Berkeley 2010

Share Your Experiences, Read About Other Experiences. Please keep posts organized by school and expected year of graduation.
wired
Posts: 472
Joined: Tue Jun 23, 2009 2:29 pm

Re: Berkeley 2010

Postby wired » Fri Nov 20, 2009 6:05 pm

crackberry wrote:The Pac-10 is the second best conference in college football this year, and one could make the argument that, top-to-bottom, it's the best. Yes, the SEC has three really good teams, but after UF, Alabama and LSU, everyone sucks. The Big 12 is legitimately terrible this year (I think Texas will get destroyed in the title game). The Big 10 has been awful for years. The Big East and ACC are always jokes except for VT occasionally. When it comes down to it, the Pac-10 is the country's most exciting, most balanced conference this season.


Not to hi-jack this thread, but let me point out: Boise State 19, Oregon, the presumptive Pac 10 champ, 8.

I don't think that anyone can really lay claim to second best this year. There's the SEC (I don't think everyone else sucks... Tennessee is better than most people thought they would be, Arkansas is alright but not amazing by any stretch of the imagination) and then there's the Big 10, Pac-10, Big 12 and then there's the (blatant MWC troll coming...) MWC, Big 10 and the ACC.

I think it is quite possible that USC has been the most overrated team for most of the season. They managed to make Notre Dame look like they were a competitor. I think the Pac 10 is good, but I just think there's too much parity across college football to claim they are superior to the other conferences around them.

User avatar
crackberry
Posts: 3252
Joined: Thu Sep 17, 2009 3:23 pm

Re: Berkeley 2010

Postby crackberry » Fri Nov 20, 2009 6:07 pm

wired wrote:Not to hi-jack this thread, but let me point out: Boise State 19, Oregon, the presumptive Pac 10 champ, 8.

I don't think that anyone can really lay claim to second best this year. There's the SEC (I don't think everyone else sucks... Tennessee is better than most people thought they would be, Arkansas is alright but not amazing by any stretch of the imagination) and then there's the Big 10, Pac-10, Big 12 and then there's the (blatant MWC troll coming...) MWC, Big 10 and the ACC.

I think it is quite possible that USC has been the most overrated team for most of the season. They managed to make Notre Dame look like they were a competitor. I think the Pac 10 is good, but I just think there's too much parity across college football to claim they are superior to the other conferences around them.

Didn't Tennessee lose to Cal? And Cal's not even one of the top 4 teams in the Pac-10. Yes, USC is and was overrated. But they still beat Big 10 champ Ohio State in Columbus. What does that say about the Big 10?

User avatar
bilbobaggins
Posts: 686
Joined: Sat Oct 25, 2008 3:41 pm

Re: Berkeley 2010

Postby bilbobaggins » Fri Nov 20, 2009 6:15 pm

crackberry wrote:
bilbobaggins wrote:
crackberry wrote:
bilbobaggins wrote:I definitely agree. Ours are far superior.

But we have the superior team.

Also, and I'm not saying Stanford UGs are awesome, but we did have some somewhat racy shirts knocking Cal. I mean "9-time NCAA Bukkake Champions." Pretty nasty.


It's the Pac-10. You'll only be able to say that if you beat us on Saturday.

True, and while we should beat you guys, it's by no means a sure thing. It never is with Stanford Football.

That said, I don't know why "It's the Pac-10" is a relevant comment. The Pac-10 is the second best conference in college football this year, and one could make the argument that, top-to-bottom, it's the best. Yes, the SEC has three really good teams, but after UF, Alabama and LSU, everyone sucks. The Big 12 is legitimately terrible this year (I think Texas will get destroyed in the title game). The Big 10 has been awful for years. The Big East and ACC are always jokes except for VT occasionally. When it comes down to it, the Pac-10 is the country's most exciting, most balanced conference this season.


Dude, calm down.

I love the Pac-10. By "it's the Pac-10" I mean we have a conference with a lot of good teams that play wide open, offense heavy football where anything can happen on any given day, which we've certainly seen this season.

User avatar
crackberry
Posts: 3252
Joined: Thu Sep 17, 2009 3:23 pm

Re: Berkeley 2010

Postby crackberry » Fri Nov 20, 2009 6:32 pm

bilbobaggins wrote:Dude, calm down.

I love the Pac-10. By "it's the Pac-10" I mean we have a conference with a lot of good teams that play wide open, offense heavy football where anything can happen on any given day, which we've certainly seen this season.

Yeah I was never all that amped up about it. Sorry if I gave off that impression. And yes, you're right, there is no defense this year in the Pac-10, though I wouldn't call Stanford's offense "wide open." It's more of a punch-you-in-the-gut power running game ala 1980s/1990s Big 10.

