Unethical Admission Practices at Case Western Forum

[tyro]

I dunno who made fun of lawapp. OP asked a question, we answered it. OP doubled/tripled down on the original "unethical" claims (Proving OP wasn't genuinely asking a question if the answer he/she was looking for was already pre-determined). OP was just looking for sympathy (which many of us gave...at first...) and after the OP doubled down, most of us slammed him/her for being sensationalist. Telling someone they're completely and utterly wrong isn't the same thing as making fun of them. Unless that is what our society has come to, in which case I don't want to live on this planet anymore.

It just seems like some people on here always post in a snarky tone which seems kind of distasteful.

[bigjinjapan]

I dunno who made fun of lawapp. OP asked a question, we answered it. OP doubled/tripled down on the original "unethical" claims (Proving OP wasn't genuinely asking a question if the answer he/she was looking for was already pre-determined). OP was just looking for sympathy (which many of us gave...at first...) and after the OP doubled down, most of us slammed him/her for being sensationalist. Telling someone they're completely and utterly wrong isn't the same thing as making fun of them. Unless that is what our society has come to, in which case I don't want to live on this planet anymore.

It just seems like some people on here always post in a snarky tone which seems kind of distasteful.

Welcome to the internet.

[bjsesq]

It is retardedly easy to get into law school. You basically apply to one school and BCC 15 more.

The people who take the above suggested approach do not gain admission to a bevy of law schools.

Or.... they do.

[Kilpatrick]

I dunno who made fun of lawapp. OP asked a question, we answered it. OP doubled/tripled down on the original "unethical" claims (Proving OP wasn't genuinely asking a question if the answer he/she was looking for was already pre-determined). OP was just looking for sympathy (which many of us gave...at first...) and after the OP doubled down, most of us slammed him/her for being sensationalist. Telling someone they're completely and utterly wrong isn't the same thing as making fun of them. Unless that is what our society has come to, in which case I don't want to live on this planet anymore.

It just seems like some people on here always post in a snarky tone which seems kind of distasteful.

That's what makes the site entertaining. What would be the point of reading the 20 millionth 'should I go to a TTT at sticker' thread if DF or someone wasn't there to make fun of it?

[wileyman02]

I dunno who made fun of lawapp. OP asked a question, we answered it. OP doubled/tripled down on the original "unethical" claims (Proving OP wasn't genuinely asking a question if the answer he/she was looking for was already pre-determined). OP was just looking for sympathy (which many of us gave...at first...) and after the OP doubled down, most of us slammed him/her for being sensationalist. Telling someone they're completely and utterly wrong isn't the same thing as making fun of them. Unless that is what our society has come to, in which case I don't want to live on this planet anymore.

It just seems like some people on here always post in a snarky tone which seems kind of distasteful.

That's what makes the site entertaining. What would be the point of reading the 20 millionth 'should I go to a TTT at sticker' thread if DF or someone wasn't there to make fun of it?

The most entertaining thing about this thread is that the OP brought all of this on himself after being duped by a flamer. BONNNNG.

[romothesavior]

ITT: Insanely stupid argument from the OP, scorn and derision from all sides, long-winded attempts by OP at defending the stupid argument, a few random morons chiming in to support OP's position, polished off with a patently false statement thrown in from left field by one of the biggest assclowns on TLS (lol @ "bevy").

I'd say this has been a pretty solid thread.

[PresMacAllen]

What's up with all the hostility from the folks who are answering this thread? All that was needed was a,"yeah, it sucks what case-western is doing, but that's just the way it is... sorry," instead of folks belittling and attacking the OP; just plain rude.

Yeah, it doesn't make sense that they'd admit rejected applicants. Sorry, I hope you make it into another school.

[flexityflex86]

i think the OP is putting too much blame on Case Western, and not enough on Israel. JNE would clearly throw a youtube video on here of some Jews blowing a shofar during their new year, which is somehow related to vo-dooing OP at case western. clearly, it is israel and not OP's LSAT score.

[fatduck]

i think the OP is putting too much blame on Case Western, and not enough on Israel. JNE would clearly throw a youtube video on here of some Jews blowing a shofar during their new year, which is somehow related to vo-dooing OP at case western. clearly, it is israel and not OP's LSAT score.

who are you?

[NYC Law]

What's up with all the hostility from the folks who are answering this thread? All that was needed was a,"yeah, it sucks what case-western is doing, but that's just the way it is... sorry," instead of folks belittling and attacking the OP; just plain rude.

Yeah, it doesn't make sense that they'd admit rejected applicants. Sorry, I hope you make it into another school.

[singingkris]

What's up with all the hostility from the folks who are answering this thread? All that was needed was a,"yeah, it sucks what case-western is doing, but that's just the way it is... sorry," instead of folks belittling and attacking the OP; just plain rude.

Yeah, it doesn't make sense that they'd admit rejected applicants. Sorry, I hope you make it into another school.

+1 to all the future advocates of our justice system. Saddening to see how awful people can be. What diplomacy?

[bigjinjapan]

The problem is the language OP used. In the professional and especially legal world, 'unethical' is a charge that ends careers, and shouldn't be bandied about too lightly. No one would disagree that CW is being pretty shitty and that OP's situation sucks, bites, blows whatever. But take this as an abject lesson to carry into law school: be careful of your language. Things you may have gotten away with in UG will not fly.

