Duke c/o 2021 Applicants (2017/18) Forum

[proteinshake]

But if Duke specifically says they do not need you to disclose "minor traffic violations," why would you disclose minor traffic violations? Their C&F section not a trick question, I assure you! Disclosing something that they told you was not necessary to disclose can be seen as not following directions.

Everything I’ve read and been told says disclose liberally. It’s not just about Duke’s instructions - you have to supply a copy your application to the bar when you apply for membership, and your bar may have different disclosure rules. It’s just easier to lay everything out and no law school is going to hold being overly forthright against you; that’s reading into it way too much.

this. it's about the bar's character and fitness reqs, not Duke's.

[DistrictDisaster]

Thanks guys! Yes, PT. Admitted on day 9.

[chrysippusofsoli]

Thanks guys! Yes, PT. Admitted on day 9.

Congrats! It's really nice to have such a good school as an option this early in the cycle.

[50505050505050]

Waitlisted. PT day 8

[Dr.Degrees_Cr.Cash]

But if Duke specifically says they do not need you to disclose "minor traffic violations," why would you disclose minor traffic violations? Their C&F section not a trick question, I assure you! Disclosing something that they told you was not necessary to disclose can be seen as not following directions.

Everything I’ve read and been told says disclose liberally. It’s not just about Duke’s instructions - you have to supply a copy your application to the bar when you apply for membership, and your bar may have different disclosure rules. It’s just easier to lay everything out and no law school is going to hold being overly forthright against you; that’s reading into it way too much.

this. it's about the bar's character and fitness reqs, not Duke's.

And it's so easy to just err on the side of disclosing. Like 90% chance they don't care and what you think is minor actually is minor. In that case they skim it and go "pft what a dumb thing to have to disclose" (literally had a Prof say that to me in an acceptance call) 10% chance what you view as minor and what Duke views as minor are incongruous, in which case it doesn't matter because you've disclosed.

Look sax, you can do what you want re: disclosure, but I have to assume nobody thought an app wasn't following directions since I'm pretty sure everyone you're talking to about this was accepted last year or already in this cycle.

The not following directions thing would be a smaller issue than finding out in three years that Duke did in fact consider any ticket worth points or something as "major"

[SopranoSaxophone]

And it's so easy to just err on the side of disclosing. Like 90% chance they don't care and what you think is minor actually is minor. In that case they skim it and go "pft what a dumb thing to have to disclose" (literally had a Prof say that to me in an acceptance call) 10% chance what you view as minor and what Duke views as minor are incongruous, in which case it doesn't matter because you've disclosed.

Look sax, you can do what you want re: disclosure, but I have to assume nobody thought an app wasn't following directions since I'm pretty sure everyone you're talking to about this was accepted last year or already in this cycle.

The not following directions thing would be a smaller issue than finding out in three years that Duke did in fact consider any ticket worth points or something as "major"

I agree with you that when there is any ambiguity, disclosure is best. But I'm talking about minor traffic violations only--things with no drug involvement, no recklessness, just simple moving violations. for example, you have a speeding ticket for 10mph over or less, and in your jurisdiction this ticket would never carry the potential risk of jail time and is not a misdemeanor but a noncriminal citation, wouldn't this constitute a "minor traffic violation?" There are several school websites (not Duke's) who specifically list a simple speeding ticket as falling under the umbrella of "minor traffic violations." I actually asked this question to several adcomms at a recent law fair and all of them said speeding ticket=minor traffic violation. I am hyper-diligent about trying to follow directions, and I want to disclose anything and everything I am asked to within the app, but I have up this this point considered not disclosing such an offense (simple speeding ticket) as simply following the directions when the app says not to disclose minor traffic violations.

If, however, certain state bars have some mental gymnastics approach to disclosure where they expect you to have disclosed things on your law school app that the law school app specifically said you shouldn't disclose, that is NEWS to me--and I imagine it is news to a lot of other applicants as well. Until this thread, I've never heard of any instance where a bar would expect you to ignore your law school's application questions when disclosing and just disclose anything and everything regardless of the text of the instructions, and worse, I've never heard of a bar that would punish you for following your application's directions. If true, that's a BIG DEAL, and it's worrisome.

