Strange Decisions


G_lamy
I also agree. I was given entry by nyu but i was refused by three universities that are not so pretigous. I was third in the best university in my country out of 400 students and second in llm class of 60 students.
I also agree. I was given entry by nyu but i was refused by three universities that are not so pretigous. I was third in the best university in my country out of 400 students and second in llm class of 60 students.
quote
Borat_USA
Sorry guys, but I believe you are not "UPenn" material. I worked for a magic circle law firm for 3 years - graduated top 3 in the best law school in my country (200 students) and suma cum laude from my master degree (3000 trying to get in - only 40 admitted) - publications - and I am also a professor in the best law school in my country. Waitlisted by UofC - Admitted Upenn and CLS. I've seen also people who got into HLS and been rejected by UPenn, CLS and UofC. You all have to keep in mind that a lot of people LIE in this board....
Sorry guys, but I believe you are not "UPenn" material. I worked for a magic circle law firm for 3 years - graduated top 3 in the best law school in my country (200 students) and suma cum laude from my master degree (3000 trying to get in - only 40 admitted) - publications - and I am also a professor in the best law school in my country. Waitlisted by UofC - Admitted Upenn and CLS. I've seen also people who got into HLS and been rejected by UPenn, CLS and UofC. You all have to keep in mind that a lot of people LIE in this board....
quote
dbk
Sorry guys, but I believe you are not "UPenn" material. I worked for a magic circle law firm for 3 years - graduated top 3 in the best law school in my country (200 students) and suma cum laude from my master degree (3000 trying to get in - only 40 admitted) - publications - and I am also a professor in the best law school in my country. Waitlisted by UofC - Admitted Upenn and CLS. I've seen also people who got into HLS and been rejected by UPenn, CLS and UofC. You all have to keep in mind that a lot of people LIE in this board....


I was not talking about rumors, or posts. I was talking about real facts: people I personnally know. I don't care if you don't believe me... And I'm not saying I deserved to be admitted.

I'm just pointing out the fact that some decisions may appear as strange.
<blockquote>Sorry guys, but I believe you are not "UPenn" material. I worked for a magic circle law firm for 3 years - graduated top 3 in the best law school in my country (200 students) and suma cum laude from my master degree (3000 trying to get in - only 40 admitted) - publications - and I am also a professor in the best law school in my country. Waitlisted by UofC - Admitted Upenn and CLS. I've seen also people who got into HLS and been rejected by UPenn, CLS and UofC. You all have to keep in mind that a lot of people LIE in this board....</blockquote>

I was not talking about rumors, or posts. I was talking about real facts: people I personnally know. I don't care if you don't believe me... And I'm not saying I deserved to be admitted.

I'm just pointing out the fact that some decisions may appear as strange.

quote
Borat_USA
dabk - sorry if it sounded to agressive.... I know real people who were rejected by UPenn and admitted to HLS as well.

I know that law schools' decision are strange - thats waht this post is all about!!!!

i am also wondering - if i vahe been admitted to Upenn and CLS, does it mean I will be rejected from HLS?

BTW, where are you going to the LLM? Have you been admitted?
dabk - sorry if it sounded to agressive.... I know real people who were rejected by UPenn and admitted to HLS as well.

I know that law schools' decision are strange - thats waht this post is all about!!!!

i am also wondering - if i vahe been admitted to Upenn and CLS, does it mean I will be rejected from HLS?

BTW, where are you going to the LLM? Have you been admitted?
quote
dbk
I would say that being accepted by Upenn and CLS is rather a good sign for HLS :).

I was just accepted by Cornell and UCLA, but I already refused their offer. I'm still waiting for HLS/CLS/NYU/Berkeley; then I'll make a decision for next year.
I would say that being accepted by Upenn and CLS is rather a good sign for HLS :).

