LOLSplit5 wrote:Vmmmmmmmf
GULC 2010 WL'ers Forum
- tommytahoe
- Posts: 548
- Joined: Sat Feb 14, 2009 2:46 pm
Re: GULC 2010 WL'ers
???Split5 wrote:Vmmmmmmmf
- SilverE2
- Posts: 929
- Joined: Wed Aug 20, 2008 10:04 pm
Re: GULC 2010 WL'ers
I think that's frustration vocalized and then typed out.tommytahoe wrote:???Split5 wrote:Vmmmmmmmf
- Regionality
- Posts: 789
- Joined: Thu Feb 25, 2010 5:13 am
Re: GULC 2010 WL'ers
tough onomatopoeia...SilverE2 wrote:I think that's frustration vocalized and then typed out.tommytahoe wrote:???Split5 wrote:Vmmmmmmmf
-
- Posts: 50
- Joined: Sat Feb 07, 2009 3:55 pm
Re: GULC 2010 WL'ers
looks like there will be no update today after all
Want to continue reading?
Register now to search topics and post comments!
Absolutely FREE!
Already a member? Login
-
- Posts: 903
- Joined: Mon Sep 21, 2009 4:48 pm
Re: GULC 2010 WL'ers
what? didn't they promise up an update today? i feel betrayed. wtf.
- tommytahoe
- Posts: 548
- Joined: Sat Feb 14, 2009 2:46 pm
Re: GULC 2010 WL'ers
Indeed. Very uncharacteristic. I'm going on a long bike ride now.MissLucky wrote:what? didn't they promise up an update today? i feel betrayed. wtf.
-
- Posts: 2
- Joined: Wed Jan 06, 2010 1:39 pm
Re: GULC 2010 WL'ers
I was perplexed when Georgetown said they didn't rank kids on the wait list and then clearly grouped kids in platforms of preference/ ranks. I was even more perplexed by the fact that they get around the ranking issue by pulling 1 or 2 kids every so often from the other lists. I was downright confused by their decision to ask prospective students that applied to the FT, if they were interested in PT when there was a list a mile long of PT wait list applicants hoping for a spot....
I understand it's all about numbers and scores, and quotas and that an applicant is a file and not a person the majority of the time for many admissions offices. However, let's not forget what wait list means. It is a student who the school would like to accept and deems qualified (hence not getting rejected)... they might not be as strong as the accepted applicant for whatever qualities the school is looking for... but they are deemed worthy enough to potentially be given the pass.
Promising an update and not delivering on it- is shocking and really disrespectful to the wait list candidates and their families. Georgetown has no obligation to get in touch with its applicants, but if it gives its word... you would think they would want to honor it. I truly have lost the capability to understand what is going on in that office. If we are supposed to feel better because they tweeted they were consumed by the wait list process but are heading out to the Nats game- it doesn't, because they didn't honor their word.
I understand it's all about numbers and scores, and quotas and that an applicant is a file and not a person the majority of the time for many admissions offices. However, let's not forget what wait list means. It is a student who the school would like to accept and deems qualified (hence not getting rejected)... they might not be as strong as the accepted applicant for whatever qualities the school is looking for... but they are deemed worthy enough to potentially be given the pass.
Promising an update and not delivering on it- is shocking and really disrespectful to the wait list candidates and their families. Georgetown has no obligation to get in touch with its applicants, but if it gives its word... you would think they would want to honor it. I truly have lost the capability to understand what is going on in that office. If we are supposed to feel better because they tweeted they were consumed by the wait list process but are heading out to the Nats game- it doesn't, because they didn't honor their word.
- Tweek
- Posts: 60
- Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2010 1:34 am
Re: GULC 2010 WL'ers
Underpromise, overdeliver... basic stuff.
