Unethical Admission Practices at Case Western Forum

[lawapp11]

Bport, has my issue summarized pretty succinctly. I have absolutely no problem being denied admission outright by Case Western. In fact that would have been better. However, being held and then subsequently waitlisted would permit one to make a reasonable assumption that the school is interested in the applicant. The school has a right to admit whoever it wants. However, CW is not using the waitlist for its main purpose. Case Western has a right to not use the waitlist. However, I believe that the school has a responsibility to inform WL applicants that it has not decided to use its waitlist.

X7227 argues that the mere act of accepting previously rejected applicants does not permit one to make any assumptions of the chances of being admitted. Would it be unreasonable to assume that the average WL applicant would interpret the school's act of accepting previously rejected applicants as a sign of possible rejection? Of course x7227 argues that this act is merely an assumption without any basis. I would argue that the entire waitlist process is full of assumptions. Often waitlisted applicants make tons of assumptions from every single action or email by the admissions office. I'm not asking for an acceptance. I'm asking for clarity. Being waitlisted means that the school is interested in the applicant. If that changes and the school loses interest in the applicant, then the school should inform the applicant and release him/her from the waitlist.

Also X7227, I'm not saying that CW is ethically responsible for my decision to stay on the waitlist. In my opinion, I think that Case Western has a responsibility to disclose that it has lost interest in its WL applicants. Of course, this is based on the giant assumption that the act of accepting previously rejected applicants does not bode well for WL applicants. As I said earlier, people make assumptions and guesses about the entire WL process.

To summarize, I'm not asking for an acceptance. If I have no chance of getting of the waitlist based on my reasonable assumption of Case's actions, then the school should tell me so.

[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".

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.

Your argument falls apart because it presupposes the "purpose" of a waitlist and qualifies, without justification, that if a WL is anything else other than what you have determined it to be, it is "feeding misleading information" to students. A WL is not an acceptance, nor a suggestion that you might get admitted, its simply a statement that doesnt rule out a negative outcome. People on waitlists shouldn't expect to get off them. IF you do that's great, but it should not be expected. You, and the OP, view a waitlist as a positive, non-zero, outcome that allows for the perception of a possible outcome, when in reality your actual status is no different than anyone else without an acceptance letter in hand. A WLed person and a rejected person are both not going to that school without a change in status, which as I think everyone agrees, is a somewhat arbitrary decision that lies with the school's adcomms.

However, being held and then subsequently waitlisted would permit one to make a reasonable assumption that the school is interested in the applicant.

No...it doesn't. If the school were interested, they would have accepted said applicant. The school is saying to the student, "we do not have a place for you now, that might change in the future." A rejection says, "we do not have a place for you now." The only difference is the relative notice to the student that a future action might change not that it will change. The student relies upon such a representation of potential change at his or her own peril because it is proffered only as a possibility.

I'm not asking for an acceptance. I'm asking for clarity.

No, you're asking for a LOCI from the school to you. It dont work like that. If you think they have lost interest in you, drop off the waitlist. Inform the school they are no longer your first choice, and that you are telling another school they are now your first choice.

Of course, this is based on the giant assumption that the act of accepting previously rejected applicants does not bode well for WL applicants.

Bingo. Don't make the assumption for which you have no supporting data. If you do make such assumptions, accept the risk/rewards that are associated with it. Know, however, that the assumption is yours alone and is not necessarily shared with the school/anyone else. Don't blame the school because your personal analysis has led you to a viewpoint that is at odds with your personal ethical value system of what you expect of a school, especially if its based on an ASSUMPTION and not FACTS.

Just so we're crystal clear about the objective facts of your post: 1) You've made an several major assumptions (not necessarily based in fact) which 2) you are using to judge an entire admissions department as being unethical based upon 3) their decision to admit someone other than you, because 4) you feel as if a special title confers special rights upon you that 5) should have ensured that you got admitted before ANYONE without that special title, while 6) voluntarily subjecting yourself to the arbitrary nature of the admissions game and 7) repeatedly confirming that CW can make any reasonable decision it wants to with regards to admission.

