I never received an under review email, either, but have been since 10/27 (per status checker).MiamiOxford wrote:So I've been under review since 10/19, but never received an email about it... What's up with that?
Berkeley c/o 2015 Applicants (2011-2012 cycle) Forum
- ScrabbleChamp
- Posts: 963
- Joined: Wed Jun 23, 2010 8:09 am
Re: Berkeley c/o 2015 Applicants (2011-2012 cycle)
- sandwiches5000
- Posts: 412
- Joined: Wed Oct 27, 2010 11:54 pm
Re: Berkeley c/o 2015 Applicants (2011-2012 cycle)
Check yo spam. MiamiOxford, get outta this thread. We're supposed to be breaking our addictions.MiamiOxford wrote:So I've been under review since 10/19, but never received an email about it... What's up with that?
- curiouscat
- Posts: 315
- Joined: Wed May 04, 2011 9:57 pm
Re: Berkeley c/o 2015 Applicants (2011-2012 cycle)
Hmm... My status checker went to UR on November 14 but I just got the email today. Does that mean I've only gone UR now or are they just sending the emails out in batches?
- Justdoingmybest
- Posts: 172
- Joined: Mon Aug 15, 2011 10:58 pm
Re: Prop 209
Here are the LSAT ranges for 3 out of the top 5MikulJaxin wrote:
What angers me is someone bragging that they got into Berkeley mainly because they were a URM. Every time Berkeley admits someone with bad statistics like a 159 LSAT it ultimately harms the prestige of the school by reducing ranges which are factored into rankings..
Yale (2014) 158-180,
Stanford (2013) 160-180 (2012) 157-180
Uchicago (2014) 154-180
I doubt that admitting people with 159's will have that great of an effect on a school's prestige. I have heard and know of people who have gotten into schools ranked higher than Berkeley with LSAT scores lower than 159. You are not an adcomm, you do not determine who gets in. The only thing Berkeley wants from you right now is a great application.
Take Care.
- LaCumparsita
- Posts: 319
- Joined: Sun May 01, 2011 11:54 am
Re: Berkeley c/o 2015 Applicants (2011-2012 cycle)
In!!! Haha just woke up to an email saying that after a few failed attempts to reach me by phone, he was reminded by one of my professors (just gave away my alma mater) that I was in Europe. Awesome
Want to continue reading?
Register now to search topics and post comments!
Absolutely FREE!
Already a member? Login
-
- Posts: 61
- Joined: Sun Nov 14, 2010 2:10 am
Re: Berkeley c/o 2015 Applicants (2011-2012 cycle)
Congrats, that's awesome. any of the 11/22 UR people want to take bets on when our round of calls will come out?
- FryBreadPower
- Posts: 908
- Joined: Tue Oct 25, 2011 9:46 pm
Re: Berkeley c/o 2015 Applicants (2011-2012 cycle)
Mid-December?gloriouscause wrote:Congrats, that's awesome. any of the 11/22 UR people want to take bets on when our round of calls will come out?
- amc987
- Posts: 568
- Joined: Sat Aug 29, 2009 10:58 am
Re: Berkeley c/o 2015 Applicants (2011-2012 cycle)
Last year's LSN seems to suggest that it'll happen in the 1st or 2nd full week of December. Last year a lot of people were accepted on 12/13.gloriouscause wrote:Congrats, that's awesome. any of the 11/22 UR people want to take bets on when our round of calls will come out?
- FryBreadPower
- Posts: 908
- Joined: Tue Oct 25, 2011 9:46 pm
Re: Berkeley c/o 2015 Applicants (2011-2012 cycle)
So early Nov. UR are probably looking at next week then?amc987 wrote:Last year's LSN seems to suggest that it'll happen in the 1st or 2nd full week of December. Last year a lot of people were accepted on 12/13.gloriouscause wrote:Congrats, that's awesome. any of the 11/22 UR people want to take bets on when our round of calls will come out?