I was just accepted by Cornell and UCLA, but I already refused their offer. I'm still waiting for HLS/CLS/NYU/Berkeley; then I'll make a decision for next year.
quote
G_lamy
Mister Borat I see your resume is very elite and certainly better than any other person wanting an llm this year.
I say to you, Bravo!
Mister Borat I see your resume is very elite and certainly better than any other person wanting an llm this year.
I say to you, Bravo!
quote
I don't think it is that strange:

CLS: rejected
Chicago: Waitlisted
Upenn: Admitted

Waiting for the usual others..
I don't think it is that strange:

CLS: rejected
Chicago: Waitlisted
Upenn: Admitted

Waiting for the usual others..
quote
LSE_2010
in - LSE - Kings - QMUL - UPENN - NW

waitlisted - UOFC

waiting - CLS - NYU
in - LSE - Kings - QMUL - UPENN - NW

waitlisted - UOFC

waiting - CLS - NYU
quote
Bla Bla
quote
Bla Bla
My decisions were not strange until now...

AdmitteD by: HLS with 15K, CLS with half tuition waiver, SLS, Berkeley with full tuition waiver

Waitlisted by: NYU
My decisions were not strange until now...

AdmitteD by: HLS with 15K, CLS with half tuition waiver, SLS, Berkeley with full tuition waiver

Waitlisted by: NYU
quote
JEstebar
wow, that's an impressive track record! Congratulations.
I am applying this year to begin in 2011 (I want to attend energy lay llm at UT).
Could you share a sum of your credentials please?

Thank you.
wow, that's an impressive track record! Congratulations.
I am applying this year to begin in 2011 (I want to attend energy lay llm at UT).
Could you share a sum of your credentials please?

Thank you.
quote
MAB79
My decisions were not strange until now...

AdmitteD by: HLS with 15K, CLS with half tuition waiver, SLS, Berkeley with full tuition waiver

Waitlisted by: NYU


Waitlisted by NYU...I guess this is because they realized that you have better options *lol*
<blockquote>My decisions were not strange until now...

AdmitteD by: HLS with 15K, CLS with half tuition waiver, SLS, Berkeley with full tuition waiver

Waitlisted by: NYU</blockquote>

Waitlisted by NYU...I guess this is because they realized that you have better options *lol*
quote
MAB79
Penn Law this year seems to have a weird taste on choosing students. I've seen several admitted into CLS but denied by Penn Law, even not waitlisted.
I guess maybe Penn Law had too much experience in being declined by students who finally accepted offers from other institutions such as HLS, YLS or CLS in the past years, which leading them to have the ability in identifing and to reject those who have obvious potential to be admitted by better ranked law schools.


I DO NOT AGREE!!! I'VE BEEN ADMITTED TO CLS AND UPENN AND I AM GOING TO UPENN (FOR MANY REASONS).

FURTHERMORE, UPENN HAS A SMALL LLM CLASS WHILE CLS HAS ALMOST 250 STUDENTS. I AM SURE THAT SOMEONE WHO HAVE BEEN ADMITTED TO CLS IS NOT A BETTER CANDIDATE THAT THOSE WHO HAVE BEEN ADMITTED TO UPENN.



Silly post!!! It looks like someone has been rejected and couldnt stand it!!!

It doesnt make any sense. I believe that the ultimate goal for a law school is to retain the best applicants each year.

I totally agree with Applicant2010/11 Columbia has a bigger class and different kind of students. I do not believe that Columbia is better than Upenn at all, especially for corporate / business.

@meetaaron - I think if you arent good enough for Upenn, maybe (if you were admitted to CLS) you should go to CLS and stand in line for the next B- in a factory of LLM students.


Why is rejecting the CLS offer silly? I think there are several reasons for every applicant to choose the school that best suits his or her interest.
<blockquote><blockquote><blockquote>Penn Law this year seems to have a weird taste on choosing students. I've seen several admitted into CLS but denied by Penn Law, even not waitlisted.
I guess maybe Penn Law had too much experience in being declined by students who finally accepted offers from other institutions such as HLS, YLS or CLS in the past years, which leading them to have the ability in identifing and to reject those who have obvious potential to be admitted by better ranked law schools. </blockquote>

I DO NOT AGREE!!! I'VE BEEN ADMITTED TO CLS AND UPENN AND I AM GOING TO UPENN (FOR MANY REASONS).