And you're still making an issue out of this why? If you feel the two-way ethical street is not happening at Case to your satisfaction, withdraw. If you can look past it, ride out the waitlist. Wanna tell another school that they are now your #1, do it. End of story.

[saito816]

I don't think that case accepting people they previously rejected is as much a sign of unethical admissions practices as it is a sign of horrible planning/organization. During my cycle Case emailed me to offer a full ride scholarship only to call me several minutes later to tell me that they made a horrible secretarial error and were not actually authorized to give me a full ride . I wasn't really that upset, since I wasn't planning on attending either way, but if I had been really excited about Case I would have been truly pissed off, and I think that this mistake coupled with their accepting former rejections speaks volumes about the school's ability to properly organize their admissions.

[Grizz]

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

[blackandyellow]

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

+1

My buddy at Case told me that last year's CHI-town OCI, had 3 "firms." All three firms were gov. Out of the 3 only 1 was paid with a small nominal "stipend."
The CSO then had the balls to send an email to everyone stating that she was mad only 15 people applied and that it reflects poorly on the CSO staff when the firms see that only 15 people applied.

[Grizz]

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

+1

My buddy at Case told me that last year's CHI-town OCI, had 3 "firms." All three firms were gov. Out of the 3 only 1 was paid with a small nominal "stipend."
The CSO then had the balls to send an email to everyone stating that she was mad only 15 people applied and that it reflects poorly on the CSO staff when the firms see that only 15 people applied.

[wileyman02]

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

+1

My buddy at Case told me that last year's CHI-town OCI, had 3 "firms." All three firms were gov. Out of the 3 only 1 was paid with a small nominal "stipend."
The CSO then had the balls to send an email to everyone stating that she was mad only 15 people applied and that it reflects poorly on the CSO staff when the firms see that only 15 people applied.

Hey, can someone please pass me the tiny violin from page one of this thread? I want to play it for your buddy AND the CSO staff.

[incompetentia]

For the record, as a Case UG alumnus, life there isn't the greatest, unless your only three interests are snow, European food, and losing sports teams.

[jayman6]

Stop your analysis right at the emphasis, period, end of thought. Everything after the emphasis is completely irrelevant. Each law school can go about its admissions decision any way it chooses. If you don't like it, withdraw from the waitlist. You're placing your expectations of what the term 'waitlist' means onto a decision that doesn't require the same meaning as you are putting on it. It really sucks, but its not unethical in any way, shape, or form.

That being said, I sincerely hope you get off the waitlist and this is all rendered moot.

False

[wileyman02]

Stop your analysis right at the emphasis, period, end of thought. Everything after the emphasis is completely irrelevant. Each law school can go about its admissions decision any way it chooses. If you don't like it, withdraw from the waitlist. You're placing your expectations of what the term 'waitlist' means onto a decision that doesn't require the same meaning as you are putting on it. It really sucks, but its not unethical in any way, shape, or form.

That being said, I sincerely hope you get off the waitlist and this is all rendered moot.

False

Well, case closed! Let's lock this thread down.

[kdw94780]

I would just try again next year. I just talked to a Case student, and she makes it sound like a sweat shop.

Published Dean's lists
Exact Rankings
They take away half your scholarship if you get less than 3.0 GPA; they take it all away if you don't get it back to 3.0 gpa after one semester.
CSO rides your tails to do mock interviews, apply to certain jobs, etc.
Expensive Private school
Average rep

I go to a T20, and I don't have to deal with any of this crap and sometimes I still feel miserable. Plz don't fret over not getting into Case. Take a LSAT course. If you already have, try again or do something else.

[wileyman02]

I would just try again next year. I just talked to a Case student, and she makes it sound like a sweat shop.

Published Dean's lists
Exact Rankings
They take away half your scholarship if you get less than 3.0 GPA; they take it all away if you don't get it back to 3.0 gpa after one semester.
CSO rides your tails to do mock interviews, apply to certain jobs, etc.
Expensive Private school
Average rep

I go to a T20, and I don't have to deal with any of this crap and sometimes I still feel miserable. Plz don't fret over not getting into Case. Take a LSAT course. If you already have, try again or do something else.

