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.
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 11:31 am

Big Dog 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.


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.)

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.)



Look we are obsessing over these great schools because they give us opportunities that a T50-100 just couldn't. Or at least it would be infinitely harder!

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 11:37 am

}Look we are obsessing over these great schools because of the perceived opportunities they give us opportunities that a T50-100 just couldn't."

There, I fixed it for you. :P

btw: who said anything about T50? (Now you are making up strawmen in an attempt to make your point.)

There are plenty of schools above ~50 number who would love a splitter with a 170+.

User avatar
Lighthouseman
Posts: 65
Joined: Thu Sep 13, 2012 1:20 pm

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

Postby Lighthouseman » Mon Mar 04, 2013 11:38 am

Still UR 1/7 with no movement. Getting painful!

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 11:48 am

Big Dog wrote:}Look we are obsessing over these great schools because of the perceived opportunities they give us opportunities that a T50-100 just couldn't."

There, I fixed it for you. :P

btw: who said anything about T50? (Now you are making up strawmen in an attempt to make your point.)

There are plenty of schools above ~50 number who would love a splitter with a 170+.


Oh you are good! :) I merely submit to you that in these dire economic times even a non-T14 school might be difficult to find a firm job out of. Sadly.

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 11:51 am

nigerian22 wrote:
Big Dog wrote:}Look we are obsessing over these great schools because of the perceived opportunities they give us opportunities that a T50-100 just couldn't."

There, I fixed it for you. :P

btw: who said anything about T50? (Now you are making up strawmen in an attempt to make your point.)

There are plenty of schools above ~50 number who would love a splitter with a 170+.


Oh you are good! :) I merely submit to you that in these dire economic times even a non-T14 school might be difficult to find a firm job out of. Sadly.


I also think that there are plenty of federal judges who hire clerks from their own alma mater or a similarly regarded school. Many federal judges didn't attend stellar law schools. So if you can get such a clerkship (admittedly there aren't so many jobs available) out of a non-stellar law school, you should be golden. Maybe I'm in the minority (no pun intended) but I do think that clerkship is one of those things that transactional lawyers as well as litigators could profit from.

nanochick
Posts: 37
Joined: Wed Jan 10, 2007 7:05 pm

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

Postby nanochick » Mon Mar 04, 2013 11:58 am

Bright side of things is that although law schools don't tend to love us due our GPA, law FIRMS do. I know a number of PHDs who went to schools I'd never heard of that were heavily recruited by IP departments and made big-law salaries right out of school. The technical edge is in demand. Honestly, I sometimes wonder if T14 is worth it to me or if I should take a free ride somewhere else.

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 12:04 pm

I merely submit to you that in these dire economic times even a non-T14 school might be difficult to find a firm job out of. Sadly


Have you looked at unranked UCI's employment and clerkship numbers?

btw: even more sadly, there are plenty of unemployed/underemployed T14 grads.

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 12:07 pm

nanochick wrote:Bright side of things is that although law schools don't tend to love us due our GPA, law FIRMS do. I know a number of PHDs who went to schools I'd never heard of that were heavily recruited by IP departments and made big-law salaries right out of school. The technical edge is in demand. Honestly, I sometimes wonder if T14 is worth it to me or if I should take a free ride somewhere else.


If you wish to do IP and not much else, I think the prestige of the law school matters considerably less. But if you wish to do the more conventional things, the prestige factor looms large :)

nanochick
Posts: 37
Joined: Wed Jan 10, 2007 7:05 pm

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

Postby nanochick » Mon Mar 04, 2013 12:08 pm

nigerian22 wrote:
nanochick wrote:Bright side of things is that although law schools don't tend to love us due our GPA, law FIRMS do. I know a number of PHDs who went to schools I'd never heard of that were heavily recruited by IP departments and made big-law salaries right out of school. The technical edge is in demand. Honestly, I sometimes wonder if T14 is worth it to me or if I should take a free ride somewhere else.


If you wish to do IP and not much else, I think the prestige of the law school matters considerably less. But if you wish to do the more conventional things, the prestige factor looms large :)


Yeah, that's the catch, right? IP would be great, but chief technology officer or VP at a tech firm might be nice eventually. And then the school the starts to matter.

