UC Hastings c/o 2017 Applicants (2013-2014)

Share Your Experiences, Read About Other Experiences. Please keep posts organized by school and expected year of graduation.
User avatar
Cal Trask
Posts: 4720
Joined: Tue Nov 19, 2013 7:40 pm

Re: UC Hastings c/o 2017 Applicants (2013-2014)

Postby Cal Trask » Mon Feb 10, 2014 5:08 pm

Moonlight wrote:
I think most of us just don't want to live out there lol. But UoP has some nice dorms for law school students!


They're okay I guess. I have no desire to live in dorms anywhere though. Don't the studio and 1BR apartments in the Tower only have a mini-fridge? No thanks.

Moonlight
Posts: 753
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 2:19 am

Re: UC Hastings c/o 2017 Applicants (2013-2014)

Postby Moonlight » Mon Feb 10, 2014 5:15 pm

Cal Trask wrote:
Moonlight wrote:
I think most of us just don't want to live out there lol. But UoP has some nice dorms for law school students!


They're okay I guess. I have no desire to live in dorms anywhere though. Don't the studio and 1BR apartments in the Tower only have a mini-fridge? No thanks.


I actually haven't checked the tower since I won't live there. But the UoP ones look so spacious that its crazy.

User avatar
ManoftheHour
Posts: 3402
Joined: Tue Jan 22, 2013 6:03 pm

Re: UC Hastings c/o 2017 Applicants (2013-2014)

Postby ManoftheHour » Mon Feb 10, 2014 5:27 pm

Moonlight wrote:
I think most of us just don't want to live out there lol.


This is credited. lol. I did a long distance relationship with a girl that went there. It's nice once a month, but I can't see myself living there. It's even worse if you were expecting to live in a SF kind of place. Cow town vs. big city...

Moonlight
Posts: 753
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 2:19 am

Re: UC Hastings c/o 2017 Applicants (2013-2014)

Postby Moonlight » Mon Feb 10, 2014 6:13 pm

ManoftheHour wrote:
Moonlight wrote:
I think most of us just don't want to live out there lol.


This is credited. lol. I did a long distance relationship with a girl that went there. It's nice once a month, but I can't see myself living there. It's even worse if you were expecting to live in a SF kind of place. Cow town vs. big city...


lol exactly! And the fear of being stuck up there since that seems to be where Davis places more is not comforting.

User avatar
ManoftheHour
Posts: 3402
Joined: Tue Jan 22, 2013 6:03 pm

Re: UC Hastings c/o 2017 Applicants (2013-2014)

Postby ManoftheHour » Mon Feb 10, 2014 6:19 pm

Moonlight wrote:
ManoftheHour wrote:
Moonlight wrote:
I think most of us just don't want to live out there lol.


This is credited. lol. I did a long distance relationship with a girl that went there. It's nice once a month, but I can't see myself living there. It's even worse if you were expecting to live in a SF kind of place. Cow town vs. big city...


lol exactly! And the fear of being stuck up there since that seems to be where Davis places more is not comforting.


Man, the closest thing to Davis was Sacramento. And even then, it's an hour away. And even then, it's not SF.

User avatar
Cal Trask
Posts: 4720
Joined: Tue Nov 19, 2013 7:40 pm

Re: UC Hastings c/o 2017 Applicants (2013-2014)

Postby Cal Trask » Mon Feb 10, 2014 6:28 pm

ManoftheHour wrote:
Moonlight wrote:
ManoftheHour wrote:
Moonlight wrote:
I think most of us just don't want to live out there lol.


This is credited. lol. I did a long distance relationship with a girl that went there. It's nice once a month, but I can't see myself living there. It's even worse if you were expecting to live in a SF kind of place. Cow town vs. big city...


lol exactly! And the fear of being stuck up there since that seems to be where Davis places more is not comforting.


Man, the closest thing to Davis was Sacramento. And even then, it's an hour away. And even then, it's not SF.


Come on, Davis isn't that bad.

Moonlight
Posts: 753
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 2:19 am

Re: UC Hastings c/o 2017 Applicants (2013-2014)

Postby Moonlight » Mon Feb 10, 2014 6:30 pm

lol is Davis really an hour away from Sac? I thought it was closer? I know its like 70 miles from SF though

I was talking to this person at the grocery store in line and they were travelers from Japan and apparently even they've heard of Hastings. Guess it's more global than I thought.

