Chicago c/o 2016 Applicants (2012-2013) Forum
-
- Posts: 3070
- Joined: Mon Jun 18, 2012 12:17 am
Re: Chicago c/o 2016 Applicants (2012-2013)
.
Last edited by 20141023 on Mon Feb 16, 2015 3:33 pm, edited 1 time in total.
- Crowing
- Posts: 2631
- Joined: Fri Feb 10, 2012 4:20 pm
Re: Chicago c/o 2016 Applicants (2012-2013)
That sounds dangerous. What if someone was just letting them dangle?Regulus wrote:Hahahahareallysearch wrote:I actually dressed the full set since I was afraid they might ask me to stand up and walk around in front of the web cam.... Of course that is totally unwarranted, but you know, application panic...I was afraid of the same thing, so I also wore the full suit with shoes and the whole 9 yards. If I was an adcomm doing Skype interviews, I would totally ask each applicant to stand up and spin around at the beginning of each interview. And then I would proceed to automatically admit everyone who was only wearing underwear because it would be a sign of how awesome they are.
-
- Posts: 3070
- Joined: Mon Jun 18, 2012 12:17 am
Re: Chicago c/o 2016 Applicants (2012-2013)
.
Last edited by 20141023 on Mon Feb 16, 2015 3:32 pm, edited 1 time in total.
- twinkletoes16
- Posts: 1317
- Joined: Mon Nov 19, 2012 11:14 pm
Re: Chicago c/o 2016 Applicants (2012-2013)
reallysearch wrote:
I actually dressed the full set since I was afraid they might ask me to stand up and walk around in front of the web cam.... Of course that is totally unwarranted, but you know, application panic...
like dis? --ImageRemoved--
- Mr. Elshal
- Posts: 611
- Joined: Thu Sep 20, 2012 11:30 pm
Re: Chicago c/o 2016 Applicants (2012-2013)
Interview invite!
All numbers and dates on LSN (link in profile)
All numbers and dates on LSN (link in profile)
Want to continue reading?
Register now to search topics and post comments!
Absolutely FREE!
Already a member? Login
- Yukos
- Posts: 1774
- Joined: Fri Jul 29, 2011 12:47 pm
Re: Chicago c/o 2016 Applicants (2012-2013)
I probably pushed it to the limit -- I wore a collared button-up shirt but no tie, jacket or sweater. I kinda regret it in retrospect but hey, I got in so I guess it wasn't a big deal.
- Crowing
- Posts: 2631
- Joined: Fri Feb 10, 2012 4:20 pm
Re: Chicago c/o 2016 Applicants (2012-2013)
Please use the following form to anonymously report if you have already received a decision after your interview.
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/vie ... dWc6MQ&ifq
The corresponding spreadsheet is here: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/lv? ... ldWc#gid=0
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/vie ... dWc6MQ&ifq
The corresponding spreadsheet is here: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/lv? ... ldWc#gid=0
Last edited by Crowing on Sun Jan 27, 2013 5:54 pm, edited 2 times in total.
- Mr. Elshal
- Posts: 611
- Joined: Thu Sep 20, 2012 11:30 pm
Re: Chicago c/o 2016 Applicants (2012-2013)
I would be honored to.Crowing wrote:Congrats! It seems like so far an interview invite is a better sign than I originally thought. It may be required for admission and seems to rule out dings with a good chance of acceptance.Mr. Elshal wrote:Interview invite!
All numbers and dates on LSN (link in profile)
Please use the following form to anonymously report if you have already received a decision after your interview.
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/vie ... dWc6MQ&ifq
The corresponding spreadsheet is here: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/lv? ... ldWc#gid=0
The email says the next wave of decisions will be in mid-February. Is it normal for them to be this transparent? I'm suspicious...
- Yukos
- Posts: 1774
- Joined: Fri Jul 29, 2011 12:47 pm
Re: Chicago c/o 2016 Applicants (2012-2013)
The acceptance email was pretty apologetic ("Thank you also for your patience throughout this process... [interviews] did require us to adjust our decision timeline a bit"), so I think they feel being so late has hurt their image and it's better that they be as transparent as possible from now on. Just a guess.
