Shocking rejections Forum

[84Sunbird2000]

Back on topic.

166/3.87+Good Softs, LORs

WL at BC

I know its not a rejection, and its probably a YP and I should be flattered, but still, at or above both 75%'s, with LSP at Admit and 92% of Applicants below me, the WL shocked the hell out a me.

I'm nervous about this as well - I applied late, and I really like everything about BC. My numbers are very close to yours (166/3.75, WE) and LSP has me as an "Admit" as well.

[englawyer]

Back on topic.

166/3.87+Good Softs, LORs

WL at BC

I know its not a rejection, and its probably a YP and I should be flattered, but still, at or above both 75%'s, with LSP at Admit and 92% of Applicants below me, the WL shocked the hell out a me.

I'm nervous about this as well - I applied late, and I really like everything about BC. My numbers are very close to yours (166/3.75, WE) and LSP has me as an "Admit" as well.

AlanShore was also WL at BC...167/3.6

[SandyC877]

I'm shocked that they took 2 weeks to deliver the rejection notice. I thought I would receive a "LOL F U" as soon as I clicked the "submit app now" button.

[rookhawk]

-

[vanwinkle]

3.3/162 - Berkeley

I'm shocked that they took 2 weeks to deliver the rejection notice. I thought I would receive a "LOL F U" as soon as I clicked the "submit app now" button.

Sandy, I wouldn't be so pessimistic because you tried. I think your attempt is laudable because generally speaking, Berkeley is a classic wildcard. Berk, ND, Yale, UVA and a handful of others are known to take people with pretty variable stats if they have the softs to back them up.

You miss 100% of the shots you never take. At least you can say you tried.

Berkeley is a "wildcard" in part because they value GPA much more than LSAT and OP has neither. I commend OP for trying too, but unlike you, at least she was realistic about her chances.

[s0ph1e2007]

3.3/162 - Berkeley

I'm shocked that they took 2 weeks to deliver the rejection notice. I thought I would receive a "LOL F U" as soon as I clicked the "submit app now" button.

Sandy, I wouldn't be so pessimistic because you tried. I think your attempt is laudable because generally speaking, Berkeley is a classic wildcard. Berk, ND, Yale, UVA and a handful of others are known to take people with pretty variable stats if they have the softs to back them up.

You miss 100% of the shots you never take. At least you can say you tried.

Berkeley is a "wildcard" in part because they value GPA much more than LSAT and OP has neither. I commend OP for trying too, but unlike you, at least she was realistic about her chances.

Rookhawk, you never answered if 'rookhawk' on lsn is you?
I would bet money it is, and agree with those quoting 'paranoid delusions'

your stats are just too low way too low for any of those schools. type your info into lawschoolpredictor and get ready for a reality check.

+ you sound like you think you're Pascal or something which is hysterical/annoying after 1 or 2 posts

[hoopsguy6]

Villager, you pose reasonable questions based on your premise to view the situation as a libertarian.

The flaw in premise may be that one may not know enough to like/dislike a school before they apply. That is, that you may not know the motivations and agendas of the schools until/if you receive some indication of their bias. A simple rejection is insufficient to demonstrate a bias because low scores may be a reasonable cause. You'd need them to tip their hands and actually demonstrate a bias to you verbally or in writing. I can speak to this on my own experience, I was denied at a Tier4 school in the past (not YP or any such nonsense) and matriculated at a Tier1. Since my application/credentials/scores were the same there is an indication that what traits are considered laudable and which are considered threatening to the educational scheme varies by the Dean in charge. Some schools will want me to rub off on other students, others will want to make sure I never infect or illustrate to others something that counters an academic agenda. (for some its all about molding minds, not educating with facts)

To narrow down the potential list, why don't you contemplate the following questions:

1. If universities are an oligarchy, what is it that they must protect? Answer - Their control and right to permit success through their gate alone.
2. What sentiments within a campus or society would nullify the job/power security of faculty? - Any indication that their education isn't the sole path to credibility.
3. What are the consequences of adding a non-comformist (by background) to a peer group of standard issue students? - It indicates parity, dangerous to those who fear undermining their control
4. If universities only let in the best people by an amalgamation of their abilities and achievments, what would that do to the current admissions process and student's life emphasis? It would encourage people to find means to success and education, though not solely for the purpose of conforming to a checklist that grants the academics power to be sole arbiter of who may attempt success. It would encourage applicants to view themselves holistically, to put more emphasis on softs and to place emphasis on measureable career success in lieu of solely GPA/LSAT. (and many schools do rely solely on GPA/LSAT)

. This guy has to be some sort of elaborate flame.

[rookhawk]

-

[vanwinkle]

We'll see after the cycle is over.

You still have not answered whether you are "rookhawk" on LSN. At this point everyone is assuming "yes", and that you're getting rejected from T25 schools because of your terribly shitty numbers, not because schools are out to get you or are afraid of admitting you or something.

