holy shit. ruby vs stanford hmmmmmmmmmmmm good luck with that decisionvzapana wrote:HOLY SHIT I GOT A RUBY kdkwlzhbixks
Chicago c/o 2016 Applicants (2012-2013) Forum
- jbagelboy

- Posts: 10361
- Joined: Thu Nov 29, 2012 7:57 pm
Re: Chicago c/o 2016 Applicants (2012-2013)
- Spritzpiggy

- Posts: 229
- Joined: Mon Jul 09, 2012 9:57 am
Re: Chicago c/o 2016 Applicants (2012-2013)
RUBY!!!!! Oh my goodness I'm freaking out!!
- broadstreet11

- Posts: 175
- Joined: Sun Feb 19, 2012 7:34 pm
Re: Chicago c/o 2016 Applicants (2012-2013)
Congrats!! Are Ruby's in waves? Or are we SOL the without an email today?jbagelboy wrote:holy shit. ruby vs stanford hmmmmmmmmmmmm good luck with that decisionvzapana wrote:HOLY SHIT I GOT A RUBY kdkwlzhbixks
- spicyyoda17

- Posts: 320
- Joined: Thu Jul 12, 2012 6:02 pm
Re: Chicago c/o 2016 Applicants (2012-2013)
Wavesbroadstreet11 wrote:Congrats!! Are Ruby's in waves? Or are we SOL the without an email today?jbagelboy wrote:holy shit. ruby vs stanford hmmmmmmmmmmmm good luck with that decisionvzapana wrote:HOLY SHIT I GOT A RUBY kdkwlzhbixks
- jbagelboy

- Posts: 10361
- Joined: Thu Nov 29, 2012 7:57 pm
Re: Chicago c/o 2016 Applicants (2012-2013)
interview invite received just now, early november complete and 1/31 UR. Thought it would never come!
- jbagelboy

- Posts: 10361
- Joined: Thu Nov 29, 2012 7:57 pm
Re: Chicago c/o 2016 Applicants (2012-2013)
lol, just realized my skype name is identical to my TLS screen name. so much for anonymity.jbagelboy wrote:interview invite received just now, early november complete and 1/31 UR. Thought it would never come!
-
MacB

- Posts: 341
- Joined: Fri Feb 15, 2013 12:26 pm
Re: Chicago c/o 2016 Applicants (2012-2013)
Congrats!spicyyoda17 wrote:Wavesbroadstreet11 wrote:Congrats!! Are Ruby's in waves? Or are we SOL the without an email today?jbagelboy wrote:holy shit. ruby vs stanford hmmmmmmmmmmmm good luck with that decisionvzapana wrote:HOLY SHIT I GOT A RUBY kdkwlzhbixks
I would like waves of Rubies.
-
wisteria

- Posts: 285
- Joined: Fri Nov 02, 2012 4:43 am
Re: Chicago c/o 2016 Applicants (2012-2013)
Invitation to interview received. Complete 12/5, UR 2/11.
I tried to schedule the first time slot I could see which was on 2/25. In a blink of eye all slots on 2/25 and 2/26 were gone.
Managed to schedule one 2/27. Thank god the invite came in time, because I'm traveling abroad on 2/28! 
I tried to schedule the first time slot I could see which was on 2/25. In a blink of eye all slots on 2/25 and 2/26 were gone.
- Crowing

- Posts: 2631
- Joined: Fri Feb 10, 2012 4:20 pm
Re: Chicago c/o 2016 Applicants (2012-2013)
I actually made a new Skype account specifically for the purposes of this interview.jbagelboy wrote:lol, just realized my skype name is identical to my TLS screen name. so much for anonymity.jbagelboy wrote:interview invite received just now, early november complete and 1/31 UR. Thought it would never come!
- sinfiery

- Posts: 3310
- Joined: Thu Jul 14, 2011 2:55 am
Re: Chicago c/o 2016 Applicants (2012-2013)
+1wisteria wrote:Invitation to interview received. Complete 12/5, UR 2/11.
-
spyder11

- Posts: 27
- Joined: Sat Oct 09, 2010 3:51 pm
Re: Chicago c/o 2016 Applicants (2012-2013)
Just got invited to interview 
I didn't know UChicago interviewed but I'm glad I got my Harvard interview over with. Should be better prepared for this one...
I didn't know UChicago interviewed but I'm glad I got my Harvard interview over with. Should be better prepared for this one...
Last edited by spyder11 on Fri Feb 22, 2013 10:43 pm, edited 1 time in total.
-
shntn

- Posts: 5319
- Joined: Sun Jun 10, 2012 1:45 pm
Re: Chicago c/o 2016 Applicants (2012-2013)
Oh they're Rubying people now? I should pay more attention to these threads.
On second thought, no, I shouldn't. Ignorance is bliss.
On second thought, no, I shouldn't. Ignorance is bliss.
-
WalkingPlato

