Berkeley Haters Forum

[worldtraveler]

By comparison, Stanford Law in 2009-10 is $42,420 and Harvard Law is $43,900. Those will undoubtedly rise, but probably not to the extent of Berkeley's increase.

does this statement have any basis in fact?

because everything i've read and heard about the matter (which is not a small amount) suggests otherwise.

Berkeley's tuition in 2009-10 is $36,485. It goes to $44,220 in 2010-11. That's an increase of 21% as Berkeley/UC has embarked on the most aggressive tuition hike campaign in the country.

For the other schools to hike tuition by the same 21% would mean Stanford would charge $51,300 and Harvard would charge $53,100 in 2010-11. Could it happen? Sure. Is it likely? Probably not. The factors that have led UC down this path have not affected Stanford, Harvard or any of the other T14 schools in the same way.

She's talking about the actual amount of tuition, not percentage of increase. Most schools in the T10 are at or near 44k already.

[beef wellington]

I haven't noticed Berkeley haters on TLS. None have even showed up to this thread really.

[fidesverita]

Sadly people don't believe it's "deserving" of its ranking because it's a public school... which is total bs reasoning, of course. I say all the more power to Cal!

[beef wellington]

See I haven't seen any public school haters on here either. I have seen people say that Berkeley doesn't deserve its ranking, but it's supposedly because they've been gaming the USNWR system. How they've been doing this, and how it compares to other schools, I do not know.

[ughOSU]

Berkeley was far and away my top choice... until they started jacking up tuition like crazy. That's why I'm bitter at least. But my UG GPA is not berkeley material, so I doubt I'll have to choose anyway.

[Unemployed]

For many on TLS - their respect for a given school is determined by its LSAT range. Hence, Berkeley should not be anywhere near T6 (or so the unspoken argument goes)

[UCInfo]

By comparison, Stanford Law in 2009-10 is $42,420 and Harvard Law is $43,900. Those will undoubtedly rise, but probably not to the extent of Berkeley's increase.

does this statement have any basis in fact?

because everything i've read and heard about the matter (which is not a small amount) suggests otherwise.

Berkeley's tuition in 2009-10 is $36,485. It goes to $44,220 in 2010-11. That's an increase of 21% as Berkeley/UC has embarked on the most aggressive tuition hike campaign in the country.

For the other schools to hike tuition by the same 21% would mean Stanford would charge $51,300 and Harvard would charge $53,100 in 2010-11. Could it happen? Sure. Is it likely? Probably not. The factors that have led UC down this path have not affected Stanford, Harvard or any of the other T14 schools in the same way.

She's talking about the actual amount of tuition, not percentage of increase. Most schools in the T10 are at or near 44k already.

Fair enough. Sorry if I was unclear in my original post, but I was talking about percentage all along. I was responding to a different poster who was referring to the tuition savings at Berkeley relative to other top schools, and my point was that there is no relative savings any more.

[Doritos]

For many on TLS - their respect for a given school is determined by its LSAT range. Hence, Berkeley should not be anywhere near T6 (or so the unspoken argument goes)

Then where's UVA with its 170 median?!?! MVP = trash. VMP = win.

ps: I am in no way trolling for UVA I am an objective and impartial observer of fact and reason.

[ughOSU]

For many on TLS - their respect for a given school is determined by its LSAT range. Hence, Berkeley should not be anywhere near T6 (or so the unspoken argument goes)

Then where's UVA with its 170 median?!?! MVP = trash. VMP = win.

ps: I am in no way trolling for UVA I am an objective and impartial observer of fact and reason.

It is solidly behind the schools with a 171 median.

[Doritos]

For many on TLS - their respect for a given school is determined by its LSAT range. Hence, Berkeley should not be anywhere near T6 (or so the unspoken argument goes)

Then where's UVA with its 170 median?!?! MVP = trash. VMP = win.

ps: I am in no way trolling for UVA I am an objective and impartial observer of fact and reason.