FURTHERMORE, UPENN HAS A SMALL LLM CLASS WHILE CLS HAS ALMOST 250 STUDENTS. I AM SURE THAT SOMEONE WHO HAVE BEEN ADMITTED TO CLS IS NOT A BETTER CANDIDATE THAT THOSE WHO HAVE BEEN ADMITTED TO UPENN.</blockquote>


Silly post!!! It looks like someone has been rejected and couldn’t stand it!!!

It doesn’t make any sense. I believe that the ultimate goal for a law school is to retain the best applicants each year.

I totally agree with Applicant2010/11 – Columbia has a bigger class and different kind of students. I do not believe that Columbia is better than Upenn at all, especially for corporate / business.

@meetaaron - I think if you aren’t good enough for Upenn, maybe (if you were admitted to CLS) you should go to CLS and stand in line for the next B- in a “factory” of LLM students.
</blockquote>

Why is rejecting the CLS offer silly? I think there are several reasons for every applicant to choose the school that best suits his or her interest.
quote
Oldtimer
Decisions could only be considered strange if looked in context (more later). Furthermore, you seem to assume, wrongly in my view, that: 1) someone accepted in a highly ranked university should have been accepted in a lower ranking one, and 2) that the law schools base their decisions on getting only those at the top of their class.

Have you ever considered that hundreds if not thousands of people can legitimately make that claim every year? In case you haven't noticed, this website is plagued with them!

So "being the best in your class" only helps up to a point and guarantees nothing. I work in an IO and I have had to select interns from a pool of 300 applicants in a few occasions. Trust me, all the CVs start looking the same after the fifth one, as most have the same qualifications and they all tend to exagerate things in the same way (best in class! best school! best thesis! best article! best experience! best pet!). I can only imagine how painful the review process has to be at the other end, at the Law Schools. That is why having something unique to say they'll remember from your application helps a lot. It's not only about being smart. It's about having a good application.

So, what is the most evident part you are not considering in your puzzlement? It's called " diversity". Although Law Schools will probably never admit it, they set diversity targets (I.e. coutas) of the type of students they would like to admit according to their target markets (big emerging markets and big European countries always get big shares; changes from school to school). Why? Because that's what law firms are looking for and diversity is considered a plus. If you check carefully, it's even part of the US news rankings, so they must play ball. Haven't you noticed the nice multicolored/multiethnic people adorning the admissions webpages?

This means that you are not competing with "all the best and brightest of the World". Sorry if I offend anybody. In reality, you are competing from others from your same country/region and according to crosscutting quotas in terms of sex, religion and even color of your skin (again, they will never admit it, but they first day of your program you'll see what I mean). Just imagine how bad it would look if 90% of the LlM class were the smart Indian and chinese guys, with no women and nobody from a small country. Not a Bennetton type of program!

That is way it is, statistically, easier to be admitted if you are a woman or come from a small/very poor country (highly in demand to meet the diversity targets, but relatively few applying). It is much harder if you are a man from a country with many applicants and a small quota. So, if you are lucky, the numbers will be on your side, even if you are not the brightest. Like a friend of mine who had so-so grades, party animal, who never studied much but came from the right country and is now a proud llm graduate of Chicago!!!

So, coming back to the question. Does it make sense? Well, it depends on your "non-lawyerly" and "non-academic" attributes and how the quotas are being handled in each of those schools. It also depends on how many people from your country applied to those schools (nearly impossible to know unless you come from a small country). Since this information is only rarely disclosed by the Law Schools at this point, you'll never know.
Decisions could only be considered strange if looked in context (more later). Furthermore, you seem to assume, wrongly in my view, that: 1) someone accepted in a highly ranked university should have been accepted in a lower ranking one, and 2) that the law schools base their decisions on getting only those at the top of their class.

Have you ever considered that hundreds if not thousands of people can legitimately make that claim every year? In case you haven't noticed, this website is plagued with them!

So "being the best in your class" only helps up to a point and guarantees nothing. I work in an IO and I have had to select interns from a pool of 300 applicants in a few occasions. Trust me, all the CVs start looking the same after the fifth one, as most have the same qualifications and they all tend to exagerate things in the same way (best in class! best school! best thesis! best article! best experience! best pet!). I can only imagine how painful the review process has to be at the other end, at the Law Schools. That is why having something unique to say they'll remember from your application helps a lot. It's not only about being smart. It's about having a good application.

