Top Law Schools

If not, which ones aren't? I cant seem to find the answer. Specifically I'd like to know about Cornell, Columbia, and Michigan.

golf clap

While I think you are kind of a dick for trying to see which schools you can swindle acceptances from on false pretenses, all of these schools will find out about your multiple EDs and any breaking of an ED commitment you engage in and all acceptances you recieve will be rescinded. I've seen it happen before. Infact, somewhere on Columbia's LSN page there is a pretty funny account that tried the same thing and it ended with the best lawschool rage-quit of all time.

But no, they aren't "legally" binding. There's no legal signing of a contract.

CyanIdes Of March wrote: But no, they aren't "legally" binding. There's no legal signing of a contract.

Good luck with that holding up anywhere with anyone.

OP Cornell is an Early Action not an Early Decision and it is not binding.

CyanIdes Of March wrote:
But no, they aren't "legally" binding. There's no legal signing of a contract.

Please tell me you're a 0L. If not, ask for your money back.

CyanIdes Of March wrote:While I think you are kind of a dick for trying to see which schools you can swindle acceptances from on false pretenses, all of these schools will find out about your multiple EDs and any breaking of an ED commitment you engage in and all acceptances you recieve will be rescinded. I've seen it happen before. Infact, somewhere on Columbia's LSN page there is a pretty funny account that tried the same thing and it ended with the best lawschool rage-quit of all time.

But no, they aren't "legally" binding. There's no legal signing of a contract.

The reason I made this topic is because I want to make sure I do not do something like that...

One more question. If you submit your application very early (the date for lots of schools seems to be Nov. 15), are you automatically counted as an ED? Or do you have to specify that its an ED app?

The Duck wrote:

CyanIdes Of March wrote:
But no, they aren't "legally" binding. There's no legal signing of a contract.

Please tell me you're a 0L. If not, ask for your money back.

Am I wrong? What about my post are you taking issue?

CyanIdes Of March wrote:

The Duck wrote:

CyanIdes Of March wrote:
But no, they aren't "legally" binding. There's no legal signing of a contract.

Please tell me you're a 0L. If not, ask for your money back.

Am I wrong? What about my post are you taking issue?

Uh, you're absolutely wrong. They are legally binding. Nor do you need to sign something to have an enforceable contract.

This is like week 1 of contracts stuff.

I think you're mistaking the practicality of enforcing it and the measure of available damages as an indicator of whether a contract was formed. That's asinine. Not to mention that you did sign your ED application...at least electronically.

Plus, many schools require a separate signed Early Decision Contract making your post even more incorrect. E.g

NYU: https://www.law.nyu.edu/ecm_dlv2/groups ... 058361.pdf;
Columbia: http://web.law.columbia.edu/sites/defau ... ntract.pdf

Not that any signed contract would be required.

The Duck wrote:

CyanIdes Of March wrote:

The Duck wrote:

CyanIdes Of March wrote:
But no, they aren't "legally" binding. There's no legal signing of a contract.

Please tell me you're a 0L. If not, ask for your money back.

Am I wrong? What about my post are you taking issue?

Uh, you're absolutely wrong. They are legally binding. Nor do you need to sign something to have an enforceable contract.

This is like week 1 of contracts stuff.

Considering I haven't applied to a law school, I wouldn't know. Just taking information I've heard from google and what I've been told here. From what I thought I knew, you could ED and get out of it and the only repercussions were law schools rescinded accepts across the board. Which, seems to be the case, even though I was wrong on other aspects.

I think you're mistaking the practicality of enforcing it and the measure of available damages as an indicator of whether a contract was formed. That's asinine. Not to mention that you did sign your ED application...at least electronically. Plus, many schools require a separate signed Early Decision Contract making your post even more incorrect.

That seems to be about accurate. Could have said that in a less dick-ish way, but point taken.

I really dislike this part of the forum, so rude .

