What does tailored to Furd mean?koalacity wrote:The better question is who did. I wouldn't worry about it.drawstring wrote:So who else here didn't submit a LOR tailored to Furd?
Apparently they like those, but I couldn't find a professor of mine that was connected to the school in any way so I didn't think it was appropriate.
Stanford c/o 2017 (2013-2014 applicants) Forum
-
- Posts: 3971
- Joined: Fri Mar 16, 2012 7:01 pm
Re: Stanford c/o 2017 (2013-2014 applicants)
- China Spy
- Posts: 209
- Joined: Thu Jan 16, 2014 1:10 pm
Re: Stanford c/o 2017 (2013-2014 applicants)
Someone who wrote you a LOR specifically mentioning why you would be a great fit for Stanford.scoobers wrote:What does tailored to Furd mean?koalacity wrote:The better question is who did. I wouldn't worry about it.drawstring wrote:So who else here didn't submit a LOR tailored to Furd?
Apparently they like those, but I couldn't find a professor of mine that was connected to the school in any way so I didn't think it was appropriate.
- The-Specs
- Posts: 1039
- Joined: Tue Oct 30, 2012 12:55 pm
Re: Stanford c/o 2017 (2013-2014 applicants)
Furd is Stanford.scoobers wrote:What does tailored to Furd mean?koalacity wrote:The better question is who did. I wouldn't worry about it.drawstring wrote:So who else here didn't submit a LOR tailored to Furd?
Apparently they like those, but I couldn't find a professor of mine that was connected to the school in any way so I didn't think it was appropriate.
- drawstring
- Posts: 1933
- Joined: Tue Apr 09, 2013 4:52 pm
Re: Stanford c/o 2017 (2013-2014 applicants)
love the avatarscoobers wrote:What does tailored to Furd mean?koalacity wrote:The better question is who did. I wouldn't worry about it.drawstring wrote:So who else here didn't submit a LOR tailored to Furd?
Apparently they like those, but I couldn't find a professor of mine that was connected to the school in any way so I didn't think it was appropriate.
- barrelofmonkeys
- Posts: 1942
- Joined: Wed Jun 12, 2013 6:41 pm
Re: Stanford c/o 2017 (2013-2014 applicants)
OMFG YOU STOLE MY AVATAR GOD DAMN YOUscoobers wrote:What does tailored to Furd mean?koalacity wrote:The better question is who did. I wouldn't worry about it.drawstring wrote:So who else here didn't submit a LOR tailored to Furd?
Apparently they like those, but I couldn't find a professor of mine that was connected to the school in any way so I didn't think it was appropriate.
Want to continue reading?
Register now to search topics and post comments!
Absolutely FREE!
Already a member? Login
- thechancellor
- Posts: 584
- Joined: Thu Nov 07, 2013 1:01 pm
Re: Stanford c/o 2017 (2013-2014 applicants)
woah almost didint recognize you there scoobs. didja give up on waiting for 2800 post?scoobers wrote:What does tailored to Furd mean?koalacity wrote:The better question is who did. I wouldn't worry about it.drawstring wrote:So who else here didn't submit a LOR tailored to Furd?
Apparently they like those, but I couldn't find a professor of mine that was connected to the school in any way so I didn't think it was appropriate.
-
- Posts: 3971
- Joined: Fri Mar 16, 2012 7:01 pm
Re: Stanford c/o 2017 (2013-2014 applicants)
I used it in gtown for scottyalex.cm wrote:woah almost didint recognize you there scoobs. didja give up on waiting for 2800 post?scoobers wrote:What does tailored to Furd mean?koalacity wrote:The better question is who did. I wouldn't worry about it.drawstring wrote:So who else here didn't submit a LOR tailored to Furd?
Apparently they like those, but I couldn't find a professor of mine that was connected to the school in any way so I didn't think it was appropriate.

