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
-
Kimikho

- 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.
- 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.
-
Kimikho

- 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.
- 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.
-
Kimikho

- 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
-
Kimikho

- 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
- 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?
-
teenybean

- 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.
- 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?!?!?