Berkeley c/o 2015 Applicants (2011-2012 cycle)

Share Your Experiences, Read About Other Experiences. Please keep posts organized by school and expected year of graduation.
User avatar
ScrabbleChamp
Posts: 963
Joined: Wed Jun 23, 2010 8:09 am

Re: Prop 209

Postby ScrabbleChamp » Tue Nov 22, 2011 10:12 pm

hyakku wrote: ROFL, with both of your attitudes you all are actually surprised Berkeley's not kicking down your doors? Some serious entitlement issues for grown men.

Champion, good job getting in man, I doubt there's a dearth of URMs so great that they HAD to take someone with your LSAT without being impressed with something else. Shit, to be honest, I was just thinking how much easier it is to bust out a 170+ on your LSAT than to maintain a high GPA throughout college; some people just aren't as strong taking standardized tests, but that's definitely not indicative of success IMO. Even without some brief medical issues I've got to admit my GPA wouldn't be so hot (~3.5), so I applaud your efforts throughout school and GJ hustling. I seriously wish I hadn't slacked so hard after getting well so I'd have a matching GPA to go with my LSAT, but here's to hoping Berkeley also sees some later reform and drive in me.


Well, I'll disregard your poor grammar and move on to the point of this reply: Are you serious? I'm not sure if you read my post, but I have a higher GPA than the person you are extolling, and I'd venture to guess they don't have a dual degree in Math and Physics from one of the top universities in America. Aside from that, if you think it is entitled for a person to believe they should gain admission because they are well above the 75th percentile for LSAT and at the mean for GPA, along with having a very diverse background, I think you are idiotic. I completely understand that admissions can be about more than numbers, but I'd be supremely disappointed in Berkeley if I were not offered admission and I'd seriously question why.

And, if you think it is much easier to bust out a 170+ than to maintain a high GPA, you are obviously have no clue what you are talking about. The first undergrad I went to has a mean GPA of 3.45 and a mean LSAT of 149. Assuming the aforementioned school has 1000 students, all of which take the LSAT, less than 10 will score above a 170. However, at least 500 will have a GPA of AT LEAST a 3.45. Now, you tell me: Which is easier... having a high GPA, or scoring 170+?

addy11
Posts: 479
Joined: Wed Oct 12, 2011 11:01 pm

Re: Berkeley c/o 2015 Applicants (2011-2012 cycle)

Postby addy11 » Tue Nov 22, 2011 10:13 pm

UR today, after complete at 11/03.

Annoyed that the people who submitted two days ago are also now under review (time in Central America has shown me how inordinately devoted to "lines" we Americans are, but I'm not totally over it yet).

Should I just go ahead and assume that everyone in the UR 11/22 group is in the same boat and that my earlier submission and complete status will not count as a distinction? :wink:

addy11
Posts: 479
Joined: Wed Oct 12, 2011 11:01 pm

Re: Prop 209

Postby addy11 » Tue Nov 22, 2011 10:29 pm

ScrabbleChamp wrote:
hyakku wrote: ROFL, with both of your attitudes you all are actually surprised Berkeley's not kicking down your doors? Some serious entitlement issues for grown men.


Well, I'll disregard your poor grammar and move on to the point of this reply: Are you serious? I'm not sure if you read my post, but I have a higher GPA than the person you are extolling, and I'd venture to guess they don't have a dual degree in Math and Physics from one of the top universities in America. Aside from that, if you think it is entitled for a person to believe they should gain admission because they are well above the 75th percentile for LSAT and at the mean for GPA, along with having a very diverse background, I think you are idiotic. I completely understand that admissions can be about more than numbers, but I'd be supremely disappointed in Berkeley if I were not offered admission and I'd seriously question why.


Dude, I'm with you on the LSAT being more difficult than the GPA thing, and even though I support affirmative action and am not URM - I still have little faith that Berkeley abides by the rules (in fact, I would bet money against it).

