Berkeley c/o 2016 Applicants (2012-2013 cycle) Forum
- ALgooner
- Posts: 163
- Joined: Thu Feb 02, 2012 12:23 am
Re: Berkeley c/o 2016 Applicants (2012-2013 cycle)
FR2 here. Avoiding the Berk thread makes the wait more bearable.
- risa
- Posts: 466
- Joined: Sun Nov 11, 2012 4:03 am
Re: Berkeley c/o 2016 Applicants (2012-2013 cycle)
yo. I'm still here!HawkeyeGirl wrote:I think there are only a handful of us left...So lonely in FR2 landManOfTheMinute wrote:WTF is this, the yale thread? Monday through Friday posts are all on one page.
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!
-
- Posts: 67
- Joined: Tue Dec 20, 2011 8:14 pm
Re: Berkeley c/o 2016 Applicants (2012-2013 cycle)
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.
-
- Posts: 24
- Joined: Tue Jan 29, 2013 7:19 pm
Re: Berkeley c/o 2016 Applicants (2012-2013 cycle)
Do people in FR2 have lower chances than people in FR1?
- ManOfTheMinute
- Posts: 1557
- Joined: Tue Apr 10, 2012 12:54 am
Re: Berkeley c/o 2016 Applicants (2012-2013 cycle)
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 wrote:Do people in FR2 have lower chances than people in FR1?
Want to continue reading?
Register now to search topics and post comments!
Absolutely FREE!
Already a member? Login
-
- Posts: 24
- Joined: Tue Jan 29, 2013 7:19 pm
Re: Berkeley c/o 2016 Applicants (2012-2013 cycle)
ThanksManOfTheMinute wrote: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 wrote:Do people in FR2 have lower chances than people in FR1?
- ManOfTheMinute
- Posts: 1557
- Joined: Tue Apr 10, 2012 12:54 am
Re: Berkeley c/o 2016 Applicants (2012-2013 cycle)
Here is to the last week of waiting!
-
- Posts: 9
- Joined: Sun Mar 03, 2013 6:54 pm
Re: Berkeley c/o 2016 Applicants (2012-2013 cycle)
FR2 here as well! I like that with Berkeley you know when the rejection's coming.
- HawkeyeGirl
- Posts: 459
- Joined: Sun May 06, 2012 9:13 pm
Re: Berkeley c/o 2016 Applicants (2012-2013 cycle)
+1 millionManOfTheMinute wrote:Here is to the last week of waiting!
-
- Posts: 61
- Joined: Mon Sep 17, 2012 8:59 pm
Re: Berkeley c/o 2016 Applicants (2012-2013 cycle)
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.Regulus wrote: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.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?
-
- Posts: 61
- Joined: Mon Sep 17, 2012 8:59 pm
Re: Berkeley c/o 2016 Applicants (2012-2013 cycle)
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
- lsacqueen
- Posts: 255
- Joined: Wed Oct 19, 2011 4:03 am
Re: Berkeley c/o 2016 Applicants (2012-2013 cycle)
Has anyone tried negotiating scholarships with Berkeley yet through their Matching program?
- John_rizzy_rawls
- Posts: 3468
- Joined: Sun Nov 18, 2012 2:44 pm
Re: Berkeley c/o 2016 Applicants (2012-2013 cycle)
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.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
Register now!
Resources to assist law school applicants, students & graduates.
It's still FREE!
Already a member? Login
- ManOfTheMinute
- Posts: 1557
- Joined: Tue Apr 10, 2012 12:54 am
Re: Berkeley c/o 2016 Applicants (2012-2013 cycle)
You assume URM just cuz his/her username is Nigerian? Jeez, racism.John_rizzy_rawls wrote: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.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
- John_rizzy_rawls
- Posts: 3468
- Joined: Sun Nov 18, 2012 2:44 pm
Re: Berkeley c/o 2016 Applicants (2012-2013 cycle)
Post history Swanson, post history.ManOfTheMinute wrote:You assume URM just cuz his/her username is Nigerian? Jeez, racism.John_rizzy_rawls wrote: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.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
- ManOfTheMinute
- Posts: 1557
- Joined: Tue Apr 10, 2012 12:54 am
Re: Berkeley c/o 2016 Applicants (2012-2013 cycle)
Haha I figured, it's just more fun to start a race riot.John_rizzy_rawls wrote:Post history Swanson, post history.ManOfTheMinute wrote: You assume URM just cuz his/her username is Nigerian? Jeez, racism.
