Nice Avatar changeTheWire wrote:It is optimism like this that has destroyed my life over the last 3 monthsbooboo wrote:I think they want to keep it an open possibility. For all we know, they could've wished to have made the calls today, but since they were busy, they had to put it off. This could also happen tomorrow. (Not sure why I am saying they, when I really mean her/she...)managamy wrote:Theoretically, it does, but I would imagine that they would have explicitly said "tomorrow" if they meant "tomorrow."jumpinjackflash wrote:does "within the next few days" from twitter mean that could be tomorrow?
U Chicago 2010 Forum
- rockchalk86
- Posts: 528
- Joined: Thu Oct 15, 2009 10:16 am
Re: U Chicago 2010
- crackberry
- Posts: 3252
- Joined: Thu Sep 17, 2009 3:23 pm
Re: U Chicago 2010
Yeah but didn't he say he didn't like Dark Side?rockchalk86 wrote:Nice Avatar change
- rockchalk86
- Posts: 528
- Joined: Thu Oct 15, 2009 10:16 am
Re: U Chicago 2010
Liked it the least... there is no way to dislike Dark Sidecrackberry wrote:Yeah but didn't he say he didn't like Dark Side?rockchalk86 wrote:Nice Avatar change
- TheWire
- Posts: 479
- Joined: Tue Oct 20, 2009 9:24 pm
Re: U Chicago 2010
That was the point of the change...I am a HUGE fan, in general. Saying Dark side is my least favorite album shouldn't discredit dark side...it just shows the genius of the other albums and the band in general.rockchalk86 wrote:Liked it the least... there is no way to dislike Dark Sidecrackberry wrote:Yeah but didn't he say he didn't like Dark Side?rockchalk86 wrote:Nice Avatar change
BTW...I have mad respect for "Meddle (especially the first and last track of the album; but dark side, wish u were here, animals, and the wall receive a "t4" status similar to "t14" due to their heightened popularity amongst lay people
+1rockchalk86 wrote:Liked it the least... there is no way to dislike Dark Sidecrackberry wrote:Yeah but didn't he say he didn't like Dark Side?rockchalk86 wrote:Nice Avatar change
- CardinalRules
- Posts: 2332
- Joined: Wed Nov 18, 2009 5:20 pm
Re: U Chicago 2010
Apropos of nothing: my avatar is in the new SI Swimsuit Issue. Go check her out.
Want to continue reading?
Register now to search topics and post comments!
Absolutely FREE!
Already a member? Login
- Dignan
- Posts: 1110
- Joined: Sun Feb 08, 2009 5:52 pm
Re: U Chicago 2010
Sorry, Managamy. She's only into guys who get accepted by Chicago and UVA. It's too bad you withdrew your applications.managamy wrote:Apropos of nothing: my avatar is in the new SI Swimsuit Issue. Go check her out.
-
- Posts: 656
- Joined: Wed Jul 15, 2009 10:21 pm
Re: U Chicago 2010
Dignan wrote:Sorry, Managamy. She's only into guys who get accepted by Chicago and UVA. It's too bad you withdrew your applications.managamy wrote:Apropos of nothing: my avatar is in the new SI Swimsuit Issue. Go check her out.
- booboo
- Posts: 1032
- Joined: Tue Oct 20, 2009 10:39 pm
Re: U Chicago 2010
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
- somewhatwayward
- Posts: 1442
- Joined: Wed Sep 30, 2009 5:10 pm
Re: U Chicago 2010
you know, i applied to uchicago around the turn of the new year after reading some more about it. it wasn't originally on my list.
since then, i actually forgot i did it until yesterday when my mother reminded me bc i have heard absolutely nothing from them.....not even application received. i see from this thread that they seem to have a long lag time, but realizing i completely forgot about it was pretty amusing.
since then, i actually forgot i did it until yesterday when my mother reminded me bc i have heard absolutely nothing from them.....not even application received. i see from this thread that they seem to have a long lag time, but realizing i completely forgot about it was pretty amusing.