That said, your screed is off base. You are clearly a brave person with respectable accomplishments, high quantifiable intelligence and an impressive background, but you really have no idea what Berkeley is after in creating a class - none of us do. We all think we should gain admission to certain schools, but there are hundreds of examples each cycle where numbers predict a person will be admitted, and their softs underscore the assumption, yet they are rejected and it isn't certainly about YP.

In short, there's nothing "idiotic" about the statement. Outside of Y and S, Berkeley seems to be regarded as the most unpredictable law school. Aside from that, they seem to care more about GPA (in which you are about average) and less about the LSAT. Basically your numbers are not autoadmit, and while I am impressed by your courage in battle, who the hell knows what kind of personal statement you wrote, or whether Berkeley is interested in military valor (and even if so - what if they like someone with similar accolades more and decide that that person will better satisfy their quota?)?

You (and all of us) have every right to be disappointed by a rejection (which you haven't yet received), and you might always feel (perhaps correctly, perhaps not) that you were denied because of some URM quota, but the idea that otherwise you are the perfect candidate whose rejection could only imply that non-deserving people are sneaking in is pretty arrogant. And if I am putting words into your mouth I apologize, but that is how you come off to me.

User avatar
ColumbiaChamp
Posts: 185
Joined: Wed Oct 05, 2011 12:01 pm

Re: Berkeley c/o 2015 Applicants (2011-2012 cycle)

Postby ColumbiaChamp » Tue Nov 22, 2011 10:35 pm

ScrabbleChamp wrote:
hyakku wrote: ROFL, with both of your attitudes you all are actually surprised Berkeley's not kicking down your doors? Some serious entitlement issues for grown men.

Champion, good job getting in man, I doubt there's a dearth of URMs so great that they HAD to take someone with your LSAT without being impressed with something else. Shit, to be honest, I was just thinking how much easier it is to bust out a 170+ on your LSAT than to maintain a high GPA throughout college; some people just aren't as strong taking standardized tests, but that's definitely not indicative of success IMO. Even without some brief medical issues I've got to admit my GPA wouldn't be so hot (~3.5), so I applaud your efforts throughout school and GJ hustling. I seriously wish I hadn't slacked so hard after getting well so I'd have a matching GPA to go with my LSAT, but here's to hoping Berkeley also sees some later reform and drive in me.


Well, I'll disregard your poor grammar and move on to the point of this reply: Are you serious? I'm not sure if you read my post, but I have a higher GPA than the person you are extolling, and I'd venture to guess they don't have a dual degree in Math and Physics from one of the top universities in America. Aside from that, if you think it is entitled for a person to believe they should gain admission because they are well above the 75th percentile for LSAT and at the mean for GPA, along with having a very diverse background, I think you are idiotic. I completely understand that admissions can be about more than numbers, but I'd be supremely disappointed in Berkeley if I were not offered admission and I'd seriously question why.

And, if you think it is much easier to bust out a 170+ than to maintain a high GPA, you are obviously have no clue what you are talking about. The first undergrad I went to has a mean GPA of 3.45 and a mean LSAT of 149. Assuming the aforementioned school has 1000 students, all of which take the LSAT, less than 10 will score above a 170. However, at least 500 will have a GPA of AT LEAST a 3.45. Now, you tell me: Which is easier... having a high GPA, or scoring 170+?


But 3.45 is still not a strong GPA (I would say 3.7+ is a solid) so that 500 dwindles down pretty quickly. Also, how many people there just took the LSAT without seriously studying, quite a bit I would imagine given the 149. So if you took a year off and treated the LSAT as an undegrad degree, it would be easier to get 170+ than 4 years of undergad while maintaining a 3.7+.

TheRedMamba
Posts: 177
Joined: Thu Dec 30, 2010 2:33 pm

Re: Berkeley c/o 2015 Applicants (2011-2012 cycle)

Postby TheRedMamba » Tue Nov 22, 2011 10:39 pm

ColumbiaChamp wrote:
ScrabbleChamp wrote:
hyakku wrote: ROFL, with both of your attitudes you all are actually surprised Berkeley's not kicking down your doors? Some serious entitlement issues for grown men.

