NYU Law: Unfair treatment?


LLMUNKNOWN

As an NYU LL.M. applicant, I feel as if I was made to look foolish by being rejected. Please let me know if this is justified or not.

On March 14, I received an email from the Graduate Admissions stating that the Admissions Committee was impressed with my academic and professional credentials, but found that my English language test score was below the NYU minimum requirement. The Committee invited me to submit an updated score report so that it would reconsider my application. I therefore immediately signed up for several language tests. After intensive preparation, I was very pleased to achieve and submit a test score exceeding the minimum requirement. On May 22, I was informed that the Committee was unable to offer me admission.

My personal opinion:
I acknowledge that the Committee did not expressly guarantee admission upon receipt of an updated score report. But one could reasonably expect that if the Committee encourages an applicant in March to retake a language test involving a stressful and expensive process, an offer of admission would be issued upon receipt of a high test score. Anything else would be to make a mockery of an applicant who has taken significant steps to meet the Committees request.

Or was I just wrong to expect admission? Is the misunderstanding due to a gap in cultural norms? I would appreciate your opinion.

As an NYU LL.M. applicant, I feel as if I was made to look foolish by being rejected. Please let me know if this is justified or not.

On March 14, I received an email from the Graduate Admissions stating that the Admissions Committee was impressed with my academic and professional credentials, but found that my English language test score was below the NYU minimum requirement. The Committee invited me to submit an updated score report so that it would reconsider my application. I therefore immediately signed up for several language tests. After intensive preparation, I was very pleased to achieve and submit a test score exceeding the minimum requirement. On May 22, I was informed that the Committee was unable to offer me admission.

My personal opinion:
I acknowledge that the Committee did not expressly guarantee admission upon receipt of an updated score report. But one could reasonably expect that if the Committee encourages an applicant in March to retake a language test involving a stressful and expensive process, an offer of admission would be issued upon receipt of a high test score. Anything else would be to make a mockery of an applicant who has taken significant steps to meet the Committee’s request.

Or was I just wrong to expect admission? Is the misunderstanding due to a gap in cultural norms? I would appreciate your opinion.
quote
idodee

You have to understand that most top law schools have generic e-mail that they send out regardless of who you are or what your credentials are. It might be that they shortlisted you as a possible good candidate, but when you submitted your English test score they had to reject you because the seats have been filled.

If I were you I would send an e-mail to whoever is in charge of Graduate Admissions explaining why you think you were treated unfairly, but I don't think they will reverse their decision (although sometimes surprises happen).

You have to understand that most top law schools have generic e-mail that they send out regardless of who you are or what your credentials are. It might be that they shortlisted you as a possible good candidate, but when you submitted your English test score they had to reject you because the seats have been filled.

If I were you I would send an e-mail to whoever is in charge of Graduate Admissions explaining why you think you were treated unfairly, but I don't think they will reverse their decision (although sometimes surprises happen).
quote
bobloblaw

For cultural reference, I'm a U.S. J.D. candidate considering an LLM next year.

First, that sucks and I'm sorry.

That said, I think its highly likely that it was a misunderstanding due to cultural norms. Virtually every rejection letter Ive ever received in the U.S. included mention of how impressive my qualifications and credentials were, even when I was woefully under-qualified for that which I was applying for. Its standard, boilerplate language thats sort of meant to make you feel a little bit better about being rejected but doesn't actually mean anything.

I would have interpreted the March e-mail as meaning that I was rejected prior to any real consideration of the non-English merits of my application. In other words, sort of "Hi, I'm sure youre a wonderful person and I'm going to do my best not to upset you. Before we will really consider you, you must submit three things. You have submitted two things. Theyre probably very nice things, but before we will look at them in any detail, you must submit the third thing. If you do that, then well think about your entire application package."

I would have assumed that the same language was used for everyone. I.e., someone who, if they submitted that third thing, as it were, was virtually guaranteed admission would get the same e-mail as one who was virtually guaranteed rejection.

For cultural reference, I'm a U.S. J.D. candidate considering an LLM next year.

First, that sucks and I'm sorry.

That said, I think it’s highly likely that it was a misunderstanding due to cultural norms. Virtually every rejection letter I’ve ever received in the U.S. included mention of how impressive my qualifications and credentials were, even when I was woefully under-qualified for that which I was applying for. It’s standard, boilerplate language that’s sort of meant to make you feel a little bit better about being rejected but doesn't actually mean anything.

I would have interpreted the March e-mail as meaning that I was rejected prior to any real consideration of the non-English merits of my application. In other words, sort of… "Hi, I'm sure you’re a wonderful person and I'm going to do my best not to upset you. Before we will really consider you, you must submit three things. You have submitted two things. They’re probably very nice things, but before we will look at them in any detail, you must submit the third thing. If you do that, then we’ll think about your entire application package."

