: GULC 2010 WL'ers
As a PT SPWLer I guess they are just holding onto me for last minute PT drop outs.
-
- Posts: 1160
- Joined: Mon Aug 14, 2006 12:51 pm
Re: GULC 2010 WL'ers
Yeah at this point it really depends on what they need. I have a feeling they are keeping me for my extremely high GPA for the part-time program (it surely can't be for my LSAT lol.)savesthedayajb wrote:As a PT SPWLer I guess they are just holding onto me for last minute PT drop outs.
-
- Posts: 528
- Joined: Thu Oct 23, 2008 8:21 pm
Re: GULC 2010 WL'ers
+1 : /tram988 wrote:Yeah at this point it really depends on what they need. I have a feeling they are keeping me for my extremely high GPA for the part-time program (it surely can't be for my LSAT lol.)savesthedayajb wrote:As a PT SPWLer I guess they are just holding onto me for last minute PT drop outs.
Communicate now with those who not only know what a legal education is, but can offer you worthy advice and commentary as you complete the three most educational, yet challenging years of your law related post graduate life.
Register now, it's still FREE!
Already a member? Login
- unknownscholar
- Posts: 258
- Joined: Thu Jan 31, 2008 11:22 pm
Re: GULC 2010 WL'ers
didn't get that last email yet, though I'm on the lookout.
- ryguy
- Posts: 328
- Joined: Fri Sep 11, 2009 11:13 am
Re: GULC 2010 WL'ers
Maybe, more will roll out later today. Cause I just don't get the smaller waitlist.
-
- Posts: 29
- Joined: Tue Apr 27, 2010 6:28 am
Re: GULC 2010 WL'ers
Doesn't look like SPWL status is doing much good. Still staying on the GULC waitlist for now (and hoping they want high LSAT scores), but I'm getting closer and closer to just going with the full-tuition $$$$ from McGeorge. I'll probably withdraw if no word by next Monday.
- MURPH
- Posts: 850
- Joined: Wed Dec 10, 2008 12:20 am
Re: GULC 2010 WL'ers
I really wish these schools would give us a bit of information. They won't tell us how many people are on the waitlists or how we rank. When we call them they don't give straight answers and often give conflicting answers. Some even have undergrad work study students answering our calls. It is pretty frustrating.
Despite all their talk about how they look at each applicant as an individual and other nonsense, I really think these adcoms despise applicants. Admitting us is no more personal than ordering office supplies: "I'll need another three desks, three chairs, a computer, six high GPAs, two URMs and an box of pens."
A couple of months ago I didn't understand why some students would waste money putting down multiple deposits. Now I realize they are the smart ones. They knew that these adcomsdon't give a crap about us. You should be playing them off of each other, witholding information from them, letting them know about other offers when it is convenient for you, threatening to pull out at the last minute, etc. I just wish I had realized that back in April.
Despite all their talk about how they look at each applicant as an individual and other nonsense, I really think these adcoms despise applicants. Admitting us is no more personal than ordering office supplies: "I'll need another three desks, three chairs, a computer, six high GPAs, two URMs and an box of pens."
A couple of months ago I didn't understand why some students would waste money putting down multiple deposits. Now I realize they are the smart ones. They knew that these adcomsdon't give a crap about us. You should be playing them off of each other, witholding information from them, letting them know about other offers when it is convenient for you, threatening to pull out at the last minute, etc. I just wish I had realized that back in April.
Seriously? What are you waiting for?
Now there's a charge.
Just kidding ... it's still FREE!
Already a member? Login