Champion, good job getting in man, I doubt there's a dearth of URMs so great that they HAD to take someone with your LSAT without being impressed with something else. Shit, to be honest, I was just thinking how much easier it is to bust out a 170+ on your LSAT than to maintain a high GPA throughout college; some people just aren't as strong taking standardized tests, but that's definitely not indicative of success IMO. Even without some brief medical issues I've got to admit my GPA wouldn't be so hot (~3.5), so I applaud your efforts throughout school and GJ hustling. I seriously wish I hadn't slacked so hard after getting well so I'd have a matching GPA to go with my LSAT, but here's to hoping Berkeley also sees some later reform and drive in me.


Well, I'll disregard your poor grammar and move on to the point of this reply: Are you serious? I'm not sure if you read my post, but I have a higher GPA than the person you are extolling, and I'd venture to guess they don't have a dual degree in Math and Physics from one of the top universities in America. Aside from that, if you think it is entitled for a person to believe they should gain admission because they are well above the 75th percentile for LSAT and at the mean for GPA, along with having a very diverse background, I think you are idiotic. I completely understand that admissions can be about more than numbers, but I'd be supremely disappointed in Berkeley if I were not offered admission and I'd seriously question why.

And, if you think it is much easier to bust out a 170+ than to maintain a high GPA, you are obviously have no clue what you are talking about. The first undergrad I went to has a mean GPA of 3.45 and a mean LSAT of 149. Assuming the aforementioned school has 1000 students, all of which take the LSAT, less than 10 will score above a 170. However, at least 500 will have a GPA of AT LEAST a 3.45. Now, you tell me: Which is easier... having a high GPA, or scoring 170+?


But 3.45 is still not a strong GPA (I would say 3.7+ is a solid) so that 500 dwindles down pretty quickly. Also, how many people there just took the LSAT without seriously studying, quite a bit I would imagine given the 149. So if you took a year off and treated the LSAT as an undegrad degree, it would be easier to get 170+ than 4 years of undergad while maintaining a 3.7+.


I still disagree because there are a lot of people that would fail to score a 170+ no matter how hard they prepared. I think that if anyone that can score a 170+ on the lsat dedicated themselves 100% to their GPA they could maintain a 3.7

MikulJaxin
Posts: 10
Joined: Sun Nov 20, 2011 1:53 pm

Re: Prop 209

Postby MikulJaxin » Tue Nov 22, 2011 10:40 pm

ScrabbleChamp wrote:
hyakku wrote: ROFL, with both of your attitudes you all are actually surprised Berkeley's not kicking down your doors? Some serious entitlement issues for grown men.

Champion, good job getting in man, I doubt there's a dearth of URMs so great that they HAD to take someone with your LSAT without being impressed with something else. Shit, to be honest, I was just thinking how much easier it is to bust out a 170+ on your LSAT than to maintain a high GPA throughout college; some people just aren't as strong taking standardized tests, but that's definitely not indicative of success IMO. Even without some brief medical issues I've got to admit my GPA wouldn't be so hot (~3.5), so I applaud your efforts throughout school and GJ hustling. I seriously wish I hadn't slacked so hard after getting well so I'd have a matching GPA to go with my LSAT, but here's to hoping Berkeley also sees some later reform and drive in me.


Well, I'll disregard your poor grammar and move on to the point of this reply: Are you serious? I'm not sure if you read my post, but I have a higher GPA than the person you are extolling, and I'd venture to guess they don't have a dual degree in Math and Physics from one of the top universities in America. Aside from that, if you think it is entitled for a person to believe they should gain admission because they are well above the 75th percentile for LSAT and at the mean for GPA, along with having a very diverse background, I think you are idiotic. I completely understand that admissions can be about more than numbers, but I'd be supremely disappointed in Berkeley if I were not offered admission and I'd seriously question why.

And, if you think it is much easier to bust out a 170+ than to maintain a high GPA, you are obviously have no clue what you are talking about. The first undergrad I went to has a mean GPA of 3.45 and a mean LSAT of 149. Assuming the aforementioned school has 1000 students, all of which take the LSAT, less than 10 will score above a 170. However, at least 500 will have a GPA of AT LEAST a 3.45. Now, you tell me: Which is easier... having a high GPA, or scoring 170+?


