Top Law Schools

Hi all,

I'm a long time fan of tls, but this is my first time posting.

My application was put on hold by Case Western around February and I was placed on the waitlist in late April. I sent in my LOCI and waitlist reply form confirming my interest in the school. However, now I see that people who were originally rejected by Case Western are now getting admitted with scholarships. There are still people on the waitlist, and it seems that Case Western prefers to admit students who were previously rejected rather than using the waitlist.

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 would understand if the school had completely filled the incoming class, and therefore does not need to use the waitlist. However, Case Western is accepting previously rejected applicants at the expense of waitlisted applicants. Why admit people who were originally rejected without first accepting people of the waitlist? Case Western should either utilize the waitlist or release people from the list. I expressed to Case Western that it is my first choice school, and I will attend if admit. Still I'm getting annoyed with the school's admission practices of admitting rejected applicants before utilizing the waitlist.

Does anyone know whether this is common practice at other schools? If this is an unreasonable rant, I apologize. Please set me straight.

How do you know that rejected applicants were subsequently admitted ?

Case Western thread

http://www.top-law-schools.com/forums/v ... &start=500

lawapp11 wrote:Hi all,

I'm a long time fan of tls, but this is my first time posting.

My application was put on hold by Case Western around February and I was placed on the waitlist in late April. I sent in my LOCI and waitlist reply form confirming my interest in the school. However, now I see that people who were originally rejected by Case Western are now getting admitted with scholarships. There are still people on the waitlist, and it seems that Case Western prefers to admit students who were previously rejected rather than using the waitlist.

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 would understand if the school had completely filled the incoming class, and therefore does not need to use the waitlist. However, Case Western is accepting previously rejected applicants at the expense of waitlisted applicants. Why admit people who were originally rejected without first accepting people of the waitlist? Case Western should either utilize the waitlist or release people from the list. I expressed to Case Western that it is my first choice school, and I will attend if admit. Still I'm getting annoyed with the school's admission practices of admitting rejected applicants before utilizing the waitlist.

Does anyone know whether this is common practice at other schools? If this is an unreasonable rant, I apologize. Please set me straight.

Why is it unethical? They fucked up by rejecting people they should have admitted. That's not unethical.

They are probably looking for high LSATs or something like that, something that people on the WL can't give them. They aren't just going to call back rejected people to give them cash when they can get you for free.

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

Applications are down by about 12% this year among law schools; perhaps Case Western Reserve's application decreased by more than anticipated prompting Case Western to reconsider rejected applicants. Duke Law, for example, reported a 20% decrease in number of applications received; Yale was also down leading to an extension of the application deadline.

CanadianWolf wrote:Applications are down by about 12% this year among law schools; perhaps Case Western Reserve's application decreased by more than anticipated prompting Case Western to reconsider rejected applicants. Duke Law, for example, reported a 20% decrease in number of applications received; Yale was also down leading to an extension of the application deadline.

And a bunch of schools increased their medians last year with the huge influx. Then planned their recruiting this year around those medians, but that isn't realistic.

lawapp11 wrote:Hi all,

I'm a long time fan of tls, but this is my first time posting.

My application was put on hold by Case Western around February and I was placed on the waitlist in late April. I sent in my LOCI and waitlist reply form confirming my interest in the school. However, now I see that people who were originally rejected by Case Western are now getting admitted with scholarships. There are still people on the waitlist, and it seems that Case Western prefers to admit students who were previously rejected rather than using the waitlist.

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 would understand if the school had completely filled the incoming class, and therefore does not need to use the waitlist. However, Case Western is accepting previously rejected applicants at the expense of waitlisted applicants. Why admit people who were originally rejected without first accepting people of the waitlist? Case Western should either utilize the waitlist or release people from the list. I expressed to Case Western that it is my first choice school, and I will attend if admit. Still I'm getting annoyed with the school's admission practices of admitting rejected applicants before utilizing the waitlist.

Does anyone know whether this is common practice at other schools? If this is an unreasonable rant, I apologize. Please set me straight.

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.

On the otherhand, they did offer me a new fatty scholly which is making me reconsider rejecting them.

It seems like Case Western is desperately seeking applicants with lsat scores in the 160s. Even my lsat score in the high 150s won't cut it for them. Oh well. I don't think I have unrealistic expectations. I just think it is unfair for them to admit rejected applicants first before admitting waitlisted applicants. What's the point of having a waitlist if it isn't utilized?

I wonder if other waitlisted applicants at Case Western have the same view as me. Perhaps, I'm being unreasonable?

lawapp11 wrote:It seems like Case Western is desperately seeking applicants with lsat scores in the 160s. Even my lsat score in the high 150s won't cut it for them. Oh well. I don't think I have unrealistic expectations. I just think it is unfair for them to admit rejected applicants first before admitting waitlisted applicants. What's the point of having a waitlist if it isn't utilized?

