Chicago c/o 2016 Applicants (2012-2013) Forum
- Audeamus
- Posts: 430
- Joined: Thu Nov 29, 2012 10:28 pm
Re: Chicago c/o 2016 Applicants (2012-2013)
given looming deadlines, anyone else think this will be the week for movement?
- jvincent11
- Posts: 207
- Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2013 1:38 pm
Re: Chicago c/o 2016 Applicants (2012-2013)
When is the deposit deadline? They could be waiting for that to pass to get a better sense of yield before they send out decisions for those waiting.
-
- Posts: 481
- Joined: Sat Jul 17, 2010 4:34 pm
Re: Chicago c/o 2016 Applicants (2012-2013)
Not till 4/30 

-
- Posts: 43
- Joined: Wed Mar 27, 2013 1:39 pm
Re: Chicago c/o 2016 Applicants (2012-2013)
Any movement fellow UR2 4/18s?
- JXander
- Posts: 966
- Joined: Tue Oct 16, 2012 10:23 am
Re: Chicago c/o 2016 Applicants (2012-2013)
Nope.account1 wrote:Any movement fellow UR2 4/18s?
Want to continue reading?
Register now to search topics and post comments!
Absolutely FREE!
Already a member? Login
-
- Posts: 39
- Joined: Tue Mar 19, 2013 2:54 pm
Re: Chicago c/o 2016 Applicants (2012-2013)
JXander wrote:Nope.account1 wrote:Any movement fellow UR2 4/18s?
- gbelle
- Posts: 476
- Joined: Thu Apr 04, 2013 2:50 pm
Re: Chicago c/o 2016 Applicants (2012-2013)
Nothing here..account1 wrote:Any movement fellow UR2 4/18s?
-
- Posts: 482
- Joined: Wed Sep 08, 2010 11:07 pm
Re: Chicago c/o 2016 Applicants (2012-2013)
When does Chicago begin pulling from the waitlist?
- 2014
- Posts: 6028
- Joined: Sat Jun 05, 2010 3:53 pm
Re: Chicago c/o 2016 Applicants (2012-2013)
I had similar numbers to you and got in last June. I don't think there was a ton of movement before that, but keep an eye on the deposit deadlines. They have to let some people in very shortly after April 30 if they are under deposited.ht2988 wrote:When does Chicago begin pulling from the waitlist?
- Lavitz
- Posts: 3402
- Joined: Mon May 31, 2010 1:39 am
Re: Chicago c/o 2016 Applicants (2012-2013)
Last year, they sent out an e-mail to certain waitlisted applicants on April 16th asking if they were still interested, and started accepting some of those people on April 20th. The deposit deadline last year was April 15th, so it looks like they get to work immediately afterwards.ht2988 wrote:When does Chicago begin pulling from the waitlist?
- Crowing
- Posts: 2631
- Joined: Fri Feb 10, 2012 4:20 pm
Re: Chicago c/o 2016 Applicants (2012-2013)
Last year Chicago took a ton of people off the WL. This year at ASW they mentioned that this ASW was the highest turnout ever (230+ admits I think) and their target class seems to be very slightly smaller than previous years (185). All that probably doesn't mean anything, but I'm just putting it out there.
- Lavitz
- Posts: 3402
- Joined: Mon May 31, 2010 1:39 am
Re: Chicago c/o 2016 Applicants (2012-2013)
Yeah, just from reading the posts on TLS, I feel like Chicago is a very popular option this cycle.
- cwid1391
- Posts: 475
- Joined: Wed Feb 15, 2012 10:41 pm
Re: Chicago c/o 2016 Applicants (2012-2013)
I'm actually pretty nervous about the class being significantly larger than usual - that's one of the big advantages of UChi for me. Several people I talked to at ASW made it seem like they really had too many admits right now. I don't think it bodes well for people hoping to get in off the WL or for scholarship negotiations. Just my .02.Lavitz wrote:Yeah, just from reading the posts on TLS, I feel like Chicago is a very popular option this cycle.
Register now!
Resources to assist law school applicants, students & graduates.
It's still FREE!
Already a member? Login
-
- Posts: 60
- Joined: Wed Feb 06, 2013 8:28 pm
Re: Chicago c/o 2016 Applicants (2012-2013)
i asked about class sizes this year and in the next few, specifically whether chicago anticipated any departure from the norm. admissions folk uniformly said no. i dont think you have reason to be nervous about a significantly larger class. enlarging the class only means making it harder to keep medians.
now whether too many early offers of admission bodes poorly for WL or scholarship negotiations...possibly, if that's true.
now whether too many early offers of admission bodes poorly for WL or scholarship negotiations...possibly, if that's true.
- cwid1391
- Posts: 475
- Joined: Wed Feb 15, 2012 10:41 pm
Re: Chicago c/o 2016 Applicants (2012-2013)
I still think, while they may have targeted 185, they may have done so poorly. The ASW was the largest in history (by a significant margin, I think he said). So regardless of what they tried to target, it may wind up being dramatically different.orbotop wrote:i asked about class sizes this year and in the next few, specifically whether chicago anticipated any departure from the norm. admissions folk uniformly said no. i dont think you have reason to be nervous about a significantly larger class. enlarging the class only means making it harder to keep medians.
now whether too many early offers of admission bodes poorly for WL or scholarship negotiations...possibly, if that's true.
We won't know for sure until after the deposit deadline, but I still think it's not great news for WLers and for at/below medians hoping to negotiate a scholarship.
-
- 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 12:01 pm, edited 1 time in total.
- Rahviveh
- Posts: 2333
- Joined: Mon Aug 06, 2012 12:02 pm
Re: Chicago c/o 2016 Applicants (2012-2013)
Ducktales. No way there were 230 people there. Maybe they counted the parents and SO's.Crowing wrote:Last year Chicago took a ton of people off the WL. This year at ASW they mentioned that this ASW was the highest turnout ever (230+ admits I think) and their target class seems to be very slightly smaller than previous years (185). All that probably doesn't mean anything, but I'm just putting it out there.
Get unlimited access to all forums and topics
Register now!
I'm pretty sure I told you it's FREE...
Already a member? Login
- Rahviveh
- Posts: 2333
- Joined: Mon Aug 06, 2012 12:02 pm
Re: Chicago c/o 2016 Applicants (2012-2013)
Think about how many people you talked to that had HYS as an option. Just about all of those are probably not joining us. That's historically what has happened.cwid1391 wrote:I still think, while they may have targeted 185, they may have done so poorly. The ASW was the largest in history (by a significant margin, I think he said). So regardless of what they tried to target, it may wind up being dramatically different.orbotop wrote:i asked about class sizes this year and in the next few, specifically whether chicago anticipated any departure from the norm. admissions folk uniformly said no. i dont think you have reason to be nervous about a significantly larger class. enlarging the class only means making it harder to keep medians.
now whether too many early offers of admission bodes poorly for WL or scholarship negotiations...possibly, if that's true.
We won't know for sure until after the deposit deadline, but I still think it's not great news for WLers and for at/below medians hoping to negotiate a scholarship.
- scoutmaster
- Posts: 75
- Joined: Wed Apr 10, 2013 3:43 pm
Re: Chicago c/o 2016 Applicants (2012-2013)
anyone else looking to live in south loop during 1L year
-
- Posts: 21
- Joined: Mon Apr 08, 2013 10:05 am
Re: Chicago c/o 2016 Applicants (2012-2013)
I feel like way too many people asked me what other schools I was considering so that they could tell me that they're considering Harvard but thought it would be worth it to swing by Chicago's ASW.mambar wrote:Just my anecdotal .02: a lot of people at ASW seemed to be way more interested in Columbia or in hearing from some other school. I did meet a lot of people committed to Chicago, but there were plenty of, frankly, obnoxious ones around too.cwid1391 wrote:I still think, while they may have targeted 185, they may have done so poorly. The ASW was the largest in history (by a significant margin, I think he said). So regardless of what they tried to target, it may wind up being dramatically different.orbotop wrote:i asked about class sizes this year and in the next few, specifically whether chicago anticipated any departure from the norm. admissions folk uniformly said no. i dont think you have reason to be nervous about a significantly larger class. enlarging the class only means making it harder to keep medians.
now whether too many early offers of admission bodes poorly for WL or scholarship negotiations...possibly, if that's true.
We won't know for sure until after the deposit deadline, but I still think it's not great news for WLers and for at/below medians hoping to negotiate a scholarship.