CyanIdes Of March wrote:
Considering I haven't applied to a law school, I wouldn't know. Just taking information I've heard from google and what I've been told here. From what I thought I knew, you could ED and get out of it and the only repercussions were law schools rescinded accepts across the board.

I think the point is then don't give legal advice you are unqualified to give. Google is often wrong. People aren't asking for your ill-informed opinion. OP is an idiot for asking this question at all...but you shouldn't be adding to it.

I'm sorry you think that my correction to your post was rude. However, I suggest you toughen up a little. I wasn't overly rude considering you were incorrectly advising a 0L on something that could have huge ramifications.

I was as rude as I was because its important you understand to gravity of giving advice you are unqualified to give.

The Duck wrote:

CyanIdes Of March wrote:
Considering I haven't applied to a law school, I wouldn't know. Just taking information I've heard from google and what I've been told here. From what I thought I knew, you could ED and get out of it and the only repercussions were law schools rescinded accepts across the board.

I think the point is then don't give legal advice you are unqualified to give. Google is often wrong. People aren't asking for your ill-informed opinion. OP is an idiot for asking this question at all...but you shouldn't be adding to it.

I'm sorry you think that my correction to your post was rude. However, I suggest you toughen up a little. I wasn't overly rude considering you were incorrectly advising a 0L on something that could have huge ramifications. I was as rude as I was because its important you understand to gravity of giving advice you are unqualified to give.

My advice to the OP was, in all practicality, not going to cause damage. I informed him of the practical ramifications as I've seen them and advised he NOT do something. I also never claimed to be a lawyer or even a law student. He's asking a public forum. No one should come to the internet for legal advice and anyone who does should expect it to be common knowledge responses at best.

In any case, being an asshole is never the go-to option, unless you're just a detestable person to begin with.

EDIT: And from the looks of it, you're still in law school, meaning you aren't qualified to get legal advice either technically speaking.

CyanIdes Of March wrote:

The Duck wrote:

CyanIdes Of March wrote:
Considering I haven't applied to a law school, I wouldn't know. Just taking information I've heard from google and what I've been told here. From what I thought I knew, you could ED and get out of it and the only repercussions were law schools rescinded accepts across the board.

I think the point is then don't give legal advice you are unqualified to give. Google is often wrong. People aren't asking for your ill-informed opinion. OP is an idiot for asking this question at all...but you shouldn't be adding to it.

I'm sorry you think that my correction to your post was rude. However, I suggest you toughen up a little. I wasn't overly rude considering you were incorrectly advising a 0L on something that could have huge ramifications. I was as rude as I was because its important you understand to gravity of giving advice you are unqualified to give.

My advice to the OP was, in all practicality, not going to cause damage. I informed him of the practical ramifications as I've seen them and advised he NOT do something. I also never claimed to be a lawyer or even a law student. He's asking a public forum. No one should come to the internet for legal advice and anyone who does should expect it to be common knowledge responses at best.

In any case, being an asshole is never the go-to option, unless you're just a detestable person to begin with.

I'm an asshole? Didn't you also say OP was being a "dick"? It doesn't matter that you told him not to do it. He asked if something is legally binding and you expressed an opinion. That's a problem altogether...not to mention that it was wrong.

Nor did I call you any names...so look in a mirror.

The Duck wrote:

CyanIdes Of March wrote:

The Duck wrote:

CyanIdes Of March wrote:
Considering I haven't applied to a law school, I wouldn't know. Just taking information I've heard from google and what I've been told here. From what I thought I knew, you could ED and get out of it and the only repercussions were law schools rescinded accepts across the board.

I think the point is then don't give legal advice you are unqualified to give. Google is often wrong. People aren't asking for your ill-informed opinion. OP is an idiot for asking this question at all...but you shouldn't be adding to it.

I'm sorry you think that my correction to your post was rude. However, I suggest you toughen up a little. I wasn't overly rude considering you were incorrectly advising a 0L on something that could have huge ramifications. I was as rude as I was because its important you understand to gravity of giving advice you are unqualified to give.