[JoeFish]

Although this may be a little silly in the other direction, I kind of felt the exact opposite of the OP in one regard: The second I got WLed at some schools (a T10, a T20, and a bunch of T30s) my reaction was to thank them for their interest and withdraw my app that day, because I didn't want to go to a school that would only let me in through the back door, probably with very little $. Now, sure, some people have a dream school, or didn't get a single acceptance (are there people like that?), and so, then, the WL becomes more important, yes. But to say that being on the waitlist should mean that the school is still interested in you seems like you're asking for a bit too much. The interest they have probably has more to do with your money or URM status or something else you can give them

[sundance95]

Although this may be a little silly in the other direction, I kind of felt the exact opposite of the OP in one regard: The second I got WLed at some schools (a T10, a T20, and a bunch of T30s) my reaction was to thank them for their interest and withdraw my app that day, because I didn't want to go to a school that would only let me in through the back door, probably with very little $. Now, sure, some people have a dream school, or didn't get a single acceptance (are there people like that?), and so, then, the WL becomes more important, yes. But to say that being on the waitlist should mean that the school is still interested in you seems like you're asking for a bit too much. The interest they have probably has more to do with your money or URM status or something else you can give them

I also find that italics are great at emphasizing my points for clarity.

[tyro]

The problem is the language OP used. In the professional and especially legal world, 'unethical' is a charge that ends careers, and shouldn't be bandied about too lightly. No one would disagree that CW is being pretty shitty and that OP is kind of a doofus. But take this as an abject lesson to carry into law school: be careful of your language. Things you may have gotten away with in UG will not fly.

That's really unethical of you to call him that.

[bigjinjapan]

The problem is the language OP used. In the professional and especially legal world, 'unethical' is a charge that ends careers, and shouldn't be bandied about too lightly. No one would disagree that CW is being pretty shitty and that OP is kind of a doofus. But take this as an abject lesson to carry into law school: be careful of your language. Things you may have gotten away with in UG will not fly.

That's really unethical of you to call him that.

Libel!

[JoeFish]

I also find that italics are great at emphasizing my points for clarity.

Well duh that's why I used them

[WarioLaw]

The interest they have probably has more to do with your money or URM status or something else you can give them

What does that have to do with anything? Those (and other) factors are what drives law schools' interest in every candidate. Of course the school is interested in what you can give them. Do you really think it works some other way? It's money, numbers, diversity, experience, etc. Whether you get admitted immediately or eventually off of a waitlist does not really say anything about a school's motives. A waitlist simply means you were not as strong a candidate (in their eyes) as those offered admission.

Any other view of the admission process is naive. It is certainly anyone's prerogative to withdraw from waitlists. However, I did not view waitlists as being indicative of a school wanting to take advantage of me. Now I am planning to attend a school that let me in off of their waitlist with a nice offer to boot.

[Paste_Me]

I tried to bring this up in the other Case Western thread but didn't get any responses. I wanted to know if everyone on the wait list received an email asking them to confirm their interest in still attending.

[Emma1]

The rudeness on the thread is completely unnecessary. If I were in OP's position I would consider writing a letter to the Dean of the Law school (not Dean of Admissions) and to several members of the Board of Trustees at Case Western when this cycle is completed. It won't help you or your cycle but they may apppreciate being aware your concerns and most likely will inquire from the Dean of admissions as to why they are rejecting people (and not waitlisting them) only to have to go back to them at a later date and then ignoring people on the established waitlist. Just because admissions is doing this doesnt mean the administration is aware or condoning these practices. At the least, the practice OP described is a failure of the Admissions office in their selection of candidates.

Sorry this happened to you.

[NYC Law]

The rudeness on the thread is completely unnecessary. If I were in OP's position I would consider writing a letter to the Dean of the Law school (not Dean of Admissions) and to several members of the Board of Trustees at Case Western when this cycle is completed. It won't help you or your cycle but they may apppreciate being aware your concerns and most likely will inquire from the Dean of admissions as to why they are rejecting people (and not waitlisting them) only to have to go back to them at a later date and then ignoring people on the established waitlist. Just because admissions is doing this doesnt mean the administration is aware or condoning these practices. At the least, the practice OP described is a failure of the Admissions office in their selection of candidates.

Sorry this happened to you.

Or OP can just getthefuckoverit

[Emma1]

The rudeness on the thread is completely unnecessary. If I were in OP's position I would consider writing a letter to the Dean of the Law school (not Dean of Admissions) and to several members of the Board of Trustees at Case Western when this cycle is completed. It won't help you or your cycle but they may apppreciate being aware your concerns and most likely will inquire from the Dean of admissions as to why they are rejecting people (and not waitlisting them) only to have to go back to them at a later date and then ignoring people on the established waitlist. Just because admissions is doing this doesnt mean the administration is aware or condoning these practices. At the least, the practice OP described is a failure of the Admissions office in their selection of candidates.

Sorry this happened to you.

Or OP can just getthefuckoverit

Or not.....

[tyro]

Just because admissions is doing this doesnt mean the administration is aware or condoning these practices.

I'm thinking they would probably be aware of it.

[Emma1]

Actually Board of Trustees are usually in the dark on these kind of things. They don't usually get involved in the day to day activities. However when they get phone calls or mail making them aware of issues they usually follow through and want answers from the the Dean of the school. They are usually very protective of the school's reputation.

[jayman6]

.