REJECTED, ETC. TODAY

[Pardon Johnny Cash.]

Trev, I've been curious about how much those matter.  If a school is sure you'll be able to pass the bar, how much do they hurt?  It seems like Notre Dame cares a lot.  They've rejected people with good numbers, who I know to have reported "non-traditional soft factors" (that's the phrase I'm going with...)

[just Trev]

i think that there are two ways it can go:

1. schools (whose medians you are at or near) are afraid you MAY NOT pass the bar with your soft-factors and decide to WL/Reject you...

OR

2. schools use it as an added incentive to yield protect you, and console themselves with your soft-factors after doing so...

for me, i think IU-B and probably W&M are perfect examples of #1, and Kentucky, Samford, & probably Tennessee as examples of #2

[tcwhat]

Trev, I've been curious about how much those matter.  If a school is sure you'll be able to pass the bar, how much do they hurt?  It seems like Notre Dame cares a lot.  They've rejected people with good numbers, who I know to have reported "non-traditional soft factors" (that's the phrase I'm going with...)

This is strictly for my situation so I don't know how applicable it is for others, but here we go.

For a while I was considering the different criminal addendum I provided per the school's requirements were indicative of how my cycle was going. I suspected the schools that asked for more detailed information were more influenced by these negative softs. Some schools only ask for convictions, some ask for all arrests, and some for some middle ground.  So all told, I wrote at least 3 different addendums for my schools.

ND rejection was because of my idiocy in not proofreading the application.  I rushed it off and there were errors everywhere.  So I take this as an isolated incident.

Illinois/Minnesota/Boston College all asked for arrests so that addendum was longer than my conviction addendum and looked very bad.  I suspected my straight up rejections without a single waitlist was because of this.

Alabama/Virginia/Georgetown all asked for convictions, which I only have two of, so nothing terribly bad.  Both were class C misdemeanors and one is no longer on my record because I received it when I was 16 and did the necessary work to get it expunged.

So combined with my Chicago, Columbia, and Penn rejections, which can obviously be explained by my unqualified numbers, I briefly thought that my soft factors played a role where applicable.

Then Duke/Tulane/Vanderbilt came along and changed that.  Vandy and Duke both received the full addendum and waitlisted me, admittedly with waitlistable numbers but still it screws up my theory.  Tulane admitted me and gave me a sizable scholarship.

What does this all mean? Bad softs hurt at some schools and aren't necessarily too damning at others, at least in my case, which is what we basically knew from the beginning.

I definitely think that my arrest addendum is what is causing the delay in decisions at my remaining schools like Emory, WUSTL, Baylor, W&L, IU-B, and SMU.  Northwestern, UCLA, Texas and Cornell are all under different circumstances - NW, UCLA and Texas all have the brief addendum too, so I'm real anxious for those.

[just Trev]

i sent the exact same addendum to my schools no matter what they asked for, fully disclosing all arrests, charges, convictions, etc. 

[tcwhat]

i sent the exact same addendum to my schools no matter what they asked for, fully disclosing all arrests, charges, convictions, etc. 

I grappled with whether I should do this but I decided since they specified it must be all that specific school cared about.

[LawDog3]

What I hate is schools that ask for employer discipline/terminations UNRELATED to honor/trust violations or crimes against other persons. If the discipline is unrelated to those things, and schools claim they are asking for BAR purposes, why do they need to know if you were written up for being late? UC-Irvine and George Mason ask for this kind of stuff, while other schools have learned not to bother with it.

Duke used to ask about "terminations" up until last year, I think. It's really silly. If you didn't rip the place off, or attack your boss and get arrested, one can argue that they shouldn't be concerned with it. On the other hand, if you lost important paperwork, and had a habit of losing homework during undergrad, it might demonstrate a pattern of sloppiness or irresponsibility that schools would want to know about. But there are other ways of finding out if a student has a bad work ethic.

Unless you violated the law while employed, and/or in the course of your duties and it was related to the termination or other discipline, schools should leave it alone. They should understand the fear students have of disclosing these things, esp. when those incidents are related to an unknown person's subjective opinion. Who says the boss who wrote you up wasn't a biggot or had good judgement...or didn't play favorites? It's unfair for schools to delve into anything the BAR isn't going to care about. Schools claim these incidents do not prejudice applications, but...how can they NOT?

[Pardon Johnny Cash.]

i sent the exact same addendum to my schools no matter what they asked for, fully disclosing all arrests, charges, convictions, etc. 

I grappled with whether I should do this but I decided since they specified it must be all that specific school cared about.

This is simple following directions, so I agree with you tc.  If I were an adcomm, I'd be a bit troubled if an applicant documented transgressions and highlighted negative aspects without being required.  You're supposed to sell yourself as well as you can while being 100% honest.  I suggest that one does this 

[LawDog3]

i sent the exact same addendum to my schools no matter what they asked for, fully disclosing all arrests, charges, convictions, etc. 

I grappled with whether I should do this but I decided since they specified it must be all that specific school cared about.

This is simple following directions, so I agree with you tc.  If I were an adcomm, I'd be a bit troubled if an applicant documented transgressions and highlighted negative aspects without being required.  You're supposed to sell yourself as well as you can while being 100% honest.  I suggest that one does this 

+1...but w/o making excuses. That's a tough nut to crack.

[just Trev]

i sent the exact same addendum to my schools no matter what they asked for, fully disclosing all arrests, charges, convictions, etc. 

I grappled with whether I should do this but I decided since they specified it must be all that specific school cared about.

i don't think there's any doubt that many of my adcomms have been "troubled."



This is simple following directions, so I agree with you tc.  If I were an adcomm, I'd be a bit troubled if an applicant documented transgressions and highlighted negative aspects without being required.  You're supposed to sell yourself as well as you can while being 100% honest.  I suggest that one does this 

[Pardon Johnny Cash.]

i sent the exact same addendum to my schools no matter what they asked for, fully disclosing all arrests, charges, convictions, etc. 

I grappled with whether I should do this but I decided since they specified it must be all that specific school cared about.

i don't think there's any doubt that many of my adcomms have been "troubled."

Trev, maybe our collective inability to quote properly has troubled adcoms as well?

This is simple following directions, so I agree with you tc.  If I were an adcomm, I'd be a bit troubled if an applicant documented transgressions and highlighted negative aspects without being required.  You're supposed to sell yourself as well as you can while being 100% honest.  I suggest that one does this