UCLA c/o 2016 Applicants (2012-2013)

Share Your Experiences, Read About Other Experiences. Please keep posts organized by school and expected year of graduation.
JesusChrist
Posts: 384
Joined: Wed Aug 25, 2010 12:44 am

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

Postby JesusChrist » Mon May 13, 2013 11:47 pm

Based on some browsing of this thread, it looks like UCLA thinks it has a shot at a 168 median? Those seem like all the people getting money.

bruin91
Posts: 237
Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2013 1:09 pm

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

Postby bruin91 » Tue May 14, 2013 9:14 am

JesusChrist wrote:Based on some browsing of this thread, it looks like UCLA thinks it has a shot at a 168 median? Those seem like all the people getting money.


I agree that this is what UCLA seems to be shooting for this cycle. Throwing significant money at splitters, atypical for UCLA.

User avatar
VnshngAge
Posts: 10
Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2012 8:10 pm

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

Postby VnshngAge » Tue May 14, 2013 10:47 am

In yesterday via skype interview + phone call some hours later!

Numbers: 168/2.9x

JesusChrist
Posts: 384
Joined: Wed Aug 25, 2010 12:44 am

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

Postby JesusChrist » Tue May 14, 2013 11:19 am

bruin91 wrote:
JesusChrist wrote:Based on some browsing of this thread, it looks like UCLA thinks it has a shot at a 168 median? Those seem like all the people getting money.


I agree that this is what UCLA seems to be shooting for this cycle. Throwing significant money at splitters, atypical for UCLA.


So I guess anyone on the WL with a 167 is probably not going to get in, why hurt their own median?

User avatar
andres
Posts: 94
Joined: Fri Dec 07, 2012 5:20 pm

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

Postby andres » Tue May 14, 2013 11:41 am

VnshngAge wrote:In yesterday via skype interview + phone call some hours later!

Numbers: 168/2.9x


Congrats! Did mention of aid? Will you be accepting?

muimuixp
Posts: 2
Joined: Fri May 10, 2013 12:07 am

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

Postby muimuixp » Tue May 14, 2013 1:28 pm

.
Last edited by muimuixp on Tue May 14, 2013 2:56 pm, edited 1 time in total.

eomea5
Posts: 126
Joined: Wed Jun 13, 2012 11:14 am

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

Postby eomea5 » Tue May 14, 2013 1:40 pm

muimuixp wrote:Talked to Dean Schwartz a few weeks ago about the chances of me being accepted off of the waitlist. He recommended that I plan on going somewhere else. Anyone else talk to Dean Schwartz about your chances of being admitted off of the wait list?


what were your numbers, if you dont mind me asking.

LittleTree
Posts: 88
Joined: Tue Jun 19, 2012 7:34 pm

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

Postby LittleTree » Tue May 14, 2013 1:43 pm

167 still has a shot. I know many people with 167 who got $$. Kinda a useless post, I just don't want anyone to lose hope :)

JesusChrist
Posts: 384
Joined: Wed Aug 25, 2010 12:44 am

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

Postby JesusChrist » Tue May 14, 2013 1:49 pm

muimuixp wrote:Talked to Dean Schwartz a few weeks ago about the chances of me being accepted off of the waitlist. He recommended that I plan on going somewhere else. Anyone else talk to Dean Schwartz about your chances of being admitted off of the wait list?


Damn that's cold. What were your numbers?

muimuixp
Posts: 2
Joined: Fri May 10, 2013 12:07 am

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

Postby muimuixp » Tue May 14, 2013 2:05 pm

JesusChrist wrote:
muimuixp wrote:Talked to Dean Schwartz a few weeks ago about the chances of me being accepted off of the waitlist. He recommended that I plan on going somewhere else. Anyone else talk to Dean Schwartz about your chances of being admitted off of the wait list?


Damn that's cold. What were your numbers?



I will PM you

eomea5
Posts: 126
Joined: Wed Jun 13, 2012 11:14 am

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

Postby eomea5 » Tue May 14, 2013 2:27 pm

muimuixp wrote:
JesusChrist wrote:
muimuixp wrote:Talked to Dean Schwartz a few weeks ago about the chances of me being accepted off of the waitlist. He recommended that I plan on going somewhere else. Anyone else talk to Dean Schwartz about your chances of being admitted off of the wait list?