- amc987
- Posts: 568
- Joined: Sat Aug 29, 2009 10:58 am
Re: Berkeley c/o 2015 Applicants (2011-2012 cycle)
I mean, it's all just guesswork on my part. Again, last year's LSN shows people who were accepted during the last week of November as well. I guess it just depends on whether Dean Tom does calls piecemeal or whether he does them in huge batches. It doesn't seem outside the realm of possibility for more acceptance calls to happen next week though. Those calls just probably wouldn't include people UR on 11/22.FryBreadPower wrote:So early Nov. UR are probably looking at next week then?amc987 wrote:Last year's LSN seems to suggest that it'll happen in the 1st or 2nd full week of December. Last year a lot of people were accepted on 12/13.gloriouscause wrote:Congrats, that's awesome. any of the 11/22 UR people want to take bets on when our round of calls will come out?
Last edited by amc987 on Wed Nov 23, 2011 1:53 am, edited 1 time in total.
- Champion
- Posts: 286
- Joined: Thu Aug 04, 2011 9:13 pm
Re: Prop 209
Justdoingmybest wrote:Here are the LSAT ranges for 3 out of the top 5MikulJaxin wrote:
What angers me is someone bragging that they got into Berkeley mainly because they were a URM. Every time Berkeley admits someone with bad statistics like a 159 LSAT it ultimately harms the prestige of the school by reducing ranges which are factored into rankings..
Yale (2014) 158-180,
Stanford (2013) 160-180 (2012) 157-180
Uchicago (2014) 154-180
I doubt that admitting people with 159's will have that great of an effect on a school's prestige. I have heard and know of people who have gotten into schools ranked higher than Berkeley with LSAT scores lower than 159. You are not an adcomm, you do not determine who gets in. The only thing Berkeley wants from you right now is a great application.
Take Care.
Couldn't have said it better myself.
- FryBreadPower
- Posts: 908
- Joined: Tue Oct 25, 2011 9:46 pm
Re: Berkeley c/o 2015 Applicants (2011-2012 cycle)
I would tend to agree. It wouldn't surprise me if that batch of people would have to wait until early-Jan.amc987 wrote:I mean, it's all just guesswork on my part. Again, last years LSN shows people who were accepted during the last week of November as well. I guess it just depends on whether Dean Tom does calls piecemeal or whether he does them in huge batches. It doesn't seem outside the realm of possibility for more acceptance calls to happen next week though. Those calls just probably wouldn't include people UR on 11/22.FryBreadPower wrote:So early Nov. UR are probably looking at next week then?amc987 wrote:Last year's LSN seems to suggest that it'll happen in the 1st or 2nd full week of December. Last year a lot of people were accepted on 12/13.gloriouscause wrote:Congrats, that's awesome. any of the 11/22 UR people want to take bets on when our round of calls will come out?
- Champion
- Posts: 286
- Joined: Thu Aug 04, 2011 9:13 pm
Re: Berkeley c/o 2015 Applicants (2011-2012 cycle)
I was pretty surprised that more phone calls weren't made today. It doesn't seem like many were made yesterday. Let's hope for more today so a few more peoples Thanksgiving's could be that much better.
Register now!
Resources to assist law school applicants, students & graduates.
It's still FREE!
Already a member? Login
- outsidethescope
- Posts: 164
- Joined: Mon May 23, 2011 3:06 pm
Re: Berkeley c/o 2015 Applicants (2011-2012 cycle)
I'm praying some of y'all get calls tomorrow morning, if just for my own excitement. I love watching people post about getting in to the schools of their dreams! It's like Christmas, only better because it'll last 3 years, if we're lucky.Champion wrote:I was pretty surprised that more phone calls weren't made today. It doesn't seem like many were made yesterday. Let's hope for more today so a few more peoples Thanksgiving's could be that much better.
-
- Posts: 10
- Joined: Sun Nov 20, 2011 1:53 pm
Prop 209
Good thing some of you all aren't constitutional lawyers. Would you show up at the California Supreme Court and be like, "Omg judge this amendment sucks.....so can you just throw it out...thanks " and "Oh hey judge.....this amendment shouldn't apply to public schools because....you know...uhh...it doesn't apply to private schools...even though it specifically only mentions public institutions.."
