Berkeley c/o 2016 Applicants (2012-2013 cycle)

Share Your Experiences, Read About Other Experiences. Please keep posts organized by school and expected year of graduation.
fallingup
Posts: 481
Joined: Sat Jul 17, 2010 4:34 pm

Re: Berkeley c/o 2016 Applicants (2012-2013 cycle)

Postby fallingup » Fri Jan 18, 2013 3:38 pm

eh, but this cycle is weird. they may have to dig deeper into the pool of leftover hopefuls to hit their numbers. even if they don't, another good school probably will. keep hope alive!

maxmartin
Posts: 383
Joined: Tue Nov 29, 2011 5:41 pm

Re: Berkeley c/o 2016 Applicants (2012-2013 cycle)

Postby maxmartin » Fri Jan 18, 2013 3:51 pm

fallingup wrote:eh, but this cycle is weird. they may have to dig deeper into the pool of leftover hopefuls to hit their numbers. even if they don't, another good school probably will. keep hope alive!


we don't really know this cycle is weird or not, so far no evidence pointed to that direction, as a matter of fact a few of friends are rejected with very decent LSAT score. I guess we just have to wait another month or so to see how it play out.

BigZuck
Posts: 10873
Joined: Tue Sep 04, 2012 9:53 am

Re: Berkeley c/o 2016 Applicants (2012-2013 cycle)

Postby BigZuck » Fri Jan 18, 2013 4:03 pm

maxmartin wrote:
fallingup wrote:eh, but this cycle is weird. they may have to dig deeper into the pool of leftover hopefuls to hit their numbers. even if they don't, another good school probably will. keep hope alive!


we don't really know this cycle is weird or not, so far no evidence pointed to that direction, as a matter of fact a few of friends are rejected with very decent LSAT score. I guess we just have to wait another month or so to see how it play out.


This cycle is super weird bro.

Eta: gimme my ding!

fallingup
Posts: 481
Joined: Sat Jul 17, 2010 4:34 pm

Re: Berkeley c/o 2016 Applicants (2012-2013 cycle)

Postby fallingup » Fri Jan 18, 2013 4:11 pm

maxmartin wrote:
fallingup wrote:eh, but this cycle is weird. they may have to dig deeper into the pool of leftover hopefuls to hit their numbers. even if they don't, another good school probably will. keep hope alive!


we don't really know this cycle is weird or not, so far no evidence pointed to that direction, as a matter of fact a few of friends are rejected with very decent LSAT score. I guess we just have to wait another month or so to see how it play out.


i'm not talking about our personal conceptions of what is "very decent" or not. all that matters is UC berkeley's medians. if you're not at or near the medians, you're going to have low chances, whether it's a weird cycle or a normal cycle. when i say that schools this year will have to dig deeper into their applicant pool to fill their classes, i'm talking about people who are right on the cusp. i still think they are going to have to accept more median-splitters this year due to the significant decrease in the number of LSAT high scorers (documented by LSAC). but yes, we will have to wait another month to know for sure.

User avatar
chickpea
Posts: 440
Joined: Fri Nov 02, 2012 3:50 pm

Re: Berkeley c/o 2016 Applicants (2012-2013 cycle)

Postby chickpea » Fri Jan 18, 2013 5:09 pm

i feel like it's been a while since we last heard news from Berkeley.

UR since 12/5...

User avatar
Kronk
Posts: 28205
Joined: Sat Dec 27, 2008 9:18 pm

Re: Berkeley c/o 2016 Applicants (2012-2013 cycle)

Postby Kronk » Fri Jan 18, 2013 5:11 pm

Eichörnchen wrote:
poohbear26602 wrote:That would be all of us... Well, those with any remaining dregs of optimism left. Realistically we'll all get declined sometime next week and we're only logging in to see when the dings start rolling out.

+1 I am over both 75th percentiles and applied in November. However, wasn't in the wave of admits soo...

The ding. It's coming.