My advice to the OP was, in all practicality, not going to cause damage. I informed him of the practical ramifications as I've seen them and advised he NOT do something. I also never claimed to be a lawyer or even a law student. He's asking a public forum. No one should come to the internet for legal advice and anyone who does should expect it to be common knowledge responses at best.

In any case, being an asshole is never the go-to option, unless you're just a detestable person to begin with.

I'm an asshole? Didn't you also say OP was being a "dick"? It doesn't matter that you told him not to do it. He asked if something is legally binding and you expressed an opinion. That's a problem altogether...not to mention that it was wrong.

Nor did I call you any names...so look in a mirror.

He was trying to swindle acceptances from schools under false pretenses.

You have berated me for multiple paragraphs because I didn't preface my post with "I think, but I'm not a lawyer". I think they are both apt descriptions considering the content.

CyanIdes Of March wrote:
You have berated me for multiple paragraphs because I didn't preface my post with "I think, but I'm not a lawyer". I think they are both apt descriptions considering the content.

Once again...don't preface...just don't comment on things you don't know. Nor have I berated you...I think you need a dictionary. I agree with your entire post...which is also accurate...up until the point you express your ill-informed legal opinion.

Please, just learn your lesson and move on. You can give your personal opinion...and regurgitate negative outcomes you have heard of...without expressing a legal opinion.

http://imgur.com/tCp90.gif

Edit:


Sorry, Duck. I don't post those a lot and did it wrong.

stuffnuff wrote:http://imgur.com/tCp90.gif

It's funnier if you imbed the image.

The Duck wrote: Once again...don't preface...just don't comment on things you don't know. Nor have I berated you...I think you need a dictionary. I agree with your entire post...which is also accurate...up until the point you express your ill-informed legal opinion.

Please, just learn your lesson and move on. You can give your personal opinion...and regurgitate negative outcomes you have heard of...without expressing a legal opinion.

Fair enough.

But...

be·rate
[ bi ráyt ]
1.scold: to scold somebody vigorously and at length

CyanIdes Of March wrote:

The Duck wrote: Once again...don't preface...just don't comment on things you don't know. Nor have I berated you...I think you need a dictionary. I agree with your entire post...which is also accurate...up until the point you express your ill-informed legal opinion.

Please, just learn your lesson and move on. You can give your personal opinion...and regurgitate negative outcomes you have heard of...without expressing a legal opinion.

Fair enough.

But...

be·rate
[ bi ráyt ]
1.scold: to scold somebody vigorously and at length

Generally, it has a connotation of anger. Hence Merriam-Webster using the word "vehemently" in the definition. Not sure where you got the "vigorous" definition from...but "scold" incorporates the anger element. I corrected you...but I was not angry or impassioned in my criticism...hence I did not berate you.

I'm gonna referee this:

The Duck was reasonable. Cyanides has been silly. Now carry on.

Ok, from what I read, EDing to two places concurrently is immoral. How about EDing to multiple schools in one cycles after hearing decisions.

For example, ED to NYU, and then EDing to Penn after being held. Is this ok to do? If it is, then will Penn know you EDed to NYU and were held when evaluating your ED application? Will all the schools you apply regular decision know where you applied ED?

Likewise, understanding the time-dependence of applications and the inherent risk of ED, do schools report ED decisions faster than regular decisions to allow applicants to pursue alternative choices?

collegebum1989 wrote:Ok, from what I read, EDing to two places concurrently is immoral. How about EDing to multiple schools in one cycles after hearing decisions.

For example, ED to NYU, and then EDing to Penn after being held. Is this ok to do? If it is, then will Penn know you EDed to NYU and were held when evaluating your ED application? Will all the schools you apply regular decision know where you applied ED?

Likewise, understanding the time-dependence of applications and the inherent risk of ED, do schools report ED decisions faster than regular decisions to allow applicants to pursue alternative choices?