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 12:12 pm

nanochick wrote:
nigerian22 wrote:
nanochick wrote:Bright side of things is that although law schools don't tend to love us due our GPA, law FIRMS do. I know a number of PHDs who went to schools I'd never heard of that were heavily recruited by IP departments and made big-law salaries right out of school. The technical edge is in demand. Honestly, I sometimes wonder if T14 is worth it to me or if I should take a free ride somewhere else.


If you wish to do IP and not much else, I think the prestige of the law school matters considerably less. But if you wish to do the more conventional things, the prestige factor looms large :)


Yeah, that's the catch, right? IP would be great, but chief technology officer or VP at a tech firm might be nice eventually. And then the school the starts to matter.


Personally I would play it safe and go for both. But that might be just me. I think protecting the prestige factor is the risk-averse woman in me :)

nanochick
Posts: 37
Joined: Wed Jan 10, 2007 7:05 pm

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

Postby nanochick » Mon Mar 04, 2013 12:19 pm

nigerian22 wrote:
nanochick wrote:
nigerian22 wrote:
nanochick wrote:Bright side of things is that although law schools don't tend to love us due our GPA, law FIRMS do. I know a number of PHDs who went to schools I'd never heard of that were heavily recruited by IP departments and made big-law salaries right out of school. The technical edge is in demand. Honestly, I sometimes wonder if T14 is worth it to me or if I should take a free ride somewhere else.


If you wish to do IP and not much else, I think the prestige of the law school matters considerably less. But if you wish to do the more conventional things, the prestige factor looms large :)


Yeah, that's the catch, right? IP would be great, but chief technology officer or VP at a tech firm might be nice eventually. And then the school the starts to matter.


Personally I would play it safe and go for both. But that might be just me. I think protecting the prestige factor is the risk-averse woman in me :)


Understood. And you only go to law school once. That's where I keep falling out, too.

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 12:20 pm

Big Dog wrote:
I merely submit to you that in these dire economic times even a non-T14 school might be difficult to find a firm job out of. Sadly


Have you looked at unranked UCI's employment and clerkship numbers?

btw: even more sadly, there are plenty of unemployed/underemployed T14 grads.


Georgetown takes 650 students and for a bottom of the T14 school it's sometimes tough for their CDO to "absorb" all 650 and find them appropriate & JD-requiring employment

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 12:21 pm

If you wish to do IP and not much else, I think the prestige of the law school matters considerably less. But if you wish to do the more conventional things, the prestige factor looms large :)[/quote]

Yeah, that's the catch, right? IP would be great, but chief technology officer or VP at a tech firm might be nice eventually. And then the school the starts to matter.[/quote]

Personally I would play it safe and go for both. But that might be just me. I think protecting the prestige factor is the risk-averse woman in me :)[/quote]

Understood. And you only go to law school once. That's where I keep falling out, too.[/quote]


Right. For me it's more than just risk-aversion for lucrative purposes. I know I will always wonder about the opportunity forgone if I don't take it. So for sanity's sake.

nanochick
Posts: 37
Joined: Wed Jan 10, 2007 7:05 pm

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

Postby nanochick » Mon Mar 04, 2013 12:25 pm

nigerian22 wrote:If you wish to do IP and not much else, I think the prestige of the law school matters considerably less. But if you wish to do the more conventional things, the prestige factor looms large :)


Yeah, that's the catch, right? IP would be great, but chief technology officer or VP at a tech firm might be nice eventually. And then the school the starts to matter.[/quote]

Personally I would play it safe and go for both. But that might be just me. I think protecting the prestige factor is the risk-averse woman in me :)[/quote]

Understood. And you only go to law school once. That's where I keep falling out, too.[/quote]


Right. For me it's more than just risk-aversion for lucrative purposes. I know I will always wonder about the opportunity forgone if I don't take it. So for sanity's sake.[/quote]

Makes sense. It's just when I encounter some of the phd's that continued to take in a six figures while going to (free) law school at night and are now making considerably more than that (and aren't partners) I start to think greedy thoughts. But I think you're right.

nanochick
Posts: 37
Joined: Wed Jan 10, 2007 7:05 pm

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

Postby nanochick » Mon Mar 04, 2013 12:27 pm

Sorry, all, I'm done. Didn't mean to hijack Berkeley as the hard science Ph.D thread.