- JD1776
- Posts: 59
- Joined: Thu Dec 12, 2013 3:08 pm
Re: Stanford c/o 2017 (2013-2014 applicants)
I did. But I'm lucky enough to work with several of their alumni. They say they place "high value" on such letters, I just wish I knew how much.koalacity wrote:The better question is who did. I wouldn't worry about it.drawstring wrote:So who else here didn't submit a LOR tailored to Furd?
Apparently they like those, but I couldn't find a professor of mine that was connected to the school in any way so I didn't think it was appropriate.
- angels2fly
- Posts: 428
- Joined: Mon Oct 28, 2013 8:15 pm
Re: Stanford c/o 2017 (2013-2014 applicants)
I had both LOR targeted but I don't have the #s so I am really grasping at straws.koalacity wrote:The better question is who did. I wouldn't worry about it.drawstring wrote:So who else here didn't submit a LOR tailored to Furd?
Apparently they like those, but I couldn't find a professor of mine that was connected to the school in any way so I didn't think it was appropriate.
- wowhio
- Posts: 163
- Joined: Mon Oct 07, 2013 4:52 pm
Re: Stanford c/o 2017 (2013-2014 applicants)
Same boat.The-Specs wrote:I applied with a 3.58. hthwealtheow wrote:People, please convince me to apply here, before the deadline makes the decision for me. I keep telling myself it isn't worth it w/ my 3.75.
3.75 is a great GPA! Put your game face on! You've got this!
Last edited by wowhio on Wed Jan 29, 2014 6:52 pm, edited 1 time in total.
- wowhio
- Posts: 163
- Joined: Mon Oct 07, 2013 4:52 pm
Re: Stanford c/o 2017 (2013-2014 applicants)
*sheepishly raises hand*drawstring wrote:So who else here didn't submit a LOR tailored to Furd?
FWIW, I think it's stupid that Stanford likes tailored letters. Tailored letters are stupid. Basically all it shows is that the person asked really nicely and their professor/letter-writer was very, very generous and agreed to write a special letter so Stanford could feel all coddled and loved.
- JD1776
- Posts: 59
- Joined: Thu Dec 12, 2013 3:08 pm
Re: Stanford c/o 2017 (2013-2014 applicants)
For me, Stanford is my top choice. It's also a reach, so if they want to be coddled and loved -- then I shall coddle and love them.wowhio wrote:*sheepishly raises hand*drawstring wrote:So who else here didn't submit a LOR tailored to Furd?
FWIW, I think it's stupid that Stanford likes tailored letters. Tailored letters are stupid. Basically all it shows is that the person asked really nicely and their professor/letter-writer was very, very generous and agreed to write a special letter so Stanford could feel all coddled and loved.
- kershka
- Posts: 630
- Joined: Sat Dec 21, 2013 2:45 pm
Re: Stanford c/o 2017 (2013-2014 applicants)
Well, that's fine for you lucky bastards who know SLS alumsJD1776 wrote:For me, Stanford is my top choice. It's also a reach, so if they want to be coddled and loved -- then I shall coddle and love them.wowhio wrote:*sheepishly raises hand*drawstring wrote:So who else here didn't submit a LOR tailored to Furd?
FWIW, I think it's stupid that Stanford likes tailored letters. Tailored letters are stupid. Basically all it shows is that the person asked really nicely and their professor/letter-writer was very, very generous and agreed to write a special letter so Stanford could feel all coddled and loved.

In all honesty, I would have if I had known any alums who could have written a good, targeted letter. SLS is my first choice as well so I'm willing to jump through just about any hoops necessary. However, getting a letter out of one of my profs was a huge deal due to circumstances and asking for a targeted letter just seemed too much of an additional imposition given those circumstances. He wrote me an amazing letter though, so I can't complain.
Register now!
Resources to assist law school applicants, students & graduates.
It's still FREE!
Already a member? Login
- lawschool22
- Posts: 3875
- Joined: Thu Jul 25, 2013 5:47 pm
Re: Stanford c/o 2017 (2013-2014 applicants)
Is there a way of seeing said letter without violating the agreement you make w/ LSAC not to see it?kershka wrote:Well, that's fine for you lucky bastards who know SLS alumsJD1776 wrote:For me, Stanford is my top choice. It's also a reach, so if they want to be coddled and loved -- then I shall coddle and love them.wowhio wrote:*sheepishly raises hand*drawstring wrote:So who else here didn't submit a LOR tailored to Furd?
FWIW, I think it's stupid that Stanford likes tailored letters. Tailored letters are stupid. Basically all it shows is that the person asked really nicely and their professor/letter-writer was very, very generous and agreed to write a special letter so Stanford could feel all coddled and loved.![]()
In all honesty, I would have if I had known any alums who could have written a good, targeted letter. SLS is my first choice as well so I'm willing to jump through just about any hoops necessary. However, getting a letter out of one of my profs was a huge deal due to circumstances and asking for a targeted letter just seemed too much of an additional imposition given those circumstances. He wrote me an amazing letter though, so I can't complain.
-
- Posts: 3971
- Joined: Fri Mar 16, 2012 7:01 pm
Re: Stanford c/o 2017 (2013-2014 applicants)
It's stuff like this that reinforces my fear of jinxesscoobers wrote:
so..............¿tomorrow?
only time I'm doing that, folks. I'm a BIG believer in jinxing