User avatar
Cal Trask
Posts: 4720
Joined: Tue Nov 19, 2013 7:40 pm

Re: UC Hastings c/o 2017 Applicants (2013-2014)

Postby Cal Trask » Mon Feb 10, 2014 6:32 pm

Moonlight wrote:lol is Davis really an hour away from Sac? I thought it was closer? I know its like 70 miles from SF though

I was talking to this person at the grocery store in line and they were travelers from Japan and apparently even they've heard of Hastings. Guess it's more global than I thought.


It's like half an hour, depending on where in Sac you're going.

Also, don't bring up your law school admissions to strangers at the grocery store. That's weird, man.

Moonlight
Posts: 753
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 2:19 am

Re: UC Hastings c/o 2017 Applicants (2013-2014)

Postby Moonlight » Mon Feb 10, 2014 6:34 pm

Cal Trask wrote:
Moonlight wrote:lol is Davis really an hour away from Sac? I thought it was closer? I know its like 70 miles from SF though

I was talking to this person at the grocery store in line and they were travelers from Japan and apparently even they've heard of Hastings. Guess it's more global than I thought.


It's like half an hour, depending on where in Sac you're going.

Also, don't bring up your law school admissions to strangers at the grocery store. That's weird, man.


lol its a college town. I was wearing college gear and they were asking what I was going to do with my life so I mentioned law school and they asked where and I said probably Hastings. They recognized the name. I wouldn't do a full blown discussion of the admissions lol.

The drive up to Sac is so boring.

User avatar
ManoftheHour
Posts: 3402
Joined: Tue Jan 22, 2013 6:03 pm

Re: UC Hastings c/o 2017 Applicants (2013-2014)

Postby ManoftheHour » Mon Feb 10, 2014 6:43 pm

Cal Trask wrote:Come on, Davis isn't that bad.


It's not that bad. Just not awesome. Although, my friends that like the college town scene absolutely LOVE Davis. It really depends on you really.

Moonlight
Posts: 753
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 2:19 am

Re: UC Hastings c/o 2017 Applicants (2013-2014)

Postby Moonlight » Mon Feb 10, 2014 6:45 pm

ManoftheHour wrote:
Cal Trask wrote:Come on, Davis isn't that bad.


It's not that bad. Just not awesome. Although, my friends that like the college town scene absolutely LOVE Davis. It really depends on you really.


If I get in, I'll go check it out. I kind of view law school admitted events as fun weekend events.

User avatar
bkegslounge
Posts: 149
Joined: Fri Jan 03, 2014 1:26 pm

Re: UC Hastings c/o 2017 Applicants (2013-2014)

Postby bkegslounge » Mon Feb 10, 2014 7:13 pm

Moonlight wrote:
ManoftheHour wrote:
Cal Trask wrote:Come on, Davis isn't that bad.


It's not that bad. Just not awesome. Although, my friends that like the college town scene absolutely LOVE Davis. It really depends on you really.


If I get in, I'll go check it out. I kind of view law school admitted events as fun weekend events.

I've visited friends at Davis a couple times... it's not very impressive when stacked up against SF, Palo Alto, and Berkeley. But then again, I'm SoCal born and bred so what do I know, right?

Anyone hitting up the Hastings ASD on March 22?

User avatar
Cal Trask
Posts: 4720
Joined: Tue Nov 19, 2013 7:40 pm

Re: UC Hastings c/o 2017 Applicants (2013-2014)

Postby Cal Trask » Mon Feb 10, 2014 7:15 pm

bkegslounge wrote:
Moonlight wrote:
ManoftheHour wrote:
Cal Trask wrote:Come on, Davis isn't that bad.


It's not that bad. Just not awesome. Although, my friends that like the college town scene absolutely LOVE Davis. It really depends on you really.


If I get in, I'll go check it out. I kind of view law school admitted events as fun weekend events.

I've visited friends at Davis a couple times... it's not very impressive when stacked up against SF, Palo Alto, and Berkeley. But then again, I'm SoCal born and bred so what do I know, right?

Anyone hitting up the Hastings ASD on March 22?


I'll be in the area, but going to SCU that day since they're paying for it.

Moonlight
Posts: 753
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 2:19 am

Re: UC Hastings c/o 2017 Applicants (2013-2014)

Postby Moonlight » Mon Feb 10, 2014 7:20 pm

Content Deleted
Last edited by Moonlight on Sat Jul 11, 2015 1:08 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
follywood
Posts: 39
Joined: Sat Dec 21, 2013 2:37 pm

Re: UC Hastings c/o 2017 Applicants (2013-2014)

Postby follywood » Mon Feb 10, 2014 9:27 pm

Jamesta25 wrote:
follywood wrote:W/r/t tuition increases, though:

2011: $40,836 / $49,336
2012: $46,806 / $52,806
2013: $47,634 / $53,634 (Davis: $47,286 / $56,537)*

*The year Hastings became more expensive than Davis?