I agree ScrabbleChamp and I genuinely hope you get in.

First of all, who said that I didn't get in? I did and genuinely want to go to Berkeley. However, it is also a fact that the school which was previously JUST outside the Top 5 is now at #9 making me have to consider whether the school I'd LOVE to go to is actually a good investment. I have also gotten into UVA with money and at the end of the day I don't want to freak out about going way more into debt to go to a school that has way less prestige than before. I love California and I love Berkeley....but I'm willing to leave the state for three years if I can get the same or better quality of education for cheaper.

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. California has a constitution and like it or not (I hate Prop 8 but that's for another discussion), Prop 209 amended the California constitution to prohibit public institutions from using race/ethnicity to admit or deny people. This has also been upheld by the California Supreme Court on numerous occasions. So, yeah, I'm fine with someone getting in who has some amazing life story but if Berkeley Law is admitting someone basically only because they realized they were a URM from their personal statement that is not only wrong but unconstitutional. This is law school we're talking about, something where constitutions and laws should at least be somewhat important.

User avatar
Champion
Posts: 286
Joined: Thu Aug 04, 2011 9:13 pm

Re: Berkeley c/o 2015 Applicants (2011-2012 cycle)

Postby Champion » Tue Nov 22, 2011 10:53 pm

Alright guys, enough about me. We're taking away from the thread. Once again, good luck everyone. All the best.

addy11
Posts: 479
Joined: Wed Oct 12, 2011 11:01 pm

Re: Prop 209

Postby addy11 » Tue Nov 22, 2011 11:01 pm

MikulJaxin 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.


LSATs only make up something like 12.5% of a school's overall USNWR score. The judge/lawyer scores and peer review scores each exceed that quantity, and combine for 40% of the overall score. It's entirely possible that Berkeley's willingness to flaunt the numerical conventions and to give autodings who may yet have a promising career appeals to the people making these decisions. Also, we sometimes forget that the LSAT is simply the best predictor of law school and bar passage success... yet every law school is capable of turning out these (ultimately) unremarkable and common people. What about our governors, presidential candidates, judges, mayors, humanitarians, celebrities, etc. who went to law school? We have examples like Elliot Spitzer who got a 180 and went on to massive success (if later infamy), but I would bet that on the average, their LSAT scores did not predict the success they would go on to have.

In other words, prestige conceived of as approximated by USNWR's vacillating rankings is peculiar to the TLS community, and luckily not to all of us. Real prestige takes decades to build, and in many ways defies numerical credentials.

For me, when I think of Berkeley, I am not eager to join a bunch of people who scored similarly to me on the LSAT. I believe that Boalt tries to honor their goal of being a truly public university for the state of California, in pursuit of the betterment of the public (they have a long video continuously referencing this on their website, if you're interested), and their decisions will confound the law school calculators and board sages every single cycle. I wish you and everyone else the best of luck, but don't read too much into this user's (legitimate? illegitimate?) acceptance.

otomihsoy
Posts: 22
Joined: Tue Oct 11, 2011 12:19 pm

Re: Berkeley c/o 2015 Applicants (2011-2012 cycle)

Postby otomihsoy » Tue Nov 22, 2011 11:14 pm

Just adding myself to the bunch who went UR today :D

For reference, I submitted on 11/13, got app received/status checker email 11/14 and went straight to UR today.

Good luck everyone!

User avatar
Tanicius
Posts: 2957
Joined: Sat Feb 07, 2009 12:54 am

Re: Berkeley c/o 2015 Applicants (2011-2012 cycle)

Postby Tanicius » Tue Nov 22, 2011 11:23 pm

What angers me is someone bragging that they got into Berkeley mainly because they were a URM.


Yeah they didn't do that, and you don't know why they were admitted.

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.


Oh boo hoo. Based on the friends I've made this past semester, I'm more than happy with Admissions' black-box subjectivity. I've met a lot of very bright, creative, and hardworking people who might not otherwise have had the chance they have now to change the world.