User avatar
Kronk
Posts: 27945
Joined: Sat Dec 27, 2008 9:18 pm

Re: Berkeley 2010

Postby Kronk » Fri Nov 20, 2009 6:36 pm

Let's be honest. Cal has been entirely unimpressive this year. Huge disappointment for Berkeley fans. USC is in the same boat. Stanford has overachieved, as has Oregon, and those are the only two really legit teams at this point in the season.

The SEC and Big XII are both generally better than the Pac-10. This year, the SEC is definitely better (South Carolina, Arkansas, Mississippi, and even Kentucky / Tennessee DO NOT suck). The SEC has three teams that would win the Pac-10 in Florida, Alabama, and LSU. I wouldn't put it past South Carolina or Mississippi, either.

The Big XII is a little down, but Texas would demolish any Pac-10 team, Oklahoma would too if not for Bradford's injury, Oklahoma State is pretty great as well and could challenge Stanford or Oregon (probably beat them) and Nebraska, Texas Tech, and Kansas aren't scrubs.

sfdreaming09
Posts: 273
Joined: Tue Oct 20, 2009 12:54 pm

Re: Berkeley 2010

Postby sfdreaming09 » Fri Nov 20, 2009 6:47 pm

irie wrote:
sfdreaming09 wrote:
For OOS, it is currently at 48.7K. It will rise to 52.2K in 2010, 54.8K in 2011, and 57.6K in 2012.

This is truly a shame.


heya just wondering-- where did you get these numbers from? or is it speculation?


Dont have the link with me, but i think it was in the LA Times or something.

User avatar
crackberry
Posts: 3252
Joined: Thu Sep 17, 2009 3:23 pm

Re: Berkeley 2010

Postby crackberry » Fri Nov 20, 2009 6:49 pm

VoidSix wrote:Let's be honest. Cal has been entirely unimpressive this year. Huge disappointment for Berkeley fans. USC is in the same boat. Stanford has overachieved, as has Oregon, and those are the only two really legit teams at this point in the season.

The SEC and Big XII are both generally better than the Pac-10. This year, the SEC is definitely better (South Carolina, Arkansas, Mississippi, and even Kentucky / Tennessee DO NOT suck). The SEC has three teams that would win the Pac-10 in Florida, Alabama, and LSU. I wouldn't put it past South Carolina or Mississippi, either.

The Big XII is a little down, but Texas would demolish any Pac-10 team, Oklahoma would too if not for Bradford's injury, Oklahoma State is pretty great as well and could challenge Stanford or Oregon (probably beat them) and Nebraska, Texas Tech, and Kansas aren't scrubs.

I will concede that the SEC is better, though I would argue that Ole Miss has underachieved and disappointed more than Cal. Snead was never a good QB. And some of those teams - particularly Kentucky and Tennessee - are really not that good.

However, the Big 12 is actually really bad. Let's forget about the disaster that is the Big 12 North for a moment because those teams are embarrassing. Texas is good, but I really don't think they're as good as everyone says and when they play UF/Alabama in the title game, I think they'll be exposed as the charlatans they are. Oklahoma State is okay, but they play in an overrated conference so they get too much credit. They got mauled by UT and barely squeaked past TERRIBLE Colorado last night at home with a possible BCS at-large bid on the line. Oklahoma may have been better with Bradford, but can you really say they would DEMOLISH any Pac 10 team? I don't think so.

User avatar
gymboree
Posts: 504
Joined: Mon Oct 12, 2009 11:48 am

Re: Berkeley 2010

Postby gymboree » Fri Nov 20, 2009 11:27 pm

All this is to say, no, there's no more movement yet I take it.

User avatar
Kronk
Posts: 27945
Joined: Sat Dec 27, 2008 9:18 pm

Re: Berkeley 2010

Postby Kronk » Sat Nov 21, 2009 12:19 am

crackberry wrote:However, the Big 12 is actually really bad. Let's forget about the disaster that is the Big 12 North for a moment because those teams are embarrassing. Texas is good, but I really don't think they're as good as everyone says and when they play UF/Alabama in the title game, I think they'll be exposed as the charlatans they are. Oklahoma State is okay, but they play in an overrated conference so they get too much credit. They got mauled by UT and barely squeaked past TERRIBLE Colorado last night at home with a possible BCS at-large bid on the line. Oklahoma may have been better with Bradford, but can you really say they would DEMOLISH any Pac 10 team? I don't think so.


Oklahoma State was playing without a starting QB last night. In addition, Oklahoma would definitely demolish most Pac-10 teams with Bradford, and I think would easily beat Stanford, Cal, USC, or Oregon as well. Nebraska's offense hasn't been so hot, but I doubt any of the current Pac-10 teams minus Stanford or UO could put up many points on an offense with Suh on sack-patrol.

