Law School Discussion

Nine Years of Discussion
;

Author Topic: Washington U, St. Louis Ding  (Read 3897 times)

GO_PTO

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 925
  • my children... I have returned for law school!
    • AOL Instant Messenger - helios933
    • View Profile
Re: Washington U, St. Louis Ding
« Reply #10 on: March 29, 2005, 01:24:21 PM »
what do you mean by not sealed anyway? is it obvious that nobody ever sealed it, or could the glue on the envelope have been of poor quality? I wonder if a school would really just not close envelopes... maybe I am missing something
(163+172)/3.5

shortckt

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 441
  • Rambling Wreck
    • View Profile
Re: Washington U, St. Louis Ding
« Reply #11 on: March 29, 2005, 04:00:28 PM »
what do you mean by not sealed anyway? is it obvious that nobody ever sealed it, or could the glue on the envelope have been of poor quality? I wonder if a school would really just not close envelopes... maybe I am missing something

Well, it looked like nobody ever licked the envelope.
The adhesive was still in tact, like new.

GO_PTO

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 925
  • my children... I have returned for law school!
    • AOL Instant Messenger - helios933
    • View Profile
Re: Washington U, St. Louis Ding
« Reply #12 on: March 29, 2005, 04:08:02 PM »
I can't fathom any school not sealing the envelope at all... that would be ridiculous. It seems some lazy secretary needs some "productivity motivation!"
(163+172)/3.5

bobo21

  • Guest
Re: Washington U, St. Louis Ding
« Reply #13 on: March 29, 2005, 04:17:41 PM »
The sealed my denial.  I guess they wanted me to be completely certian that I was not wanted at their institution, even though they said they were impressed with my credentials. ;)

shortckt

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 441
  • Rambling Wreck
    • View Profile
Re: Washington U, St. Louis Ding
« Reply #14 on: March 29, 2005, 04:18:11 PM »
I can't fathom any school not sealing the envelope at all... that would be ridiculous. It seems some lazy secretary needs some "productivity motivation!"

No kidding.
But in all fairness, licking thousands of envelopes sounds painful. A classic Seinfeld episode comes to mind.  I gues they probably use a wet sponge...
They could just use self-adhesive envelopes to avoid any problems.

GO_PTO

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 925
  • my children... I have returned for law school!
    • AOL Instant Messenger - helios933
    • View Profile
Re: Washington U, St. Louis Ding
« Reply #15 on: March 29, 2005, 04:21:12 PM »
I can't fathom any school not sealing the envelope at all... that would be ridiculous. It seems some lazy secretary needs some "productivity motivation!"

No kidding.
But in all fairness, licking thousands of envelopes sounds painful. A classic Seinfeld episode comes to mind.  I gues they probably use a wet sponge...
They could just use self-adhesive envelopes to avoid any problems.

but then they would not get people on law school forums calling them rude, where is the fun in that?

you should read BC's rejection for rude. There is a sentence in it that says "ultimately we realize that students who attend other law schools will go on to succesful careers" (or something very close to that). I.E. well we are rejecting you, but unfortunetly you aren't totally screwed, you may still have a career...

No bitterness I swear it!  :P
(163+172)/3.5

shortckt

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 441
  • Rambling Wreck
    • View Profile
Re: Washington U, St. Louis Ding
« Reply #16 on: March 29, 2005, 04:24:23 PM »
The sealed my denial.  I guess they wanted to be very sure that I was not wanted at their institution, even though they said they were impressed with my credentials. ;)

Yeah, I got the same, "we are impressed..." form letter.
But how could they write that to me with a straight face after seeing my crapy stats (156/3.0)?
I would have preferred honesty.

Dear Shortckt,

We thank you for your interest in our institution, however, your LSAT is average at best, and so is your GPA.  We are just too good for you.
You'd be lucky to get in anywhere decent with those numbers.
Good luck! You'll need it!

Sincerely,

Joe AdComm.



shortckt

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 441
  • Rambling Wreck
    • View Profile
Re: Washington U, St. Louis Ding
« Reply #17 on: March 29, 2005, 04:31:00 PM »
you should read BC's rejection for rude. There is a sentence in it that says "ultimately we realize that students who attend other law schools will go on to succesful careers" (or something very close to that). I.E. well we are rejecting you, but unfortunetly you aren't totally screwed, you may still have a career...

No bitterness I swear it!  :P

Ha, Ha!
I remember reading a post about that same BC letter.
I prefer honesty, but that's just rude and obnoxious.

Well, Boston is too cold anyhow.

biolawgirl

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 119
    • View Profile
Re: Washington U, St. Louis Ding
« Reply #18 on: March 29, 2005, 04:34:37 PM »
The sealed my denial.  I guess they wanted to be very sure that I was not wanted at their institution, even though they said they were impressed with my credentials. ;)

Yeah, I got the same, "we are impressed..." form letter.
But how could they write that to me with a straight face after seeing my crapy stats (156/3.0)?
I would have preferred honesty.

Dear Shortckt,

We thank you for your interest in our institution, however, your LSAT is average at best, and so is your GPA.  We are just too good for you.
You'd be lucky to get in anywhere decent with those numbers.
Good luck! You'll need it!

Sincerely,

Joe AdComm.




Georgia Tech..haha the Ramblin' Wreck....it's weird. my stats are the same as yours but i got waitlisted.  Maybe cause i have a master's degree?? hmm.. very odd.
I love my philly phanatic :)

GO_PTO

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 925
  • my children... I have returned for law school!
    • AOL Instant Messenger - helios933
    • View Profile
Re: Washington U, St. Louis Ding
« Reply #19 on: March 29, 2005, 04:41:33 PM »
The sealed my denial.  I guess they wanted to be very sure that I was not wanted at their institution, even though they said they were impressed with my credentials. ;)

Yeah, I got the same, "we are impressed..." form letter.
But how could they write that to me with a straight face after seeing my crapy stats (156/3.0)?
I would have preferred honesty.

Dear Shortckt,

We thank you for your interest in our institution, however, your LSAT is average at best, and so is your GPA.  We are just too good for you.
You'd be lucky to get in anywhere decent with those numbers.
Good luck! You'll need it!

Sincerely,

Joe AdComm.




Georgia Tech..haha the Ramblin' Wreck....it's weird. my stats are the same as yours but i got waitlisted.  Maybe cause i have a master's degree?? hmm.. very odd.

but shortckt's got a PhD! I would assume that is more valuable... or at least it damn well should be.

You are responding fast today. I now understand why the USPTO is so backed up, all their employers are on LSD all day!

What am I doing, working on school work of course  ::)
(163+172)/3.5