California has a constitution and like it or not (I hate Prop 8 but that's for another discussion), Prop 209 amended the California constitution to prohibit public institutions from using race/ethnicity to admit or deny people.


You don't know why they have admitted anyone.

anewaphorist
Posts: 382
Joined: Sat Sep 29, 2007 5:13 pm

Re: Berkeley c/o 2015 Applicants (2011-2012 cycle)

Postby anewaphorist » Tue Nov 22, 2011 11:26 pm

And, if you think it is much easier to bust out a 170+ than to maintain a high GPA, you are obviously have no clue what you are talking about. The first undergrad I went to has a mean GPA of 3.45 and a mean LSAT of 149. Assuming the aforementioned school has 1000 students, all of which take the LSAT, less than 10 will score above a 170. However, at least 500 will have a GPA of AT LEAST a 3.45. Now, you tell me: Which is easier... having a high GPA, or scoring 170+?


Since when is a 3.45 'a high GPA'? If you're really attempting an analysis here, you would need to look at, say, 3.75+ GPAs for your 'high' group. By definition, an LSAT score of 170 is in the 98-99 percentile of all test-takers. What GPA qualifies as the 98-99 percentile of all law school applicants? Definitely not a 3.45, and I'd venture that it's quite a bit higher than a 3.75. All you've demonstrated is that far fewer people score 170+ than maintain 3.45+ GPAs. No shit. Show me that fewer people score 170+ than maintain GPAs at or above the 98-99% of ALL law school applicants, and then you've actually demonstrated something of value. And, let's not forget: you can take the LSAT multiple times, but a grade on your transcript is impossible to supplant with a re-do.

If you think that, ceteris paribus, the intelligence of a URM and a non-URM can be evaluated with respect to their LSAT score--which depends on numerous factors such as study time, standardized testing familiarity, ability to pay over $100 to retake each poor score, one's background with respect to parental support, etc.--then you are indeed not worthy of Boalt.
Last edited by anewaphorist on Tue Nov 22, 2011 11:31 pm, edited 4 times in total.

User avatar
FryBreadPower
Posts: 908
Joined: Tue Oct 25, 2011 9:46 pm

Re: Prop 209

Postby FryBreadPower » Tue Nov 22, 2011 11:27 pm

MikulJaxin wrote:So, yeah, I'm fine with someone getting in who has some amazing life story but if Berkeley Law is admitting someone basically only because they realized they were a URM from their personal statement that is not only wrong but unconstitutional.


Please keep this kind of crap outside of this thread. If it's not acceptable in the URM forum, it isn't acceptable here.

User avatar
hyakku
Posts: 604
Joined: Sun Sep 18, 2011 9:35 pm

Re: Berkeley c/o 2015 Applicants (2011-2012 cycle)

Postby hyakku » Tue Nov 22, 2011 11:27 pm

Wow, lol, what responses. In any case, not much time to respond, nor do I want to derail the thread. I should have said, in my experience, a high LSAT is far easier than a high GPA, but that assumes you aren't taking an easy major at a place with a metric shit ton of grade inflation. So I'll agree that I shouldn't have said it's easier to get a high GPA absolutely.

I do however, believe it is harder to maintain a high gpa (and 3.45 is not high) in something challenging compared to breaking 170 on the LSAT. The lack of people scoring a 170+ to me doesn't demonstrate that the LSAT is harder to me; a general lack of preparation and nerves are what seem to destroy most people that I've encountered. I could be lucky, but I don't think I'm inherently smarter than anyone else I've encountered, and I spent roughly six real weeks dedicated to studying to break the 170 barrier. I've seen similar results in many people in real life. Maintaining a strong work ethic, commitment to your studies while maintaining ECs, and a social life for four years is far more of a challenge in my opinion. This is all anecdotal but you can take it or leave it.

Well, I'll disregard your poor grammar and move on to the point of this reply: Are you serious? I'm not sure if you read my post, but I have a higher GPA than the person you are extolling, and I'd venture to guess they don't have a dual degree in Math and Physics from one of the top universities in America. Aside from that, if you think it is entitled for a person to believe they should gain admission because they are well above the 75th percentile for LSAT and at the mean for GPA, along with having a very diverse background, I think you are idiotic.