Also, I'm not sure where you are getting this information, as I looked this morning and the website states: "For the third year in a row, UC Hastings will not increase tuition in 2014"

The expected tuition for 2013-2014 is as follows, according to the website (http://www.uchastings.edu/admissions/jd ... /index.php):

$43,486 for in-state
$49,486 for out-of-state

Still obscenely expensive but not quite as bad as your figures show.


Jamesta, I pulled those numbers from Hastings' ABA Required Disclosures at http://www.uchastings.edu/about/consumer-info/index.php, under the section "Tuition and Fees (academic year)."

I wish I could insert some screen captures to show you, but I don't know how or whether it is permissible. In any event, let me update the numbers with sources:

2011: $40,836 / $49,336 (http://www.uchastings.edu/about/consumer-info/docs/2011_UC_Hastings_Std509.pdf)
2012: $46,806 / $52,806 (http://www.uchastings.edu/about/consumer-info/docs/2012_aba-509.pdf)
2013: $47,634 / $53,634 (http://www.uchastings.edu/about/consumer-info/docs/UC_Hastings_Std509_2013.pdf)

Actually, it looks like we're both right! My 2013 numbers ($47,634/$53,634) are your 2013 numbers ($43,486/$49,486) plus Activity Fee ($82), Health Services Fee ($618), and Health Insurance ($3,448). Hastings statement on health insurance: "Health insurance for UC Hastings students is mandatory; however entering students with proof of equivalent coverage can apply for a health insurance waiver. If the waiver is approved, the insurance charge will be reversed."

So, for those who entered Hastings with their own health insurance, the adjusted 2013-2014 tuition would be $44,186/$50,186.

User avatar
follywood
Posts: 39
Joined: Sat Dec 21, 2013 2:37 pm

Re: UC Hastings c/o 2017 Applicants (2013-2014)

Postby follywood » Mon Feb 10, 2014 10:42 pm

ManoftheHour wrote:
deebanger wrote:Guys, what is your general take on Davis having better employment numbers than Hastings, do you all agree that the reality is that Davis grads are getting more jobs than hastings grads?. would love to get your thoughts/opinions.

http://www.lstscorereports.com/?school=hastings
http://www.lstscorereports.com/?school=davis


I think it's justified. Numbers don't lie. These numbers came from the ABA.


Numbers may not lie, but sometimes the truth isn't always clear.

First of all, when it comes to percentages, Davis has Hastings beat. For full-time, long-term jobs requiring passage of bar:

Class of 2012: Hastings @ 46.3% vs. Davis @ 61.4%
Class of 2011: Hastings @ 46.5% vs. Davis @ 56.4%
Class of 2010: Hastings @ 52.3% vs. Davis @ 64.9%
Class of 2009: Hastings @ 62% vs. Davis @ 69%*

*Class of 2009 sourced by LST from US News rather than schools and may require additional scrutiny.

Now, the numbers of those employed over those total graduates reporting, from the class of 2012:

Class of 2012: Hastings @ 205/435 (46.3%) vs. Davis @ 125/202 (61.8%)

(sources: https://www.law.ucdavis.edu/prospective/career-services/statistics.html & http://www.uchastings.edu/about/consumer-info/index.php)

Unfortunately, I can't find the hard numbers of prior Davis years.

Anyway, yes, Davis has a much larger percentage over Hastings, but Hastings employed 64% more people in long-term, full-time legal jobs than Davis in 2012.

During this same year, Hastings enrolled 317 1Ls, 27% fewer students than those graduating. We know that attrition exists, but for the sake of this thread, let's pretend that in 2016, 317 3Ls graduate. If the average number from 2011 (191) and 2012 (205), 198, find long-term, full-time legal jobs, then that would put the percentage at 62.4%. This, of course, is theoretical optimism. How about if only 46% of the graduates find these jobs? That's 145. If we average those? About 172, or 54.2%.

The fact is, Hastings has become more selective. Hard numbers cannot tell the whole story, and there are so many variables we just don't and can't know. Think of everything the administrations at both schools know! Of course Hastings is trying to reposition itself after some disappointing percentages in the last few years.

However, if you want safe employment numbers, limit yourself to the schools with the vast majority employed, which, I would argue, include neither Hastings nor Davis. With the numbers we have evaluated, it is easy to forget about those Hastings grads employed and those Davis grads unemployed, or where those employed went and continued lives in the field of law, or how they are using the J.D. their jobs require (e.g. lawyer vs. clerkship).