- Crowing
- Posts: 2631
- Joined: Fri Feb 10, 2012 4:20 pm
Re: Chicago c/o 2016 Applicants (2012-2013)
I must've hung out with a totally different crowd than you guys. Almost everybody I met was deciding Chi vs CLS/NYU and other than maybe like 2 people they were all leaning or already committed to Chicago. I only talked extensively with one person who was in at H and he was prepared to turn it down for Chi.
Although I also tried not to talk about LS with anybody I met lol and never brought it up so that might have had something to do with it too.
Although I also tried not to talk about LS with anybody I met lol and never brought it up so that might have had something to do with it too.
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
- Rahviveh
- Posts: 2333
- Joined: Mon Aug 06, 2012 12:02 pm
Re: Chicago c/o 2016 Applicants (2012-2013)
LOL.StarJammer wrote:I feel like way too many people asked me what other schools I was considering so that they could tell me that they're considering Harvard but thought it would be worth it to swing by Chicago's ASW.mambar wrote:Just my anecdotal .02: a lot of people at ASW seemed to be way more interested in Columbia or in hearing from some other school. I did meet a lot of people committed to Chicago, but there were plenty of, frankly, obnoxious ones around too.cwid1391 wrote:I still think, while they may have targeted 185, they may have done so poorly. The ASW was the largest in history (by a significant margin, I think he said). So regardless of what they tried to target, it may wind up being dramatically different.orbotop wrote:i asked about class sizes this year and in the next few, specifically whether chicago anticipated any departure from the norm. admissions folk uniformly said no. i dont think you have reason to be nervous about a significantly larger class. enlarging the class only means making it harder to keep medians.
now whether too many early offers of admission bodes poorly for WL or scholarship negotiations...possibly, if that's true.
We won't know for sure until after the deposit deadline, but I still think it's not great news for WLers and for at/below medians hoping to negotiate a scholarship.
I have more to add but I will keep it to myself

-
- 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 12:00 pm, edited 1 time in total.
-
- Posts: 21
- Joined: Mon Apr 08, 2013 10:05 am
Re: Chicago c/o 2016 Applicants (2012-2013)
+1 to both statements.mambar wrote:CP: Don't be greedy! Share it!
Crowing: That sounds like a much more enjoyable approach to ASW
Share CP!
-
- Posts: 2
- Joined: Thu Apr 18, 2013 4:41 pm
Re: Chicago c/o 2016 Applicants (2012-2013)
vvvvvvv
Last edited by yaymarissa on Sun Sep 08, 2013 11:56 am, edited 1 time in total.
Seriously? What are you waiting for?
Now there's a charge.
Just kidding ... it's still FREE!
Already a member? Login