jbagelboy wrote:Sorry, this is bullshit. The UC system is falling apart and they are saving the flagship. Berkeley is the ONLY one of the UC's I would recommend attending for undergrad right now.
Please don't go to UCI if you have Berkeley as an option. It won't necessarily be easier to get better grades, you'll meet many smarter and more accomplished people, you'll be open to more experiences, and you'll have more fun. SF & Berkeley are awesome, and I've lived in Irvine and its meh.
And that other poster (too busy to find and quote) who said "oh I went to Cal UG and it didn't matter except in convos with other alumns", thats implicitly contradictory: the fact that he's finding Cal alumns via interviews is helping him network, even if he's not realizing it. Furthermore, top law schools DO look at your undergrad, and MANY more Cal/UCLA students are at HYSCCN than lower UC's. Just scrolling through the FB groups of admitted students I can see it so plainly. Even if people can't go into detail about the technicalities of this correlation, it is overwhelming.
Personally I would not attend Cal or UCI, I'm a private school boy thru and thru, but Berkeley is still a great school whereas at UCI/SB/ect. all the social science and humanities are going down the drain. I plead with you to go to Berkeley, especially as a transfer -- in three years you'll thank me.
Looks like someone just took the LSAT. Saying that it comes up in conversation does not make what I said about it being irrelevant a contradiction. The question was whether he should go to Berkeley or Irvine, not whether the Berkeley connection mattered at all. As a matter of fact, the point I was making was that those same alumni connections exist for people who went to UC Irvine. Ultimately, what I meant to say (and perhaps this is my fault for not communicating this clearly) was that there has not been a marked difference in the amount of alumni connections and networking between people who go to Berkeley and people who go to UC Irvine, which in my opinion is the illusory value of the Berkeley "prestige" - the allegedly greater network and name recognition. Thus, in deciding between undergraduate schools for going onto law school, it really does not matter (and to be honest people affiliate stronger with what law school you go to anyway).
And while I admit you should take my advice with a grain of salt, I also wouldn't accept this future aspie's proposition that going to a public school in California below Berkeley is a bad idea and a waste of money. Just email a law school admissions person for any of the top-14 schools and ask them what the most represented undergraduate institutions are. For my class, out of the top-10 universities represented, half were UCs according to the dean of admissions, but feel free to measure that against some facebook page observations. And furthermore, "MANY" is an ambiguous term - in the law school context that means they may take 8 from Berkeley and 3 from another UC, but either way you still need to be in those top applicants regardless of the school you go to.
I guess between the two of us you have enough anectodal evidence to make you completely confused. But there is empirical data out there, and while we both help I would suggest just looking at admissions statistics to see whether that perhaps imperceptible increase in admissions from Berkeley to law school instead of Irvine to law school is worth the extra money.