The fact of the matter is that the Pac-10, for the most part, is a one-man show with USC. This year, USC's losses have made the Pac-10 look good, when really it is just as likely that USC is just bad (I mean they almost lost to Charlie Weis). The Big XII is superior to the Pac-10 nine out of ten years, with Texas, Oklahoma, and Nebraska being Top-10 programs all-time. Even in a down year like this year, with a lot of injuries, they're still not "really bad." They beat up on each other most years, much like the SEC.

User avatar
crackberry
Posts: 3252
Joined: Thu Sep 17, 2009 3:23 pm

Re: Berkeley 2010

Postby crackberry » Sat Nov 21, 2009 12:49 am

VoidSix wrote:Oklahoma State was playing without a starting QB last night. In addition, Oklahoma would definitely demolish most Pac-10 teams with Bradford, and I think would easily beat Stanford, Cal, USC, or Oregon as well. Nebraska's offense hasn't been so hot, but I doubt any of the current Pac-10 teams minus Stanford or UO could put up many points on an offense with Suh on sack-patrol.

The fact of the matter is that the Pac-10, for the most part, is a one-man show with USC. This year, USC's losses have made the Pac-10 look good, when really it is just as likely that USC is just bad (I mean they almost lost to Charlie Weis). The Big XII is superior to the Pac-10 nine out of ten years, with Texas, Oklahoma, and Nebraska being Top-10 programs all-time. Even in a down year like this year, with a lot of injuries, they're still not "really bad." They beat up on each other most years, much like the SEC.

You're absolutely right that in most years the Big XII is way better than the Pac 10. My point is that THIS YEAR, the Pac 10 is better. And that takes into account injuries, etc. I suppose the best test of this will be the Holiday Bowl, where one of Stanford/Arizona/Oregon/Oregon State/USC will play what is supposed to be the second best team in the Big XII — likely either Nebraska or Okla. State, assuming Okla. State doesn't get an undeserved at-large bid to a BCS bowl. I'd be willing to bet that Stanford, Oregon and USC would all beat Okla. State/Nebraska, and I wouldn't bet on the latter two against Arizona or Oregon State either.

User avatar
los blancos
Posts: 7116
Joined: Mon Apr 21, 2008 4:18 pm

Re: Berkeley 2010

Postby los blancos » Sat Nov 21, 2009 3:42 am

So wait, do you guys seriously think the tuition hikes will affect the kind of applicants that Berk is able to attract? Does this mean I have a shot!? :mrgreen:

User avatar
SanBun
Posts: 560
Joined: Sun May 31, 2009 10:19 pm

Re: Berkeley 2010

Postby SanBun » Sat Nov 21, 2009 12:51 pm

does anyone know whether acceptances have gone out in the past days?

looks like we're gonna have to wait a little longer for the "big" waves

User avatar
letsgojayhawks
Posts: 179
Joined: Wed Aug 19, 2009 12:43 am

Re: Berkeley 2010

Postby letsgojayhawks » Sat Nov 21, 2009 3:08 pm

boilercat wrote:So wait, do you guys seriously think the tuition hikes will affect the kind of applicants that Berk is able to attract? Does this mean I have a shot!? :mrgreen:


Of course it will. Very few people can afford to pay that much in tuition, especially with the market for lawyers the way it is and Berkeley's LRAP as average as it is. It doesn't necessarily mean that you have a better shot, though. If it actually has a substantial effect on the applicant pool, it won't show up until after this cycle, IMO.

User avatar
Kronk
Posts: 27945
Joined: Sat Dec 27, 2008 9:18 pm

Re: Berkeley 2010

Postby Kronk » Sat Nov 21, 2009 3:23 pm

There are a considerable amount of people that have similar stats as the people that would normally attend Berkeley, but perhaps not the softs they normally want. They probably waitlist quite a bit of this group normally, and I would imagine they'll have to dig a lot deeper into their waitlist with the new tuition than they normally would. Who knows. I think a lot of people without the numbers for HYSCCN will end up at Michigan, Virginia or even Duke / G-Town / Cornell over Berkeley. At this point, I would definitely consider Duke over Cal. Definitely get a bigger scholarship at Duke, cheaper CoL, 41K for tuition as opposed to 50K+, etc.

Although my friend just emailed me and said Berktown is rallying for lower tuition! The cops used tear gas on a group of a students a few days ago! Fight the power!

User avatar
alirod12
Posts: 138
Joined: Sat Oct 04, 2008 2:47 pm

Re: Berkeley 2010

Postby alirod12 » Sat Nov 21, 2009 4:37 pm

EMRose, we'll be out there around Dec. 2nd. Cycle seems sweet so far, no huge acceptances but the UT scholly was great surprise. What about you?