So, what is the most evident part you are not considering in your puzzlement? It's called " diversity". Although Law Schools will probably never admit it, they set diversity targets (I.e. coutas) of the type of students they would like to admit according to their target markets (big emerging markets and big European countries always get big shares; changes from school to school). Why? Because that's what law firms are looking for and diversity is considered a plus. If you check carefully, it's even part of the US news rankings, so they must play ball. Haven't you noticed the nice multicolored/multiethnic people adorning the admissions webpages?

This means that you are not competing with "all the best and brightest of the World". Sorry if I offend anybody. In reality, you are competing from others from your same country/region and according to crosscutting quotas in terms of sex, religion and even color of your skin (again, they will never admit it, but they first day of your program you'll see what I mean). Just imagine how bad it would look if 90% of the LlM class were the smart Indian and chinese guys, with no women and nobody from a small country. Not a Bennetton type of program!

That is way it is, statistically, easier to be admitted if you are a woman or come from a small/very poor country (highly in demand to meet the diversity targets, but relatively few applying). It is much harder if you are a man from a country with many applicants and a small quota. So, if you are lucky, the numbers will be on your side, even if you are not the brightest. Like a friend of mine who had so-so grades, party animal, who never studied much but came from the right country and is now a proud llm graduate of Chicago!!!

So, coming back to the question. Does it make sense? Well, it depends on your "non-lawyerly" and "non-academic" attributes and how the quotas are being handled in each of those schools. It also depends on how many people from your country applied to those schools (nearly impossible to know unless you come from a small country). Since this information is only rarely disclosed by the Law Schools at this point, you'll never know.
quote
Bigua
Decisions could only be considered strange if looked in context (more later). Furthermore, you seem to assume, wrongly in my view, that: 1) someone accepted in a highly ranked university should have been accepted in a lower ranking one, and 2) that the law schools base their decisions on getting only those at the top of their class.

Have you ever considered that hundreds if not thousands of people can legitimately make that claim every year? In case you haven't noticed, this website is plagued with them!

So "being the best in your class" only helps up to a point and guarantees nothing. I work in an IO and I have had to select interns from a pool of 300 applicants in a few occasions. Trust me, all the CVs start looking the same after the fifth one, as most have the same qualifications and they all tend to exagerate things in the same way (best in class! best school! best thesis! best article! best experience! best pet!). I can only imagine how painful the review process has to be at the other end, at the Law Schools. That is why having something unique to say they'll remember from your application helps a lot. It's not only about being smart. It's about having a good application.

So, what is the most evident part you are not considering in your puzzlement? It's called " diversity". Although Law Schools will probably never admit it, they set diversity targets (I.e. coutas) of the type of students they would like to admit according to their target markets (big emerging markets and big European countries always get big shares; changes from school to school). Why? Because that's what law firms are looking for and diversity is considered a plus. If you check carefully, it's even part of the US news rankings, so they must play ball. Haven't you noticed the nice multicolored/multiethnic people adorning the admissions webpages?

This means that you are not competing with "all the best and brightest of the World". Sorry if I offend anybody. In reality, you are competing from others from your same country/region and according to crosscutting quotas in terms of sex, religion and even color of your skin (again, they will never admit it, but they first day of your program you'll see what I mean). Just imagine how bad it would look if 90% of the LlM class were the smart Indian and chinese guys, with no women and nobody from a small country. Not a Bennetton type of program!

That is way it is, statistically, easier to be admitted if you are a woman or come from a small/very poor country (highly in demand to meet the diversity targets, but relatively few applying). It is much harder if you are a man from a country with many applicants and a small quota. So, if you are lucky, the numbers will be on your side, even if you are not the brightest. Like a friend of mine who had so-so grades, party animal, who never studied much but came from the right country and is now a proud llm graduate of Chicago!!!

So, coming back to the question. Does it make sense? Well, it depends on your "non-lawyerly" and "non-academic" attributes and how the quotas are being handled in each of those schools. It also depends on how many people from your country applied to those schools (nearly impossible to know unless you come from a small country). Since this information is only rarely disclosed by the Law Schools at this point, you'll never know.


