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
ALgooner
Posts: 163
Joined: Thu Feb 02, 2012 12:23 am

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

Postby ALgooner » Fri Mar 01, 2013 2:34 pm

FR2 here. Avoiding the Berk thread makes the wait more bearable.

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 Mar 01, 2013 2:35 pm

HawkeyeGirl wrote:
ManOfTheMinute wrote:WTF is this, the yale thread? Monday through Friday posts are all on one page.


I think there are only a handful of us left...So lonely in FR2 land

yo. I'm still here!
One of my LORs is from a Boalt grad. I keep hoping a faculty member who knows her and liked her will get my application!

hattrick87
Posts: 67
Joined: Tue Dec 20, 2011 8:14 pm

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

Postby hattrick87 » Fri Mar 01, 2013 2:37 pm

FR2. I'm spending the next week on a beach in Mexico, which means finding a bottle of tequila after a Thursday/Friday ding will be even easier.

coriander
Posts: 24
Joined: Tue Jan 29, 2013 7:19 pm

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

Postby coriander » Fri Mar 01, 2013 3:02 pm

Do people in FR2 have lower chances than people in FR1?

User avatar
ManOfTheMinute
Posts: 1562
Joined: Tue Apr 10, 2012 12:54 am

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

Postby ManOfTheMinute » Fri Mar 01, 2013 3:10 pm

coriander wrote:Do people in FR2 have lower chances than people in FR1?


I do not believe there is a strong link, but there is a slightly lower chance as a greater % of the class is now full. So even if we had 300 nobel laureates, they couldn't accept all 300.

coriander
Posts: 24
Joined: Tue Jan 29, 2013 7:19 pm

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

Postby coriander » Fri Mar 01, 2013 3:16 pm

ManOfTheMinute wrote:
coriander wrote:Do people in FR2 have lower chances than people in FR1?


I do not believe there is a strong link, but there is a slightly lower chance as a greater % of the class is now full. So even if we had 300 nobel laureates, they couldn't accept all 300.


Thanks

User avatar
ManOfTheMinute
Posts: 1562
Joined: Tue Apr 10, 2012 12:54 am

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

Postby ManOfTheMinute » Sun Mar 03, 2013 9:28 pm

Here is to the last week of waiting!

JedBartlet
Posts: 9
Joined: Sun Mar 03, 2013 6:54 pm

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

Postby JedBartlet » Sun Mar 03, 2013 9:49 pm

FR2 here as well! I like that with Berkeley you know when the rejection's coming.

User avatar
HawkeyeGirl
Posts: 459
Joined: Sun May 06, 2012 9:13 pm

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

Postby HawkeyeGirl » Sun Mar 03, 2013 9:50 pm

ManOfTheMinute wrote:Here is to the last week of waiting!


+1 million

nigerian22
Posts: 61
Joined: Mon Sep 17, 2012 8:59 pm

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

Postby nigerian22 » Mon Mar 04, 2013 2:07 am

kappycaft1 wrote:
CO2016YEAH wrote:The selectivity of the YSH and the law of averages by themselves can explain the dynamic described by PDaddy; I'm not necessarily arguing these discussions don't happen, as I have absolutely no way of knowing whether they do or not, but I did feel it necessary to point out the obvious.

As for Boalt and UCLA, these schools aren't likely to be competing for the few 180's with 4.33's, so I think having secret discussions would be just too cumbersome. Conducting such an exchange or admitting students alternately would pretty much require a mutually accessible database; having such a database is plausible, but highly unlikely IMO.

Then again, maybe deans Schwartz and Tom play "need him, need him, got him, got him" over Skype in their spare time. Who knows? 8)


Haha yeah. However, if such conversations did exist between UCB and UCLA, they probably wouldn't be about super-competitive applicants like in the reported HYS trade-offs. Instead, they would likely be about applicants who are borderline at UCB and "safe" at UCLA; it would almost be like UCB doing UCLA a "favor" by first denying borderline UCB applicants with similar stats who also applied to UCLA. Again, this is 150% pure speculation (or more just wondering than anything), but if the UC public schools are "friends" with each other I could definitely see the motivation to do such a thing.