User avatar
Emma.
Posts: 2401
Joined: Sun Oct 05, 2008 7:57 pm

Re: Berkeley 2010

Postby Emma. » Sat Nov 21, 2009 4:51 pm

alirod12 wrote:EMRose, we'll be out there around Dec. 2nd. Cycle seems sweet so far, no huge acceptances but the UT scholly was great surprise. What about you?


I'll be back on Sunday for meetings and stuff... not really ready yet.

No word about my cycle yet, except that Duke want me to come to Durham to interview. :|

I didn't get apps in very early, was planning to get my essays finished between the Sept exam but was kinda burnt out. Didn't submit apps til the last week of Oct.

Woah, I hadn't seen your scholly offer from UT. Congrats!!

edited for grammar.
Last edited by Emma. on Sat Nov 21, 2009 7:03 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Legacy316
Posts: 268
Joined: Sun May 25, 2008 5:57 am

Re: Berkeley 2010

Postby Legacy316 » Sat Nov 21, 2009 6:57 pm

I wonder why some people hear back from Berkeley so early.... ???

User avatar
Dignan
Posts: 1110
Joined: Sun Feb 08, 2009 5:52 pm

Re: Berkeley 2010

Postby Dignan » Sat Nov 21, 2009 7:04 pm

Legacy316 wrote:I wonder why some people hear back from Berkeley so early.... ???

I, too, find this odd. It's like they pick five admits to call two or three weeks before the first wave of acceptances.

User avatar
alirod12
Posts: 138
Joined: Sat Oct 04, 2008 2:47 pm

Re: Berkeley 2010

Postby alirod12 » Sat Nov 21, 2009 7:34 pm

Chumming the water as they say "Let the frenzy begin".

User avatar
Kronk
Posts: 27945
Joined: Sat Dec 27, 2008 9:18 pm

Re: Berkeley 2010

Postby Kronk » Sat Nov 21, 2009 8:01 pm

There is going to be a big wave Tuesday and Wednesday.

User avatar
danidancer
Posts: 841
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2007 9:46 pm

Re: Berkeley 2010

Postby danidancer » Sat Nov 21, 2009 8:27 pm

letsgojayhawks wrote:If it actually has a substantial effect on the applicant pool, it won't show up until after this cycle, IMO.


I disagree. This is big news, and, TLS aside, most people don't apply until January. I also think it will have a big effect on their yield as admits start comparing offers with cheaper T14s. It might impact next year's cycle MORE than this, but I definitely think there will be some significant ramifications during our cycle too.



Edited b/c I am a dumbass and, apparently, don't know the difference between effect/affect. :D
Last edited by danidancer on Sat Nov 21, 2009 8:38 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Legacy316
Posts: 268
Joined: Sun May 25, 2008 5:57 am

Re: Berkeley 2010

Postby Legacy316 » Sat Nov 21, 2009 8:29 pm

danidancer wrote:
letsgojayhawks wrote:If it actually has a substantial effect on the applicant pool, it won't show up until after this cycle, IMO.


I disagree. This is big news, and, TLS aside, most people don't apply until January. I also think it will have a big affect on their yield as admits start comparing offers with cheaper T14s. It might impact next year's cycle MORE than this, but I definitely think there will be some significant ramifications during our cycle too.


+1

User avatar
kurama20
Posts: 675
Joined: Thu May 24, 2007 5:04 pm

Re: Berkeley 2010

Postby kurama20 » Sat Nov 21, 2009 9:01 pm

Legacy316 wrote:
danidancer wrote:
letsgojayhawks wrote:If it actually has a substantial effect on the applicant pool, it won't show up until after this cycle, IMO.


I disagree. This is big news, and, TLS aside, most people don't apply until January. I also think it will have a big affect on their yield as admits start comparing offers with cheaper T14s. It might impact next year's cycle MORE than this, but I definitely think there will be some significant ramifications during our cycle too.


+1



+100

southxii
Posts: 78
Joined: Sun Nov 08, 2009 7:11 am

Re: Berkeley 2010

Postby southxii » Sat Nov 21, 2009 9:23 pm

VoidSix wrote:There is going to be a big wave Tuesday and Wednesday.


Ok. How do we know this? Not doubting you, but i would like to know your source.

User avatar
SanBun
Posts: 560
Joined: Sun May 31, 2009 10:19 pm

Re: Berkeley 2010

Postby SanBun » Sat Nov 21, 2009 9:29 pm

southxii wrote: Ok. How do we know this? Not doubting you, but i would like to know your source.


+ 1 ?




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

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Nickel94 and 7 guests