- Posts: 171
- Joined: Mon Jul 02, 2012 10:51 pm
Re: Chicago c/o 2016 Applicants (2012-2013)
Does an interview invite suggest a higher chance of admission? I've heard that at some other schools, those who are interviewed have more than 50% of getting in. But, at those other schools, interviews were mandatory.
-
mambar

- Posts: 90
- Joined: Sun Feb 10, 2013 11:11 pm
Re: Chicago c/o 2016 Applicants (2012-2013)
.
Last edited by mambar on Thu Jun 01, 2017 12:15 pm, edited 1 time in total.
-
WalkingPlato

- Posts: 171
- Joined: Mon Jul 02, 2012 10:51 pm
Re: Chicago c/o 2016 Applicants (2012-2013)
Which spreadsheet? I'm sorry if it was talked about before.mambar wrote:The spreadsheet makes it look very promising, but that could be deceptive. I think it's likely a very good sign.WalkingPlato wrote:Does an interview invite suggest a higher chance of admission? I've heard that at some other schools, those who are interviewed have more than 50% of getting in. But, at those other schools, interviews were mandatory.
- Crowing

- Posts: 2631
- Joined: Fri Feb 10, 2012 4:20 pm
Re: Chicago c/o 2016 Applicants (2012-2013)
It's in the OP. We're suffering from some underreporting of post-interview WLs but it sill looks like a good sign overall to get an invite, even though Chicago tries to claim it doesn't imply anything.WalkingPlato wrote:Which spreadsheet? I'm sorry if it was talked about before.mambar wrote:The spreadsheet makes it look very promising, but that could be deceptive. I think it's likely a very good sign.WalkingPlato wrote:Does an interview invite suggest a higher chance of admission? I've heard that at some other schools, those who are interviewed have more than 50% of getting in. But, at those other schools, interviews were mandatory.
-
mambar

- Posts: 90
- Joined: Sun Feb 10, 2013 11:11 pm
Re: Chicago c/o 2016 Applicants (2012-2013)
.
Last edited by mambar on Thu Jun 01, 2017 12:15 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)
Yeah so much for "any outcome being possible." GG Chicago.mambar wrote: Yep. But no denials!
Though I guess that could still be true. Maybe nobody stood up and took their pants off in the middle of their interview yet.
-
mambar

- Posts: 90
- Joined: Sun Feb 10, 2013 11:11 pm
Re: Chicago c/o 2016 Applicants (2012-2013)
.
Last edited by mambar on Thu Jun 01, 2017 12:15 pm, edited 1 time in total.
- postard

- Posts: 154
- Joined: Thu Nov 01, 2012 7:39 pm
Re: Chicago c/o 2016 Applicants (2012-2013)
Invited/Set up my interview today. Stoked!
- Jaqen

- Posts: 986
- Joined: Wed Mar 21, 2012 6:23 am
Re: Chicago c/o 2016 Applicants (2012-2013)
If you haven't seen this thread, check it out: http://www.top-law-schools.com/forums/v ... 2&t=200887postard wrote:Invited/Set up my interview today. Stoked!
It was a big help for my interview. <3 Regulus for making it, and everyone who contributed.
-
vzapana

- Posts: 530
- Joined: Sat Oct 13, 2012 2:54 pm
Re: Chicago c/o 2016 Applicants (2012-2013)
+1Jaqen wrote: If you haven't seen this thread, check it out: http://www.top-law-schools.com/forums/v ... 2&t=200887
It was a big help for my interview. <3 Regulus for making it, and everyone who contributed.
- ssanonymous

- Posts: 513
- Joined: Mon Nov 05, 2012 2:27 pm
Re: Chicago c/o 2016 Applicants (2012-2013)
Invites out? Congrats guys! Guess this means I got rejected. No surprises there. Make it quick, Chicago!
- reallysearch

- Posts: 106
- Joined: Sat Jun 23, 2012 1:57 am
Re: Chicago c/o 2016 Applicants (2012-2013)
I know someone who was interviewed and rejected.... I guess it's just the self-reporting nature of the spreadsheet has made the result quite biased. But overall it's quite a positive sign to be invited.Crowing wrote:Yeah so much for "any outcome being possible." GG Chicago.mambar wrote: Yep. But no denials!
Though I guess that could still be true. Maybe nobody stood up and took their pants off in the middle of their interview yet.
-
ht2988

- Posts: 482
- Joined: Wed Sep 08, 2010 11:07 pm
Re: Chicago c/o 2016 Applicants (2012-2013)
+1. complete 12/5, UR 1/31 and 2/11 and no interview invite for me. wasn't expecting to get in here, but...ssanonymous wrote:Invites out? Congrats guys! Guess this means I got rejected. No surprises there. Make it quick, Chicago!