I doubt this very much. There are many schools between UCB and UCLA. Someone who was a borderline at UCB might get into a school that's better than UCLA and would go there. This way the UC system would completely lose the applicant.

nigerian22
Posts: 61
Joined: Mon Sep 17, 2012 8:59 pm

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

Postby nigerian22 » Mon Mar 04, 2013 2:24 am

Folks, don't worry at all about being UR. I applied the first week that applications were open and I heard back last week. I was not a shoo-in numbers-wise but I had other redeeming qualities

User avatar
lsacqueen
Posts: 255
Joined: Wed Oct 19, 2011 4:03 am

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

Postby lsacqueen » Mon Mar 04, 2013 2:38 am

Has anyone tried negotiating scholarships with Berkeley yet through their Matching program?

User avatar
John_rizzy_rawls
Posts: 3477
Joined: Sun Nov 18, 2012 2:44 pm

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

Postby John_rizzy_rawls » Mon Mar 04, 2013 2:41 am

nigerian22 wrote:Folks, don't worry at all about being UR. I applied the first week that applications were open and I heard back last week. I was not a shoo-in numbers-wise but I had other redeeming qualities


You nabbed Berkeley with a 3.5x/163? Even as a URM that's impressive given how GPA obsessed B is, especially without a super high LSAT to offset it.

User avatar
ManOfTheMinute
Posts: 1562
Joined: Tue Apr 10, 2012 12:54 am

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

Postby ManOfTheMinute » Mon Mar 04, 2013 2:46 am

John_rizzy_rawls wrote:
nigerian22 wrote:Folks, don't worry at all about being UR. I applied the first week that applications were open and I heard back last week. I was not a shoo-in numbers-wise but I had other redeeming qualities


You nabbed Berkeley with a 3.5x/163? Even as a URM that's impressive given how GPA obsessed B is, especially without a super high LSAT to offset it.


You assume URM just cuz his/her username is Nigerian? Jeez, racism.

User avatar
John_rizzy_rawls
Posts: 3477
Joined: Sun Nov 18, 2012 2:44 pm

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

Postby John_rizzy_rawls » Mon Mar 04, 2013 2:49 am

ManOfTheMinute wrote:
John_rizzy_rawls wrote:
nigerian22 wrote:Folks, don't worry at all about being UR. I applied the first week that applications were open and I heard back last week. I was not a shoo-in numbers-wise but I had other redeeming qualities


You nabbed Berkeley with a 3.5x/163? Even as a URM that's impressive given how GPA obsessed B is, especially without a super high LSAT to offset it.


You assume URM just cuz his/her username is Nigerian? Jeez, racism.


Post history Swanson, post history.

User avatar
ManOfTheMinute
Posts: 1562
Joined: Tue Apr 10, 2012 12:54 am

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

Postby ManOfTheMinute » Mon Mar 04, 2013 2:54 am

John_rizzy_rawls wrote:
ManOfTheMinute wrote:You assume URM just cuz his/her username is Nigerian? Jeez, racism.


Post history Swanson, post history.


Haha I figured, it's just more fun to start a race riot.

nigerian22
Posts: 61
Joined: Mon Sep 17, 2012 8:59 pm

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

Postby nigerian22 » Mon Mar 04, 2013 2:55 am

ManOfTheMinute wrote:
John_rizzy_rawls wrote:
nigerian22 wrote:Folks, don't worry at all about being UR. I applied the first week that applications were open and I heard back last week. I was not a shoo-in numbers-wise but I had other redeeming qualities


You nabbed Berkeley with a 3.5x/163? Even as a URM that's impressive given how GPA obsessed B is, especially without a super high LSAT to offset it.


You assume URM just cuz his/her username is Nigerian? Jeez, racism.


I'm a black female with a nuclear physics undergrad and PhD (from two Ivies). That might have helped. My supervisor and later particle physics book's co-author is a Nobel laureate. Adcomm might have been a little impressed by my non-quantitative profile ;)

User avatar
John_rizzy_rawls
Posts: 3477
Joined: Sun Nov 18, 2012 2:44 pm

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

Postby John_rizzy_rawls » Mon Mar 04, 2013 2:56 am

ManOfTheMinute wrote:
John_rizzy_rawls wrote:
ManOfTheMinute wrote:You assume URM just cuz his/her username is Nigerian? Jeez, racism.