So at this point, I'd ask that you point to any resource you know of that confirms the above scenario. I do not mean people who fail to disclose things they should have on their app. That is obvious! I mean, please point me to resources that confirm that certain state bars will expect you to have disclosed things on your law school application that the law school application specifically said not to disclose. I would be very interested in reading more about the specific scenario I've outlined. Thanks.

[Dr.Degrees_Cr.Cash]

And it's so easy to just err on the side of disclosing. Like 90% chance they don't care and what you think is minor actually is minor. In that case they skim it and go "pft what a dumb thing to have to disclose" (literally had a Prof say that to me in an acceptance call) 10% chance what you view as minor and what Duke views as minor are incongruous, in which case it doesn't matter because you've disclosed.

Look sax, you can do what you want re: disclosure, but I have to assume nobody thought an app wasn't following directions since I'm pretty sure everyone you're talking to about this was accepted last year or already in this cycle.

The not following directions thing would be a smaller issue than finding out in three years that Duke did in fact consider any ticket worth points or something as "major"

I agree with you that when there is any ambiguity, disclosure is best. But I'm talking about minor traffic violations only--things with no drug involvement, no recklessness, just simple moving violations. for example, you have a speeding ticket for 10mph over or less, and in your jurisdiction this ticket would never carry the potential risk of jail time and is not a misdemeanor but a noncriminal citation, wouldn't this constitute a "minor traffic violation?" There are several school websites (not Duke's) who specifically list a simple speeding ticket as falling under the umbrella of "minor traffic violations." I actually asked this question to several adcomms at a recent law fair and all of them said speeding ticket=minor traffic violation. I am hyper-diligent about trying to follow directions, and I want to disclose anything and everything I am asked to within the app, but I have up this this point considered not disclosing such an offense (simple speeding ticket) as simply following the directions when the app says not to disclose minor traffic violations.

If, however, certain state bars have some mental gymnastics approach to disclosure where they expect you to have disclosed things on your law school app that the law school app specifically said you shouldn't disclose, that is NEWS to me--and I imagine it is news to a lot of other applicants as well. Until this thread, I've never heard of any instance where a bar would expect you to ignore your law school's application questions when disclosing and just disclose anything and everything regardless of the text of the instructions, and worse, I've never heard of a bar that would punish you for following your application's directions. If true, that's a BIG DEAL, and it's worrisome.

So at this point, I'd ask that you point to any resource you know of that confirms the above scenario. I do not mean people who fail to disclose things they should have on their app. That is obvious! I mean, please point me to resources that confirm that certain state bars will expect you to have disclosed things on your law school application that the law school application specifically said not to disclose. I would be very interested in reading more about the specific scenario I've outlined. Thanks.

I'm not saying that a state bar would expect you to have disclosed a situation the school explicitly told you not to disclose. I'm just saying that "minor traffic violation" is an ambiguous situation and you don't want to end up in a situation in three years where you disclose everything and the school comes back and says "that was something you should have disclosed".

Again, you're free to do what you want, but I don't read "specifically said not to disclose" in the "minor traffic violations". It's honestly kinda dumb of Duke to throw such an ambiguous term at a bunch of law school applicants (and as you said not give any examples like other schools) but I see no downside in erring on the side of caution in disclosing. I'm really not trying to say you should do anything, and I struggled over disclosing last year, but honestly at the end of it it's such a tiny thing and I'm happy that I don't have to worry about any disclosure issues down the line

[Effingham]

Yeah, you would be surprised how much the bar asks you to disclose, and they hate seeing any discrepancy between your bar application and your law school app. And they are shockingly bureaucratic and hate hearing arguments that go along the lines of "the question was ambiguous..." Or really any arguments at all.

[SopranoSaxophone]

I'm not saying that a state bar would expect you to have disclosed a situation the school explicitly told you not to disclose. I'm just saying that "minor traffic violation" is an ambiguous situation and you don't want to end up in a situation in three years where you disclose everything and the school comes back and says "that was something you should have disclosed".