Damn that's cold. What were your numbers?



I will PM you


mind pm'ing me as well? want to figure out if i should give up...

epgenius
Posts: 166
Joined: Thu Sep 20, 2012 9:33 pm

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

Postby epgenius » Tue May 14, 2013 2:40 pm

LittleTree wrote:167 still has a shot. I know many people with 167 who got $$. Kinda a useless post, I just don't want anyone to lose hope :)


So it seems that GPA is just a useless indicator of merit now. To me, and no offense to splitters, it feels like a slap in the face to have worked so hard throughout undergrad to earn 0.5-0.7 GPA points more than some of the people getting accepted only to be left waiting because of 1-2 questions out of 100 on a single test that easily could have been made up with a bit more sleep and luck. Is there any hope for local 166s or is it pointless?

eomea5
Posts: 126
Joined: Wed Jun 13, 2012 11:14 am

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

Postby eomea5 » Tue May 14, 2013 2:58 pm

epgenius wrote:
LittleTree wrote:167 still has a shot. I know many people with 167 who got $$. Kinda a useless post, I just don't want anyone to lose hope :)


So it seems that GPA is just a useless indicator of merit now. To me, and no offense to splitters, it feels like a slap in the face to have worked so hard throughout undergrad to earn 0.5-0.7 GPA points more than some of the people getting accepted only to be left waiting because of 1-2 questions out of 100 on a single test that easily could have been made up with a bit more sleep and luck. Is there any hope for local 166s or is it pointless?


completely with you on this one. busted my ass in undergrad to get a solid GPA, and now its coming down to a few silly points on some one-off test that appear to be the difference. aggravating.

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

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

Postby ManOfTheMinute » Tue May 14, 2013 3:17 pm

epgenius wrote:
LittleTree wrote:167 still has a shot. I know many people with 167 who got $$. Kinda a useless post, I just don't want anyone to lose hope :)


So it seems that GPA is just a useless indicator of merit now. To me, and no offense to splitters, it feels like a slap in the face to have worked so hard throughout undergrad to earn 0.5-0.7 GPA points more than some of the people getting accepted only to be left waiting because of 1-2 questions out of 100 on a single test that easily could have been made up with a bit more sleep and luck. Is there any hope for local 166s or is it pointless?


Retake

LittleTree
Posts: 88
Joined: Tue Jun 19, 2012 7:34 pm

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

Postby LittleTree » Tue May 14, 2013 3:21 pm

eomea5 wrote:
epgenius wrote:
LittleTree wrote:167 still has a shot. I know many people with 167 who got $$. Kinda a useless post, I just don't want anyone to lose hope :)


So it seems that GPA is just a useless indicator of merit now. To me, and no offense to splitters, it feels like a slap in the face to have worked so hard throughout undergrad to earn 0.5-0.7 GPA points more than some of the people getting accepted only to be left waiting because of 1-2 questions out of 100 on a single test that easily could have been made up with a bit more sleep and luck. Is there any hope for local 166s or is it pointless?


completely with you on this one. busted my ass in undergrad to get a solid GPA, and now its coming down to a few silly points on some one-off test that appear to be the difference. aggravating.


You could have been waitlisted for a million reasons. Half the class is below their median LSAT so there certainly is still hope. People below median have gotten in with good $, applications can be strong or weak for many reasons. This late in the game no one can tell you your shot of getting in off of a waitlist based upon your #s.
Have you sent a LOCI? A good one? Perhaps even call and speak to Dean Schwartz, you could even request one of these fabled waitlist interviews.

User avatar
luxurylawyer
Posts: 213
Joined: Wed Feb 20, 2013 4:17 pm

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

Postby luxurylawyer » Tue May 14, 2013 3:57 pm

So it appears I am not going to get any love from UCLA. The interview went great, too, so I'm a bit confused.

epgenius
Posts: 166
Joined: Thu Sep 20, 2012 9:33 pm

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

Postby epgenius » Tue May 14, 2013 4:06 pm

ManOfTheMinute wrote:
epgenius wrote:
LittleTree wrote:167 still has a shot. I know many people with 167 who got $$. Kinda a useless post, I just don't want anyone to lose hope :)


So it seems that GPA is just a useless indicator of merit now. To me, and no offense to splitters, it feels like a slap in the face to have worked so hard throughout undergrad to earn 0.5-0.7 GPA points more than some of the people getting accepted only to be left waiting because of 1-2 questions out of 100 on a single test that easily could have been made up with a bit more sleep and luck. Is there any hope for local 166s or is it pointless?