-
- Posts: 61
- Joined: Mon Sep 17, 2012 8:59 pm
Re: Berkeley c/o 2016 Applicants (2012-2013 cycle)
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 profileManOfTheMinute wrote:You assume URM just cuz his/her username is Nigerian? Jeez, racism.John_rizzy_rawls wrote: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.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
Get unlimited access to all forums and topics
Register now!
I'm pretty sure I told you it's FREE...
Already a member? Login
- John_rizzy_rawls
- Posts: 3468
- Joined: Sun Nov 18, 2012 2:44 pm
Re: Berkeley c/o 2016 Applicants (2012-2013 cycle)
Racist.ManOfTheMinute wrote:Haha I figured, it's just more fun to start a race riot.John_rizzy_rawls wrote:Post history Swanson, post history.ManOfTheMinute wrote: You assume URM just cuz his/her username is Nigerian? Jeez, racism.
Wouldn't have counted anyway, since I'm AA.
How's that for starting a race riot? lol
- John_rizzy_rawls
- Posts: 3468
- Joined: Sun Nov 18, 2012 2:44 pm
Re: Berkeley c/o 2016 Applicants (2012-2013 cycle)
Marry me.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
Ahem... I mean, yeah that makes perfect sense. Nice going.
-
- Posts: 61
- Joined: Mon Sep 17, 2012 8:59 pm
Re: Berkeley c/o 2016 Applicants (2012-2013 cycle)
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.John_rizzy_rawls wrote:Marry me.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
Ahem... I mean, yeah that makes perfect sense. Nice going.
- ManOfTheMinute
- Posts: 1557
- Joined: Tue Apr 10, 2012 12:54 am
Re: Berkeley c/o 2016 Applicants (2012-2013 cycle)
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.nigerian22 wrote: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.John_rizzy_rawls wrote:Marry me.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
Ahem... I mean, yeah that makes perfect sense. Nice going.
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
- djwjddl
- Posts: 478
- Joined: Thu Oct 27, 2011 1:50 pm
Re: Berkeley c/o 2016 Applicants (2012-2013 cycle)
negotiating? they haven't even sent out their offers yet...lsacqueen wrote:Has anyone tried negotiating scholarships with Berkeley yet through their Matching program?
-
- Posts: 61
- Joined: Mon Sep 17, 2012 8:59 pm
Re: Berkeley c/o 2016 Applicants (2012-2013 cycle)
djwjddl wrote:negotiating? they haven't even sent out their offers yet...lsacqueen wrote:Has anyone tried negotiating scholarships with Berkeley yet through their Matching program?
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?!
-
- Posts: 61
- Joined: Mon Sep 17, 2012 8:59 pm
Re: Berkeley c/o 2016 Applicants (2012-2013 cycle)
ManOfTheMinute wrote: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.nigerian22 wrote: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.John_rizzy_rawls wrote:Marry me.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
Ahem... I mean, yeah that makes perfect sense. Nice going.
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.
-
- Posts: 1205
- Joined: Wed Dec 16, 2009 9:34 pm
Re: Berkeley c/o 2016 Applicants (2012-2013 cycle)
I understand your angst/frustration, but the logic of your statement is questionable.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.
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.t's quite unfortunate that adcomms will take the bland 3.8 traditional major and a 170 LSAT...
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.)I think the profession loses...
Last edited by Big Dog on Mon Mar 04, 2013 11:33 am, edited 1 time in total.
Seriously? What are you waiting for?
Now there's a charge.
Just kidding ... it's still FREE!
Already a member? Login