Top Law Schools

On the GW application there is a line that asks if they can contact your family (via the information you put on the line before) or your recommenders about you app. I'm not close to my family so I checked "no". Does this need explaining? Will it make my app. look suspect?

no
no

Wait, if they ask "recommenders" OR "family" they're giving you options if you're not close to your family.
I'd make it clear somehow that rec sources yes, family no.
Personally, I'd see that as a bad sign if someone wouldn't let me check into their app's legitimacy.

It says "family AND recommenders" on one line with one option to check "yes" or "no". I can't say "yes" to one without saying "yes" to both (or adding an addendum).

Is this serious? Yes, it looks extremely bad to forbid readers from checking your app's accuracy/substance. If you're going to check "No" then just save yourself the app fee.

cinefile 17 wrote:It says "family AND recommenders" on one line with one option to check "yes" or "no". I can't say "yes" to one without saying "yes" to both (or adding an addendum).

I'd go with a one-sentence addendum.
You do NOT want them talking to your family, but I'm with Mr. Kappus in believing that saying "no I forbid you to check this" is gonna get you rejected.

CGI Fridays wrote:

cinefile 17 wrote:It says "family AND recommenders" on one line with one option to check "yes" or "no". I can't say "yes" to one without saying "yes" to both (or adding an addendum).

I'd go with a one-sentence addendum.
You do NOT want them talking to your family, but I'm with Mr. Kappus in believing that saying "no I forbid you to check this" is gonna get you rejected.

that alone, will not get you rejected. but it does look bad IMHO

bostlaw wrote:that alone, will not get you rejected. but it does look bad IMHO

Please don't speak definitively unless you actually know for sure.

CGI Fridays wrote:

bostlaw wrote:that alone, will not get you rejected. but it does look bad IMHO

Please don't speak definitively unless you actually know for sure.

thanks, so with this in mind, checking no will not ALONE get you rejected.

bostlaw wrote:thanks, so with this in mind, checking no will not ALONE get you rejected.

??? You're still doing it. By definitively I mean stating "X is the case" as a fact.

You may be right, & you may be wrong.
Sure if his stats are both above median this is proly credited, but if he's in the mix, I'd actually chuck his app if I were an adcomm. In that case, since his stats did not pay a role in getting him rejected, we might say that checking no did in fact get him rejected on its own.

But I'm not an adcomm, & I have no clue, which is why I didn't speak definitively.

CGI Fridays wrote:

bostlaw wrote:thanks, so with this in mind, checking no will not ALONE get you rejected.

??? You're still doing it. By definitively I mean stating "X is the case" as a fact.

You may be right, & you may be wrong.
Sure if his stats are both above median this is proly credited, but if he's in the mix, I'd actually chuck his app if I were an adcomm. In that case, since his stats did not pay a role in getting him rejected, we might say that checking no did in fact get him rejected on its own.

But I'm not an adcomm, & I have no clue, which is why I didn't speak definitively.

if hes in the mix his stats did play a role.

if my post was not clear I apologize, but checking NO will not get you rejected just off the bat because you checked NO. There would have to be other factors involved which I think is obvious?

Just check yes. They get like 2500 apps a year, I seriously doubt they have the time or desire to call up your family to ask about your app. MAYBE your LOR writers, but only then if they said something in there that raised a flag.

bostlaw wrote: if hes in the mix his stats did play a role.

This is a question of definition. I think that good stats & bad stats do something. Being in the mix means your stats don't help either way & you need to look at the rest of the app to see what's what. We disagree over whether stats "play a role" in this case, but the disagreement is trivial.

bostlaw wrote:if my post was not clear I apologize, but checking NO will not get you rejected just off the bat because you checked NO. There would have to be other factors involved which I think is obvious?

It was quite clear. I didn't request you be more clear, I requested you stop speaking definitively as if your statements are facts.

Thought I clearly stated that it was my opinion in my first post, eliminating the "fact" argument. Regardles, thats like saying I can not say "the sun will rise tomorrow" is that a fact? well I guess not, but see my point?

OP this is getting petty but I would adhere to the advise of 2014.

bostlaw wrote: Thought I clearly stated that it was my opinion in my first post, eliminating the "fact" argument.

bostlaw wrote: that alone, will not get you rejected.

This is a statement of fact.

bostlaw wrote:but it does look bad IMHO

This is your further opinion on the general matter, which in no way changes your statement of fact, nor does it detract from your confidence in the statement of fact.

bostlaw wrote: Regardles, thats like saying I can not say "the sun will rise tomorrow" is that a fact? well I guess not, but see my point?

It's not like saying that at all.
I'm not being all philosophical, I have no problem with you saying "the sun will rise tomorrow," "I am on the internet," "I exist," or any such thing. You're talking about how something will or will not impact the way adcomms look at his app, & you're not an adcomm.

With your "sun" example, you have a daily observation as your basis, coupled with a basic knowledge of the sun's structure. The only way the sun won't rise tomorrow is if some freakish aberration occurs.

With your response to OP's question, you're making assumptions.

(sorry OP)

cgi: google "ceteris paribus"

bostlaw wrote:cgi: google "ceteris paribus"

Did so.
I'm familiar with the phrase "all things being equal." Thx.

This argument is comical

2014 wrote:This argument is comical

Agreed.

I assume 87.66666% of the responsibility for starting it.

CGI Fridays wrote:

2014 wrote:This argument is comical

Agreed.

I assume 87.66666% of the responsibility for starting it.

haha I guess ill take the left over 12.3% of the blame

bostlaw wrote: I guess ill take the left over 12.3% of the blame

12.33333% you mean.
Tryin' to shirk blame just ain't cool man.

CGI Fridays wrote:

bostlaw wrote: I guess ill take the left over 12.3% of the blame

12.33333% you mean.
Tryin' to shirk blame just ain't cool man.

haha knew someone would say that. and I vote to give the OP credit for the remaining 0.000001%