The stipulation at Case is gone; the new dean got rid of it. You only have to stay in good academic standing. And a CSO that rides its students to apply to jobs and do mock interviews?! Oh man, the audacity!! I can't believe there is a CSO out there with staff members who are actually doing their jobs!

[x7227]

Stop your analysis right at the emphasis, period, end of thought. Everything after the emphasis is completely irrelevant. Each law school can go about its admissions decision any way it chooses. If you don't like it, withdraw from the waitlist. You're placing your expectations of what the term 'waitlist' means onto a decision that doesn't require the same meaning as you are putting on it. It really sucks, but its not unethical in any way, shape, or form.

That being said, I sincerely hope you get off the waitlist and this is all rendered moot.

False

False. See what I did there?

Care to support your statement with any facts? If a law school wanted to fill up its class with only people that have first names starting with the letter Z, what stops them from doing that? If a law school wanted to admit only those candidates that had an LSAT of exactly 157 (not 156 or 158, only 157), can you tell me what stops them from being completely arbitrary and capricious? Its not right, its not fair, but law schools get to make their decisions using their own rubric that does not have to conform to any standard that you choose. Outside of denying admissions SOLELY on the basis of persons belonging to a protected class, they can do whatever the hell they want. Heck they can deny admission based on the fact that they don't like your face, and waitlist everyone with green eyes and there's not a thing you can do about it. What are you gonna do about it? Move on, that's what you do. If you choose not to, like the OP, well that's your decision and you live with the consequences.

[kdw94780]

I would just try again next year. I just talked to a Case student, and she makes it sound like a sweat shop.

Published Dean's lists
Exact Rankings
They take away half your scholarship if you get less than 3.0 GPA; they take it all away if you don't get it back to 3.0 gpa after one semester.
CSO rides your tails to do mock interviews, apply to certain jobs, etc.
Expensive Private school
Average rep

I go to a T20, and I don't have to deal with any of this crap and sometimes I still feel miserable. Plz don't fret over not getting into Case. Take a LSAT course. If you already have, try again or do something else.

The stipulation at Case is gone; the new dean got rid of it. You only have to stay in good academic standing. And a CSO that rides its students to apply to jobs and do mock interviews?! Oh man, the audacity!! I can't believe there is a CSO out there with staff members who are actually doing their jobs!

Yes the person I talked to today from Case said that the new Dean suspended the scholarship retention policy for ONE YEAR. I don't think having a school that's low ranked and puts tremendous pressure on students is necessarily a good thing. Unless you think the people who dropped out of Case the first semester were doing themselves a favor.

[DorothyV]

Yes the person I talked to today from Case said that the new Dean suspended the scholarship retention policy for ONE YEAR. I don't think having a school that's low ranked and puts tremendous pressure on students is necessarily a good thing. Unless you think the people who dropped out of Case the first semester were doing themselves a favor.

Where did they get that info about the scholarship retention policy being for one year only?

The emails I received from the new dean and admissions counselors say otherwise:


May 9, 2011

To all Admitted Students who are scholarship recipients:

Please see the email below from our Dean-Elect Lawrence Mitchell which he has asked me to forward to you. Based on his decision, all incoming students who are scholarship recipients will be able to keep their scholarship from year to year as long as they are in good standing, which is a GPA of 2.33. This email serves to amend the wording of your current Scholarship Award Form which stipulated a higher GPA requirements. All other provisions of the Scholarship Form remain in effect.

Please contact the Admissions Office with any questions.

Also, see the Dean-Elects contact information below if you wish to reach him directly.
______________________________________________________________________________________

From: Lawrence Mitchell [mailto:lem95@case.edu]
Sent: Friday, May 06, 2011 2:28 PM
Subject: Revised Scholarship Policy at CWRU School of Law

Colleagues and Students:

As you all know, we have initiated a policy whereby students awarded scholarships lose that financial aid if their GPAs drop below stated minima. As of June 1, when I officially take office, that policy will be suspended indefinitely for all currently enrolled students and all newly admitted students. Just to be clear, this means that students will keep their scholarships for as long as they remain students in good standing. Of course I encourage all students to work hard and to do as well in law school as they can!