Retake


I can't afford to retake. I know it's TLS's favorite method but I have to work and can't devote another 4-6 weeks studying full time.

epgenius
Posts: 166
Joined: Thu Sep 20, 2012 9:33 pm

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

Postby epgenius » Tue May 14, 2013 4:08 pm

LittleTree wrote:
eomea5 wrote:
epgenius wrote:
LittleTree wrote:167 still has a shot. I know many people with 167 who got $$. Kinda a useless post, I just don't want anyone to lose hope :)


So it seems that GPA is just a useless indicator of merit now. To me, and no offense to splitters, it feels like a slap in the face to have worked so hard throughout undergrad to earn 0.5-0.7 GPA points more than some of the people getting accepted only to be left waiting because of 1-2 questions out of 100 on a single test that easily could have been made up with a bit more sleep and luck. Is there any hope for local 166s or is it pointless?


completely with you on this one. busted my ass in undergrad to get a solid GPA, and now its coming down to a few silly points on some one-off test that appear to be the difference. aggravating.


You could have been waitlisted for a million reasons. Half the class is below their median LSAT so there certainly is still hope. People below median have gotten in with good $, applications can be strong or weak for many reasons. This late in the game no one can tell you your shot of getting in off of a waitlist based upon your #s.
Have you sent a LOCI? A good one? Perhaps even call and speak to Dean Schwartz, you could even request one of these fabled waitlist interviews.


I've sent in a couple LOCIs, visited the campus and spoke to Dean Schwartz. Still don't have any idea where I stand.

UncleStew
Posts: 47
Joined: Fri Mar 29, 2013 5:39 pm

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

Postby UncleStew » Tue May 14, 2013 5:11 pm

epgenius wrote:
LittleTree wrote:167 still has a shot. I know many people with 167 who got $$. Kinda a useless post, I just don't want anyone to lose hope :)


So it seems that GPA is just a useless indicator of merit now. To me, and no offense to splitters, it feels like a slap in the face to have worked so hard throughout undergrad to earn 0.5-0.7 GPA points more than some of the people getting accepted only to be left waiting because of 1-2 questions out of 100 on a single test that easily could have been made up with a bit more sleep and luck. Is there any hope for local 166s or is it pointless?


I think for some of us it is frustrating to hear this because some programs are more rigorous than others, some assign grades on a bell curve and some just give away 4.0s. So to suggest that GPA is good indicator of merit is probably not true at all. Without calling in Nate Silver to do a statistical analysis, Im going to guess GPA is going to be less correlated with merit than is LSAT score simply bc the LSAT is in a much more controlled environment. Personally I know that I spent countless hours in my program to earn a 3.5 and I highly doubt you worked any harder or deserve any more credit--perhaps I am wrong. Regardless, we know the game going in -- and truth is if you want to get into ucla with certainty you need a 168.

JesusChrist
Posts: 384
Joined: Wed Aug 25, 2010 12:44 am

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

Postby JesusChrist » Tue May 14, 2013 5:12 pm

epgenius wrote:
LittleTree wrote:167 still has a shot. I know many people with 167 who got $$. Kinda a useless post, I just don't want anyone to lose hope :)


So it seems that GPA is just a useless indicator of merit now. To me, and no offense to splitters, it feels like a slap in the face to have worked so hard throughout undergrad to earn 0.5-0.7 GPA points more than some of the people getting accepted only to be left waiting because of 1-2 questions out of 100 on a single test that easily could have been made up with a bit more sleep and luck. Is there any hope for local 166s or is it pointless?


I agree with you and understand why you're upset. But think about it this way, us splitters were delayed until the very end. I think when you get towards the accepting-off-WL stage of the cycle, it's just all about numbers and trying to hit your medians. So I'm sure all the other stuff on your application did matter to them when they first read it.

BigZuck
Posts: 10884
Joined: Tue Sep 04, 2012 9:53 am

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

Postby BigZuck » Tue May 14, 2013 5:14 pm

epgenius wrote:
ManOfTheMinute wrote:Retake


I can't afford to retake.