- tommytahoe
- Posts: 548
- Joined: Sat Feb 14, 2009 2:46 pm
Re: GULC 2010 WL'ers
I agree, there is no defense for not giving us the update. And, even when an applicant vainly tries to ease the burden by saying that this is still better than most schools, or that getting within one day of a promised day is good enough, it's still a goal failed on its own terms. So, in the strictest sense, it's a broken promise, more or less defenseless.sickofthelappprocess wrote:I was perplexed when Georgetown said they didn't rank kids on the wait list and then clearly grouped kids in platforms of preference/ ranks. I was even more perplexed by the fact that they get around the ranking issue by pulling 1 or 2 kids every so often from the other lists. I was downright confused by their decision to ask prospective students that applied to the FT, if they were interested in PT when there was a list a mile long of PT wait list applicants hoping for a spot....
I understand it's all about numbers and scores, and quotas and that an applicant is a file and not a person the majority of the time for many admissions offices. However, let's not forget what wait list means. It is a student who the school would like to accept and deems qualified (hence not getting rejected)... they might not be as strong as the accepted applicant for whatever qualities the school is looking for... but they are deemed worthy enough to potentially be given the pass.
Promising an update and not delivering on it- is shocking and really disrespectful to the wait list candidates and their families. Georgetown has no obligation to get in touch with its applicants, but if it gives its word... you would think they would want to honor it. I truly have lost the capability to understand what is going on in that office. If we are supposed to feel better because they tweeted they were consumed by the wait list process but are heading out to the Nats game- it doesn't, because they didn't honor their word.
I also agree that the way they stratify the waitlists does suggest some de facto ranking, even if that ranking only forms itself in nebulous ways inside the grey matter of the GULC Adcomms. But preferences do establish themselves, I'm sure, even if an outright rankings list never materializes. I am smart enough to know which movies I'd most like to rent next time I go online to NetFlix, even if I didn't end up putting them in a queue.
However, the good folks at GULC would disagree with you about your comments about quotas. Or, that is, if they do use quotas in any unspoken way, they dare not say so for fear of crossing Supreme Court precedent. I don't think they just look at files, as opposed to people, however. Well, no, they don't have us in for interviews, or read our blogs, or play poker with us on Wednesdays, so they don't know us as people in that way. But they and many others would want to say that the "file" they look at is looked at for its reflection of the individual beyond the numbers. I know that in many ways that never really occurs. Schools are slave to the USNWR Rankings, some far more than others. But when it comes down to 2,000 people with 168/3.7, for example, I guarantee the person inside the application is what they are looking for. It may be a facsimile of our real selves —and unfortunately may be won by those best able to express/sell themselves in writing or who have been more strategic and demonstrative in the extracurricular "softs" they did prior to applying— but I would argue that they are really looking to find individuals, at least a little bit, and not just numbers. And, even if they betrayed their own particular needs, and went with another applicant they deem worthy enough to attend, there would be another 1,000 or so applicants standing there (incl. the now-overlooked applicant) ready to sing the same song of why they were overlooked when they are perfectly qualified. Just sayin...
sorry about the long post... exercise has me pumped.
- Lurkster
- Posts: 190
- Joined: Mon Nov 24, 2008 12:00 am
Re: GULC 2010 WL'ers
GULC doesn't owe any of you anything. Stop whining. This is coming from someone riding the WL just like the rest of you.
- tommytahoe
- Posts: 548
- Joined: Sat Feb 14, 2009 2:46 pm
Re: GULC 2010 WL'ers
You can all thank Lurkster —he has just provided the needed injection of WL sympathy, so that you guys don't have to.Lurkster wrote:GULC doesn't owe any of you anything. Stop whining. This is coming from someone riding the WL just like the rest of you.
-
- Posts: 437
- Joined: Tue Dec 01, 2009 7:52 pm
Re: GULC 2010 WL'ers
Actually, I was on the regular WL. I guess I just fit whatever function they wanted the spot to have. Thanks for the congrats though! From the email from GULC, it does appear that there were multiple offers but that there were only a "very few" going out right now.Lurkster wrote:xcountryjunkie was on special preferred. congrats xcj.
Register now!
Resources to assist law school applicants, students & graduates.
It's still FREE!