Here is a list, drawn from LST, in descending order, of schools ranked using employment parameters: http://www.thefacultylounge.org/2013/04/a-cleaner-ranking-of-schools-long-term-full-time-employment-minus-law-school-funded-jobs.html

Or, here, I'll save you some time:

1. Stanford
2. UC Berkeley
3. UC Davis
4. UC Hastings
5. Santa Clara University
6. McGeorge (University of the Pacific)
7. University of San Francisco
8. Golden Gate University

Perhaps someone has information regarding Bay Area law firms and the schools from which their lawyers graduated from?

californiauser
Posts: 1183
Joined: Sun Jul 01, 2012 1:10 am

Re: UC Hastings c/o 2017 Applicants (2013-2014)

Postby californiauser » Mon Feb 10, 2014 11:51 pm

follywood wrote:
The fact is, Hastings has become more selective. Hard numbers cannot tell the whole story, and there are so many variables we just don't and can't know. Think of everything the administrations at both schools know! Of course Hastings is trying to reposition itself after some disappointing percentages in the last few years.

However, if you want safe employment numbers, limit yourself to the schools with the vast majority employed, which, I would argue, include neither Hastings nor Davis. With the numbers we have evaluated, it is easy to forget about those Hastings grads employed and those Davis grads unemployed, or where those employed went and continued lives in the field of law, or how they are using the J.D. their jobs require (e.g. lawyer vs. clerkship).


Alright, time to stop drinking the Hastings Kool-Aid. This is flat out wrong.

User avatar
follywood
Posts: 39
Joined: Sat Dec 21, 2013 2:37 pm

Re: UC Hastings c/o 2017 Applicants (2013-2014)

Postby follywood » Tue Feb 11, 2014 12:15 am

californiauser wrote:
follywood wrote:
The fact is, Hastings has become more selective. Hard numbers cannot tell the whole story, and there are so many variables we just don't and can't know. Think of everything the administrations at both schools know! Of course Hastings is trying to reposition itself after some disappointing percentages in the last few years.

However, if you want safe employment numbers, limit yourself to the schools with the vast majority employed, which, I would argue, include neither Hastings nor Davis. With the numbers we have evaluated, it is easy to forget about those Hastings grads employed and those Davis grads unemployed, or where those employed went and continued lives in the field of law, or how they are using the J.D. their jobs require (e.g. lawyer vs. clerkship).


Alright, time to stop drinking the Hastings Kool-Aid. This is flat out wrong.


Hi, californiauser. I'm glad you called me out for making a broad claim. I support that. Arguably, they have not become more selective. After all, applicant numbers are down (as they are all over the nation). Perhaps they are selecting using the identical process of applicant selection they have been using since it was last modified, if at all.

But neither of us can deny that the administration is intentionally reducing their student body. USA Today, WSJ, and Above the Law reported it in May, 2012 (http://abovethelaw.com/2012/05/the-hastings-gambit/). Their recent reductions reflect this. I suppose that an intentional 20% reduction in class size translates, at least for me, into some increase in selectivity of the applicant pool. But I have no proof of this.

Of course, please correct me if I am flat-out wrong about anything. I don't want to mislead anybody, including myself.

User avatar
Icecold62
Posts: 157
Joined: Fri Feb 07, 2014 2:40 am

Re: UC Hastings c/o 2017 Applicants (2013-2014)

Postby Icecold62 » Tue Feb 11, 2014 2:13 pm

ok, have I asked if hastings has a status checker? I feel like it should (I also feel like I should have heard from all of the schools I applied to by now.... oh well). anyways, do they?

User avatar
Cal Trask
Posts: 4720
Joined: Tue Nov 19, 2013 7:40 pm

Re: UC Hastings c/o 2017 Applicants (2013-2014)

Postby Cal Trask » Tue Feb 11, 2014 2:20 pm

Icecold62 wrote:ok, have I asked if hastings has a status checker? I feel like it should (I also feel like I should have heard from all of the schools I applied to by now.... oh well). anyways, do they?


It does not have a status checker.

User avatar
Icecold62
Posts: 157
Joined: Fri Feb 07, 2014 2:40 am

Re: UC Hastings c/o 2017 Applicants (2013-2014)

Postby Icecold62 » Tue Feb 11, 2014 2:27 pm

bugger. so no more statuses left to check. ah well not like they did much anyways, just gave me more proof that nothing had changed

User avatar
Cal Trask
Posts: 4720
Joined: Tue Nov 19, 2013 7:40 pm

Re: UC Hastings c/o 2017 Applicants (2013-2014)

Postby Cal Trask » Tue Feb 11, 2014 2:39 pm

Icecold62 wrote:bugger. so no more statuses left to check. ah well not like they did much anyways, just gave me more proof that nothing had changed


Second time you asked by the way. Chill out, bro.