Post history Swanson, post history.


Haha I figured, it's just more fun to start a race riot.


Racist.

Wouldn't have counted anyway, since I'm AA.
How's that for starting a race riot? lol

User avatar
John_rizzy_rawls
Posts: 3477
Joined: Sun Nov 18, 2012 2:44 pm

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

Postby John_rizzy_rawls » Mon Mar 04, 2013 2:57 am

nigerian22 wrote:I'm a black female with a nuclear physics undergrad and PhD (from two Ivies). That might have helped. My supervisor and later particle physics book's co-author is a Nobel laureate. Adcomm might have been a little impressed by my non-quantitative profile ;)


Marry me.

Ahem... I mean, yeah that makes perfect sense. Nice going.

nigerian22
Posts: 61
Joined: Mon Sep 17, 2012 8:59 pm

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

Postby nigerian22 » Mon Mar 04, 2013 3:03 am

John_rizzy_rawls wrote:
nigerian22 wrote:I'm a black female with a nuclear physics undergrad and PhD (from two Ivies). That might have helped. My supervisor and later particle physics book's co-author is a Nobel laureate. Adcomm might have been a little impressed by my non-quantitative profile ;)


Marry me.

Ahem... I mean, yeah that makes perfect sense. Nice going.


There are lots of non-URM, non-active duty military personnel with profiles like mine but they get dinged for want of the sought-after factor. It's quite unfortunate that adcomms will take the bland 3.8 traditional major and a 170 LSAT than the 3.1 nuclear physics major with PhD and 170 because they want to maintain that USNWR edge. I think the profession loses by having lawyers of cookie-cutter profiles graduating from the T14. I suppose transfer admission is supposed to rectify some of this but many people understandably don't want to put themselves through it so soon + transfer admission can accommodate only so many people.

User avatar
ManOfTheMinute
Posts: 1562
Joined: Tue Apr 10, 2012 12:54 am

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

Postby ManOfTheMinute » Mon Mar 04, 2013 3:20 am

nigerian22 wrote:
John_rizzy_rawls wrote:
nigerian22 wrote:I'm a black female with a nuclear physics undergrad and PhD (from two Ivies). That might have helped. My supervisor and later particle physics book's co-author is a Nobel laureate. Adcomm might have been a little impressed by my non-quantitative profile ;)


Marry me.

Ahem... I mean, yeah that makes perfect sense. Nice going.


There are lots of non-URM, non-active duty military personnel with profiles like mine but they get dinged for want of the sought-after factor. It's quite unfortunate that adcomms will take the bland 3.8 traditional major and a 170 LSAT than the 3.1 nuclear physics major with PhD and 170 because they want to maintain that USNWR edge. I think the profession loses by having lawyers of cookie-cutter profiles graduating from the T14. I suppose transfer admission is supposed to rectify some of this but many people understandably don't want to put themselves through it so soon + transfer admission can accommodate only so many people.


But if we had all NucE majors running around, then they would be the bland "cookie-cutters!" I dunno... I don't think they focus on the numbers just for USNWR. HYS don't really have to worry about their rankings; if they thought lower number peeps would be a better candidate, they'd take them every day of the week.

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

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

Postby djwjddl » Mon Mar 04, 2013 10:39 am

lsacqueen wrote:Has anyone tried negotiating scholarships with Berkeley yet through their Matching program?


negotiating? they haven't even sent out their offers yet...

nigerian22
Posts: 61
Joined: Mon Sep 17, 2012 8:59 pm

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

Postby nigerian22 » Mon Mar 04, 2013 11:24 am

djwjddl wrote:
lsacqueen wrote:Has anyone tried negotiating scholarships with Berkeley yet through their Matching program?


negotiating? they haven't even sent out their offers yet...



Admitted students can submit a matching scholly application. Word on the street is that do it soon because they begin to run out of funds starting late May.