User avatar
helix23
Posts: 1807
Joined: Tue Jun 19, 2012 3:18 pm

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

Postby helix23 » Mon Mar 04, 2013 2:59 pm

nanochick wrote:Sorry, all, I'm done. Didn't mean to hijack Berkeley as the hard science Ph.D thread.


do you own an iPod nano?

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 3:01 pm

Sorry, all, I'm done. Didn't mean to hijack Berkeley as the hard science Ph.D thread.

:wink:
Not a problem. It helps fill the time until the results of Friday's reviews are published.

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 3:05 pm

Big Dog wrote:
Sorry, all, I'm done. Didn't mean to hijack Berkeley as the hard science Ph.D thread.

:wink:
Not a problem. It helps fill the time until the results of Friday's reviews are published.


Indeed... needed this thread to not be super boring

User avatar
moose90
Posts: 10
Joined: Mon Mar 04, 2013 3:21 pm

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

Postby moose90 » Mon Mar 04, 2013 3:47 pm

169/3.75 awaiting March 8th decision after passing "initial review" and being told I'm being reviewed by the faculty committee. After reading this forum carefully, I decided not to send a LOCI. I haven't really done anything new, so an "I LOVE YOU BERKELEY!!! PLEASE ACCEPT ME!" e-mail seemed unjustified.

Anyone else having a panic attack? I've gotten into UCLA with $$ but can't tell you how badly I want Berk.

-Moose

Ruthie
Posts: 24
Joined: Fri Jul 06, 2012 2:00 pm

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

Postby Ruthie » Tue Mar 05, 2013 12:17 pm

Anyone who received the 3/8 email heard a response yet?

User avatar
TripTrip
Posts: 2739
Joined: Fri Sep 07, 2012 9:52 am

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

Postby TripTrip » Tue Mar 05, 2013 12:27 pm

moose90 wrote:169/3.75 awaiting March 8th decision after passing "initial review" and being told I'm being reviewed by the faculty committee. After reading this forum carefully, I decided not to send a LOCI.

You were going to send a LOCI... because you went to faculty review? Good god man, put down the keyboard.

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

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

Postby ManOfTheMinute » Tue Mar 05, 2013 12:28 pm

TripTrip wrote:
moose90 wrote:169/3.75 awaiting March 8th decision after passing "initial review" and being told I'm being reviewed by the faculty committee. After reading this forum carefully, I decided not to send a LOCI.

You were going to send a LOCI... because you went to faculty review? Good god man, put down the keyboard.


shut up george

User avatar
TripTrip
Posts: 2739
Joined: Fri Sep 07, 2012 9:52 am

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

Postby TripTrip » Tue Mar 05, 2013 12:31 pm

ManOfTheMinute wrote:
TripTrip wrote:
moose90 wrote:169/3.75 awaiting March 8th decision after passing "initial review" and being told I'm being reviewed by the faculty committee. After reading this forum carefully, I decided not to send a LOCI.

You were going to send a LOCI... because you went to faculty review? Good god man, put down the keyboard.


shut up george

I bet you'd send a LOCI after you were admitted.

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

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

Postby Ramius » Tue Mar 05, 2013 12:36 pm

TripTrip wrote:
ManOfTheMinute wrote:
TripTrip wrote:
moose90 wrote:169/3.75 awaiting March 8th decision after passing "initial review" and being told I'm being reviewed by the faculty committee. After reading this forum carefully, I decided not to send a LOCI.

You were going to send a LOCI... because you went to faculty review? Good god man, put down the keyboard.


shut up george

I bet you'd send a LOCI after you were admitted.


I'm not sure Ron would send a Letter of Passing Interest. Unless it involves meat sandwiches.

malcolm
Posts: 16
Joined: Wed Dec 12, 2012 7:08 pm

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

Postby malcolm » Tue Mar 05, 2013 12:49 pm

I'm curious what to make of having gone under review in late November and hearing literally nothing since (i.e., no FR).

It looks like it's probably not a good thing (figuring if I was being strongly considered, I'd either have been admitted in Dean Tom's initial review, or sent to FR), and if that's true, what about an LOCI? I would almost certainly attend if admitted.

Does anyone have any insight?




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

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Baby Gaga, BACsop, JosefK and 22 guests