Retake

User avatar
StLNE
Posts: 84
Joined: Wed Nov 14, 2012 11:02 am

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

Postby StLNE » Tue May 14, 2013 5:14 pm

UncleStew wrote:
epgenius wrote:
LittleTree wrote:167 still has a shot. I know many people with 167 who got $$. Kinda a useless post, I just don't want anyone to lose hope :)


So it seems that GPA is just a useless indicator of merit now. To me, and no offense to splitters, it feels like a slap in the face to have worked so hard throughout undergrad to earn 0.5-0.7 GPA points more than some of the people getting accepted only to be left waiting because of 1-2 questions out of 100 on a single test that easily could have been made up with a bit more sleep and luck. Is there any hope for local 166s or is it pointless?


I think for some of us it is frustrating to hear this because some programs are more rigorous than others, some assign grades on a bell curve and some just give away 4.0s. So to suggest that GPA is good indicator of merit is probably not true at all. Without calling in Nate Silver to do a statistical analysis, Im going to guess GPA is going to be less correlated with merit than is LSAT score simply bc the LSAT is in a much more controlled environment. Personally I know that I spent countless hours in my program to earn a 3.5 and I highly doubt you worked any harder or deserve any more credit--perhaps I am wrong. Regardless, we know the game going in -- and truth is if you want to get into ucla with certainty you need a 168.



I agree. Not trying to flame this thread, but I personally believe there is a rational reason for the shift. There's an argument to be made that there is very little parity between undergraduate institutions. This is amplified further among majors (engineering/hard sciences vs. soft "sciences"). Law schools were forced to make a decision between the two metrics due to declining applications (coupled with rampant grade inflation by undergraduate institutions) and many chose to more heavily weight what they see as the more objective of the two standards in evaluating students. It's not a personal thing; I think they are simply attempting to adapt to their new reality while staying within established confines.

epgenius
Posts: 166
Joined: Thu Sep 20, 2012 9:33 pm

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

Postby epgenius » Tue May 14, 2013 5:15 pm

UncleStew wrote:
epgenius wrote:
LittleTree wrote:167 still has a shot. I know many people with 167 who got $$. Kinda a useless post, I just don't want anyone to lose hope :)


So it seems that GPA is just a useless indicator of merit now. To me, and no offense to splitters, it feels like a slap in the face to have worked so hard throughout undergrad to earn 0.5-0.7 GPA points more than some of the people getting accepted only to be left waiting because of 1-2 questions out of 100 on a single test that easily could have been made up with a bit more sleep and luck. Is there any hope for local 166s or is it pointless?


I think for some of us it is frustrating to hear this because some programs are more rigorous than others, some assign grades on a bell curve and some just give away 4.0s. So to suggest that GPA is good indicator of merit is probably not true at all. Without calling in Nate Silver to do a statistical analysis, Im going to guess GPA is going to be less correlated with merit than is LSAT score simply bc the LSAT is in a much more controlled environment. Personally I know that I spent countless hours in my program to earn a 3.5 and I highly doubt you worked any harder or deserve any more credit--perhaps I am wrong. Regardless, we know the game going in -- and truth is if you want to get into ucla with certainty you need a 168.


At those levels, I'm sure we are probably more equal (I got a 3.64) but there is much less variation when you take into consideration someone with 1 point more on the LSAT who got, say a 2.9, getting in over people in our position. Of course there is some grade inflation and there are discrepancies but it should not be to the point of rendering the difference between an A- and a B average arbitrary.

epgenius
Posts: 166
Joined: Thu Sep 20, 2012 9:33 pm

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

Postby epgenius » Thu May 16, 2013 2:26 pm

BigZuck wrote:
epgenius wrote:
ManOfTheMinute wrote:Retake


I can't afford to retake.


Retake


Pay me for 6 weeks of study time and I will gladly retake. You can PM me to find out where to send the $3,000...

corinnejay
Posts: 42
Joined: Tue Apr 12, 2011 6:02 pm

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

Postby corinnejay » Fri May 24, 2013 8:52 pm

I was offered 37.5k over 3 years. Do you think it would be possible to negotiate this up a bit? I was offered 65k at Vanderbilt but they already know that so I'm not sure if thats much help to me.




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

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: blackpi, potatocowpower, Yahoo [Bot] and 2 guests