I find it refreshing that Berkeley doesn't dissemble about which schools' scholarship offers they think might be credible threats. They could have pretended to be all egalitarian on surface by asking for matching apps for ANY schools & then privately not even considered the ones that aren't on its list. I asked someone why Northwestern isn't included -- though it is a T14 school and arguably outranks Cornell and Georgetown, both of which occupy a place in that pantheon! -- on the matching schools' list. They gave me an unpersuasive explanation - because Northwestern automatically gives a significant amount of money to their ED admits. But an ED admit would go to Northwestern anyway, so why would that person have any possibility of attending Berkeley at all?!

nigerian22
Posts: 61
Joined: Mon Sep 17, 2012 8:59 pm

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

Postby nigerian22 » Mon Mar 04, 2013 11:28 am

ManOfTheMinute wrote:
nigerian22 wrote:
John_rizzy_rawls wrote:
nigerian22 wrote:I'm a black female with a nuclear physics undergrad and PhD (from two Ivies). That might have helped. My supervisor and later particle physics book's co-author is a Nobel laureate. Adcomm might have been a little impressed by my non-quantitative profile ;)


Marry me.

Ahem... I mean, yeah that makes perfect sense. Nice going.


There are lots of non-URM, non-active duty military personnel with profiles like mine but they get dinged for want of the sought-after factor. It's quite unfortunate that adcomms will take the bland 3.8 traditional major and a 170 LSAT than the 3.1 nuclear physics major with PhD and 170 because they want to maintain that USNWR edge. I think the profession loses by having lawyers of cookie-cutter profiles graduating from the T14. I suppose transfer admission is supposed to rectify some of this but many people understandably don't want to put themselves through it so soon + transfer admission can accommodate only so many people.


But if we had all NucE majors running around, then they would be the bland "cookie-cutters!" I dunno... I don't think they focus on the numbers just for USNWR. HYS don't really have to worry about their rankings; if they thought lower number peeps would be a better candidate, they'd take them every day of the week.



H worries a great deal. Moreover, I know for a fact that two HARD sciences/engineering students with 3.1x from MIT and CalTech and credentials far better than mine and also 179, 180 respectively were struck out of all T14 minus Northwestern. They were non-URM. I really think the system loses if law schools don't seriously reconfigure their ways. Bob Morse's/UNNWR's strangehold on law school admissions and law school rankings is probably the most regrettable thing that has happened of late.

I am not saying fill up the JD class with ALL Nuclear Physics majors! I am saying take some of them. They could add a brilliant, different perspective that a class that is differently constituted just couldn't. Diversity isn't just racial, gender, sexual orientation. We shouldn't ignore intellectual diversity either.
Last edited by nigerian22 on Mon Mar 04, 2013 11:30 am, edited 1 time in total.

Big Dog
Posts: 1191
Joined: Wed Dec 16, 2009 9:34 pm

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

Postby Big Dog » Mon Mar 04, 2013 11:29 am

There are lots of non-URM, non-active duty military personnel with profiles like mine but they get dinged for want of the sought-after factor. It's quite unfortunate that adcomms will take the bland 3.8 traditional major and a 170 LSAT than the 3.1 nuclear physics major with PhD and 170 because they want to maintain that USNWR edge. I think the profession loses by having lawyers of cookie-cutter profiles graduating from the T14. I suppose transfer admission is supposed to rectify some of this but many people understandably don't want to put themselves through it so soon + transfer admission can accommodate only so many people.


I understand your angst/frustration, but the logic of your statement is questionable.

t's quite unfortunate that adcomms will take the bland 3.8 traditional major and a 170 LSAT...


Why? Regardless of USNews. If they want 3.8 non-URMs, and Cal has shown for years that they do, apply somewhere else. Moreover, Cal, and UC in general, has clearly indicated for years -- prior to Bob Morese -- that standardized testing is not as important to them as is GPA. Thus, splitters should apply to a LS that appreciates high LSAT scores, and not complain about a school that does not.

I think the profession loses...


This is the segment that I don't understand. There are 300+ law schools, all dumping recently-minted JD's into the "profession." Does it mater if the NucEng graduates from a T14, or #20? The "profession" still gains another lawyer. (Whether that is a good thing, or bad thing is a topic for a different thread.)
Last edited by Big Dog on Mon Mar 04, 2013 11:33 am, edited 1 time in total.




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