Again, you're free to do what you want, but I don't read "specifically said not to disclose" in the "minor traffic violations". It's honestly kinda dumb of Duke to throw such an ambiguous term at a bunch of law school applicants (and as you said not give any examples like other schools) but I see no downside in erring on the side of caution in disclosing. I'm really not trying to say you should do anything, and I struggled over disclosing last year, but honestly at the end of it it's such a tiny thing and I'm happy that I don't have to worry about any disclosure issues down the line

Yeah the ambiguous caveats in C&F app questions really suck. Schools could, for instance, just adopt the broadest disclosure questions possible ("Disclose any offense, conviction, ticket, ect.") which would at least be more intuitive for applicants and allow for more uniformity of responses among multiple apps. I would prefer this, honestly. I have no problem disclosing a traffic ticket or two. I'm not afraid it will affect my admissions chances. I have just been trying to follow directions thus far, perhaps too narrowly?

I guess our back-and-forth hinges on what Duke actually means when they refer to "minor traffic violations." After doing my own research earlier in the cycle, I have taken this to mean any simple moving violation for which jail time was not a potential penalty and for which a court appearance was not mandatory, excluding violations related to drugs, alcohol, or recklessness. So, to me, a speeding ticket falls under the umbrella of "minor traffic violation." However, I grant that you are right; there could potentially be a situation where Duke believes "minor" does not refer to a simple speeding ticket. I certainly think there is a strong case to be made that a speeding ticket is clearly a "minor traffic violation," but I guess a bar could be unconvinced if they too believe a speeding ticket cannot reasonably be interpreted to be "minor." I'm going to do more research first, but maybe there is a case to be made that I need to reach out to my "exclude minor traffic violations" apps and disclose a speeding ticket. I feel I will sound silly and ridiculous doing so, but perhaps it's the right call. We'll see. Thanks for the dialogue. The admissions process can be less-than-intuitive sometimes.

[proteinshake]

these paragraphs took longer to write than a disclosure statement

[Dr.Degrees_Cr.Cash]

The quality of the Duke Law Swag has increased over last year. Good to see them stepping up

[RedPanda18]

In! Notified by email. PT day 9.

[oreoborealis]

Waitlisted PT on day 10 (168/3.58). At least I can stop feeling like I'm about to hurl every time I get a new email.

[dm1683]

In via PT on day 9. First acceptance, this feels good.

[soca_dancer]

In via PT on day 9. First acceptance, this feels good.

Congrats!

[DistrictDisaster]

Congrats to the others who got good news this week! My first acceptance too and kind of took the edge off. Kind of.

[thepsychedelic]

In on PT day 8!! I was ready to wait the full 10 days but it feels nice to have an acceptance so early!!

[yqjyqj]

In on PT day 8!! I was ready to wait the full 10 days but it feels nice to have an acceptance so early!!

Congrats!

[playmaker093]

Does anyone know if I’m on day 8 of priority track should a decision come today or would it come on the weekend?

[Ntp73821]

Does anyone know if I’m on day 8 of priority track should a decision come today or would it come on the weekend?

My decision came on my day 10, which was a Sunday.

edit: so don't count on today, count on Sunday since that's your day 10. It might come earlier but it's just as likely that it doesn't.

[KENYADIGG1T]

I just got the phattest stack of Duke Law lit (they even mentioned my research interests in the admissions letter). I'm thoroughly (if not easily) impressed.

[NavyNuke]

I just got the phattest stack of Duke Law lit (they even mentioned my research interests in the admissions letter). I'm thoroughly (if not easily) impressed.

The Duke swag is impressive! And the touch of adding a bit from your PS in the letter is nice.

[PostNihilist]

Any non-pt people go UR or get a decision yet?

[hotdog96]

Any non-pt people go UR or get a decision yet?

UR since 10/31 here

[ATXStudent]

Any non-pt people go UR or get a decision yet?

Non - PT also; my status has said complete ready for review since October 16th.