The fact is it doesn't matter what Stanford, UChicago, etc... do with regards to URMs. It also doesn't matter whether you personally approve of that practice or disapprove of it. The whole point of this discussion, before it went off into this melodramatic emotional tangent, was that the California constitution specifically prohibits the consideration of race/ethnicity in admission.
If Berkeley wants to admit people with lower stats who have some AMAZING story, that's fine but if anyone claims that the fact that they were a URM factored into that decision, that is implying that Berkeley simply chose to ignore the constitution of California. There's nothing subjective about this. If you don't believe me look at Article I, Section 31 of the California constitution. The amendment has not only been upheld by the 9th Circuit but two times by the Supreme Court of California.
The fact is it doesn't matter what Stanford, UChicago, etc... do with regards to URMs. It also doesn't matter whether you personally approve of that practice or disapprove of it. The whole point of this discussion, before it went off into this melodramatic emotional tangent, was that the California constitution specifically prohibits the consideration of race/ethnicity in admission.
If Berkeley wants to admit people with lower stats who have some AMAZING story, that's fine but if anyone claims that the fact that they were a URM factored into that decision, that is implying that Berkeley simply chose to ignore the constitution of California. There's nothing subjective about this. If you don't believe me look at Article I, Section 31 of the California constitution. The amendment has not only been upheld by the 9th Circuit but two times by the Supreme Court of California.
- Errzii
- Posts: 158
- Joined: Sun Jul 31, 2011 7:09 am
Re: Prop 209
No one except the adcomms know why an applicant is admitted and as such it doesn't matter what the admitted person claims. Unless the adcomms themselves state that URM was factored into a decision (which they wouldn't) it would be difficult to prove that they do. Anyway prop 209 doesn't mean shit, California law schools can easily get around it indirectly and Berkeley is no different. Also, URM get a substantial boost everywhere else in the country so why does it matter? Stop worrying so much about other people and worry about yourself.MikulJaxin wrote: If Berkeley wants to admit people with lower stats who have some AMAZING story, that's fine but if anyone claims that the fact that they were a URM factored into that decision, that is implying that Berkeley simply chose to ignore the constitution of California.
-
- Posts: 578
- Joined: Fri Jun 10, 2011 3:14 pm
Re: Prop 209
Well, I don't have a horse in the race but MikulJackson seemed to be saying that California's constitution explicitly forbid racial preference, and if Berkeley or any other school gets around it somehow they are breaking the spirit of the law. Which seems like a legitimate argument....EXCEPT maybe the "diversity" thing is a legitimate work-around?Errzii wrote:No one except the adcomms know why an applicant is admitted and as such it doesn't matter what the admitted person claims. Unless the adcomms themselves state that URM was factored into a decision (which they wouldn't) it would be difficult to prove that they do. Anyway prop 209 doesn't mean shit, California law schools can easily get around it indirectly and Berkeley is no different. Also, URM get a substantial boost everywhere else in the country so why does it matter? Stop worrying so much about other people and worry about yourself.MikulJaxin wrote: If Berkeley wants to admit people with lower stats who have some AMAZING story, that's fine but if anyone claims that the fact that they were a URM factored into that decision, that is implying that Berkeley simply chose to ignore the constitution of California.
I personally support AA, but it does bother me a little that a state could put an anti-AA statute into law and a public school could still choose to ignore it.
Get unlimited access to all forums and topics
Register now!
I'm pretty sure I told you it's FREE...
Already a member? Login
- hyakku
- Posts: 584
- Joined: Sun Sep 18, 2011 9:35 pm
Re: Berkeley c/o 2015 Applicants (2011-2012 cycle)
I think everyone can agree that states, or the federal government for that matter, skirting laws should be frowned upon. However, the fact of the matter is, it's still incredibly early in the cycle, and the few trying to denigrate champion's achievement because he's only URM is not only unfounded but pretty illogical considering that Berkeley could just wait a couple of months, see what their quotas are like, and then admit borderline candidates / URMs like myself or champion. The fact that he was offered admission in one of the first rounds with his stats suggests to me that Berkeley saw something unique that they wanted.
