Unethical Admission Practices at Case Western Forum

[Grizz]

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.

Law admissions is not grueling. Not by a long shot.

[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 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

Whether or not it was intended, I appreciate the irony.

[x7227]

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.

Ok I was willing to let this sleeping dog lie, but now...

The "coldness" of the legal community that you deride is what allows for rational thought, objective thinking, and equal application of the law across all parties. I originally empathized with the OP's situation, lots of us did. That does not mean the OP gets to go around whining that what Case Western's actions (or those of any other lawschool with similar practices) are "unethical" when they are clearly not. The OP is not a special little snowflake, he or she gets no more rights than the rest of us do. Case Western's actions are frustrating, annoying, and downright rude, but that does not make them unethical, as the OP has repeatedly attempted to assert.

As I said, words mean something. You can't get up and yell at the top of your lungs making bombastic claims when they simply are not true. If the OP had said, "I'm pissed off, I'm upset, I don't know what to do," you get a sympathetic shoulder to cry on from my angle and words of wisdom. The OP took a different path. Instead, he or she asserted that an entire set of adcomms and deans were somehow deficient in their ethical duties to applicants, because they exercised their own judgment and wisdom on who they want in their law school (which was their right, lest we forget that nobody has asserted to the contrary). The law school owes the OP no ethical duty to continuously inform the OP of the likelihood of getting off the waitlist, just as the OP owes no duty to the law school to stay on the waitlist. The OP makes a conscious, continuous choice to remain committed to Case Western's waitlist, including submitting to however they choose to administer admissions decisions. If the OP don't like it, don't keep submitting to practices you find rude.

Its just wrong on so many levels to reach for that word, "unethical", especially around lawyers and future lawyers, without fully comprehending what the consequences of using that word are, and doubly so when the facts do not support your charges.

The OP is not entitled to special treatment for misinterpreting the clear language of a waitlist (it is not an offer of admission, nor does it imply that you will get off at any time in the future, nor does it imply any particular probability of getting off said waitlist, nor does it imply a duty to inform WL candidates of their relative chances of getting off the waitlist). The OP is not entitled to hurl ethics charges at a school and series of adcomms just because he or she is in a crappy position.

As I've said multiple times before in this thread, the OP has two choices here: 1) Accept the decision of Case and ride out the waitlist knowing their conditions OR 2) Call up Case, tell them you're withdrawing, and tell them exactly why. Empathy has nothing to do with why the OP is going around calling people unethical when their actions clearly are not even close to unethical. If you want empathy, you should be giving it to the adcomms at Case who have been run through the muck here for no good reason. Who the heck defends them here, especially when they've done ABSOLUTELY NOTHING WRONG. The OP made his or her own bed, in spite of our attempts at reasoning with him or her. The OP couldn't see past his or her own anger and disillusionment, and continued hurling charges of unethical behavior. The OP, quite frankly, should be apologizing to Case Western. We're not calling the OP a sore loser. What we are saying is its completely wrong to call this unethical behavior and the OP had no right to say as much (especially after the OP asked us if he or she was being unreasonable...which we did, and the OP just kept it up.)

Now I'm really done...

[Magnolia]

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.

Ethics are a cornerstone of the legal profession and we place a lot of trust in lawyers to not violate those ethics, so allegations of ethics violations are really serious. They're not something you throw around lightly every time someone does something you don't like. If OP had come in and been like "this fucking sucks, I hate them, why don't they love me??" I would've been all over it with sympathy because what they're doing is really really shitty to the people on the waitlist. But OP didn't ask for sympathy, OP accused them of being unethical. That escalates it to a whole other level that is not justified.

We're not being cold. We're reacting to the very serious and unwarranted charge that the CW adcomms acted unethically.

[Skyhook]

Reality check.
There is nothing that stops any school from reconsidering its rejects from earlier in the cycle and offering them admission. It's going to depend on how each school's cycle went.

Wailtlists - "we might be interested in you later, we'll see how our cycle goes. Up to you if you want us to reconsider you at a later date."

You are still on the waitlist because they are looking for students who have something else to offer them right now.

The schools have no contractural agreement with waitlisted people, so:
Are they obliged to consider waitlisted people first? No.
End of story.

Good luck!

[09042014]

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.

Law admissions is not grueling. Not by a long shot.

It is retardedly easy to get into law school. You basically apply to one school and BCC 15 more.

[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.

Law admissions is not grueling. Not by a long shot.

It is retardedly easy to get into law school. You basically apply to one school and BCC 15 more.

THIS.
Apply to med or grad school if you want to see 'grueling'.

[dresden doll]

Bro, I growled with frustration filling out that common lsac app. Not to even speak of how difficult it was to have to look up medians and basically know where to apply/what the results would be in advance. So. Much. Angst.

