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.
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 2:20 pm

BigZuck wrote: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.


BigZuck wrote:I was just saying that I think they cared way more about your numbers ( particularly dat beautiful LSAT)


I'm sure LSAT plays some role in their decision-making process, but they have a 167 LSAT median. It's clearly not their priority. URM is obviously a boost at Cal but it's not like they're half people over both 75ths and half URMs: 40% of their class is people of color, which is in line with most of the rest of the T14. And even their GPA 75th shows that they're not automatically taking people with sky-high numbers -- it's lower than Penn, UVA and Chicago.

LSATSCORES2012 wrote:Speaking of which, I was again curious, so I thought I'd see which schools care the most about your numbers. Here's a ranking of the T14 schools, from those that care most about your numbers to those that care least.

1. Columbia (.78)
2. NYU (.72)
3. Georgetown (.69)
4. Duke (.66)
5. Northwestern (.66)
6. UVA (.61)
6. Harvard (.61)
8. Penn (.58)
8. Chicago (.58)
10. Michigan (.57)
11. Cornell (.54)
12. Berkeley (.49)
13. Stanford (.47)
14. Yale (.35)


I'm sorry, but all the data show that high numbers are much less important at Boalt than at other T14s. I'm not sure why you're arguing against it, it's pretty evident from their 75ths alone that "crazy high numbers" are not a ticket in. Plus, I'm basically arguing that you have a better shot at acceptance than you think.

BigZuck
Posts: 10851
Joined: Tue Sep 04, 2012 9:53 am

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

Postby BigZuck » Sun Jan 20, 2013 2:42 pm

My main point was just based on two things: 1. This holistic thing gets people with low 160s and 3.7x's to apply because they think their "strong softs" which are actually just as mediocre as everyone else's will get them in. People will look at their medians and hear that they are holistic and think "yeah, that might be doable" when they are really just dead in the water. And 2. It seems like the vast majority of people who are getting in are 170+/3.8+ (give or take). Although I admit that I haven't been following LSN that closely this cycle (mainly because I'm trying not to think/dream about Berkeley too much in the event I get rejected) so I might be wrong about that. Maybe a lot of 167/3.7xs types are actually getting in and I just haven't been paying enough attention.

But if holistic really just means unpredictable more than anything then I definitely agree. As I said I'm basically at or above both medians and I don't like my chances near as much as other t14s when I fall into their number range.

User avatar
CatFacts
Posts: 81
Joined: Mon Nov 19, 2012 9:27 pm

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

Postby CatFacts » Sun Jan 20, 2013 8:55 pm

BigZuck wrote:My main point was just based on two things: 1. This holistic thing gets people with low 160s and 3.7x's to apply because they think their "strong softs" which are actually just as mediocre as everyone else's will get them in. People will look at their medians and hear that they are holistic and think "yeah, that might be doable" when they are really just dead in the water. And 2. It seems like the vast majority of people who are getting in are 170+/3.8+ (give or take). Although I admit that I haven't been following LSN that closely this cycle (mainly because I'm trying not to think/dream about Berkeley too much in the event I get rejected) so I might be wrong about that. Maybe a lot of 167/3.7xs types are actually getting in and I just haven't been paying enough attention.

But if holistic really just means unpredictable more than anything then I definitely agree. As I said I'm basically at or above both medians and I don't like my chances near as much as other t14s when I fall into their number range.


I don't want to add too much fuel to the fire but just wanted to chime in agreement with BigZuck.

I think the roughly 10% acceptance rate plays a role in how Berkeley can create an incoming class every year with wide deviations in numbers. Glancing at LSN, it seems that so far, with the exception of URMs, nearly all of the recent admits possess high GPA and high LSAT combinations. For the median crowd at large, it's usually a bloodbath of rejections that awaits us.

User avatar
JayJones78
Posts: 2025
Joined: Thu Dec 06, 2012 3:50 pm

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

Postby JayJones78 » Sun Jan 20, 2013 9:09 pm

Sorry to jump in but I was wondering regarding the last few posts here:

Do think that Berkley reads app files in a more holistic way than other schools? That is even if the applicant is below both medians the admissions officer will actually read the whole app, including the PS and any other supplemental information and only then make a decision? Not that I think that those things will overcome the numbers (for 99.99 percent of applicants anyway) but rather that (unlike other schools? I'm guessing here from what I read on TLS but you can correct me if I'm wrong?) they take the time to evaluate and read every part of the app which is not something that is done in most schools.
Thanks

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

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

Postby fallingup » Sun Jan 20, 2013 10:56 pm

I feel like people on TLS discuss that every other day and haven't come to any kind of consensus. There's no way for us to really know. My hunch is that they really aren't "holistic" in the sense that they admit candidates with poor numbers but great softs. Berkeley's medians haven't shifted around any more than those of other T6 schools, and consistency in those numbers doesn't just happen on accident. If their medians bounced around a lot relative to other schools, then yes, we'd have reason to believe that they were more holistic and flexible.