User avatar
Icecold62
Posts: 157
Joined: Fri Feb 07, 2014 2:40 am

Re: UC Hastings c/o 2017 Applicants (2013-2014)

Postby Icecold62 » Tue Feb 11, 2014 2:47 pm

Cal Trask wrote:
Icecold62 wrote:bugger. so no more statuses left to check. ah well not like they did much anyways, just gave me more proof that nothing had changed


Second time you asked by the way. Chill out, bro.


Meh, it isnt so much anxiety as boredum. I also forget, applying to 13 schools seemed smart, now its hard keeping track of everything.

User avatar
ManoftheHour
Posts: 3402
Joined: Tue Jan 22, 2013 6:03 pm

Re: UC Hastings c/o 2017 Applicants (2013-2014)

Postby ManoftheHour » Tue Feb 11, 2014 4:20 pm

follywood wrote:But neither of us can deny that the administration is intentionally reducing their student body. USA Today, WSJ, and Above the Law reported it in May, 2012 (http://abovethelaw.com/2012/05/the-hastings-gambit/). Their recent reductions reflect this. I suppose that an intentional 20% reduction in class size translates, at least for me, into some increase in selectivity of the applicant pool. But I have no proof of this.

Of course, please correct me if I am flat-out wrong about anything. I don't want to mislead anybody, including myself.


No. Just no.

This is TTT reasoning, dawg:

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc ... XZnc#gid=0

Hastings INCREASED their class size last year by 14 people while letting their LSAT 25th/50th/75th FALL about 3 points each (almost. Their 75th fell by only 2). Their MEDIAN is now under 160. The median LSAT for Hastings for the last entering class is 159.

User avatar
follywood
Posts: 39
Joined: Sat Dec 21, 2013 2:37 pm

Re: UC Hastings c/o 2017 Applicants (2013-2014)

Postby follywood » Tue Feb 11, 2014 8:25 pm

ManoftheHour wrote:
follywood wrote:But neither of us can deny that the administration is intentionally reducing their student body. USA Today, WSJ, and Above the Law reported it in May, 2012 (http://abovethelaw.com/2012/05/the-hastings-gambit/). Their recent reductions reflect this. I suppose that an intentional 20% reduction in class size translates, at least for me, into some increase in selectivity of the applicant pool. But I have no proof of this.

Of course, please correct me if I am flat-out wrong about anything. I don't want to mislead anybody, including myself.


No. Just no.

This is TTT reasoning, dawg:

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc ... XZnc#gid=0

Hastings INCREASED their class size last year by 14 people while letting their LSAT 25th/50th/75th FALL about 3 points each (almost. Their 75th fell by only 2). Their MEDIAN is now under 160. The median LSAT for Hastings for the last entering class is 159.


ManoftheHour, I like that document. Thanks for sharing it. Also, you're right about the LSATs going down.

As for TTT reasoning, I don't know what that means. But, perhaps I haven't been clear about my sources and dates. Here are the numbers of the entering classes from the last three year at Hastings:

2011: 414 (source: http://www.uchastings.edu/about/consumer-info/docs/2011_UC_Hastings_Std509.pdf)
2012: 317 (source: http://www.uchastings.edu/about/consumer-info/docs/2012_aba-509.pdf)
2013: 333 (source: http://www.uchastings.edu/about/consumer-info/docs/UC_Hastings_Std509_2013.pdf)

In 2012, Hastings cut its admissions by about 23% and increased it by 4% in 2013. As far as I see it--and, please, correct me if I'm mistaken--that is about in line with the dean's goal, laid out in 2012 (and sourced above), of reducing the class sizes by 20%. If you don't think that is intentional, please explain why.

The median LSAT scores dropped. No doubt about it. Perhaps there is a correlation between the reduction in class size (-20ish%) and the tradition of admitting 20% of the incoming class through LEOP (source for LEOP proportion: http://www.uchastings.edu/academics/education/leop/apply/index.php)? What do you think?

Anyway, I don't mean to offend you or anyone else. I'm really trying to be reasonable and respectful. I just want to have an informed discussion. Although you may not be seriously considering this school, a lot of people are.




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

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: beluckycrimson, Christinabruin, YasTheSpaz and 5 guests