Unethical Admission Practices at Case Western Forum

[glitter178]

unethical is simply the wrong word for the scenario of which you speak.

i'd suggest rude.

[NYC Law]

It really doesn't matter. At all. I'm not insensitive, I'm on waitlists too, but you're freaking out over nothing.

If you put as much time into LSAT prep as you did into investigating what Case's admissions office is doing maybe you wouldn't have this problem.

[nadopretz]

edit

[coldshoulder]

I don't speak for delusional, but we may share common views on why such practices are unethical.

Of course x7227, your assertion that law schools may admit applicants any way they want is a bit of a stretch. Can a law school refuse to admit an applicant based on protected classes such a race, gender, religion, etc.? I understand your argument, but some clarity is needed.

Since Case has decided to admit previously rejected applicants, I assume that the people currently on the waitlist have little chance of being admitted. In that case, the ethical thing to do would be to inform waitlisted candidates and release them from the list. While law schools have no obligation to admit waitlisted applicants, it is unethical to keep people waiting when all evidence indicates that there is little chance of success. I assume that a number of WL applicants have told Case that the school is their top choice. Assuming that Case is really their #1 school, these candidates are disadvantaged when they cannot tell other schools with certainty that they are their #1 choice.

For example, let's say applicant one is waitlisted at Case Western and Loyola in Los Angeles. This applicant tells Case that it is his #1 choice, but cannot ethically tell Loyola that it is also his #1 choice. The applicant has verbally committed to attending Case if admitted. The applicant is disadvantaged when admission officers at Loyola review WL applicants to see who WILL attend Loyola if admitted. Loyola may offer the open position to someone who has expressed stronger interest for Loyola, something that someone who has decided on Case Western cannot ethically do.

People who were placed on hold and subsequently waitlisted have a reasonable belief that Case Western is genuinely interested in them. Otherwise, they would have been rejected after being deferred or rejected outright. Yet, all evidence indicates that Case Western is not interested in the applicants. I'm not accusing Case Western of illegal conduct. Rather, I believe that that their conduct is unethical.

Yes, I understand that I cannot do much to change the system. I merely wanted to know whether others have experienced the same treatment from Case. I know that waitlists are used for the benefit of the school. However, the ethical conduct demanded by law schools is a two way street. Of course, I hope that I do get off the waitlist and all this is rendered moot. Here's to wishing that the school is more ethical than the admissions office.

Blah blah blah.
Score higher than the 150's on the lsat, and then you can earn some sort of respect as to law school admissions.

[lawapp11]

"Case Western has no obligation to offer you admission from the waitlist and you admitted that."

I'm not complaining about any obligations Case may have to admit WL applicants. The school has no obligations to admit WL applicants.However, the decision of the school to accept previously rejected applicants reasonably indicates that WL applicants have little chance of being admitted. I'm merely stating that the ethical thing for Case to do is to inform WL applicants that they have little chance of being admitted and release them form the WL. If Case had said that their class was completely full, and that they do not need to use their waitlist, I'll be completely fine with that. However, Case does have room in their class, but has decided to accept rejected applicants while ignoring their WL applicants. Case can release its WL applicants, and it would be ethical to do so since it appears that the school will not use its waitlist.

Many WL applicants at Case are also waitlisted at other schools. Only one school can be #1 choice. I expressed my strongest interest for Case Western while only expressing interest for other schools The rational thing would be for me to withdraw my application and express strong interest at other schools. However, for some strange reason, I want to hold on to false hopes and chances at Case.

***************
I suggest both glitter.

[Magnolia]

You should probably learn the difference between ethics and common courtesy before you go to law school.

[lawapp11]

Enlighten me, please.

[Magnolia]

You're demanding that they be more transparent in their use of the waitlist. That's not required by any standard of ethics. That's courteous behavior. Putting you on the waitlist represents a promise that your file is still in consideration for any open seats. It is not a promise that you will get in. It is not a promise that you will be considered equally with all other applicants. It is not a promise that they will only admit people from the waitlist. It is not a promise to keep you informed of where you stand or the method they are using to decide who to admit. Therefore, so long as you are still being considered for admission, to any degree, they have not violated their promise to you. Transparency in the waitlist process is a courtesy, not a right. What CW is doing is discourteous, shitty, strange and annoying, but it is in no way unethical.

You don't need the school to release you from the waitlist in order for you to tell another school that they are your first choice. You are free to withdraw from the CW waitlist at any time if you don't like their admissions policies or don't think you will get in. Not being able to tell another school that they are your first choice is the price you have to pay to remain in consideration for CW. Every waitlisted applicant has to make that choice. Most waitlisted applicants don't have any better odds of getting in than you do.

Also, you're not really in the dark about what's going on and your subsequent chances for admission, so I'm not sure why you need the school to tell you directly. You're here ranting about needing transparency when you are actually pretty well informed of what's going on.

[x7227]

I don't speak for delusional, but we may share common views on why such practices are unethical.

Of course x7227, your assertion that law schools may admit applicants any way they want is a bit of a stretch. Can a law school refuse to admit an applicant based on protected classes such a race, gender, religion, etc.? I understand your argument, but some clarity is needed.