BEST POST I VE EVER SEEM ON THIS BOARD - CONGRATS
<blockquote>Decisions could only be considered strange if looked in context (more later). Furthermore, you seem to assume, wrongly in my view, that: 1) someone accepted in a highly ranked university should have been accepted in a lower ranking one, and 2) that the law schools base their decisions on getting only those at the top of their class.

Have you ever considered that hundreds if not thousands of people can legitimately make that claim every year? In case you haven't noticed, this website is plagued with them!

So "being the best in your class" only helps up to a point and guarantees nothing. I work in an IO and I have had to select interns from a pool of 300 applicants in a few occasions. Trust me, all the CVs start looking the same after the fifth one, as most have the same qualifications and they all tend to exagerate things in the same way (best in class! best school! best thesis! best article! best experience! best pet!). I can only imagine how painful the review process has to be at the other end, at the Law Schools. That is why having something unique to say they'll remember from your application helps a lot. It's not only about being smart. It's about having a good application.

So, what is the most evident part you are not considering in your puzzlement? It's called " diversity". Although Law Schools will probably never admit it, they set diversity targets (I.e. coutas) of the type of students they would like to admit according to their target markets (big emerging markets and big European countries always get big shares; changes from school to school). Why? Because that's what law firms are looking for and diversity is considered a plus. If you check carefully, it's even part of the US news rankings, so they must play ball. Haven't you noticed the nice multicolored/multiethnic people adorning the admissions webpages?

This means that you are not competing with "all the best and brightest of the World". Sorry if I offend anybody. In reality, you are competing from others from your same country/region and according to crosscutting quotas in terms of sex, religion and even color of your skin (again, they will never admit it, but they first day of your program you'll see what I mean). Just imagine how bad it would look if 90% of the LlM class were the smart Indian and chinese guys, with no women and nobody from a small country. Not a Bennetton type of program!

That is way it is, statistically, easier to be admitted if you are a woman or come from a small/very poor country (highly in demand to meet the diversity targets, but relatively few applying). It is much harder if you are a man from a country with many applicants and a small quota. So, if you are lucky, the numbers will be on your side, even if you are not the brightest. Like a friend of mine who had so-so grades, party animal, who never studied much but came from the right country and is now a proud llm graduate of Chicago!!!

So, coming back to the question. Does it make sense? Well, it depends on your "non-lawyerly" and "non-academic" attributes and how the quotas are being handled in each of those schools. It also depends on how many people from your country applied to those schools (nearly impossible to know unless you come from a small country). Since this information is only rarely disclosed by the Law Schools at this point, you'll never know.</blockquote>

BEST POST I VE EVER SEEM ON THIS BOARD - CONGRATS
quote
Outlier
A great deal of anecdotal evidence but right on spot!

Decisions could only be considered strange if looked in context (more later). Furthermore, you seem to assume, wrongly in my view, that: 1) someone accepted in a highly ranked university should have been accepted in a lower ranking one, and 2) that the law schools base their decisions on getting only those at the top of their class.

Have you ever considered that hundreds if not thousands of people can legitimately make that claim every year? In case you haven't noticed, this website is plagued with them!

So "being the best in your class" only helps up to a point and guarantees nothing. I work in an IO and I have had to select interns from a pool of 300 applicants in a few occasions. Trust me, all the CVs start looking the same after the fifth one, as most have the same qualifications and they all tend to exagerate things in the same way (best in class! best school! best thesis! best article! best experience! best pet!). I can only imagine how painful the review process has to be at the other end, at the Law Schools. That is why having something unique to say they'll remember from your application helps a lot. It's not only about being smart. It's about having a good application.

So, what is the most evident part you are not considering in your puzzlement? It's called " diversity". Although Law Schools will probably never admit it, they set diversity targets (I.e. coutas) of the type of students they would like to admit according to their target markets (big emerging markets and big European countries always get big shares; changes from school to school). Why? Because that's what law firms are looking for and diversity is considered a plus. If you check carefully, it's even part of the US news rankings, so they must play ball. Haven't you noticed the nice multicolored/multiethnic people adorning the admissions webpages?