I think a good portion of you will be sent to faculty review.

curious66
Posts: 381
Joined: Thu Dec 20, 2012 6:34 pm

Re: Berkeley c/o 2016 Applicants (2012-2013 cycle)

Postby curious66 » Fri Jan 18, 2013 5:15 pm

[quote="sean21"]People, people, don't lose hope. We are all just under faculty review. They'll notify us of that in a week or so and then we will all be part of the 10 percent or whatever that gets accepted.

I hope you are right. Above both medians here and still no word for months. Even worked in a "Why Berkeley" in the PS. Still no dice :(

User avatar
risa
Posts: 466
Joined: Sun Nov 11, 2012 4:03 am

Re: Berkeley c/o 2016 Applicants (2012-2013 cycle)

Postby risa » Fri Jan 18, 2013 5:30 pm

I've been UR since 11/21. I am hoping faculty review could be a good thing for me, if that's in fact where I am or where I'm headed. One of my recs is from a Boalt alum and another is from a former adjunct professor there. In retrospect, I should have asked the latter to write a Boalt-specific letter but he did not. I guess I'll do that if I get waitlisted, though...

Do they specifically notify you if you are under faculty review?

wisteria
Posts: 285
Joined: Fri Nov 02, 2012 4:43 am

Re: Berkeley c/o 2016 Applicants (2012-2013 cycle)

Postby wisteria » Fri Jan 18, 2013 5:32 pm

risa wrote:Do they specifically notify you if you are under faculty review?


Yes.

Jdawgie
Posts: 35
Joined: Fri Jan 18, 2013 7:40 am

Re: Berkeley c/o 2016 Applicants (2012-2013 cycle)

Postby Jdawgie » Fri Jan 18, 2013 5:35 pm

wisteria wrote:
risa wrote:Do they specifically notify you if you are under faculty review?


Yes.


So this is bad??:

Status: Your file is under review.
Current Status Date: 11/28/2012

fallingup
Posts: 481
Joined: Sat Jul 17, 2010 4:34 pm

Re: Berkeley c/o 2016 Applicants (2012-2013 cycle)

Postby fallingup » Fri Jan 18, 2013 5:37 pm

risa wrote:I've been UR since 11/21. I am hoping faculty review could be a good thing for me, if that's in fact where I am or where I'm headed. One of my recs is from a Boalt alum and another is from a former adjunct professor there. In retrospect, I should have asked the latter to write a Boalt-specific letter but he did not. I guess I'll do that if I get waitlisted, though...

Do they specifically notify you if you are under faculty review?


Tell that professor to write that letter for you now.

WhatOurBodiesAreFor
Posts: 369
Joined: Thu Nov 01, 2012 9:23 pm

Re: Berkeley c/o 2016 Applicants (2012-2013 cycle)

Postby WhatOurBodiesAreFor » Sat Jan 19, 2013 8:51 pm

In case this is new information: Berkeley's lower ranges does not mean it's a lot easier to get into. Just checked out last year's LSN applicant info. Definitely not getting in.

User avatar
twinkletoes16
Posts: 1317
Joined: Mon Nov 19, 2012 11:14 pm

Re: Berkeley c/o 2016 Applicants (2012-2013 cycle)

Postby twinkletoes16 » Sat Jan 19, 2013 8:57 pm

WhatOurBodiesAreFor wrote:In case this is new information: Berkeley's lower ranges does not mean it's a lot easier to get into. Just checked out last year's LSN applicant info. Definitely not getting in.



I think they truly are holistic, and take some phenomenally high-#'d admits to perhaps balance out lower-#d, more diverse/soft-heavier admits.

User avatar
Yukos
Posts: 1774
Joined: Fri Jul 29, 2011 12:47 pm

Re: Berkeley c/o 2016 Applicants (2012-2013 cycle)

Postby Yukos » Sat Jan 19, 2013 8:58 pm

WhatOurBodiesAreFor wrote:In case this is new information: Berkeley's lower ranges does not mean it's a lot easier to get into. Just checked out last year's LSN applicant info. Definitely not getting in.


