Catastrophizing in Admissions (& Why It's Going...

In this short episode of Status Check with Spivey, Mike talks about applicants' (deeply understandable) tendency to catastrophize in law school admissions.

You can listen and subscribe to Status Check with Spivey on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, Audible, Stitcher, YouTube, SoundCloud, and Google Podcasts.

Welcome to Status Check with Spivey, where we talk about life, law school, law school admissions, a little bit of everything. Today, entirely unscripted—I actually literally just walked into my office from a run. I saw on my drive back that someone had posted on Reddit—and this is not me picking on this person; I have a lot of sympathy for them, because I've been there, and I have 23 years’ experience reading and listening to concerns like this.

The post was, “Did I completely mess up my chance of admissions?” and the Reddit poster's concern was that they submitted 11 apps last night, they submitted the incorrect version of their resume that had two errors, one being the starting year of employment, the other was a reverse chronological order issue. Here's the thing, and I'm trying to be both transparent, sincere, share the admissions perspective with everyone: When the stakes seem high, which they do for you all now, every little minor thing can play out in your mind in the worst kind of way. It's called catastrophizing.

I learned that word from Dr. Guy Winch, a famous TED Talk psychologist on mental health and wellbeing. Listen to his TED Talks; he'll do it much better than I'm doing it right now; they have over 25 million views. But I've seen it in 23 years of law school admissions and law school administration. I've seen it with law school Deans who are applying to college presidencies. They'll send an email, and three days go by, and they won't hear an email back from the Board of Regents or Board of Trust from the school, and they'll be freaking out. This calm leader, these calm, cool, and collected people, why all of a sudden are they panicking? Because the stakes seem high to them. They really want to be a college president. I've seen it in my own life, 100%. I'm 50 now and I’ve put a lot of work into myself, and even today at times, you know, if I really covet something—a book deal, for example—and it looks like things might not go through, I start catastrophizing.

Every application is going to have some blemish in it. To begin with, let's talk about the written application. When I was in admissions, reading files, reading 6,000 a year—I don't know, I can't even remember now, but I've read over 60,000 in my career—98 to 99% of them had some errors in them. The 1% that were flawless kind of did stand out, but of the 98% that had errors, in almost every case, we did not hold that against someone. Who are we in admissions to say that what we do is perfect? And everyone's on their phones these days, half the time I'm typing on Reddit, there are things I look at it five minutes later and I'm like, “Oh my goodness, why am I typing something while I'm driving?” People understand; people have been there. Minor typos—honestly, they're not even on the admissions committee's radar. Minor mistakes, minor word choices.

What you want to do in admissions is you want to have strong numbers. So like I've said many, many times, if you're going to invest in anything, invest in LSAT prep. And then you want to differentiate, which is what I try to help—my firm tries to help people with. But what you also want is be ebullient and upbeat. People love and are drawn towards ebullient, upbeat people. So if you submit an application with 7 errors in it, and you show up and visit the law school and you're a positive, outgoing, effervescent, eager about the school person who's done their homework, shows up on time, they're going to weigh so much more heavily your positive attitude. Which I'm sure the poster of this original content I was talking about has. That person is going to be—if they're not right on the fence, that person is going to be admitted whether they have two chronological errors in their resume or 7 typos in their resume. If they're right on the fence, a law school's going to take a differentiated applicant, ideally with good scores, who's upbeat, professional, and positive.

I wish I could respond—I wish I had more time to respond to all my Reddit messages about C&F. We have an entire C&F podcast with five people from our team I believe, over something like a hundred years admissions experience. We could count between the five of us on one hand the amount of time character and fitness issues actually in and of themselves kept someone out of law school. Almost entirely involving academic fraud and then lying about it. I have seen people with felonies go to law school. I had a client with seven drug convictions go to law school, go to a top six law school. Seven. They were in his past, it was behind him. He was open about it. He had completely changed his life.

You can completely get admitted with character and fitness blemishes, with emails that you send that have typos in them, with applications with a few mistakes. Of course, you'd rather not, and you're going to sleep better if you don't. But in the calmest, most sincere way I can possibly deliver this message, the reason why it seems like you’ve ruined your chances of admission for all the thousands of these posts I've read, is because the stakes seem so high to you that you're not putting yourself in the Dean of Admission or the admission committee’s head, who are saying, “Oh my God, this one only has three typos?” Because that person, they may have just sent their boss an email with a typo or two typos or three typos. We should almost ask Anna Hicks-Jaco, who sends me near-flawless emails, if she's ever freaked out knowing me for 10 years and being at our firm for 10 years, if she's ever emailed me with a few typos, if it bothers her 1%. Because I don't think it does, because she knows as an adult, I make those mistakes all the time. It doesn't impact our working relationship, nor would it ever impact your relationship with a law school if you sent them an email with a typo.

Minor things—no matter how important they are to you, minor things are still minor. This is Mike Spivey with Spivey Consulting Group.