- barrelofmonkeys
- Posts: 1942
- Joined: Wed Jun 12, 2013 6:41 pm
Re: Stanford c/o 2017 (2013-2014 applicants)
but i thought the 30th was the big dayscoobers wrote:It's stuff like this that reinforces my fear of jinxesscoobers wrote:
so..............¿tomorrow?
only time I'm doing that, folks. I'm a BIG believer in jinxing

-
- Posts: 3971
- Joined: Fri Mar 16, 2012 7:01 pm
Re: Stanford c/o 2017 (2013-2014 applicants)
the 30th was on a Wednesday last yearbarrelofmonkeys wrote:but i thought the 30th was the big dayscoobers wrote:It's stuff like this that reinforces my fear of jinxesscoobers wrote:
so..............¿tomorrow?
only time I'm doing that, folks. I'm a BIG believer in jinxing

Get unlimited access to all forums and topics
Register now!
I'm pretty sure I told you it's FREE...
Already a member? Login
- barrelofmonkeys
- Posts: 1942
- Joined: Wed Jun 12, 2013 6:41 pm
Re: Stanford c/o 2017 (2013-2014 applicants)
whatever. i don't even know why i'm ITT.scoobers wrote:the 30th was on a Wednesday last yearbarrelofmonkeys wrote:but i thought the 30th was the big dayscoobers wrote:It's stuff like this that reinforces my fear of jinxesscoobers wrote:
so..............¿tomorrow?
only time I'm doing that, folks. I'm a BIG believer in jinxing
- kershka
- Posts: 630
- Joined: Sat Dec 21, 2013 2:45 pm
Re: Stanford c/o 2017 (2013-2014 applicants)
Yeah, you're only waiving your right to demand the letter from whatever school you matriculate to after you are a student. You can always ask your recommender if they are willing to show it to you, though they are under no obligation to do so. However, my previous statement was a bit ambiguous; I never actually read my letter. He just told me what he had written after he had sent it in.lawschool22 wrote:
Is there a way of seeing said letter without violating the agreement you make w/ LSAC not to see it?
- lawschool22
- Posts: 3875
- Joined: Thu Jul 25, 2013 5:47 pm
Re: Stanford c/o 2017 (2013-2014 applicants)
Gotcha. Thanks!kershka wrote:Yeah, you're only waiving your right to demand the letter from whatever school you matriculate to after you are a student. You can always ask your recommender if they are willing to show it to you, though they are under no obligation to do so. However, my previous statement was a bit ambiguous; I never actually read my letter. He just told me what he had written after he had sent it in.lawschool22 wrote:
Is there a way of seeing said letter without violating the agreement you make w/ LSAC not to see it?
-
- Posts: 135
- Joined: Sun Oct 06, 2013 4:51 pm
Re: Stanford c/o 2017 (2013-2014 applicants)
All my recommenders just sent me their letters in an email once I thanked them. They must've known I was super curious. It's definitely worth asking, it's such a peace of mind.
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
- lawschool22
- Posts: 3875
- Joined: Thu Jul 25, 2013 5:47 pm
Re: Stanford c/o 2017 (2013-2014 applicants)
Lol, for extremely specific but uninteresting reasons I sort of want my recommenders to forget I am even going to law school for the time being, so I probably won't ask for now. Although I am very curious to read what they wrote.teenybean wrote:All my recommenders just sent me their letters in an email once I thanked them. They must've known I was super curious. It's definitely worth asking, it's such a peace of mind.
- DonnaPaulsen
- Posts: 13
- Joined: Fri Jan 17, 2014 2:09 am
Re: Stanford c/o 2017 (2013-2014 applicants)
At least 9 people have been admitted this week.
- kershka
- Posts: 630
- Joined: Sat Dec 21, 2013 2:45 pm
Re: Stanford c/o 2017 (2013-2014 applicants)
lol, you probably phrased it that way "specific but uninteresting" so as not to elicit questions from us but you failed. Now I am even more curious to know why you want them to forget you are applying to law schoollawschool22 wrote:Lol, for extremely specific but uninteresting reasons I sort of want my recommenders to forget I am even going to law school for the time being, so I probably won't ask for now. Although I am very curious to read what they wrote.teenybean wrote:All my recommenders just sent me their letters in an email once I thanked them. They must've known I was super curious. It's definitely worth asking, it's such a peace of mind.

*Disclaimer: I'm not actually asking you to answer this question; it sounds like it could out you. It is just going to bug me for the rest of the night (yes, my life is that uninteresting)
- koalacity
- Posts: 1162
- Joined: Wed Aug 07, 2013 9:56 pm
Re: Stanford c/o 2017 (2013-2014 applicants)
DonnaPaulsen wrote:At least 9 people have been admitted this week.





What?!? How do you know?!?!?
Seriously? What are you waiting for?
Now there's a charge.
Just kidding ... it's still FREE!
Already a member? Login