But you have to understand that being on a waitlist is not a protected class. It sucks, but in your situation, your recourse against the school is to say, 'Peace, I'm out!' You're a voluntary consumer here, you have limited rights, especially since you made the decision to apply, agreed to their rules, and continue to submit to their rules by remaining on the waitlist. Nobody held a gun to your head and told you to apply to Case or to stay on the waitlist, you make the decision every second of the day to remain committed to their (in your eyes) capricious standards. Case owes you nothing.

Since Case has decided to admit previously rejected applicants, I assume that the people currently on the waitlist have little chance of being admitted.

That's an assumption. You'll learn not to make them soon enough. Just because the school is attempting to raise their LSAT/GPA numbers by contacting those who have been passed, does not lead to the conclusion that Case isn't going to admit off their waitlist. An equally valid explanation (equal in that they're not based in concrete facts, but since we're speculating about things, why not) is that Case is attempting to raise one of LSAT or GPA so that they can admit some people off the waitlist without dropping their overall target numbers who otherwise might skew whichever they are compensating for. Just another theory though.

In that case, the ethical thing to do would be to inform waitlisted candidates and release them from the list. While law schools have no obligation to admit waitlisted applicants, it is unethical to keep people waiting when all evidence indicates that there is little chance of success.

This is wholly conclusory statement and will not be considered. Seriously, why is it unethical on the school's part. Would it be the cool thing to do? Yup. However, as you insist on framing this as an ethical argument, the school is under no obligation to work through their waitlist in any specific way that is conducive to conferring a benefit to you.

I assume that a number of WL applicants have told Case that the school is their top choice. Assuming that Case is really their #1 school, these candidates are disadvantaged when they cannot tell other schools with certainty that they are their #1 choice.

Wanna know the solution? Drop off the waitlist. Its your choice to continue to make Case your #1 choice. Your decision to ride it out is your own, and your decision to keep stating that it is your #1 choice is also your own. How can Case possibly be ethically responsible for your choices?

For example, let's say applicant one is waitlisted at Case Western and Loyola in Los Angeles. This applicant tells Case that it is his #1 choice, but cannot ethically tell Loyola that it is also his #1 choice. The applicant has verbally committed to attending Case if admitted. The applicant is disadvantaged when admission officers at Loyola review WL applicants to see who WILL attend Loyola if admitted. Loyola may offer the open position to someone who has expressed stronger interest for Loyola, something that someone who has decided on Case Western cannot ethically do.

Well I'd say hypothetical applicant here made his or her choice to express interest in Case Western as their #1 choice. That's a choice, the applicant was not compelled to say anything.

People who were placed on hold and subsequently waitlisted have a reasonable belief that Case Western is genuinely interested in them. Otherwise, they would have been rejected after being deferred or rejected outright. Yet, all evidence indicates that Case Western is not interested in the applicants. I'm not accusing Case Western of illegal conduct. Rather, I believe that that their conduct is unethical.

Just because Case is more interested in another candidate does not mean they are no longer genuinely interested in you. I have yet to see any concrete evidence in support of your position that their admission of other candidates invalidates their interest in you.

Yes, I understand that I cannot do much to change the system. I merely wanted to know whether others have experienced the same treatment from Case. I know that waitlists are used for the benefit of the school. However, the ethical conduct demanded by law schools is a two way street. Of course, I hope that I do get off the waitlist and all this is rendered moot. Here's to wishing that the school is more ethical than the admissions office.

I wish you the best of luck in your legal studies.

[x7227]

You're demanding that they be more transparent in their use of the waitlist. That's not required by any standard of ethics. That's courteous behavior. Putting you on the waitlist represents a promise that your file is still in consideration for any open seats. It is not a promise that you will get in. It is not a promise that you will be considered equally with all other applicants. It is not a promise that they will only admit people from the waitlist. It is not a promise to keep you informed of where you stand or the method they are using to decide who to admit. Therefore, so long as you are still being considered for admission, to any degree, they have not violated their promise to you. Transparency in the waitlist process is a courtesy, not a right. What CW is doing is discourteous, shitty, strange and annoying, but it is in no way unethical.

You don't need the school to release you from the waitlist in order for you to tell another school that they are your first choice. You are free to withdraw from the CW waitlist at any time if you don't like their admissions policies or don't think you will get in. Not being able to tell another school that they are your first choice is the price you have to pay to remain in consideration for CW. Every waitlisted applicant has to make that choice. Most waitlisted applicants don't have any better odds of getting in than you do.

Also, you're not really in the dark about what's going on and your subsequent chances for admission, so I'm not sure why you need the school to tell you directly. You're here ranting about needing transparency when you are actually pretty well informed of what's going on.

Thank you for putting it much more elegantly and pithily than I could...TITCR.

[Magnolia]

Yes, I understand that I cannot do much to change the system. I merely wanted to know whether others have experienced the same treatment from Case. I know that waitlists are used for the benefit of the school. However, the ethical conduct demanded by law schools is a two way street. Of course, I hope that I do get off the waitlist and all this is rendered moot. Here's to wishing that the school is more ethical than the admissions office.