[StickyIcky]

Didn't mean laboriously grueling, meant emotionally grueling. Filling out forms is easy; getting rejected from dream schools is not.

[dhenn]

You might check out the Center of Ethics in Professions, National Association in Admission Conseling for a guideline for what some of their peers consider ethical .

[NYC Law]

Didn't mean laboriously grueling, meant emotionally grueling. Filling out forms is easy; getting rejected from dream schools is not.

It wasn't even emotionally grueling. I just adjusted my idea of a dream school after receiving my LSAT score.

To not do that would be like ending up median and getting upset over the grueling process of applying to WLRK and realizing slowly that you aren't getting in.

[bport hopeful]

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.

Are Law Schools non-profit?

[bport hopeful]

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.

Ok I was willing to let this sleeping dog lie, but now...

The "coldness" of the legal community that you deride is what allows for rational thought, objective thinking, and equal application of the law across all parties. I originally empathized with the OP's situation, lots of us did. That does not mean the OP gets to go around whining that what Case Western's actions (or those of any other lawschool with similar practices) are "unethical" when they are clearly not. The OP is not a special little snowflake, he or she gets no more rights than the rest of us do. Case Western's actions are frustrating, annoying, and downright rude, but that does not make them unethical, as the OP has repeatedly attempted to assert.

As I said, words mean something. You can't get up and yell at the top of your lungs making bombastic claims when they simply are not true. If the OP had said, "I'm pissed off, I'm upset, I don't know what to do," you get a sympathetic shoulder to cry on from my angle and words of wisdom. The OP took a different path. Instead, he or she asserted that an entire set of adcomms and deans were somehow deficient in their ethical duties to applicants, because they exercised their own judgment and wisdom on who they want in their law school (which was their right, lest we forget that nobody has asserted to the contrary). The law school owes the OP no ethical duty to continuously inform the OP of the likelihood of getting off the waitlist, just as the OP owes no duty to the law school to stay on the waitlist. The OP makes a conscious, continuous choice to remain committed to Case Western's waitlist, including submitting to however they choose to administer admissions decisions. If the OP don't like it, don't keep submitting to practices you find rude.

Its just wrong on so many levels to reach for that word, "unethical", especially around lawyers and future lawyers, without fully comprehending what the consequences of using that word are, and doubly so when the facts do not support your charges.

The OP is not entitled to special treatment for misinterpreting the clear language of a waitlist (it is not an offer of admission, nor does it imply that you will get off at any time in the future, nor does it imply any particular probability of getting off said waitlist, nor does it imply a duty to inform WL candidates of their relative chances of getting off the waitlist). The OP is not entitled to hurl ethics charges at a school and series of adcomms just because he or she is in a crappy position.

As I've said multiple times before in this thread, the OP has two choices here: 1) Accept the decision of Case and ride out the waitlist knowing their conditions OR 2) Call up Case, tell them you're withdrawing, and tell them exactly why. Empathy has nothing to do with why the OP is going around calling people unethical when their actions clearly are not even close to unethical. If you want empathy, you should be giving it to the adcomms at Case who have been run through the muck here for no good reason. Who the heck defends them here, especially when they've done ABSOLUTELY NOTHING WRONG. The OP made his or her own bed, in spite of our attempts at reasoning with him or her. The OP couldn't see past his or her own anger and disillusionment, and continued hurling charges of unethical behavior. The OP, quite frankly, should be apologizing to Case Western. We're not calling the OP a sore loser. What we are saying is its completely wrong to call this unethical behavior and the OP had no right to say as much (especially after the OP asked us if he or she was being unreasonable...which we did, and the OP just kept it up.)

Now I'm really done...

Way to awake that sleeping dog bro/get a girl friend or a hobby or something/TL;DR

[ajcollege]

Didn't mean laboriously grueling, meant emotionally grueling. Filling out forms is easy; getting rejected from dream schools is not.

Rejections build character.

[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

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.

You stated that each law school can go about making its decision any way it chooses. This is false. Public law schools cannot make it their policy to admit only females, or to not admit a person with a disability solely because that person has a disability.

[glitter178]

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.


You stated that each law school can go about making its decision any way it chooses. This is false. Public law schools cannot make it their policy to admit only females, or to not admit a person with a disability solely because that person has a disability.



READ

[bigjinjapan]

I'm curious about the rejects who were later offered admission: were they YPs? Splitters? In either case i can't imagine any other reason for the adcoms to later decide to try to woo back than to bolster their numbers. This seems to be another case where the USNWR methodology has led to truly bizarre behavior by law school admissions offices. As someone who's riding several WLs I feel for the OP, but I think the others posting here have illustrated pretty clearly why this is not 'unethical'. One would think that, as a WLed applicant you'd have first dibs on any open spots, but you're definitely not guaranteed it in any sense. I do agree though that if their admissions process is this FUBAR you're best advised to steer clear.