As for this, :roll:. You are up in arms and NO rejections have even gone out yet!

Sorry for derailing the thread all, good luck to everyone else still applying.

lats19nys
Posts: 94
Joined: Thu Nov 10, 2011 3:26 pm

Re: Berkeley c/o 2015 Applicants (2011-2012 cycle)

Postby lats19nys » Tue Nov 22, 2011 11:48 pm

You guys are not understanding the guy's point. Basically he's not saying 3.45 is a high gpa. HELLO!!!! He's saying that if the median or the average at his school is a 3.45 and the LSAT score is a 149, clearly if you took any statistics you would be able to infer, at the very least at his school it is more likely to find 3.7+s than 170+s. Also, what planets are you guys from? JUST LOOK UP ALL THE NUMBERS instead of basing it on your own misconceptions. There's a reason why law schools put such an emphasis on LSATs. YOU CAN'T FIND THAT MANY HIGH LSAT SCORERS. By the way, I attended an Ivy League school where the average GPA is a 3.6 and the LSAT score is in the mid 160s. Trust me, there's plenty of people here who frankly can't come close to a 170 despite all their work despite maintaining 3.9s.

addy11
Posts: 479
Joined: Wed Oct 12, 2011 11:01 pm

Re: Berkeley c/o 2015 Applicants (2011-2012 cycle)

Postby addy11 » Tue Nov 22, 2011 11:54 pm

lats19nys wrote:By the way, I attended an Ivy League school where the average GPA is a 3.6 and the LSAT score is in the mid 160s. Trust me, there's plenty of people here who frankly can't come close to a 170 despite all their work despite maintaining 3.9s.


This is pretty depressing. I didn't go to an Ivy, so I can't assume I would have fared as well if I had, but I went to a t30 and despite the fact that my GPA was .50+ higher than the average at my school, I'm still in iffy/reject GPA territory where Berkeley/Harvard/Stanford/Yale are concerned. :cry:

It's so warped that law schools care so much about undergraduate GPA, but seemingly not about any sort of context for it (course load, medians at undergrad, type of major, # of majors, etc.)

lats19nys
Posts: 94
Joined: Thu Nov 10, 2011 3:26 pm

Re: Berkeley c/o 2015 Applicants (2011-2012 cycle)

Postby lats19nys » Wed Nov 23, 2011 12:06 am

Having attended an ivy and having had many other friends sprinkled throughout the other ivies, I have a few thoughts about the people who attend them. First off, there definitely are more students who are naturally gifted. Despite the contentions to the contrary, standardized testing does require some natural ability especially towards the very top. Secondly, the general body as a whole is harder working than on most other campuses. (Although, harder working could also mean just working hard at the very last minute to make sure you get an A. :))

User avatar
ScrabbleChamp
Posts: 963
Joined: Wed Jun 23, 2010 8:09 am

Re: Berkeley c/o 2015 Applicants (2011-2012 cycle)

Postby ScrabbleChamp » Wed Nov 23, 2011 12:13 am

For the record, I wasn't saying a 3.45 is a good GPA, simply stating that less people have a 170+ than a good GPA. In my example, there are (statistically) less than 10 people with a 170+. There is no guarantee that there are more than 10 people with a 3.75+, but it is likely to find at least 10 people out of 500 that do. Also, a friend of mine graduated from Yale. He said the mean GPA there is a 3.64, and I'd assume most Ivy league schools have a similar mean. So, merely going to Yale and performing adequately results in a 3.64. You can't say the same about the LSAT.