This means that you are not competing with "all the best and brightest of the World". Sorry if I offend anybody. In reality, you are competing from others from your same country/region and according to crosscutting quotas in terms of sex, religion and even color of your skin (again, they will never admit it, but they first day of your program you'll see what I mean). Just imagine how bad it would look if 90% of the LlM class were the smart Indian and chinese guys, with no women and nobody from a small country. Not a Bennetton type of program!

That is way it is, statistically, easier to be admitted if you are a woman or come from a small/very poor country (highly in demand to meet the diversity targets, but relatively few applying). It is much harder if you are a man from a country with many applicants and a small quota. So, if you are lucky, the numbers will be on your side, even if you are not the brightest. Like a friend of mine who had so-so grades, party animal, who never studied much but came from the right country and is now a proud llm graduate of Chicago!!!

So, coming back to the question. Does it make sense? Well, it depends on your "non-lawyerly" and "non-academic" attributes and how the quotas are being handled in each of those schools. It also depends on how many people from your country applied to those schools (nearly impossible to know unless you come from a small country). Since this information is only rarely disclosed by the Law Schools at this point, you'll never know.
A great deal of anecdotal evidence but right on spot!

<blockquote>Decisions could only be considered strange if looked in context (more later). Furthermore, you seem to assume, wrongly in my view, that: 1) someone accepted in a highly ranked university should have been accepted in a lower ranking one, and 2) that the law schools base their decisions on getting only those at the top of their class.

Have you ever considered that hundreds if not thousands of people can legitimately make that claim every year? In case you haven't noticed, this website is plagued with them!

So "being the best in your class" only helps up to a point and guarantees nothing. I work in an IO and I have had to select interns from a pool of 300 applicants in a few occasions. Trust me, all the CVs start looking the same after the fifth one, as most have the same qualifications and they all tend to exagerate things in the same way (best in class! best school! best thesis! best article! best experience! best pet!). I can only imagine how painful the review process has to be at the other end, at the Law Schools. That is why having something unique to say they'll remember from your application helps a lot. It's not only about being smart. It's about having a good application.

So, what is the most evident part you are not considering in your puzzlement? It's called " diversity". Although Law Schools will probably never admit it, they set diversity targets (I.e. coutas) of the type of students they would like to admit according to their target markets (big emerging markets and big European countries always get big shares; changes from school to school). Why? Because that's what law firms are looking for and diversity is considered a plus. If you check carefully, it's even part of the US news rankings, so they must play ball. Haven't you noticed the nice multicolored/multiethnic people adorning the admissions webpages?

This means that you are not competing with "all the best and brightest of the World". Sorry if I offend anybody. In reality, you are competing from others from your same country/region and according to crosscutting quotas in terms of sex, religion and even color of your skin (again, they will never admit it, but they first day of your program you'll see what I mean). Just imagine how bad it would look if 90% of the LlM class were the smart Indian and chinese guys, with no women and nobody from a small country. Not a Bennetton type of program!

That is way it is, statistically, easier to be admitted if you are a woman or come from a small/very poor country (highly in demand to meet the diversity targets, but relatively few applying). It is much harder if you are a man from a country with many applicants and a small quota. So, if you are lucky, the numbers will be on your side, even if you are not the brightest. Like a friend of mine who had so-so grades, party animal, who never studied much but came from the right country and is now a proud llm graduate of Chicago!!!

So, coming back to the question. Does it make sense? Well, it depends on your "non-lawyerly" and "non-academic" attributes and how the quotas are being handled in each of those schools. It also depends on how many people from your country applied to those schools (nearly impossible to know unless you come from a small country). Since this information is only rarely disclosed by the Law Schools at this point, you'll never know.</blockquote>
quote
legalgirl
3 years ago I had applied for LL.M however I did not accept any offer. these are the results:
Cornell: Accepted
Northwestern: Waiting list
UCLA: Accepted
Texas at Austin: Accepted
McGill: Rejected!!!!!!
I have also applied for LL.M this year and the resuls are as follows:
Upenn: Accepted
GULC: Accepted
McGill: Accepted
HLC: Rejected
3 years ago I had applied for LL.M however I did not accept any offer. these are the results:
Cornell: Accepted
Northwestern: Waiting list
UCLA: Accepted
Texas at Austin: Accepted
McGill: Rejected!!!!!!
I have also applied for LL.M this year and the resuls are as follows:
Upenn: Accepted
GULC: Accepted
McGill: Accepted
HLC: Rejected
quote
dvc
accepted UVA and DUKE.