User avatar
JayJones78
Posts: 2025
Joined: Thu Dec 06, 2012 3:50 pm

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

Postby JayJones78 » Sun Jan 20, 2013 11:07 pm

fallingup wrote:I feel like people on TLS discuss that every other day and haven't come to any kind of consensus. There's no way for us to really know. My hunch is that they really aren't "holistic" in the sense that they admit candidates with poor numbers but great softs. Berkeley's medians haven't shifted around any more than those of other T6 schools, and consistency in those numbers doesn't just happen on accident. If their medians bounced around a lot relative to other schools, then yes, we'd have reason to believe that they were more holistic and flexible.


Or could it be that the numbers of people they admit with #s well below their medians are so little that it doesn't affect them that much?

EDIT: would you agree that some schools don't bother reading PSs and other info and basically auto reject you? (I'm a URM so I'll target it towards URM admissions)

User avatar
bellbane12
Posts: 56
Joined: Tue Oct 25, 2011 6:13 am

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

Postby bellbane12 » Mon Jan 21, 2013 3:52 am

fallingup wrote:I feel like people on TLS discuss that every other day and haven't come to any kind of consensus. There's no way for us to really know. My hunch is that they really aren't "holistic" in the sense that they admit candidates with poor numbers but great softs. Berkeley's medians haven't shifted around any more than those of other T6 schools, and consistency in those numbers doesn't just happen on accident. If their medians bounced around a lot relative to other schools, then yes, we'd have reason to believe that they were more holistic and flexible.


I agree with you. The bottom line is they need to keep up their medians, because it factors into their rankings. But their LSAT median is relatively low compared to similarly ranked schools, so they must admit applicants with lower LSAT scores. Maybe that in itself shows that they do take a more holistic approach than similarly ranked schools.
My guess is they will put applicants they like but have lower numbers into committee review, and then choose from there. As for what it is that they "like", well, that's the unpredictable part.

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

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

Postby fallingup » Mon Jan 21, 2013 11:00 am

I agree with you bellbane. I don't think they are flexible around their own medians. I think they're flexible in the sense that they COULD have a higher LSAT median, but choose not to. Which means they are basically only "holistic" in the sense that they reject candidates with higher LSATs. (People want to interpret that to mean that Berkeley accepts candidates with lower LSATs but unfortunately that doesn't really follow.)

Berkeley's strategy seems to be working for them. Their LSAT median of 167 is lower than every other T14's except Cornell but Berkeley has still managed to lock down its position in T6.

grapefruits
Posts: 181
Joined: Fri Jan 11, 2013 7:13 pm

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

Postby grapefruits » Mon Jan 21, 2013 11:44 am

fallingup wrote:I agree with you bellbane. I don't think they are flexible around their own medians. I think they're flexible in the sense that they COULD have a higher LSAT median, but choose not to. Which means they are basically only "holistic" in the sense that they reject candidates with higher LSATs. (People want to interpret that to mean that Berkeley accepts candidates with lower LSATs but unfortunately that doesn't really follow.)

Berkeley's strategy seems to be working for them. Their LSAT median of 167 is lower than every other T14's except Cornell but Berkeley has still managed to lock down its position in T6.


They certainly have not locked down a position in the T6. This is evident by their 3 way tie for 7th. Also, pretty sure that they've been ranked as low as 9th or 10th in the last 4 years.

cslouisck
Posts: 134
Joined: Sun Oct 14, 2012 11:59 am

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

Postby cslouisck » Mon Jan 21, 2013 12:32 pm

Interrupting the argument for a moment: is the consensus that adcomms aren't in today? Decisions have typically come through on Mondays, and since this is more or less my "due date" I'm wondering whether I should feel acutely nervous, or just plain-old chronic nervous.

User avatar
JayJones78
Posts: 2025
Joined: Thu Dec 06, 2012 3:50 pm

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

Postby JayJones78 » Mon Jan 21, 2013 12:39 pm

cslouisck wrote:Interrupting the argument for a moment: is the consensus that adcomms aren't in today? Decisions have typically come through on Mondays, and since this is more or less my "due date" I'm wondering whether I should feel acutely nervous, or just plain-old chronic nervous.


Was wondering the same thing :roll:
I'm pretty sure they are home

nba101790
Posts: 475
Joined: Wed Jan 16, 2013 5:05 pm

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

Postby nba101790 » Mon Jan 21, 2013 12:43 pm

JayJones78 wrote:
cslouisck wrote:Interrupting the argument for a moment: is the consensus that adcomms aren't in today? Decisions have typically come through on Mondays, and since this is more or less my "due date" I'm wondering whether I should feel acutely nervous, or just plain-old chronic nervous.


Was wondering the same thing :roll:
I'm pretty sure they are home


You could always call and see if the office is open.

User avatar
JayJones78
Posts: 2025
Joined: Thu Dec 06, 2012 3:50 pm

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

Postby JayJones78 » Mon Jan 21, 2013 12:53 pm

nba101790 wrote:
JayJones78 wrote:
cslouisck wrote:Interrupting the argument for a moment: is the consensus that adcomms aren't in today? Decisions have typically come through on Mondays, and since this is more or less my "due date" I'm wondering whether I should feel acutely nervous, or just plain-old chronic nervous.