User avatar
WhiteGuy5
Posts: 919
Joined: Thu Oct 06, 2011 3:47 pm

Re: Berkeley c/o 2015 Applicants (2011-2012 cycle)

Postby WhiteGuy5 » Wed Nov 23, 2011 12:14 am

Since we really have nothing else to discuss re: Berkeley...I'm enjoying the discussion.

lats19nys
Posts: 94
Joined: Thu Nov 10, 2011 3:26 pm

Re: Berkeley c/o 2015 Applicants (2011-2012 cycle)

Postby lats19nys » Wed Nov 23, 2011 12:18 am

ScrabbleChamp wrote:For the record, I wasn't saying a 3.45 is a good GPA, simply stating that less people have a 170+ than a good GPA. In my example, there are (statistically) less than 10 people with a 170+. There is no guarantee that there are more than 10 people with a 3.75+, but it is likely to find at least 10 people out of 500 that do. Also, a friend of mine graduated from Yale. He said the mean GPA there is a 3.64, and I'd assume most Ivy league schools have a similar mean. So, merely going to Yale and performing adequately results in a 3.64. You can't say the same about the LSAT.


I mean if you misunderstood, I basically defended your points lol. But yeah.

User avatar
ScrabbleChamp
Posts: 963
Joined: Wed Jun 23, 2010 8:09 am

Re: Berkeley c/o 2015 Applicants (2011-2012 cycle)

Postby ScrabbleChamp » Wed Nov 23, 2011 12:21 am

And, a cursory glance at the 75th percentiles for GPA and LSAT reveals that you have to go to #30 Emory to find the first school that drops below 3.7, whereas you only need to go to #13 Cornell to find a school that drops below 170.

Not incredibly scientific, but it would lend credence to the idea that it is harder to obtain a high LSAT than a high GPA, as it appears there are more high (3.7+) GPA's represented in the top 30 law schools than high (170+) LSAT.

User avatar
thelawschoolproject
Posts: 1364
Joined: Thu Jun 23, 2011 12:58 am

Re: Berkeley c/o 2015 Applicants (2011-2012 cycle)

Postby thelawschoolproject » Wed Nov 23, 2011 12:23 am

Just received the "under review" email :)

User avatar
ScrabbleChamp
Posts: 963
Joined: Wed Jun 23, 2010 8:09 am

Re: Berkeley c/o 2015 Applicants (2011-2012 cycle)

Postby ScrabbleChamp » Wed Nov 23, 2011 12:23 am

thelawschoolproject wrote:Just received the "under review" email :)


And the anxiety begins!

georgetownsfs10
Posts: 5
Joined: Tue Sep 20, 2011 1:42 pm

Re: Berkeley c/o 2015 Applicants (2011-2012 cycle)

Postby georgetownsfs10 » Wed Nov 23, 2011 12:27 am

Hopefully there's some calls tomorrow.... I don't think there were any today

User avatar
MiamiOxford
Posts: 254
Joined: Sun Oct 23, 2011 12:50 am

Re: Berkeley c/o 2015 Applicants (2011-2012 cycle)

Postby MiamiOxford » Wed Nov 23, 2011 12:27 am

So I've been under review since 10/19, but never received an email about it... What's up with that?

User avatar
sandwiches5000
Posts: 412
Joined: Wed Oct 27, 2010 11:54 pm

Re: Berkeley c/o 2015 Applicants (2011-2012 cycle)

Postby sandwiches5000 » Wed Nov 23, 2011 12:27 am

ScrabbleChamp wrote:And, a cursory glance at the 75th percentiles for GPA and LSAT reveals that you have to go to #30 Emory to find the first school that drops below 3.7, whereas you only need to go to #13 Cornell to find a school that drops below 170.

Not incredibly scientific, but it would lend credence to the idea that it is harder to obtain a high LSAT than a high GPA, as it appears there are more high (3.7+) GPA's represented in the top 30 law schools than high (170+) LSAT.


Indeed. GPA has to take into account grade inflation, variation in difficulty/grading systems at different universities, and difficulties in course load and fields of study. That's why they have the LSAT. But either way, law schools do take into account the aforementioned factors when considering your GPA. And schools do realize that some people are not good test takers or for whatever reason bombed their LSAT, so sometimes they'll accept someone with a lower LSAT and a higher GPA, as the candidate is able to prove his or her abilities via the GPA and other activities/work.




Return to “Law School Acceptances, Denials, and Waitlists”