I don't know what to do!

HELP!!!

accepted UVA and DUKE.

I don't know what to do!

HELP!!!
quote
LLMblogger
Interesting post...
But I don't quite get the logic in it being easier to get in as a woman. It would be interesting to hear Oltimer's reasoning, considering women aren't a minority and represent about 50 per cent of persons completing law degrees that enable them to apply to LLMs...
Interesting post...
But I don't quite get the logic in it being easier to get in as a woman. It would be interesting to hear Oltimer's reasoning, considering women aren't a minority and represent about 50 per cent of persons completing law degrees that enable them to apply to LLMs...
quote
Oldtimer
Interesting post...
But I don't quite get the logic in it being easier to get in as a woman. It would be interesting to hear Oltimer's reasoning, considering women aren't a minority and represent about 50 per cent of persons completing law degrees that enable them to apply to LLMs...


I thought the logic was quite straightforward, but I'll try to explain it a bit. Women aren't a minority in the acceptances, but they are a minority in the applications (that's the core of my point!).

Acceptances: The typical number of students in most law schools is around 45% of women / 55% of men, at least according to the JD diversity figures(I assume the same ratio applies for LLMs).

Applications: In most countries the majority of those venturing going abroad are men, as women tend to stay for diverse reasons which evidently change from country to country (and some are not very nice). Granted, this is probably not the case for Canada and many European countries, but those from a developing country will know exactly what I am talking about.

Result: This means that the number of men applicants from a certain region will normally be bigger than the number of women applicants from the same region. If my conclusion from the previous post is correct (i.e. that universities choose from pools of applicants from certain regions) this means that women have a higher chance of being selected. Why? It is not only from the statistical fact, but mainly from the situation where a University having to choose between two equally capable candidates (one man, another woman) the woman candidate will always have the edge over the man. It's called killing two birds with one stone.

Am I saying that the women are not capable and/or undeserving of admission in these Law Schools? That is evidently not (no hate mail on this one please). There are plenty of good candidates from both groups, including truly yours... ;)

Know the numbers; use them in your favor. The JD "diversity" figures I referred to can be found here http://www.vault.com/
<blockquote>Interesting post...
But I don't quite get the logic in it being easier to get in as a woman. It would be interesting to hear Oltimer's reasoning, considering women aren't a minority and represent about 50 per cent of persons completing law degrees that enable them to apply to LLMs...
</blockquote>

I thought the logic was quite straightforward, but I'll try to explain it a bit. Women aren't a minority in the acceptances, but they are a minority in the applications (that's the core of my point!).

Acceptances: The typical number of students in most law schools is around 45% of women / 55% of men, at least according to the JD diversity figures(I assume the same ratio applies for LLMs).

Applications: In most countries the majority of those venturing going abroad are men, as women tend to stay for diverse reasons which evidently change from country to country (and some are not very nice). Granted, this is probably not the case for Canada and many European countries, but those from a developing country will know exactly what I am talking about.

Result: This means that the number of men applicants from a certain region will normally be bigger than the number of women applicants from the same region. If my conclusion from the previous post is correct (i.e. that universities choose from pools of applicants from certain regions) this means that women have a higher chance of being selected. Why? It is not only from the statistical fact, but mainly from the situation where a University having to choose between two equally capable candidates (one man, another woman) the woman candidate will always have the edge over the man. It's called killing two birds with one stone.

Am I saying that the women are not capable and/or undeserving of admission in these Law Schools? That is evidently not (no hate mail on this one please). There are plenty of good candidates from both groups, including truly yours... ;)

Know the numbers; use them in your favor. The JD "diversity" figures I referred to can be found here http://www.vault.com/
quote

Reply to Post

Hot Discussions