U Chicago 2010 Forum
- Jericwithers
- Posts: 2194
- Joined: Tue Jul 28, 2009 9:34 pm
Re: U Chicago 2010
So, just the 1 call today for Giant?
- Dignan
- Posts: 1110
- Joined: Sun Feb 08, 2009 5:52 pm
Re: U Chicago 2010
As of today, I am finally under review. I've been complete since 12/8.
- opus127
- Posts: 196
- Joined: Fri Oct 30, 2009 7:04 pm
Re: U Chicago 2010
Wow!! Congrats!JollyGreenGiant wrote:![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
TLS was right. My pessimism was wrong. I've never been happier to be wrong.
(Oh, how I wish I'd get a call, too!)
-
- Posts: 160
- Joined: Tue Nov 11, 2008 4:15 am
Re: U Chicago 2010
rejected via email. my cycle is finished. BU it is!
- Jericwithers
- Posts: 2194
- Joined: Tue Jul 28, 2009 9:34 pm
Re: U Chicago 2010
Sorry to hear. When did the email arrive, and were you part of the 2/4 crowd?jocelyne wrote:rejected via email. my cycle is finished. BU it is!
Want to continue reading?
Register now to search topics and post comments!
Absolutely FREE!
Already a member? Login
-
- Posts: 101
- Joined: Sat Oct 31, 2009 10:27 pm
Re: U Chicago 2010
hmm this is very confusing. they take all day...to send out reject emails?
- rockchalk86
- Posts: 528
- Joined: Thu Oct 15, 2009 10:16 am
Re: U Chicago 2010
One acceptance and one rejection (at least on TLS). Seems very odd.acecrusher06 wrote:hmm this is very confusing. they take all day...to send out reject emails?
-
- Posts: 101
- Joined: Sat Oct 31, 2009 10:27 pm
Re: U Chicago 2010
i wonder what this means for the rest of the 2/4 crowd. WL?
- CardinalRules
- Posts: 2332
- Joined: Wed Nov 18, 2009 5:20 pm
Re: U Chicago 2010
+a lot. I hate to say that I told you so, but I did.maudlinstreet wrote:congrats dude!JollyGreenGiant wrote:![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
TLS was right. My pessimism was wrong. I've never been happier to be wrong.

- CardinalRules
- Posts: 2332
- Joined: Wed Nov 18, 2009 5:20 pm
Re: U Chicago 2010
No, but thanks for removing yourself from the competition.booboo wrote:Sorry, Jelena wins.managamy wrote:Apropos of nothing: my avatar is in the new SI Swimsuit Issue. Go check her out.
http://www.phonesreview.co.uk/wp-conten ... vic_81.jpg
Actually, my avatar is going to be taking a class at Harvard



- tomhobbes
- Posts: 455
- Joined: Sat Feb 07, 2009 9:20 pm
Re: U Chicago 2010
If only I could have gone to Harvard during the Natalie Portman days...
-
- Posts: 1437
- Joined: Tue Jun 30, 2009 5:11 pm
Re: U Chicago 2010
Seriously. I'd go (temporarily) straight for Natalie in a heartbeat.tomhobbes wrote:If only I could have gone to Harvard during the Natalie Portman days...
Register now!
Resources to assist law school applicants, students & graduates.
It's still FREE!
Already a member? Login
- CardinalRules
- Posts: 2332
- Joined: Wed Nov 18, 2009 5:20 pm
Re: U Chicago 2010
I think that Harvard is always going to lead the pack in terms of major celebrity chicks. USC is always going to lead the pack in terms of vapid Hollywood chicks.
- crackberry
- Posts: 3252
- Joined: Thu Sep 17, 2009 3:23 pm
Re: U Chicago 2010
Stanford has Reese Witherspoon (in real life) and Jennifer Connolly.managamy wrote:I think that Harvard is always going to lead the pack in terms of major celebrity chicks. USC is always going to lead the pack in terms of vapid Hollywood chicks.
Also, I would marry Natalie Portman today, given the chance. And I don't want to get married for a while.
- CardinalRules
- Posts: 2332
- Joined: Wed Nov 18, 2009 5:20 pm
Re: U Chicago 2010
Not a Reese fan; she's too American and un-exotic to me compared with Catherine Zeta-Jones or Eva Mendes, for example. But still it's pretty creditable for Stanford.crackberry wrote:Stanford has Reese Witherspoon (in real life) and Jennifer Connolly.managamy wrote:I think that Harvard is always going to lead the pack in terms of major celebrity chicks. USC is always going to lead the pack in terms of vapid Hollywood chicks.
Also, I would marry Natalie Portman today, given the chance. And I don't want to get married for a while.
I don't want to get married--ever--but I would seriously reconsider if my tar or a few other foreign ladies were an option.