I wish you the best of luck in your legal studies.

[mel2010]

What did their waitlist offer say? The only real chance for a clear "unethical" action would be if they objectively lied. As if anything is objective.

[bport hopeful]

What did their waitlist offer say? The only real chance for a clear "unethical" action would be if they objectively lied. As if anything is objective.

I remember Intro to Philosophy.

[aquasalad]

Not to play with anyone's feelings but this thread is sad.

[kapachino]

I'm sorry that they didn't choose you for admission, but that's not unethical. They simply chose to give second looks to people that didn't make the first cut. I sincerely doubt you'd be making this argument had you gotten in.

[bport hopeful]

Just to play devils advocate, I think an ethics argument could be made. WLs are there for a reason and people use their positions on WLs to help them make decisions which will ultimately effect their entire lives. By not using WLs for their designated purposes, law schools are essentially feeding misleading information to applicants which could negatively effect their futures.

Misleading seems to be an unethical trait.

I dont know that I subscribe to that, and it certainly could be glistened up a bit, but people need to relax because dude said it was unethical.

[Grizz]

Be grateful. They're probably doing you a favor.

[redwings15]

I feel for you. Why should a school have a WL if it doesn't even use it? It's not your fault they messed up and rejected people they shouldn't have and then gave them priority over more wanting WL applicants.

[dr123]

U Mad?

[FantasticMrFox]

I feel for you. Why should a school have a WL if it doesn't even use it? It's not your fault they messed up and rejected people they shouldn't have and then gave them priority over more wanting WL applicants.

...but wishing doesn't necessary mean qualified. Obviously, rectifying their rejection mistakes were more appealing than using the WL. I don't think people should get this upset over admissions especially when most of the components were based on something they themselves could have affected and made more appealing.

[x7227]

Just to play devils advocate, I think an ethics argument could be made. WLs are there for a reason and people use their positions on WLs to help them make decisions which will ultimately effect their entire lives. By not using WLs for their designated purposes, law schools are essentially feeding misleading information to applicants which could negatively effect their futures.

This is where your argument falls apart. There is absolutely nothing misleading about a waitlist or admitting people who weren't on the waitlist. A waitlist is a statement to a student that we're interested in your application, but not enough to offer you admission. The concept of a waitlist is pretty clear. You did not make the cut. It is a rejection with a statement that we might reconsider that decision if we feel like it. Anyone who assumes "If I really want it, and write 20 LOCIs and call the admissions staff every day like poster Y did last year, and Y got in, they have to let me in too," is just asking for trouble.

I've gotten waitlisted, its a crappy feeling, doubly so if you can't figure out why someone else got in over you. We all move on.

I was really sincere when I said I wish the OP best of luck in their legal studies. That being said, its just beyond the pale to make an issue out of a school choosing who to admit and who not to admit. What if TLSer A was held and TLSer B was on a waitlist. If B gets in before A, is that also unethical? What if its priority reserve and regular waitlist? It might suck, but its not unethical. Words mean something, and as future lawyers, shouldn't we at least pay lip service to the actual definition of "ethical".

[09042014]

I have a shameful secret to admit. I ... I got waitlisted at Georgetown. The horror.

[bport hopeful]

Just to play devils advocate, I think an ethics argument could be made. WLs are there for a reason and people use their positions on WLs to help them make decisions which will ultimately effect their entire lives. By not using WLs for their designated purposes, law schools are essentially feeding misleading information to applicants which could negatively effect their futures.

This is where your argument falls apart. There is absolutely nothing misleading about a waitlist or admitting people who weren't on the waitlist. A waitlist is a statement to a student that we're interested in your application, but not enough to offer you admission. The concept of a waitlist is pretty clear. You did not make the cut. It is a rejection with a statement that we might reconsider that decision if we feel like it. Anyone who assumes "If I really want it, and write 20 LOCIs and call the admissions staff every day like poster Y did last year, and Y got in, they have to let me in too," is just asking for trouble.

I've gotten waitlisted, its a crappy feeling, doubly so if you can't figure out why someone else got in over you. We all move on.

I was really sincere when I said I wish the OP best of luck in their legal studies. That being said, its just beyond the pale to make an issue out of a school choosing who to admit and who not to admit. What if TLSer A was held and TLSer B was on a waitlist. If B gets in before A, is that also unethical? What if its priority reserve and regular waitlist? It might suck, but its not unethical. Words mean something, and as future lawyers, shouldn't we at least pay lip service to the actual definition of "ethical".

You dont think that a school is suggesting that an applicant that is Waitlisted is in a better position to be admitted than someone who was straight up rejected?

If my argument falls apart somewhere, its not there.

[NYC Law]

I have a shameful secret to admit. I ... I got waitlisted at Georgetown. The horror.

QFP

[09042014]

I have a shameful secret to admit. I ... I got waitlisted at Georgetown. The horror.

QFP

And not even preferred WL, and definitely not the super secret special waitlist.