-
- Posts: 530
- Joined: Sat Oct 13, 2012 2:54 pm
Re: Chicago c/o 2016 Applicants (2012-2013)
I agree with this reasoning, and I think being transparent is chicago's best option moving forward. I certainly appreciate it.Yukos wrote:The acceptance email was pretty apologetic ("Thank you also for your patience throughout this process... [interviews] did require us to adjust our decision timeline a bit"), so I think they feel being so late has hurt their image and it's better that they be as transparent as possible from now on. Just a guess.
- Mr. Elshal
- Posts: 611
- Joined: Thu Sep 20, 2012 11:30 pm
Re: Chicago c/o 2016 Applicants (2012-2013)
Yeah, I definitely appreciate it. I just hope it's not like a certain (unnamed) school that said 12 weeks and gave me nothing. This would earn Chicago some serious points in my eyes, if they hold to it. Anyway, time to start prepping for my interview on Tuesday!vzapana wrote:I agree with this reasoning, and I think being transparent is chicago's best option moving forward. I certainly appreciate it.Yukos wrote:The acceptance email was pretty apologetic ("Thank you also for your patience throughout this process... [interviews] did require us to adjust our decision timeline a bit"), so I think they feel being so late has hurt their image and it's better that they be as transparent as possible from now on. Just a guess.
- clouded.memory
- Posts: 325
- Joined: Sat Jun 30, 2012 7:26 pm
Re: Chicago c/o 2016 Applicants (2012-2013)
Gah, interview is tomorrow. Have others' interviews been generally pleasant? I'm so nervous and not ready...
- elterrible78
- Posts: 1120
- Joined: Mon Mar 12, 2012 3:09 am
Re: Chicago c/o 2016 Applicants (2012-2013)
I legitimately enjoyed the experience. If you have thought at all about why you want to go to law school and why you are interested in Chicago, then there is nothing at all to be nervous about.clouded.memory wrote:Gah, interview is tomorrow. Have others' interviews been generally pleasant? I'm so nervous and not ready...
Register now!
Resources to assist law school applicants, students & graduates.
It's still FREE!
Already a member? Login
-
- Posts: 79
- Joined: Sat Jan 07, 2012 9:43 pm
Re: Chicago c/o 2016 Applicants (2012-2013)
Regulus wrote:Full-ride scholarship.Crowing wrote:
That sounds dangerous. What if someone was just letting them dangle?
+1
- Crowing
- Posts: 2631
- Joined: Fri Feb 10, 2012 4:20 pm
Re: Chicago c/o 2016 Applicants (2012-2013)
Agreed. I would actually love it if more schools interviewed; I feel like it's a great opportunity to express yourself more while also learning more about the school.elterrible78 wrote:I legitimately enjoyed the experience. If you have thought at all about why you want to go to law school and why you are interested in Chicago, then there is nothing at all to be nervous about.clouded.memory wrote:Gah, interview is tomorrow. Have others' interviews been generally pleasant? I'm so nervous and not ready...
- Yukos
- Posts: 1774
- Joined: Fri Jul 29, 2011 12:47 pm
Re: Chicago c/o 2016 Applicants (2012-2013)
No thanks, two interviews was enough stress for me...Crowing wrote:Agreed. I would actually love it if more schools interviewed; I feel like it's a great opportunity to express yourself more while also learning more about the school.elterrible78 wrote:I legitimately enjoyed the experience. If you have thought at all about why you want to go to law school and why you are interested in Chicago, then there is nothing at all to be nervous about.clouded.memory wrote:Gah, interview is tomorrow. Have others' interviews been generally pleasant? I'm so nervous and not ready...
-
- Posts: 5319
- Joined: Sun Jun 10, 2012 1:45 pm
Re: Chicago c/o 2016 Applicants (2012-2013)
+1Crowing wrote:Agreed. I would actually love it if more schools interviewed; I feel like it's a great opportunity to express yourself more while also learning more about the school.elterrible78 wrote:I legitimately enjoyed the experience. If you have thought at all about why you want to go to law school and why you are interested in Chicago, then there is nothing at all to be nervous about.clouded.memory wrote:Gah, interview is tomorrow. Have others' interviews been generally pleasant? I'm so nervous and not ready...