Already a member? Login
- Lurkster
- Posts: 190
- Joined: Mon Nov 24, 2008 12:00 am
Re: GULC 2010 WL'ers
I stand corrected. I looked into your post history, because I remember you being held after interviews like I was, and it said special preferred. Mustve been a quote.xcountryjunkie wrote:Actually, I was on the regular WL. I guess I just fit whatever function they wanted the spot to have. Thanks for the congrats though! From the email from GULC, it does appear that there were multiple offers but that there were only a "very few" going out right now.Lurkster wrote:xcountryjunkie was on special preferred. congrats xcj.
- Regionality
- Posts: 789
- Joined: Thu Feb 25, 2010 5:13 am
Re: GULC 2010 WL'ers
STFU, it's easy to tell people to stop whining whenever someone complains, it's a cheap shot just to hit someone when they have a gripe. I bet you'd be annoyed too.Lurkster wrote:GULC doesn't owe any of you anything. Stop whining. This is coming from someone riding the WL just like the rest of you.
If they promised they would tell people something at a certain time and they didn't, it's a broken promise and it's a legitimate complaint. Just because we are being judged by these institutions doesn't mean we don't get to be treated with respect...and I'm not even on GULC's WL.
- Lurkster
- Posts: 190
- Joined: Mon Nov 24, 2008 12:00 am
Re: GULC 2010 WL'ers
Sorry to come in here and spoil the fun, admittedly I'm a bit po'd about the fact that I'm not likely to get off of this thing. The fact is, the deck is stacked against all of us. If you are waiting on GULC to try to slip into the t14, you are likely to be let down.tommytahoe wrote:You can all thank Lurkster —he has just provided the needed injection of WL sympathy, so that you guys don't have to.Lurkster wrote:GULC doesn't owe any of you anything. Stop whining. This is coming from someone riding the WL just like the rest of you.
Remember -- we are getting pretty close to the fall again. I know that I'm going to start retooling my application now, to try to get it in first thing next cycle. Everyone waiting in this thread should probably be doing the same.
Ride the WL out, and if you get lucky, then great! However, your expectations should be tempered in accordance with reality. The reality for almost all of us will be no GULC this fall.
-
- Posts: 437
- Joined: Tue Dec 01, 2009 7:52 pm
Re: GULC 2010 WL'ers
Probably was a quote or something.. I'm not sure without seeing it.Lurkster wrote:I stand corrected. I looked into your post history, because I remember you being held after interviews like I was, and it said special preferred. Mustve been a quote.xcountryjunkie wrote:Actually, I was on the regular WL. I guess I just fit whatever function they wanted the spot to have. Thanks for the congrats though! From the email from GULC, it does appear that there were multiple offers but that there were only a "very few" going out right now.Lurkster wrote:xcountryjunkie was on special preferred. congrats xcj.
Haven't heard from you in a while... Hope this process has treated you well!
Get unlimited access to all forums and topics
Register now!
I'm pretty sure I told you it's FREE...
Already a member? Login
- Lurkster
- Posts: 190
- Joined: Mon Nov 24, 2008 12:00 am
Re: GULC 2010 WL'ers
I'm disappointed that I didn't get an email today too. The thing is, it's a form email that probably just tell us all to sit tight for another month or whatever. Life after the email will be the same as it was before.Regionality wrote:STFU, it's easy to tell people to stop whining whenever someone complains, it's a cheap shot just to hit someone when they have a gripe. I bet you'd be annoyed too.Lurkster wrote:GULC doesn't owe any of you anything. Stop whining. This is coming from someone riding the WL just like the rest of you.
If they promised they would tell people something at a certain time and they didn't, it's a broken promise and it's a legitimate complaint. Just because we are being judged by these institutions doesn't mean we don't get to be treated with respect...and I'm not even on GULC's WL.
- Lurkster
- Posts: 190
- Joined: Mon Nov 24, 2008 12:00 am
Re: GULC 2010 WL'ers
It hasn't gone well for me at all. Probably looking at applying again next year at this point. Since we were in the "held after interview" club together, it does make me happy that you got in. I'll keep you posted if I hear anything positive, but I don't have my hopes up.xcountryjunkie wrote:Probably was a quote or something.. I'm not sure without seeing it.Lurkster wrote:I stand corrected. I looked into your post history, because I remember you being held after interviews like I was, and it said special preferred. Mustve been a quote.xcountryjunkie wrote:Actually, I was on the regular WL. I guess I just fit whatever function they wanted the spot to have. Thanks for the congrats though! From the email from GULC, it does appear that there were multiple offers but that there were only a "very few" going out right now.Lurkster wrote:xcountryjunkie was on special preferred. congrats xcj.