Numbers are more or less meaningless for Boalt (assuming you're above a bare minimum), so don't go off last year's LSN either. Just apply and wait, that's all you can do.

I withdrew so I'm bailing from this thread but congrats to all the admits, Cal is an amazing school and the law school looks awesome!

User avatar
Ramius
Posts: 2005
Joined: Mon Jul 02, 2012 12:39 am

Re: Berkeley c/o 2016 Applicants (2012-2013 cycle)

Postby Ramius » Sat Jan 19, 2013 8:59 pm

WhatOurBodiesAreFor wrote:In case this is new information: Berkeley's lower ranges does not mean it's a lot easier to get into. Just checked out last year's LSN applicant info. Definitely not getting in.


In a way, you seem to be absolutely right. UCB tends to be the least conventional in their admissions policies. Sure, the 174/3.9 will get in most every single time, but when it comes down to faculty review, all bets are off. All we can do is wait for decisions to come out and see where the cards fall. I'd say it's more useless than usual to stress about whether you get into UCB, simply because no one can know for sure.

WhatOurBodiesAreFor
Posts: 369
Joined: Thu Nov 01, 2012 9:23 pm

Re: Berkeley c/o 2016 Applicants (2012-2013 cycle)

Postby WhatOurBodiesAreFor » Sat Jan 19, 2013 9:03 pm

twinkletoes16 wrote:
WhatOurBodiesAreFor wrote:In case this is new information: Berkeley's lower ranges does not mean it's a lot easier to get into. Just checked out last year's LSN applicant info. Definitely not getting in.



I think they truly are holistic, and take some phenomenally high-#'d admits to perhaps balance out lower-#d, more diverse/soft-heavier admits.


A follow up then. What types of softs does Berkeley look for? Like super non-trads to add to the real diverse culture of the school? Ultra-conservatives to balance this out? I've always assumed both, that Berkeley wants to create a crazy diverse class. Is this TCR?

User avatar
twinkletoes16
Posts: 1317
Joined: Mon Nov 19, 2012 11:14 pm

Re: Berkeley c/o 2016 Applicants (2012-2013 cycle)

Postby twinkletoes16 » Sat Jan 19, 2013 9:11 pm

WhatOurBodiesAreFor wrote:
twinkletoes16 wrote:
WhatOurBodiesAreFor wrote:In case this is new information: Berkeley's lower ranges does not mean it's a lot easier to get into. Just checked out last year's LSN applicant info. Definitely not getting in.



I think they truly are holistic, and take some phenomenally high-#'d admits to perhaps balance out lower-#d, more diverse/soft-heavier admits.


A follow up then. What types of softs does Berkeley look for? Like super non-trads to add to the real diverse culture of the school? Ultra-conservatives to balance this out? I've always assumed both, that Berkeley wants to create a crazy diverse class. Is this TCR?



I'm a 0L who still can't believe I was admitted so quickly so take it with a grain of salt, but I truly think (and brace yourself for the lawyerly answer)- it depends. You can PM me if you want my softs but I didn't/don't think they're anything amazing or diverse. I'm certain they admit older non-trads, internationals, and conservatives to have a truly diverse class, like you said. I feel like he knows it when he sees it in some cases, from what I've heard. I think they want passionate individuals who aren't afraid to take risks. Again, I don't think my background shows that but maybe he sees something I don't yet :wink:

BigZuck
Posts: 10873
Joined: Tue Sep 04, 2012 9:53 am

Re: Berkeley c/o 2016 Applicants (2012-2013 cycle)

Postby BigZuck » Sun Jan 20, 2013 4:29 am

twinkletoes16 wrote:
WhatOurBodiesAreFor wrote:
twinkletoes16 wrote:
WhatOurBodiesAreFor wrote:In case this is new information: Berkeley's lower ranges does not mean it's a lot easier to get into. Just checked out last year's LSN applicant info. Definitely not getting in.



I think they truly are holistic, and take some phenomenally high-#'d admits to perhaps balance out lower-#d, more diverse/soft-heavier admits.