Get unlimited access to all forums and topics
Register now!
I'm pretty sure I told you it's FREE...
Already a member? Login
- clouded.memory
- Posts: 325
- Joined: Sat Jun 30, 2012 7:26 pm
Re: Chicago c/o 2016 Applicants (2012-2013)
I guess I'm just over-thinking it. Probably just overly stressed from missing my original interview due to incredible stupidity on my part.shntn wrote:+1Crowing wrote:Agreed. I would actually love it if more schools interviewed; I feel like it's a great opportunity to express yourself more while also learning more about the school.elterrible78 wrote:I legitimately enjoyed the experience. If you have thought at all about why you want to go to law school and why you are interested in Chicago, then there is nothing at all to be nervous about.clouded.memory wrote:Gah, interview is tomorrow. Have others' interviews been generally pleasant? I'm so nervous and not ready...
-
- Posts: 32
- Joined: Fri Jan 18, 2013 3:12 pm
Re: Chicago c/o 2016 Applicants (2012-2013)
Does it ever change to UR? I've been complete since 12/4 and haven't heard anything since..
-
- Posts: 285
- Joined: Fri Nov 02, 2012 4:43 am
Re: Chicago c/o 2016 Applicants (2012-2013)
Right there with ya~ complete 12/5 hereharvardboy24 wrote:Does it ever change to UR? I've been complete since 12/4 and haven't heard anything since..
Edit: Yes it has to change to UR before we'll hear anything.
- cwid1391
- Posts: 475
- Joined: Wed Feb 15, 2012 10:41 pm
Re: Chicago c/o 2016 Applicants (2012-2013)
11/20 complete here. Buckle your seatbelts, gentle(wo)men.wisteria wrote:Right there with ya~ complete 12/5 hereharvardboy24 wrote:Does it ever change to UR? I've been complete since 12/4 and haven't heard anything since..
Edit: Yes it has to change to UR before we'll hear anything.
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
-
- Posts: 73
- Joined: Tue Sep 20, 2011 5:03 am
Re: Chicago c/o 2016 Applicants (2012-2013)
Have there been any admits who were not asked to interview?Crowing wrote:Congrats! It seems like so far an interview invite is a better sign than I originally thought. It may be required for admission and seems to rule out dings with a good chance of acceptance.Mr. Elshal wrote:Interview invite!
All numbers and dates on LSN (link in profile)
- Mr. Elshal
- Posts: 611
- Joined: Thu Sep 20, 2012 11:30 pm
Re: Chicago c/o 2016 Applicants (2012-2013)
I tried asking this before but nobody came forward. Interview may become required for admission, a la harvard. My theory is that they're trying to interview everyone but the only reason they don't make it officially necessary for admission is so that if applications overwhelm them later, they aren't tied into doing the interviews. Just my 2¢ thoughdarkgrayclouds wrote:Have there been any admits who were not asked to interview?Crowing wrote:Congrats! It seems like so far an interview invite is a better sign than I originally thought. It may be required for admission and seems to rule out dings with a good chance of acceptance.Mr. Elshal wrote:Interview invite!
All numbers and dates on LSN (link in profile)
-
- Posts: 3070
- Joined: Mon Jun 18, 2012 12:17 am
Re: Chicago c/o 2016 Applicants (2012-2013)
.
Last edited by 20141023 on Mon Feb 16, 2015 3:31 pm, edited 2 times in total.
-
- Posts: 5319
- Joined: Sun Jun 10, 2012 1:45 pm
Re: Chicago c/o 2016 Applicants (2012-2013)
SighRegulus wrote:You forget the Exeter, good sir.Mr. Elshal wrote:I tried asking this before but nobody came forward. Interview may become required for admission, a la harvard. My theory is that they're trying to interview everyone but the only reason they don't make it officially necessary for admission is so that if applications overwhelm them later, they aren't tied into doing the interviews. Just my 2¢ though
Seriously? What are you waiting for?
Now there's a charge.
Just kidding ... it's still FREE!
Already a member? Login