Haven't heard from you in a while... Hope this process has treated you well!
- tommytahoe
- Posts: 548
- Joined: Sat Feb 14, 2009 2:46 pm
Re: GULC 2010 WL'ers
You're absolutely right. Making sure we all have firmly realistic (ie, bleak) outlook of our future vis-a-vis the GULC waitlist, is probably the best thing we can do for ourselves. Accept, adapt, move on.Lurkster wrote:It hasn't gone well for me at all. Probably looking at applying again next year at this point. Since we were in the "held after interview" club together, it does make me happy that you got in. I'll keep you posted if I hear anything positive, but I don't have my hopes up.xcountryjunkie wrote:Probably was a quote or something.. I'm not sure without seeing it.Lurkster wrote:I stand corrected. I looked into your post history, because I remember you being held after interviews like I was, and it said special preferred. Mustve been a quote.xcountryjunkie wrote: Actually, I was on the regular WL. I guess I just fit whatever function they wanted the spot to have. Thanks for the congrats though! From the email from GULC, it does appear that there were multiple offers but that there were only a "very few" going out right now.
Haven't heard from you in a while... Hope this process has treated you well!
And for those like me, with a re-apply Plan B in the works if all my waitlists don't come through for me by the end of July, then that advice is even more valuable.
But of course, that is far different from saying "Stop whining," which is probably why I and regionality didn't warm to the fairly brusque sentiment.
- Regionality
- Posts: 789
- Joined: Thu Feb 25, 2010 5:13 am
Re: GULC 2010 WL'ers
Different argument entirely.Lurkster wrote:I'm disappointed that I didn't get an email today too. The thing is, it's a form email that probably just tell us all to sit tight for another month or whatever. Life after the email will be the same as it was before.Regionality wrote:STFU, it's easy to tell people to stop whining whenever someone complains, it's a cheap shot just to hit someone when they have a gripe. I bet you'd be annoyed too.Lurkster wrote:GULC doesn't owe any of you anything. Stop whining. This is coming from someone riding the WL just like the rest of you.
If they promised they would tell people something at a certain time and they didn't, it's a broken promise and it's a legitimate complaint. Just because we are being judged by these institutions doesn't mean we don't get to be treated with respect...and I'm not even on GULC's WL.
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: 29
- Joined: Tue Apr 27, 2010 6:28 am
Re: GULC 2010 WL'ers
It's not even really the fact that they didn't e-mail today that bothers me. Sometimes an offices just gets swamped. But what makes me so annoyed is that Mr. Cornblatt (sp?) was out at a ballgame while we were waiting for an update that he promised today. Even a perfunctory, generic e-mail would have fulfilled that promise.
-
- Posts: 2
- Joined: Sun Mar 28, 2010 9:40 am
Re: GULC 2010 WL'ers
The Georgetown Law Admissions Representative told me this morning that the Committee is currently working on Waitlist decisions and will be sending out an additional update next week.
-
- Posts: 528
- Joined: Thu Oct 23, 2008 8:21 pm
Re: GULC 2010 WL'ers
Thanks for finding out.aiden127 wrote:The Georgetown Law Admissions Representative told me this morning that the Committee is currently working on Waitlist decisions and will be sending out an additional update next week.
-
- Posts: 903
- Joined: Mon Sep 21, 2009 4:48 pm
Re: GULC 2010 WL'ers
aiden127 wrote:The Georgetown Law Admissions Representative told me this morning that the Committee is currently working on Waitlist decisions and will be sending out an additional update next week.
WHAT?
Seriously? What are you waiting for?
Now there's a charge.
Just kidding ... it's still FREE!
Already a member? Login