Lessons Learned

[doczakon]

Now that the process is coming to a close, there are lots of things I would do differently in my application process.  But right now, I would mostly like to know what I did wrong, if those things are able to be fixed and how.  In business, when any large project is done, we conduct a sort of post-op review - the "lessons learned."  In this manner, we could go over what worked/failed and how to be more efficient etc on the next project.

In this light, I wonder if it is at all possible for a school to actually come clean as to why a student was turned down?  I got pumped full of all sorts of used-car-salesperson baloney by schools over the last year, and was too optimistic/eager, and mostly naive to really challenge the schools on realistic chances of admission.  As a result, I wasted a huge amount of time, money and emotional resources.  The biggest cloud of smoke blown up my petard was how older students bring valuable life experience, and it weighs more heavily than ancient UGPA numbers.

I would gladly pay $1000 to any of the school admissions people, real decision-makers and the schools that turned me down, to explain what went wrong, and what I could do to fix it.  I would even considering putting off school, and working for free in a firm if I had to for a year, just to get a realistic shot at one the schools on my list.

It's all fantasy, but has anyone actually had a admissions person speak honestly about the application package and evaluation?

USC's rejection arrived Saturday. Davis, Hastings and UCLA expected soon. No word from BU, but c'mon... that ain't happening...   If Southwestern changes their mind and gives me $$, then maybe I stay in Cali; otherwise... dunno anymore...

[little_old_lady]

Well 90% of the decision is numbers driven IMHO.  That's a sobering thought especially in light of the rhetoric from the admissions staff about life experience and all that. 

[L1]

Doczakon, what are your numbers or what is your LSN username?

[doczakon]

posted and lamented on this thread:
http://www.lawschooldiscussion.org/prelaw/index.php/topic,1890.0

[L1]

You said that you're a minority, which one? I'm Hispanic but I'm worried now b/c after looking at LSN I've seen them accept two black applicants w/ low numbers and waitlist a Hispanic also w/ low numbers but similar to mine. I think that they might already have "enough" Hispanics in their class and need to fill up on others. I'm just curious to see if your rejection would confirm or deny this theory.

[Revenant]

Hmm, ironically, I was told the opposite.  That while life/job experience is nice to have, they do not offer an advantage.  The exception is if you've been out of college for a while (I'd say at least 7+ years), then a poor undergrad GPA might be overlooked given good job experience and a great LSAT (since LSAT is something you would have had to take recently, thus it reflects your current ability, or so law schools believe).  Unfortunately, while a 160 is almost 90th percentile (I think), it seems it's no longer the magic number for acceptance at top schools.  165/166 seems to be the magic number this year.  I have similar numbers to you, and similar schooling, and of the schools you applied to, was rejected at Davis, waitlisted at BU and still no response from USC (since they are a reach, most likely means rejection).

Now that the process is coming to a close, there are lots of things I would do differently in my application process.  But right now, I would mostly like to know what I did wrong, if those things are able to be fixed and how.  In business, when any large project is done, we conduct a sort of post-op review - the "lessons learned."  In this manner, we could go over what worked/failed and how to be more efficient etc on the next project.

In this light, I wonder if it is at all possible for a school to actually come clean as to why a student was turned down?  I got pumped full of all sorts of used-car-salesperson baloney by schools over the last year, and was too optimistic/eager, and mostly naive to really challenge the schools on realistic chances of admission.  As a result, I wasted a huge amount of time, money and emotional resources.  The biggest cloud of smoke blown up my petard was how older students bring valuable life experience, and it weighs more heavily than ancient UGPA numbers.

I would gladly pay $1000 to any of the school admissions people, real decision-makers and the schools that turned me down, to explain what went wrong, and what I could do to fix it.  I would even considering putting off school, and working for free in a firm if I had to for a year, just to get a realistic shot at one the schools on my list.

It's all fantasy, but has anyone actually had a admissions person speak honestly about the application package and evaluation?

USC's rejection arrived Saturday. Davis, Hastings and UCLA expected soon. No word from BU, but c'mon... that ain't happening...   If Southwestern changes their mind and gives me $$, then maybe I stay in Cali; otherwise... dunno anymore...

[jgruber]

My only lesson is not to wait so long to apply.  I think 20 years was just too much procrastination.

[thechoson]

My lesson was also to apply early.  You have a better shot at not only admissions but scholarship money

[Revenant]

My lesson was also to apply early.  You have a better shot at not only admissions but scholarship money

Yup, that's the number one tip.  Apply before the rush (meaning apply in early December or earlier).

[dsong02]

My only lesson is not to wait so long to apply.  I think 20 years was just too much procrastination.

agreed...

but i also believe in 'better late than never'.  at least you took the initiative...thats respectable.