Back to Podcasts

Latest Podcasts

Admissions

Reapplying

May 19, 2026

Strategy for Reapplying to Law School: In-Depth Advice from Former Admissions Officers (Reapplication Part 2)

In this episode of Status Check with Spivey, Anna Hicks-Jaco discusses the strategy of reapplying to law school, joined by former law school admissions officers and Spivey consultants Sir Williams and Julia Truemper. They give a great deal of insider insights and strategic advice, including common reapplication mistakes (8:11, 17:57, 34:26), how to explain why you’re reapplying (32:15), whether admissions officers review reapplicants’ previous applications (2:31), whether they hold a previous denial against reapplicants (5:25), how discrepancies between the previous application and the current application can be problematic for reapplicants (3:52, 30:06), whether and how you need to revise and create new materials for a reapplication to the same school (6:32, 16:06), how to critically assess your previous application (10:43, 17:57), how you should change your school list (23:07), advice for the sometimes difficult process of rewriting your personal statement (25:42), how law schools look at reapplicants who were previously admitted (and how to mitigate potential negative impacts of that) (30:41), advice for reapplicants who weren’t admitted anywhere the previous cycle (40:01), and more.

You can find Part 1 of this two-part series, “Should You Reapply to Law School,” here.

Other resources mentioned in this episode:

You can listen and subscribe to Status Check with Spivey on ⁠⁠Apple Podcasts⁠⁠, Spotify⁠⁠, and ⁠⁠YouTube⁠⁠. You can read a full transcript of this episode with timestamps below.

Listen

Admissions

Employment

May 5, 2026

Stanford Law Grad & Startup Founder Vincent Sheu on AI Best Practices for Successful Lawyers

In this episode of Status Check with Spivey, Mike has a conversation with Vincent Sheu, an attorney and AI startup founder with a JD and a Master’s in Computer Science from Stanford (in addition to degrees in Statistics, Molecular and Cell Biology, and Bioengineering).

Mike and Vincent discuss how he uses AI in his legal work today (19:20, 22:20), how he expects to be using AI in legal work in the future (37:23), how important his human contributions are vs. the contributions of AI (25:32), whether AI will be able to learn EQ (27:12), the sorts of AI tooling skills that employers are (and will be) looking for (29:19, 42:45) and how they screen for those skills (33:39), the benefits of using AI for legal work as well as the risks (24:04, 31:21, 44:23), how the next generation of lawyers will be advantaged and disadvantaged in the new landscape of legal practice (30:03), whether Vincent would hire a new lawyer who was brilliant and likable but has no familiarity with AI (32:52), Vincent’s recruiting process out of law school (14:03) and what his hours looked like in biglaw vs. as an in-house general counsel (19:36), how Vincent went 23 for 25 during his law school admissions cycle as a “super splitter” (3:32), and more.

Near the beginning of the episode, Mike and Vincent chat about a viral video from 2014 in which Vincent rapidly completed a Rubik’s Cube at a college basketball game. While the original video is now private, you can find the referenced SportsCenter article here.

Mike also mentions the recent case of a defendant attempting to use an AI avatar to make their opening argument in court. You can find that video here.

You can listen and subscribe to Status Check with Spivey on ⁠⁠Apple Podcasts⁠⁠, Spotify⁠⁠, and ⁠⁠YouTube⁠⁠. You can read a full transcript of this episode with timestamps below.

April 22, 2026

Should You Reapply to Law School Next Cycle? (Reapplication Part 1)

In this episode of Status Check with Spivey, Anna Hicks-Jaco has a conversation with two Spivey consultants and former law school admissions officers, Kristen Mercado and Nathan Neely, on the decision whether to reapply to law school. What are good reasons—and what are bad reasons—to reapply? How much of an LSAT improvement is enough to justify reapplying (6:00)? How much of an impact can improved work experience have (16:09)? Can it be a game-changer if the only thing you do differently is applying earlier (36:09)? Does it ever make sense to reapply based purely on the hope that next cycle will be less competitive overall (38:17)? And what advice can we share for applicants who weren’t admitted anywhere (47:10)?

This is part one of a two-part series. Coming late next month: part two all about the STRATEGY of reapplying.

You can listen and subscribe to Status Check with Spivey on ⁠⁠Apple Podcasts⁠⁠, Spotify⁠⁠, and ⁠⁠YouTube⁠⁠. You can read a full transcript of this episode with timestamps below.

Listen

Catastrophizing in Admissions (& Why It's Going to Be Okay)

Mike Spivey

Latest Podcasts

Have questions? Get in touch with us

About

For Prospective Students

For Schools

Follow Us

Catastrophizing in Admissions (& Why It's Going to Be Okay)

Podcast Transcript

Mike Spivey

Latest Podcasts

Have questions? Get in touch with us

Stay Updated!

About

For Prospective Students

For Schools

Follow Us