Best,

L
--
Lawrence E. Mitchell (米羅)

Dean-Elect
Joseph C. Hostetler - Baker Hostetler Professor
Case Western Reserve University School of Law
11075 East Blvd.
Cleveland, Ohio 44106

[lawapp11]

X7227, I think you are interpreting my original post incorrectly. I did not say that it was unethical for CW to admit others. I clarified my statements to reflect that my issue with CW is not with the school's decision to accept previously rejected applicants over me, but rather the school's decision to withhold information about its decision to skip the waitlist. As you stated earlier X7227, "A waitlist is a statement to a student that we're interested in your application, but not enough to offer you admission." The intent of the waitlist is to inform an applicants that the school is interested in the applicant, but cannot offer admission at the moment. If the school does not utilize the waitlist, I believe that the school has an obligation to inform applicants so as to not mislead them.

As I mentioned earlier, this opinion is based on the big assumption that the school's decision to accept previously rejected applicants is a sign that the school is not interested in WL applicants. Put yourself in my shoes. You are waitlisted at a school which is your #1 choice, and all of the sudden you read on tls that the school is accepting rejected applicants while you wait. Would a reasonable applicant interpret CW's actions as a sign that he or she has little chance of being admitted? I would think so. I would encourage CW to release WL applicants if they do not intend to utilize the waitlist. However, the only reason why I still remaining on the waitlist is because I'm very interested in CW's programs. I did not say that the admissions officers were unethical. Rather, in my opinion I believe that their actions are rude and bordering on unethical. If the admissions office does not want to use the WL for whatever reason, then that is absolutely fine. CW should inform the applicants accordingly so as not to mislead them, because a waitlist is a statement of interest from the school.

[cinephile]

A friend of mine was rejected at Case last year (rejected everywhere she applied, actually) only to be accepted later in the summer. It seems like they do this every year and I wouldn't take the waitlist too seriously or hope for a spot this cycle.

[x7227]

X7227, I think you are interpreting my original post incorrectly. I did not say that it was unethical for CW to admit others. I clarified my statements to reflect that my issue with CW is not with the school's decision to accept previously rejected applicants over me, but rather the school's decision to withhold information about its decision to skip the waitlist. As you stated earlier X7227, "A waitlist is a statement to a student that we're interested in your application, but not enough to offer you admission."

Good, now read the next sentence in my response and you'll understand:

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.

As I mentioned earlier, this opinion is based on the big assumption that the school's decision to accept previously rejected applicants is a sign that the school is not interested in WL applicants. Put yourself in my shoes. You are waitlisted at a school which is your #1 choice, and all of the sudden you read on tls that the school is accepting rejected applicants while you wait. Would a reasonable applicant interpret CW's actions as a sign that he or she has little chance of being admitted? I would think so.

If you think it's reasonable, drop off the waitlist yourself, why are you waiting for Case to do it for you? I'm kinda getting the sense that you're attempting to stoke "moral outrage" to get others on the waitlist to drop off in order to raise your chances. Your argument is completely based on innuendo and assumptions, not facts.

I would encourage CW to release WL applicants if they do not intend to utilize the waitlist. However, the only reason why I still remaining on the waitlist is because I'm very interested in CW's programs. I did not say that the admissions officers were unethical. Rather, in my opinion I believe that their actions are rude and bordering on unethical. If the admissions office does not want to use the WL for whatever reason, then that is absolutely fine. CW should inform the applicants accordingly so as not to mislead them, because a waitlist is a statement of interest from the school.

HOLY CRAP, NOW ITS JUST BORDERING ON UNETHICAL? Lets check the instant replay from earlier in the thread:

I understand that Case Western has no obligation to admit me, but I think it is unethical to place people on the waitlist with no interest in using the list.