Was wondering the same thing :roll:
I'm pretty sure they are home


You could always call and see if the office is open.


I randomly called NU and they are closed. Can't imagine why Berkley or others will be open.

User avatar
Mdenis1
Posts: 356
Joined: Wed Sep 19, 2012 2:06 pm

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

Postby Mdenis1 » Tue Jan 22, 2013 8:33 am

When do you think scholarship info will come out?

I have a 15k offer from Michigan that I'd love to submit for the Matching Scholarships thingy... but if they're going to offer me the same amount (or maybe more, who knows) themselves, I don't want to submit the form for nothing. It says on the Matching Scholarships website that we can send other offers starting in February.

Any thoughts?

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

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

Postby twinkletoes16 » Tue Jan 22, 2013 11:54 am

Mdenis1 wrote:When do you think scholarship info will come out?

I have a 15k offer from Michigan that I'd love to submit for the Matching Scholarships thingy... but if they're going to offer me the same amount (or maybe more, who knows) themselves, I don't want to submit the form for nothing. It says on the Matching Scholarships website that we can send other offers starting in February.

Any thoughts?



I'm confused. From what I had read, Berk gives out the named scholarships (the ones on that one page on ASW), need-based grants, and then the Matching Scholarships. I thought they didn't throw $ out randomly at people for numbers?

permapress
Posts: 70
Joined: Sun Sep 16, 2012 2:05 am

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

Postby permapress » Tue Jan 22, 2013 2:49 pm

holy crap, just got in via email. huge surprise, i had already written off berkeley a long time ago since they'd been accepting ppl who submitted the same time as i did. don't give up hope if you're still waiting!

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

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

Postby wisteria » Tue Jan 22, 2013 2:57 pm

permapress wrote:holy crap, just got in via email. huge surprise, i had already written off berkeley a long time ago since they'd been accepting ppl who submitted the same time as i did. don't give up hope if you're still waiting!


Congrats! When did you go complete?

User avatar
stone_fox
Posts: 90
Joined: Mon Jan 07, 2013 10:53 pm

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

Postby stone_fox » Tue Jan 22, 2013 3:03 pm

permapress wrote:holy crap, just got in via email. huge surprise, i had already written off berkeley a long time ago since they'd been accepting ppl who submitted the same time as i did. don't give up hope if you're still waiting!


Wow that's amazing congrats! Mind sharing your stats/UR dates?

User avatar
djwjddl
Posts: 476
Joined: Thu Oct 27, 2011 1:50 pm

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

Postby djwjddl » Tue Jan 22, 2013 3:05 pm

stone_fox wrote:
permapress wrote:holy crap, just got in via email. huge surprise, i had already written off berkeley a long time ago since they'd been accepting ppl who submitted the same time as i did. don't give up hope if you're still waiting!


Wow that's amazing congrats! Mind sharing your stats/UR dates?

3.9/172

ledbyfaithnotsight06
Posts: 30
Joined: Tue Nov 06, 2012 8:17 pm

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

Postby ledbyfaithnotsight06 » Tue Jan 22, 2013 3:14 pm

Hey everyone Looooong time lurker of this thread.

IN!!!!!!!! via email this morning! I'm in a state of perpetual shock. Although I'm a URM (AA/F)I had written Berkeley off after doing some research on lsn. Moral of the story anything is possible with this school!

UR 1/4
Decision: 1/22

User avatar
VeeD101
Posts: 333
Joined: Sat Oct 01, 2011 9:49 pm

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

Postby VeeD101 » Tue Jan 22, 2013 3:17 pm

anyone else who went under review on 1/4 and received a decision today? should I start panicking already?

User avatar
wert3813
Posts: 1408
Joined: Sat Oct 06, 2012 6:29 pm

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

Postby wert3813 » Tue Jan 22, 2013 3:19 pm

IN via email an hour ago!!! Sent/Received 1/3, Complete/UR 1/7.

171/4.0 No Why Cal but did visit and meet with a member of the adcom between UR and today. No clue if it mattered.

User avatar
wert3813
Posts: 1408
Joined: Sat Oct 06, 2012 6:29 pm

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

Postby wert3813 » Tue Jan 22, 2013 3:20 pm

VeeD101 wrote:anyone else who went under review on 1/4 and received a decision today? should I start panicking already?


No need to panic. Others who applied to UVA on the same day as me got in a week ago. Keep the faith. Cycles are weird.

User avatar
lt_universe
Posts: 85
Joined: Mon Jan 14, 2013 4:22 pm

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

Postby lt_universe » Tue Jan 22, 2013 3:22 pm

VeeD101 wrote:anyone else who went under review on 1/4 and received a decision today? should I start panicking already?

FWIW, i went UR on 1/4 and have heard nothing back

User avatar
VeeD101
Posts: 333
Joined: Sat Oct 01, 2011 9:49 pm

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

Postby VeeD101 » Tue Jan 22, 2013 3:23 pm

thanks...I'll panic about another school for now and switch back to Berk in a few days haha




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

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: amberb94, curry1, Google Adsense [Bot], joezze, okf731, ProductofUnreality, tinafeyclone, turkeyncheese and 21 guests