- holybartender
- Posts: 423
- Joined: Sun Sep 27, 2009 2:06 pm
Re: U Chicago 2010
That is utter trash. UCSB girls are hotter, and know how to have fun. We have 10,000 of them on a square mile that runs along a beach. STD rate? That's one of those absurd rumors you start hearing in 10th grade when you start thinking about college that gets repeated over, and over again until it just becomes 'truth'. It's on par with colleges nationwide. Much rather have the girls at Santa Barbara than any other UC. Also, lol at the poorer comment. I hate when the beautiful girl I hook up with is wearing stuff from Nordstrom instead of Nieman Marcus!TheWire wrote:The girls at UCSB are less attractive, about equally as intelligent, much poorer, and more infested with STDs.crackberry wrote:Are the girls at UCSB hot? I've heard mixed reviews. How do they compare to USC?
IN GENERAL and in all seriousness...
- puppleberry finn
- Posts: 1035
- Joined: Mon Feb 23, 2009 7:03 pm
Re: U Chicago 2010
sooo..... any decisions today?
- D Brooks
- Posts: 522
- Joined: Sat Sep 13, 2008 1:02 pm
Re: U Chicago 2010
I got an email that said "Update received." In response to the LOCI I sent yesterday afternoon.
-
- Posts: 32
- Joined: Sat Oct 03, 2009 11:53 pm
Re: U Chicago 2010
I received an "Update received" email as well, for something I sent them over a week ago. Looks like they are catching up on emails.D Brooks wrote:I got an email that said "Update received." In response to the LOCI I sent yesterday afternoon.
Register now!
Resources to assist law school applicants, students & graduates.
It's still FREE!
Already a member? Login
-
- Posts: 221
- Joined: Thu Sep 11, 2008 8:00 pm
Re: U Chicago 2010
I'm pretty pessimistic right now, but I can't help but think that if they were just going to fire off a bunch of WL/rejects to the 2/4 and 2/5 bunch, they'd have done it already. On the 1/28-1/29 WL/ding batch, the WL/ding e-mail came within a few hours of the 1/29 update. There hasn't been another WL/ding since then, despite the fact that several people updated from 2/4 to 2/5.
On the other hand, if they were going to accept a few more people from that batch, why wouldn't they have gone ahead and called yesterday? I mean if there were just a few leftovers after an afternoon of calling, you'd think they would've been called yesterday.
The only conclusion, then, must be that a few people from the 2/4 and 2/5 groups are being held or reviewed again. Otherwise, why the nearly two day (and counting) gap?
It doesn't mean anyone in this group is safe, but I don't think it means anyone is definitely out yet, either.
On the other hand, if they were going to accept a few more people from that batch, why wouldn't they have gone ahead and called yesterday? I mean if there were just a few leftovers after an afternoon of calling, you'd think they would've been called yesterday.
The only conclusion, then, must be that a few people from the 2/4 and 2/5 groups are being held or reviewed again. Otherwise, why the nearly two day (and counting) gap?
It doesn't mean anyone in this group is safe, but I don't think it means anyone is definitely out yet, either.
- Jericwithers
- Posts: 2194
- Joined: Tue Jul 28, 2009 9:34 pm
Re: U Chicago 2010
I'll say this is good analysis. Makes me hopeful, too. Either they didn't review all 2/4s before the previous admit batch or they are reviewing other people (maybe scholarship essay people) to include with the decision batch for the rest of the 2/4s.insidethetwenty wrote:I'm pretty pessimistic right now, but I can't help but think that if they were just going to fire off a bunch of WL/rejects to the 2/4 and 2/5 bunch, they'd have done it already. On the 1/28-1/29 WL/ding batch, the WL/ding e-mail came within a few hours of the 1/29 update. There hasn't been another WL/ding since then, despite the fact that several people updated from 2/4 to 2/5.
On the other hand, if they were going to accept a few more people from that batch, why wouldn't they have gone ahead and called yesterday? I mean if there were just a few leftovers after an afternoon of calling, you'd think they would've been called yesterday.