A follow up then. What types of softs does Berkeley look for? Like super non-trads to add to the real diverse culture of the school? Ultra-conservatives to balance this out? I've always assumed both, that Berkeley wants to create a crazy diverse class. Is this TCR?


I'm a 0L who still can't believe I was admitted so quickly so take it with a grain of salt, but I truly think (and brace yourself for the lawyerly answer)- it depends. You can PM me if you want my softs but I didn't/don't think they're anything amazing or diverse. I'm certain they admit older non-trads, internationals, and conservatives to have a truly diverse class, like you said. I feel like he knows it when he sees it in some cases, from what I've heard. I think they want passionate individuals who aren't afraid to take risks. Again, I don't think my background shows that but maybe he sees something I don't yet :wink:


You got in because of your numbers. Plain and simple. The whole "holistic" thing with Berkeley is a huge flame. If you look at LSN, by and large it's just a bunch of people with stupid high numbers. Not really sure why their medians are so low, I guess for some reason the crazy high number kids are balanced out by lower scoring URMs or non-trads who don't really use LSN or something. But all those applicants who look at their medians and think "holistic" means that Berkeley cares about the fact that they were treasurer of their frat and they will get in with their 3.7/167 are sorely mistaken. Berkeley ain't Cornell and GTFO unless you have stupid high numbers or something truly amazing like URM status.

User avatar
sinfiery
Posts: 3308
Joined: Thu Jul 14, 2011 2:55 am

Re: Berkeley c/o 2016 Applicants (2012-2013 cycle)

Postby sinfiery » Sun Jan 20, 2013 4:44 am

BigZuck wrote:You got in because of your numbers. Plain and simple. The whole "holistic" thing with Berkeley is a huge flame. If you look at LSN, by and large it's just a bunch of people with stupid high numbers. Not really sure why their medians are so low, I guess for some reason the crazy high number kids are balanced out by lower scoring URMs or non-trads who don't really use LSN or something. But all those applicants who look at their medians and think "holistic" means that Berkeley cares about the fact that they were treasurer of their frat and they will get in with their 3.7/167 are sorely mistaken. Berkeley ain't Cornell and GTFO unless you have stupid high numbers or something truly amazing like URM status.


Cycle is early and there are no denials yet.

http://berkeley.lawschoolnumbers.com/stats/0910/
http://berkeley.lawschoolnumbers.com/stats/1011/

But I do think it is over-played.

I also think the only reason I was accepted was because of my interest in technology-related law in my PS and maybe that socioeconomic question on the application

User avatar
twinkletoes16
Posts: 1317
Joined: Mon Nov 19, 2012 11:14 pm

Re: Berkeley c/o 2016 Applicants (2012-2013 cycle)

Postby twinkletoes16 » Sun Jan 20, 2013 8:04 am

BigZuck wrote:
WhatOurBodiesAreFor wrote:
twinkletoes16 wrote:
I think they truly are holistic, and take some phenomenally high-#'d admits to perhaps balance out lower-#d, more diverse/soft-heavier admits.


A follow up then. What types of softs does Berkeley look for? Like super non-trads to add to the real diverse culture of the school? Ultra-conservatives to balance this out? I've always assumed both, that Berkeley wants to create a crazy diverse class. Is this TCR?


You got in because of your numbers. Plain and simple. The whole "holistic" thing with Berkeley is a huge flame. If you look at LSN, by and large it's just a bunch of people with stupid high numbers. Not really sure why their medians are so low, I guess for some reason the crazy high number kids are balanced out by lower scoring URMs or non-trads who don't really use LSN or something. But all those applicants who look at their medians and think "holistic" means that Berkeley cares about the fact that they were treasurer of their frat and they will get in with their 3.7/167 are sorely mistaken. Berkeley ain't Cornell and GTFO unless you have stupid high numbers or something truly amazing like URM status.



Isn't that exactly what I just said? They admit high numbers and then take their pick of the lower numbers based on what would make the class diverse.