-
- Posts: 1437
- Joined: Tue Jun 30, 2009 5:11 pm
Re: U Chicago 2010
I'd kind of like to...managamy wrote:
Not a Reese fan; she's too American and un-exotic to me compared with Catherine Zeta-Jones or Eva Mendes, for example. But still it's pretty creditable for Stanford.
I don't want to get married--ever--but I would seriously reconsider if my tar or a few other foreign ladies were an option.
Maybe Ryan will come available sometime in the future. And, you know, the laws'll change.
Get unlimited access to all forums and topics
Register now!
I'm pretty sure I told you it's FREE...
Already a member? Login
- CardinalRules
- Posts: 2332
- Joined: Wed Nov 18, 2009 5:20 pm
Re: U Chicago 2010
Although heterosexual (and Catholic), I strongly hope that they do. Marriage should be available to everyone who wants it.Kretzy wrote:I'd kind of like to...managamy wrote:
Not a Reese fan; she's too American and un-exotic to me compared with Catherine Zeta-Jones or Eva Mendes, for example. But still it's pretty creditable for Stanford.
I don't want to get married--ever--but I would seriously reconsider if my tar or a few other foreign ladies were an option.
Maybe Ryan will come available sometime in the future. And, you know, the laws'll change.
- booboo
- Posts: 1032
- Joined: Tue Oct 20, 2009 10:39 pm
Re: U Chicago 2010
As painful as it will be for Kretzy to be in such an institution...managamy wrote:Although heterosexual (and Catholic), I strongly hope that they do. Marriage should be available to everyone who wants it.Kretzy wrote:I'd kind of like to...managamy wrote:
Not a Reese fan; she's too American and un-exotic to me compared with Catherine Zeta-Jones or Eva Mendes, for example. But still it's pretty creditable for Stanford.
I don't want to get married--ever--but I would seriously reconsider if my tar or a few other foreign ladies were an option.
Maybe Ryan will come available sometime in the future. And, you know, the laws'll change.
- booboo
- Posts: 1032
- Joined: Tue Oct 20, 2009 10:39 pm
Re: U Chicago 2010
I missed/am out of a competition?managamy wrote:No, but thanks for removing yourself from the competition.booboo wrote:Sorry, Jelena wins.managamy wrote:Apropos of nothing: my avatar is in the new SI Swimsuit Issue. Go check her out.
http://www.phonesreview.co.uk/wp-conten ... vic_81.jpg
Actually, my avatar is going to be taking a class at Harvard, although not HLS
. Not that it matters in my decision, though, of course.
Anyone where Jelena isn't considered a treasure isn't one I want to be in.
-
- Posts: 1437
- Joined: Tue Jun 30, 2009 5:11 pm
Re: U Chicago 2010
I'd like to hate married life as much as the next guybooboo wrote:As painful as it will be for Kretzy to be in such an institution...managamy wrote:Although heterosexual (and Catholic), I strongly hope that they do. Marriage should be available to everyone who wants it.Kretzy wrote:I'd kind of like to...managamy wrote:
Not a Reese fan; she's too American and un-exotic to me compared with Catherine Zeta-Jones or Eva Mendes, for example. But still it's pretty creditable for Stanford.
I don't want to get married--ever--but I would seriously reconsider if my tar or a few other foreign ladies were an option.
Maybe Ryan will come available sometime in the future. And, you know, the laws'll change.

And much appreciated, M. My grandma, a 78 year old devout Catholic, says the same.
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
- crackberry
- Posts: 3252
- Joined: Thu Sep 17, 2009 3:23 pm
Re: U Chicago 2010
Next time it gets voted on in California it'll be legal. Only reason Prop 8 passed in 2008 was that Obama was on the ballot and many of the (liberal but very anti-gay) minorities who usually stay at home on election day came out to vote. That's a gross oversimplification, but one that does a decent job of explaining Prop 8's otherwise seemingly unlikely passage.Kretzy wrote:I'd kind of like to...managamy wrote:
Not a Reese fan; she's too American and un-exotic to me compared with Catherine Zeta-Jones or Eva Mendes, for example. But still it's pretty creditable for Stanford.
I don't want to get married--ever--but I would seriously reconsider if my tar or a few other foreign ladies were an option.
Maybe Ryan will come available sometime in the future. And, you know, the laws'll change.
- booboo
- Posts: 1032
- Joined: Tue Oct 20, 2009 10:39 pm
Re: U Chicago 2010
And then we have the debacle of the State Senate of NY...crackberry wrote:Next time it gets voted on in California it'll be legal. Only reason Prop 8 passed in 2008 was that Obama was on the ballot and many of the (liberal but very anti-gay) minorities who usually stay at home on election day came out to vote. That's a gross oversimplification, but one that does a decent job of explaining Prop 8's otherwise seemingly unlikely passage.Kretzy wrote:I'd kind of like to...managamy wrote:
Not a Reese fan; she's too American and un-exotic to me compared with Catherine Zeta-Jones or Eva Mendes, for example. But still it's pretty creditable for Stanford.
I don't want to get married--ever--but I would seriously reconsider if my tar or a few other foreign ladies were an option.
Maybe Ryan will come available sometime in the future. And, you know, the laws'll change.
-
- Posts: 1437
- Joined: Tue Jun 30, 2009 5:11 pm
Re: U Chicago 2010
All 3 major candidates for Governor in Rhode Island today came together to announce they'd sign a marriage equality bill, another big step. Good to see the progress, sad to see the remaining bigotry (esp. living in Colorado Springs...damn will it feel good to head to a real city).crackberry wrote:Next time it gets voted on in California it'll be legal. Only reason Prop 8 passed in 2008 was that Obama was on the ballot and many of the (liberal but very anti-gay) minorities who usually stay at home on election day came out to vote. That's a gross oversimplification, but one that does a decent job of explaining Prop 8's otherwise seemingly unlikely passage.Kretzy wrote:I'd kind of like to...managamy wrote:
Not a Reese fan; she's too American and un-exotic to me compared with Catherine Zeta-Jones or Eva Mendes, for example. But still it's pretty creditable for Stanford.
I don't want to get married--ever--but I would seriously reconsider if my tar or a few other foreign ladies were an option.
Maybe Ryan will come available sometime in the future. And, you know, the laws'll change.
/rant.
- crackberry
- Posts: 3252
- Joined: Thu Sep 17, 2009 3:23 pm
Re: U Chicago 2010
Eh, neither Palo Alto nor New Haven qualify as "real" cities, though you'd be hard pressed to find many rancid anti-gay people in the former (or in the Bay Area in general).Kretzy wrote:damn will it feel good to head to a real city).
/rant.
Seriously? What are you waiting for?
Now there's a charge.
Just kidding ... it's still FREE!
Already a member? Login