Read every ED agreement carefully. Some schools allow you to apply ED to multiple schools consecutively, some do NOT.

collegebum1989 wrote:Ok, from what I read, EDing to two places concurrently is immoral. How about EDing to multiple schools in one cycles after hearing decisions.

For example, ED to NYU, and then EDing to Penn after being held. Is this ok to do? If it is, then will Penn know you EDed to NYU and were held when evaluating your ED application? Will all the schools you apply regular decision know where you applied ED?

Likewise, understanding the time-dependence of applications and the inherent risk of ED, do schools report ED decisions faster than regular decisions to allow applicants to pursue alternative choices?

Penn has two stages of ED now, so you could theoretically apply to NYU first, find out, and then hit Penn up on their second round.

Edit: I assume if you're held/rejected, it doesn't matter.

SaintsTheMetal wrote:

collegebum1989 wrote:Ok, from what I read, EDing to two places concurrently is immoral. How about EDing to multiple schools in one cycles after hearing decisions.

For example, ED to NYU, and then EDing to Penn after being held. Is this ok to do? If it is, then will Penn know you EDed to NYU and were held when evaluating your ED application? Will all the schools you apply regular decision know where you applied ED?

Likewise, understanding the time-dependence of applications and the inherent risk of ED, do schools report ED decisions faster than regular decisions to allow applicants to pursue alternative choices?

Read every ED agreement carefully. Some schools allow you to apply ED to multiple schools consecutively, some do NOT.

So it's school-specific, thanks!

What about whether schools will know if you've EDed and been held during RD or during a second ED?

remix wrote:

collegebum1989 wrote:Ok, from what I read, EDing to two places concurrently is immoral. How about EDing to multiple schools in one cycles after hearing decisions.

For example, ED to NYU, and then EDing to Penn after being held. Is this ok to do? If it is, then will Penn know you EDed to NYU and were held when evaluating your ED application? Will all the schools you apply regular decision know where you applied ED?

Likewise, understanding the time-dependence of applications and the inherent risk of ED, do schools report ED decisions faster than regular decisions to allow applicants to pursue alternative choices?

Penn has two stages of ED now, so you could theoretically apply to NYU first, find out, and then hit Penn up on their second round.

False:
UPenn:
"Early Decision applicants applying to the Early Decision program at Penn Law commit themselves to matriculate at Penn Law if
admitted pursuant to the Early Decision program. An Early Decision applicant to Penn Law may not apply to a binding Early
Decision program at another law school during the same admissions cycle. Applicants applying to Penn Law's Early Decision
program may apply to other law schools on a non-binding Early Notification or Regular decision basis, provided that they agree that
(1) if accepted to Penn Law as an Early Decision applicant, they will immediately withdraw in writing their applications to all other
law schools and (2) they will not initiate any new applications after they have been informed of their acceptance to Penn Law under
the Early Decision program."

Maybe you could get away with it after Penn rejects you, since after all what can they do at that point? But, it is still against the rules of the ED

collegebum1989 wrote:Ok, from what I read, EDing to two places concurrently is immoral. How about EDing to multiple schools in one cycles after hearing decisions.

For example, ED to NYU, and then EDing to Penn after being held. Is this ok to do? If it is, then will Penn know you EDed to NYU and were held when evaluating your ED application? Will all the schools you apply regular decision know where you applied ED?

Likewise, understanding the time-dependence of applications and the inherent risk of ED, do schools report ED decisions faster than regular decisions to allow applicants to pursue alternative choices?

You should not ED to two schools at the same time. If you submit ED to one school, and they decide to move you to the regular pool of people or just your hold app, then it should be fine to ED to another school. (The ED application is you telling the school: "accept me now and i'll attend." When they hold your app, they are saying "Thanks, but no thanks--but we don't want to reject you just yet.")

A major part of most ED applications is the early turn-around. Most schools promise to let you know by a certain date or time period. Look up individual schools for more information on this point though.