Also there's a lot of people on here who have higher numbers than me who still aren't in or who took them 3+ months to get in. I got a response in less than 3 weeks. That seems to indicate that while it's numbers-driven like everyone else, something else is going on there.


ETA: I can't find Berk's median, but I'm guessing I'm below their median GPA and I'm above their 75th LSAT. I think I made a strong case why I wanted to be in the Bay and why Berkeley and I explicitly stated it in a longer, tailored PS.
Last edited by twinkletoes16 on Sun Jan 20, 2013 8:14 am, edited 1 time in total.

Jdawgie
Posts: 35
Joined: Fri Jan 18, 2013 7:40 am

Re: Berkeley c/o 2016 Applicants (2012-2013 cycle)

Postby Jdawgie » Sun Jan 20, 2013 8:11 am

twinkletoes16 wrote:
BigZuck wrote:
WhatOurBodiesAreFor wrote:
twinkletoes16 wrote:
I think they truly are holistic, and take some phenomenally high-#'d admits to perhaps balance out lower-#d, more diverse/soft-heavier admits.


A follow up then. What types of softs does Berkeley look for? Like super non-trads to add to the real diverse culture of the school? Ultra-conservatives to balance this out? I've always assumed both, that Berkeley wants to create a crazy diverse class. Is this TCR?


You got in because of your numbers. Plain and simple. The whole "holistic" thing with Berkeley is a huge flame. If you look at LSN, by and large it's just a bunch of people with stupid high numbers. Not really sure why their medians are so low, I guess for some reason the crazy high number kids are balanced out by lower scoring URMs or non-trads who don't really use LSN or something. But all those applicants who look at their medians and think "holistic" means that Berkeley cares about the fact that they were treasurer of their frat and they will get in with their 3.7/167 are sorely mistaken. Berkeley ain't Cornell and GTFO unless you have stupid high numbers or something truly amazing like URM status.



Isn't that exactly what I just said? They admit high numbers and then take their pick of the lower numbers based on what would make the class diverse.

Also there's a lot of people on here who have higher numbers than me who still aren't in or who took them 3+ months to get in. I got a response in less than 3 weeks. That seems to indicate that while it's numbers-driven like everyone else, something else is going on there.


My sister is friends with one of the admissions officers. She asked him about this on my behalf, because I'm URM. He stated that URM or not, Berkeley still expects stellar numbers. He said many of the top applicants are already URM. He added that the lower-numbered admitted students really do provide non-traditional reasons to be admitted, some are interesting or can really demonstrate reasons for low GPAs, etc...

In all, unless he was bullshitting, it seems Berkeley's admissions policy is fairly holistic, or at least not systemic.

BigZuck
Posts: 10873
Joined: Tue Sep 04, 2012 9:53 am

Re: Berkeley c/o 2016 Applicants (2012-2013 cycle)

Postby BigZuck » Sun Jan 20, 2013 11:45 am

Twinkle, yes that is basically what you said but I thought you were still downplaying the numbers more and playing up the holistic stuff contrary to the evidence I have seen here and on LSN. I was just saying that I think they cared way more about your numbers ( particularly dat beautiful LSAT) than any of your softs, desire to be in Northern CA or latent potential as a lawyer of passion.

I have some pretty solid softs (particularly a graduate degree from a top school), am an old, have mega strong ties to the bay area, have a higher GPA than you, and an LSAT that is also well above median for Boalt (although also well below yours). I don't have a snowball's chance. You were an auto-admit. Because of that awesome LSAT.

And this is certainly not to say you're not deserving (you have a good gpa and you might be downplaying your softs and just based on your results so far clearly you are deserving of tons of top schools), just that I think you, like a lot of people, were accepted way more because of your numbers than anything else.

As for the people with higher numbers not getting in, I dunno, Berkeley is weird.

User avatar
twinkletoes16
Posts: 1317
Joined: Mon Nov 19, 2012 11:14 pm

Re: Berkeley c/o 2016 Applicants (2012-2013 cycle)

Postby twinkletoes16 » Sun Jan 20, 2013 12:45 pm

BigZuck wrote:Twinkle, yes that is basically what you said but I thought you were still downplaying the numbers more and playing up the holistic stuff contrary to the evidence I have seen here and on LSN. I was just saying that I think they cared way more about your numbers ( particularly dat beautiful LSAT) than any of your softs, desire to be in Northern CA or latent potential as a lawyer of passion.