I would have assumed that the same language was used for everyone. I.e., someone who, if they submitted that third thing, as it were, was virtually guaranteed admission would get the same e-mail as one who was virtually guaranteed rejection.
quote
Brutus

Your test score is a condition for "reconsideration" of your application, not a condition for "admission" -- this is how I understand it.

Your test score is a condition for "reconsideration" of your application, not a condition for "admission" -- this is how I understand it.
quote
olivers

LLMUNKNOWN:
These schools have x seats to fill, they don't know how many they will get each year. By the time you sent in the English test cores they filled their "quota" for the year. Please try again next year. I am sure you will get in. These schools aren't all that difficult or selective these days. So, early application may see you through next year.

LLMUNKNOWN:
These schools have x seats to fill, they don't know how many they will get each year. By the time you sent in the English test cores they filled their "quota" for the year. Please try again next year. I am sure you will get in. These schools aren't all that difficult or selective these days. So, early application may see you through next year.
quote
LLMUNKNOWN

Thank you all for your replies and opinions!

I would still argue that a basic sense of fair play was violated - regardless of cultural norms. If the Committee is not serious about offering admission, it should refrain from encouraging an applicant to go through an expensive process.

I have discussed the matter with the head of the Graduate Admissions, but all he could say was that he regretted the circumstances this year and that he would arrange for me to receive a refund of my application fee.

Thank you all for your replies and opinions!

I would still argue that a basic sense of fair play was violated - regardless of cultural norms. If the Committee is not serious about offering admission, it should refrain from encouraging an applicant to go through an expensive process.

I have discussed the matter with the head of the Graduate Admissions, but all he could say was that he regretted the circumstances this year and that he would arrange for me to receive a refund of my application fee.
quote
LLMUNKNOWN

quote
Eppendorf

As an NYU LL.M. applicant, I feel as if I was made to look foolish by being rejected. Please let me know if this is justified or not.

On March 14, I received an email from the Graduate Admissions stating that the Admissions Committee was impressed with my academic and professional credentials, but found that my English language test score was below the NYU minimum requirement. The Committee invited me to submit an updated score report so that it would reconsider my application. I therefore immediately signed up for several language tests. After intensive preparation, I was very pleased to achieve and submit a test score exceeding the minimum requirement. On May 22, I was informed that the Committee was unable to offer me admission.

My personal opinion:
I acknowledge that the Committee did not expressly guarantee admission upon receipt of an updated score report. But one could reasonably expect that if the Committee encourages an applicant in March to retake a language test involving a stressful and expensive process, an offer of admission would be issued upon receipt of a high test score. Anything else would be to make a mockery of an applicant who has taken significant steps to meet the Committees request.

Or was I just wrong to expect admission? Is the misunderstanding due to a gap in cultural norms? I would appreciate your opinion.


I tend to see it this way:

You were rejected.

So you probably weren't good enough.

<blockquote>As an NYU LL.M. applicant, I feel as if I was made to look foolish by being rejected. Please let me know if this is justified or not.

On March 14, I received an email from the Graduate Admissions stating that the Admissions Committee was impressed with my academic and professional credentials, but found that my English language test score was below the NYU minimum requirement. The Committee invited me to submit an updated score report so that it would reconsider my application. I therefore immediately signed up for several language tests. After intensive preparation, I was very pleased to achieve and submit a test score exceeding the minimum requirement. On May 22, I was informed that the Committee was unable to offer me admission.

My personal opinion:
I acknowledge that the Committee did not expressly guarantee admission upon receipt of an updated score report. But one could reasonably expect that if the Committee encourages an applicant in March to retake a language test involving a stressful and expensive process, an offer of admission would be issued upon receipt of a high test score. Anything else would be to make a mockery of an applicant who has taken significant steps to meet the Committee’s request.

Or was I just wrong to expect admission? Is the misunderstanding due to a gap in cultural norms? I would appreciate your opinion.</blockquote>

I tend to see it this way:

You were rejected.

So you probably weren't good enough.
quote

My case is very similar to the OP. Although I still await a decision and it's Kings College London. I applied to the LLM program but was rejected. After this, I applied to an MA program within Kings law school. I got a response straight away saying I have achieved the academic requirement for this program and they need to wait for my reference before making a decision. After my first reference got to them, they said they needed scanned copies of my passport and visa to determine my fee status.

Is it safe to say I'm in?



My case is very similar to the OP. Although I still await a decision and it's Kings College London. I applied to the LLM program but was rejected. After this, I applied to an MA program within Kings law school. I got a response straight away saying I have achieved the academic requirement for this program and they need to wait for my reference before making a decision. After my first reference got to them, they said they needed scanned copies of my passport and visa to determine my fee status.

Is it safe to say I'm in?
quote

Reply to Post

Related Law Schools

New York City, New York 2076 Followers 1583 Discussions

Other Related Content

Six US Law Schools to Hold Virtual LL.M. Information Sessions

News Oct 26, 2020

Graduation... and signing off!

Blog In NYU LL.M. 2020-2021 on Jun 03, 2021

Hot Discussions