I'm not accusing Case Western of illegal conduct. Rather, I believe that that their conduct is unethical [...] 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.

Not only don't you know the difference between unethical and rude, you don't know the difference between unethical and bordering on unethical. Read Magnolia's response from earlier in the thread. Think about it, absorb it, live it. If you wanna ride the waitlist, that's your choice, but don't accuse an entire department of unethical behavior based on neurotic analysis, massive assumptions and innuendo.

I'm done here.

[lsatextreme]

without a long ass commentary, ill say that every [reasonable] person here will share your sentiment that you're frustrated because they could be selecting from the WL and they chose to accept those already rejected instead, but people here are just butthurt that you're accusing them of being unethical and of course we have a bunch of heroes here on TLS who gotta preserve truth and justice so don't get worked over it. Just forget about case and move on.

[lawapp11]

X7227, we disagree on the concept of the waitlist. If you read the law school dean interviews on tls, you will see that being placed on a waitlist means that the school is interested in the applicant, but does not have space in the incoming class. If the school did not like the applicant for whatever reason, the school would have given an outright rejection.

As for the shift between my earlier statements regarding ethical vs. border on ethical, it merely reflects my desire to tone down my language. I did not intend to say that the CW admission officers are unethical, but rather that their actions are rude because of violations of common courtesy and borders on unethical because in my opinion the school has an obligation to inform WL applicants if they decide not to use the waitlist. Most reasonable people would probably think that being placed on the waitlist indicates an interest in the applicant. Should that change and the school decides not to use the WL for its intended purpose, then all applicable WL applicants should be informed so they won't be mislead into believing that there is chance of gaining admission. Again, my biggest issue with CW is not their decision to admit rejected applicants, but the lack of disclosure.

You are correct in saying that all this is based on assumptions. I do not have insider knowledge of the admissions process at CW. I can only make assumptions such as stating that most reasonable people would interpret the act of accepting rejected applicants as a sign of possible rejection. X7227, while I'm intrigued by your defense of CW, I would encourage you to look beyond semantics and put yourself in my shoes.

[lawapp11]

thanks lsatextreme

[bport hopeful]

.

[bport hopeful]

Blah Blah Blah

TL;DR

Blah Blah Blah

TL;DR

Blah Blah Blah

TL;DR

[StickyIcky]

Wow, it seems as though the coldness of the legal community typically stereotyped has become a self-fulfilling prophecy on these forums. Sure, these are "businesses," but they are non-profit businesses whose first and foremost aim should be attempting to train future lawyers. While gaming the numbers has become an unfortunate part of the admissions process, that doesn't mean that law schools should start forgetting that they are dealing with real people. If you reject one person and waitlist another, it's absurd to say that the law school's intentions are anything other than the categories proscribed; sure, the law schools can legally do whatever they please, but the OP is making a normative claim about the moral and ethical issues involved.

To everyone mocking the OP as a "sore loser" (or something along those lines), congrats on making fun of someone just looking to relay their frustration with what has become an unnecessarily grueling process. Law school requires some innovative thinking; try empathizing for a second instead of immediately reacting with whatever the most ruthless reply can be.

[NYC Law]

Wow, it seems as though the coldness of the legal community typically stereotyped has become a self-fulfilling prophecy on these forums. Sure, these are "businesses," but they are non-profit businesses whose first and foremost aim should be attempting to train future lawyers. While gaming the numbers has become an unfortunate part of the admissions process, that doesn't mean that law schools should start forgetting that they are dealing with real people. If you reject one person and waitlist another, it's absurd to say that the law school's intentions are anything other than the categories proscribed; sure, the law schools can legally do whatever they please, but the OP is making a normative claim about the moral and ethical issues involved.

To everyone mocking the OP as a "sore loser" (or something along those lines), congrats on making fun of someone just looking to relay their frustration with what is an unnecessarily grueling process. Law school requires some innovative thinking; try empathizing for a second instead of immediately reacting with whatever the most ruthless reply can be.

TL;DR