I have some pretty solid softs (particularly a graduate degree from a top school), am an old, have mega strong ties to the bay area, have a higher GPA than you, and an LSAT that is also well above median for Boalt (although also well below yours). I don't have a snowball's chance. You were an auto-admit. Because of that awesome LSAT.

And this is certainly not to say you're not deserving (you have a good gpa and you might be downplaying your softs and just based on your results so far clearly you are deserving of tons of top schools), just that I think you, like a lot of people, were accepted way more because of your numbers than anything else.

As for the people with higher numbers not getting in, I dunno, Berkeley is weird.



When did you submit zuck? I'm sure I'm totally wrong but berk just strikes me as similar to Stanford in that the DGAF about LSAT scores. Maybe they knew they needed to snag some high LSAT people and decided I fit the bill, I dunno.


Also I am definitely not downplaying my softs because there's nothing to downplay. Maybe it's my great sense of humor ;)

User avatar
Yukos
Posts: 1774
Joined: Fri Jul 29, 2011 12:47 pm

Re: Berkeley c/o 2016 Applicants (2012-2013 cycle)

Postby Yukos » Sun Jan 20, 2013 1:31 pm

twinkletoes16 wrote:
BigZuck wrote:Twinkle, yes that is basically what you said but I thought you were still downplaying the numbers more and playing up the holistic stuff contrary to the evidence I have seen here and on LSN. I was just saying that I think they cared way more about your numbers ( particularly dat beautiful LSAT) than any of your softs, desire to be in Northern CA or latent potential as a lawyer of passion.

I have some pretty solid softs (particularly a graduate degree from a top school), am an old, have mega strong ties to the bay area, have a higher GPA than you, and an LSAT that is also well above median for Boalt (although also well below yours). I don't have a snowball's chance. You were an auto-admit. Because of that awesome LSAT.

And this is certainly not to say you're not deserving (you have a good gpa and you might be downplaying your softs and just based on your results so far clearly you are deserving of tons of top schools), just that I think you, like a lot of people, were accepted way more because of your numbers than anything else.

As for the people with higher numbers not getting in, I dunno, Berkeley is weird.



When did you submit zuck? I'm sure I'm totally wrong but berk just strikes me as similar to Stanford in that the DGAF about LSAT scores. Maybe they knew they needed to snag some high LSAT people and decided I fit the bill, I dunno.


Also I am definitely not downplaying my softs because there's nothing to downplay. Maybe it's my great sense of humor ;)


BigZuck is wrong. Look at LSN and you'll see how LSAT/low GPA splitters have an extremely tough time getting into Boalt. Also, the mylsn guy analyzed the T14 and Berkeley admissions were the second or third least correlated with LSAT/GPA. And you can just look at Boalt's LSAT median, which is lower than UCLA's, to see they really don't care about LSAT -- considering Cal's rank and location, I'm sure they could tie Michigan's LSAT median at the least. On a more anecdotal level, I was above both 75ths and was bound for faculty review, and others in this thread were in the same situation.

Berkeley is holistic, which really just means it's unpredictable. Sure softs are important, but maybe they just really liked your PS or one of your LoRs. It's impossible to know, which is why the only thing you can do is apply and then forget about it until they tell you one way or another.

BigZuck
Posts: 10873
Joined: Tue Sep 04, 2012 9:53 am

Re: Berkeley c/o 2016 Applicants (2012-2013 cycle)

Postby BigZuck » Sun Jan 20, 2013 1:57 pm

I said you need crazy high numbers or something truly special like URM status to get in. Where did I say anything about high lsat/low gpa splitters? I said high numbers brobro, that means high gpa and high LSAT. Being at or slightly above both medians is not the ticket in like it is at Cornell.




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