Regarding other issues raised ITT:

Admissions offices are bound by rules established by the ABA (and possibly LSAC) and are not free to 'act as they wish,' at least not entirely.

My understanding is that accredited law schools are not 'for-profit' institutions. I don't know if the correct designation is 'non-profit' or 'not-for-profit,' but they are not 'for-profit.'

[cinephile]

I'm curious about the rejects who were later offered admission: were they YPs? Splitters? In either case i can't imagine any other reason for the adcoms to later decide to try to woo back than to bolster their numbers. This seems to be another case where the USNWR methodology has led to truly bizarre behavior by law school admissions offices.

My friend who was rejected then later accepted was below both medians -- but she went to Case Western for undergrad and she believes they have a preference for their own undergrads. Just another factor they might consider.

[PDaddy]

It is retardedly easy to get into law school. You basically apply to one school and BCC 15 more.

The people who take the above suggested approach do not gain admission to a bevy of law schools.

[sundance95]

It is retardedly easy to get into law school. You basically apply to one school and BCC 15 more.

The people who take the above suggested approach do not gain admission to a bevy of law schools.

QFUOTW bevy

[tyro]

lawapp: don't feel bad if people on here make fun of you or try to put you beneath them; it happens a lot to starters of threads.

[x7227]

As someone who's riding several WLs I feel for the OP, but I think the others posting here have illustrated pretty clearly why this is not 'unethical'. One would think that, as a WLed applicant you'd have first dibs on any open spots, but you're definitely not guaranteed it in any sense.

Great. Perfect. That's exactly what the OP (and the trolls popping up in the thread) need to know. It sucks. Its not unethical. Period. End of story.

Regarding other issues raised ITT:

Admissions offices are bound by rules established by the ABA (and possibly LSAC) and are not free to 'act as they wish,' at least not entirely.

Actually, complying with rules established by the ABA and LSAC is completely voluntary on the part of the adcomms...as is the ABA's continuing accreditation of said adcomms. There is a big big difference (that some people ITT either don't get, or don't want to get) between something that is manditory/compulsory and something that is voluntary. Nothing compels Adcomms to act in any particular way...its a carrot and a stick. The ABA either gives you the carrot or beats you with the stick of shame and/or de-accreditation. The choice whether to follow their guidelines is ultimately with the Adcomms. If the schools want to stay in the business of providing ABA accredited graduates (which may or may not be a pre-requisite to sitting for the bar exam in a particular state), they make the choice to follow the ABA's rules. (As a side note: there's also a huge disconnect between what some posters think a law means (or should mean) and the actual "but for" language of some anti-discrimination statutes/caselaw. That's a discussion for another time).

TL;DR Adcomms can do whatever they want (with qualifications from earlier in thread)
That's just for bport...enjoy lawschool buddy! With all the clear concise case law and minimal required reading, you'll fit right in...

I can just see it now...

Prof: Bport, discuss Justice Stevens' reasoning in his dissent in the Citizens United case.
Bport: 90 pages? TL;DR! LULZ!

I like this scenario too...

Prof: Bport, can you discuss how the constitution delineates and differentiates the powers granted to the Executive Branch as compared to the Legislative?
Bport: Executive? I just read the preamble and article one and got the jist of it... I think the Executive just executes people, right?

lawapp: don't feel bad if people on here make fun of you or try to put you beneath them; it happens a lot to starters of threads.

I dunno who made fun of lawapp. OP asked a question, we answered it. OP doubled/tripled down on the original "unethical" claims (Proving OP wasn't genuinely asking a question if the answer he/she was looking for was already pre-determined). OP was just looking for sympathy (which many of us gave...at first...) and after the OP doubled down, most of us slammed him/her for being sensationalist. Telling someone they're completely and utterly wrong isn't the same thing as making fun of them. Unless that is what our society has come to, in which case I don't want to live on this planet anymore.

[flexityflex86]

law schools are not going to care about you. they are a business, but a very professionally run business, and they do care about their students because they can one day make them more $. however, just be happy it is fair. it is one of the only places in the world where your destiny is mostly up to you as you control your #'s. you can't expect law schools to admit you off personality given your obviously annoying and weasely one.

[071816]

It is retardedly easy to get into law school. You basically apply to one school and BCC 15 more.

The people who take the above suggested approach do not gain admission to a bevy of law schools.

lol @ bevy

[Bildungsroman]

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.

Law admissions is not grueling. Not by a long shot.

It is retardedly easy to get into law school. You basically apply to one school and BCC 15 more.

Dude, some schools require a one page, double-spaced essay that requires cursory research and the ability to string whole sentences together. It's like a full-time job from September until May.