The only conclusion, then, must be that a few people from the 2/4 and 2/5 groups are being held or reviewed again. Otherwise, why the nearly two day (and counting) gap?
It doesn't mean anyone in this group is safe, but I don't think it means anyone is definitely out yet, either.
- JollyGreenGiant
- Posts: 995
- Joined: Tue Apr 17, 2007 9:12 pm
Re: U Chicago 2010
...
Last edited by JollyGreenGiant on Tue Feb 09, 2010 5:29 pm, edited 1 time in total.
- Tangerine Gleam
- Posts: 1280
- Joined: Wed Jul 01, 2009 4:50 pm
Re: U Chicago 2010
Crossing my fingers for you, JGG!
EDIT: When they called me, I said "Who the f*ck is 773?" and pressed ignore, certain that no schools could be calling me. I then Googled the area code, slapped myself, and spent the rest of the afternoon trying to call them back (to no avail). 8 hours later, e-mail.
EDIT: When they called me, I said "Who the f*ck is 773?" and pressed ignore, certain that no schools could be calling me. I then Googled the area code, slapped myself, and spent the rest of the afternoon trying to call them back (to no avail). 8 hours later, e-mail.
Get unlimited access to all forums and topics
Register now!
I'm pretty sure I told you it's FREE...
Already a member? Login
- JollyGreenGiant
- Posts: 995
- Joined: Tue Apr 17, 2007 9:12 pm
Re: U Chicago 2010
TLS was right. My pessimism was wrong. I've never been happier to be wrong.
- booboo
- Posts: 1032
- Joined: Tue Oct 20, 2009 10:39 pm
Re: U Chicago 2010
And I am happy TLS was right and you were wrong. Congrats!JollyGreenGiant wrote:
TLS was right. My pessimism was wrong. I've never been happier to be wrong.
- Jericwithers
- Posts: 2194
- Joined: Tue Jul 28, 2009 9:34 pm
Re: U Chicago 2010
You got called?!?JollyGreenGiant wrote:
TLS was right. My pessimism was wrong. I've never been happier to be wrong.
- Fancy Pants
- Posts: 231
- Joined: Thu Aug 13, 2009 5:32 pm
Re: U Chicago 2010
WIN!JollyGreenGiant wrote:
TLS was right. My pessimism was wrong. I've never been happier to be wrong.
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
- Emma.
- Posts: 2408
- Joined: Sun Oct 05, 2008 7:57 pm
Re: U Chicago 2010
Woot!JollyGreenGiant wrote:
TLS was right. My pessimism was wrong. I've never been happier to be wrong.
Congrats, JGG!
- mochafury
- Posts: 112
- Joined: Sun Dec 28, 2008 1:32 am
Re: U Chicago 2010
Rancid anti-Penn State trolling. Seriously, at least people in Santa Barbara, Austin and USC have locations that offer things to do that don't involve binge drinking.holybartender wrote:Blatant anti-Santa Barbara trolling.crackberry wrote: That said, it is the place where fun goes to die. My sister went to Chicago for UG. It was perfect for her. I think I would enjoy it for law school. But for UG, man oh man. She had a shirt that said, on the front, "The Top 5 Party Schools in the U.S." and the list was something like:
1. University of Wisconsin, Madison
2. University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill
3. University of Southern California
4. University of Texas, Austin
5. University of Florida
Empirical evidence supplemented by a heavy course of anecdotal testimony will show that PSU should be on, if not on top, of this list.
-
- Posts: 221
- Joined: Thu Sep 11, 2008 8:00 pm
Re: U Chicago 2010
Jericwithers wrote:You got called?!?JollyGreenGiant wrote:
TLS was right. My pessimism was wrong. I've never been happier to be wrong.
- maudlinstreet
- Posts: 360
- Joined: Fri Sep 04, 2009 4:29 pm
Re: U Chicago 2010
congrats dude!JollyGreenGiant wrote:
TLS was right. My pessimism was wrong. I've never been happier to be wrong.
Seriously? What are you waiting for?
Now there's a charge.
Just kidding ... it's still FREE!
Already a member? Login