In any case, this discussion has gotten beyond pointless. Once again, grats to everyone getting in, and I'm hoping to join you all soon.
In any case, this discussion has gotten beyond pointless. Once again, grats to everyone getting in, and I'm hoping to join you all soon.
- FryBreadPower
- Posts: 908
- Joined: Tue Oct 25, 2011 9:46 pm
Re: Prop 209
Way of the world my friend. Good ol' things called loopholes.ahnhub wrote:Well, I don't have a horse in the race but MikulJackson seemed to be saying that California's constitution explicitly forbid racial preference, and if Berkeley or any other school gets around it somehow they are breaking the spirit of the law. Which seems like a legitimate argument....EXCEPT maybe the "diversity" thing is a legitimate work-around?Errzii wrote:No one except the adcomms know why an applicant is admitted and as such it doesn't matter what the admitted person claims. Unless the adcomms themselves state that URM was factored into a decision (which they wouldn't) it would be difficult to prove that they do. Anyway prop 209 doesn't mean shit, California law schools can easily get around it indirectly and Berkeley is no different. Also, URM get a substantial boost everywhere else in the country so why does it matter? Stop worrying so much about other people and worry about yourself.MikulJaxin wrote: If Berkeley wants to admit people with lower stats who have some AMAZING story, that's fine but if anyone claims that the fact that they were a URM factored into that decision, that is implying that Berkeley simply chose to ignore the constitution of California.
I personally support AA, but it does bother me a little that a state could put an anti-AA statute into law and a public school could still choose to ignore it.
- outsidethescope
- Posts: 164
- Joined: Mon May 23, 2011 3:06 pm
Re: Berkeley c/o 2015 Applicants (2011-2012 cycle)
There's a place for this discussion, and it isn't here.
Let's talk about phone calls instead. Anyone have any more news????
Let's talk about phone calls instead. Anyone have any more news????
- thelawschoolproject
- Posts: 1364
- Joined: Thu Jun 23, 2011 12:58 am
Re: Berkeley c/o 2015 Applicants (2011-2012 cycle)
outsidethescope wrote:There's a place for this discussion, and it isn't here.
Let's talk about phone calls instead. Anyone have any more news????
Agreed.
No phone call for me, just an email that I'm UR. Not sure how long I'll have to sit on that.
Communicate now with those who not only know what a legal education is, but can offer you worthy advice and commentary as you complete the three most educational, yet challenging years of your law related post graduate life.
Register now, it's still FREE!
Already a member? Login
- msblaw89
- Posts: 2662
- Joined: Wed Sep 07, 2011 6:10 pm
Re: Berkeley c/o 2015 Applicants (2011-2012 cycle)
Me too.. how long did it take for those who were accepted this week?thelawschoolproject wrote:outsidethescope wrote:There's a place for this discussion, and it isn't here.
Let's talk about phone calls instead. Anyone have any more news????
Agreed.
No phone call for me, just an email that I'm UR. Not sure how long I'll have to sit on that.
- FryBreadPower
- Posts: 908
- Joined: Tue Oct 25, 2011 9:46 pm
Re: Berkeley c/o 2015 Applicants (2011-2012 cycle)
Ditto for about 10 days thus far.thelawschoolproject wrote:outsidethescope wrote:There's a place for this discussion, and it isn't here.
Let's talk about phone calls instead. Anyone have any more news????
Agreed.
No phone call for me, just an email that I'm UR. Not sure how long I'll have to sit on that.
-
- Posts: 15
- Joined: Thu Nov 24, 2011 5:05 am
Re: Berkeley c/o 2015 Applicants (2011-2012 cycle)
Hopefully some more calls will be made on Monday!
-
- Posts: 1
- Joined: Thu Nov 24, 2011 5:27 pm
Re: Berkeley c/o 2015 Applicants (2011-2012 cycle)
agreed. i can't handle this waiting. hopefully the 11/22 UR decisions come out soonMoneyTeam wrote:Hopefully some more calls will be made on Monday!
Seriously? What are you waiting for?
Now there's a charge.
Just kidding ... it's still FREE!
Already a member? Login