I wonder if other waitlisted applicants at Case Western have the same view as me. Perhaps, I'm being unreasonable?

yep.

lawapp11 wrote:I just think it is unfair for them to admit rejected applicants first before admitting waitlisted applicants. What's the point of having a waitlist if it isn't utilized?

Stop looking at the waitlist as if it is about what you need, and then maybe things will be clearer.

lol...

Put yourself in my shoes, buddy. Perhaps, the rationale for my feelings will become clearer.

lawapp11 wrote:lol...

Put yourself in my shoes, buddy. Perhaps, the rationale for my feelings will become clearer.

Rationales aren't rational.

lawapp11 wrote:lol...

Put yourself in my shoes, buddy. Perhaps, the rationale for my feelings will become clearer.

And DF beat me to it. Fuck

Some rationales aren't rational.

Law schools dont admit applicants for the applicants sake, they do it for the schools sake. Its shitty maybe, but get over it. They could have just as easily put different people on the WL.

lawapp11 wrote:Some rationales aren't rational.

Supra

Retake...jk. At least you don't have to live near Cleveland for 3 years of law school. See, there's always positives.

IMO it is unethical, for a few reasons. Nevertheless, there's not really anything that can be done about it, is there?

delusional wrote:IMO it is unethical, for a few reasons. Nevertheless, there's not really anything that can be done about it, is there?

Please, elaborate on this...I'd love to hear a rational argument on just this topic. Remember... rational.

It may seem wrong but it's not unethical. Law schools are businesses when it all comes down to it. In order for a business to stay afloat, it must do what is best for it, not prospective employees, or in this case students. As a private entity, Case is allowed to do whatever it wants when it comes to picking students. If we go down this road on Case being unethical, then it opens a pandora's box of things that are "unethical" about law schools and students themselves. Is double depositing unethical or just in the student's best interests? It may seem wrong that the student could be hurting another student's chances but people can't be looking out for every single person out there; the world is pretty big. No point in thinking that every action will lead to an unethical result for some person b/c in reality every single action taken can be perceived as unethical to at least one person.

Case Western called me twice after I had withdrawn to ask if there was anything they could do to make me reconsider. They're obviously having a tough time getting people to matriculate.

But to your point OP, Case's admissions practices aren't unethical. A waitlist serves the same function for a law school as a bench does for a basketball team. They are both reserve groups made up of diverse people ready to step into any type of empty spot that might need to be filled. A basketball team wouldn't want a bench composed entirely of 7'1" centers or of 5'9" point guards, would they? (Maybe the Timberwolves would prefer the latter, but that's beside the point.) Likewise, a law school wouldn't want a waitlist composed entirely of splitters or URMs or people from Canada.

In this case, the school made a mistake and didn't put enough of a certain kind of people on its waitlist. To make up for it, they had to go back and reach out to people that they had previously rejected. Consider my previous analogy. Your claim that Case's practice is unethical would be similar to an NBA bench warmer being upset because his team called up a player from the D-League and gave minutes to that player instead of giving the minutes to him. The team had a role that needed filled and the bench warmer couldn't fill it, the D-Leaguer could and therefore got the minutes.

Does it suck to be the bench warmer who got passed up? Yes. Did the team act unethically? No. They had no obligation to give the bench warmer minutes and he should have known that. Case Western has no obligation to offer you admission from the waitlist and you admitted that.

I don't speak for delusional, but we may share common views on why such practices are unethical.

Of course x7227, your assertion that law schools may admit applicants any way they want is a bit of a stretch. Can a law school refuse to admit an applicant based on protected classes such a race, gender, religion, etc.? I understand your argument, but some clarity is needed.

Since Case has decided to admit previously rejected applicants, I assume that the people currently on the waitlist have little chance of being admitted. In that case, the ethical thing to do would be to inform waitlisted candidates and release them from the list. While law schools have no obligation to admit waitlisted applicants, it is unethical to keep people waiting when all evidence indicates that there is little chance of success. I assume that a number of WL applicants have told Case that the school is their top choice. Assuming that Case is really their #1 school, these candidates are disadvantaged when they cannot tell other schools with certainty that they are their #1 choice.

For example, let's say applicant one is waitlisted at Case Western and Loyola in Los Angeles. This applicant tells Case that it is his #1 choice, but cannot ethically tell Loyola that it is also his #1 choice. The applicant has verbally committed to attending Case if admitted. The applicant is disadvantaged when admission officers at Loyola review WL applicants to see who WILL attend Loyola if admitted. Loyola may offer the open position to someone who has expressed stronger interest for Loyola, something that someone who has decided on Case Western cannot ethically do.

People who were placed on hold and subsequently waitlisted have a reasonable belief that Case Western is genuinely interested in them. Otherwise, they would have been rejected after being deferred or rejected outright. Yet, all evidence indicates that Case Western is not interested in the applicants. I'm not accusing Case Western of illegal conduct. Rather, I believe that that their conduct is unethical.

Yes, I understand that I cannot do much to change the system. I merely wanted to know whether others have experienced the same treatment from Case. I know that waitlists are used for the benefit of the school. 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.