[rookhawk]

Yes, it is me. The LSAT numbers have changed. But I conclude the GPA/LSAT numbers are irrelevant to their decision to admit/deny me, otherwise they'd just let me ride out an admissions cycle and let the cards land where they will. Thus far my applications have been denied nowhere, accepted once, destroyed twice.

[flyingpanda]

Yes, it is me. The LSAT numbers have changed. But I conclude the GPA/LSAT numbers are irrelevant to their decision to admit/deny me, otherwise they'd just let me ride out an admissions cycle and let the cards land where they will. Thus far my applications have been denied nowhere, accepted once, destroyed twice.

You also haven't told us how you know that your applications were destroyed.

[Trifles]

I'm trying to think of things that would make admissions counselors in specific dislike you. Did you campaign against affirmative action? Against funding for higher education?

[vanwinkle]

Yes, it is me. The LSAT numbers have changed. But I conclude the GPA/LSAT numbers are irrelevant to their decision to admit/deny me, otherwise they'd just let me ride out an admissions cycle and let the cards land where they will. Thus far my applications have been denied nowhere, accepted once, destroyed twice.

What is your actual LSAT then? If you truly believe that you are to be accepted as an example of shocking rejections, you must share it. Otherwise, with the GPA/LSAT that you've shared, none of this is shocking at all.

[vanwinkle]

I'm trying to think of things that would make admissions counselors in specific dislike you. Did you campaign against affirmative action? Against funding for higher education?

He probably railed against them for being the oligarchy that they are and told them how he intended to use his legal degree and future success to destroy them from the inside. About three sentences in, they laughed and put the PS in the round file where it belongs.

[84Sunbird2000]

Yes, it is me. The LSAT numbers have changed. But I conclude the GPA/LSAT numbers are irrelevant to their decision to admit/deny me, otherwise they'd just let me ride out an admissions cycle and let the cards land where they will. Thus far my applications have been denied nowhere, accepted once, destroyed twice.

Is there a reason that you are loudly parading your academic martyrdom but also veiling yourself in secrecy and obfuscatory hints? All you are doing is forcing everyone to conceive of the worst and most diabolical things and then add them to your resume/character.

Also, why don't you just apply to George Mason and be done with it. You clearly need to be in the company of Ayn Rand SuperFriends in order to function.

[Trifles]

Lets not get persnickety just because someone doesn't want to tell us their life story.

[84Sunbird2000]

Lets not get persnickety just because someone doesn't want to tell us their life story.

But the thing is, this "someone" is playing a very heavy-handed "woe is me, the world is against me" card, but providing no substance for their complaint nor frame of reference for their situation. I also meant the George Mason comment in both snark AND seriousness, because of his uber-Objectivist views.

[rookhawk]

-

[rookhawk]

-

[hoopsguy6]

Give Rookhawk a break. My goal in life was to take a philosophy class in college and then talk down to everybody I meet too.

[Jerzeegirl]

Give Rookhawk a break. My goal in life was to take a philosophy class in college and then talk down to everybody I meet too.

lol. love it.

[The Kim Jong illest]

Give Rookhawk a break. My goal in life was to take a philosophy class in college, commit some kind of crime and convince myself it is righteous, and then talk down to everybody I meet too.

Fixed

[blurbz]

I've tried to avoid this because I don't think I believe a word of it. That being said, Rookhawk's decision to be secretive so as to not be identified during the cycle is laughable. If what he is saying is true, how many people do you think are applying with good numbers but some weird, twisted history that is well known enough that adcomms know his name and auto-reject him by throwing his application away and then telling him about it? Does anyone really believe that an adcomm might browse this site, see Rookhawk's posts, and think, "Oh, maybe there's another guy who would completely threaten the University paradigm...It may not be X." Because I certainly don't believe that is possible.

Rookhawk: If adcomms are reading these boards, they've already identified you. I promise.

[The Kim Jong illest]

Over/Under on a NAMBLA membership?

[09042014]

I've tried to avoid this because I don't think I believe a word of it. That being said, Rookhawk's decision to be secretive so as to not be identified during the cycle is laughable. If what he is saying is true, how many people do you think are applying with good numbers but some weird, twisted history that is well known enough that adcomms know his name and auto-reject him by throwing his application away and then telling him about it? Does anyone really believe that an adcomm might browse this site, see Rookhawk's posts, and think, "Oh, maybe there's another guy who would completely threaten the University paradigm...It may not be X." Because I certainly don't believe that is possible.

Rookhawk: If adcomms are reading these boards, they've already identified you. I promise.

He isn't applying with good numbers. He's applying with T2/T3 numbers and is having a T2/T3 cycle.

I think what he means by destroying his application, means they autoreject him for his numbers and don't send him to a committee decision (which not all schools have). He thinks if they look at his amazing John Galt softs they'd have to take him.

But what is really happening is he did mediocre in college, and his LSAT is embarrassing for top schools.

If he wants to take down the Ivory towers, he needs to write a vanilla PS, and retake his LSAT.