It is solidly behind the schools with a 171 median.

Your logic is sound. Next year when UVA's median is 172 (due to the copious amount of dollars it throws at the high LSAT earners due to all the ED kids they don't have to give any scholarship money to) we can talk about HYV. I mean UVA's median GPA is just behind Stttanford's anyways. Better jump on the UVA ship...next stop...guaranteed biglaw for everyone!!

[vanwinkle]

Your logic is sound. Next year when UVA's median is 172 (due to the copious amount of dollars it throws at the high LSAT earners due to all the ED kids they don't have to give any scholarship money to) we can talk about HYV. I mean UVA's median GPA is just behind Stttanford's anyways. Better jump on the UVA ship...next stop...guaranteed biglaw for everyone!!

I love UVA, but there's no way it's jumping its LSAT median two points in a year.

[postitnotes]

For the other schools to hike tuition by the same 21% would mean Stanford would charge $51,300 and Harvard would charge $53,100 in 2010-11. Could it happen? Sure. Is it likely? Probably not. The factors that have led UC down this path have not affected Stanford, Harvard or any of the other T14 schools in the same way.

I don't know what emilybeth has been reading, but there is absolutely no way other top schools are going to raise tuition so drastically next year. We are in a recession, for God's sake. The tuition hike and the rank inflation are tcr's.

These reasons. Rank inflation is tied in with the fact that Berkeley does not provide as good job prospects as Chicago but for some weird reason they are tied.

Berkeley's tuition is soon going to be, in real dollars, the most expensive out of the T-14. Plus, I know 2Ls who were denied residency (and denied their grants 2L year), presumably because the school is trying to make more money from out-of-staters/school/CA is broke. It seems shady because the school makes it seem like you will get residency, when now they arbitrarily reject people because they want to make more money from out-of-staters.

[Doritos]

Your logic is sound. Next year when UVA's median is 172 (due to the copious amount of dollars it throws at the high LSAT earners due to all the ED kids they don't have to give any scholarship money to) we can talk about HYV. I mean UVA's median GPA is just behind Stttanford's anyways. Better jump on the UVA ship...next stop...guaranteed biglaw for everyone!!

I love UVA, but there's no way it's jumping its LSAT median two points in a year.

Yeah I was just kidding in my last post, but on a serious note a one point jump would put its medians at 3.85 (assuming no change) and a 171. that's better than NYU, Boalt, and Chicago. I know this does not consider 25th and 75th percentile. Anyways, enough UVA trolling for one night.

[vanwinkle]

Yeah I was just kidding in my last post, but on a serious note a one point jump would put its medians at 3.85 (assuming no change) and a 171. that's better than NYU, Boalt, and Chicago. I know this does not consider 25th and 75th percentile. Anyways, enough UVA trolling for one night.

I suspect they are trying to pull this off. It'll be interesting to see what that does to the rankings.

[09042014]

Yeah I was just kidding in my last post, but on a serious note a one point jump would put its medians at 3.85 (assuming no change) and a 171. that's better than NYU, Boalt, and Chicago. I know this does not consider 25th and 75th percentile. Anyways, enough UVA trolling for one night.

I suspect they are trying to pull this off. It'll be interesting to see what that does to the rankings.

I suspect they are not trying to do this, since they were taking anyone with a 170 above 3.0 gpa who ED'd. If they were trying to bump it up, they'd be taking anyone above 171.

What they are doing is upping their yield rate. It is going to be huge.

[los blancos]

These reasons. Rank inflation is tied in with the fact that Berkeley does not provide as good job prospects as Chicago but for some weird reason they are tied.

Yes, because we all know that job prospects dominate the USNWR rankings methodology.

[im_blue]

Yeah I was just kidding in my last post, but on a serious note a one point jump would put its medians at 3.85 (assuming no change) and a 171. that's better than NYU, Boalt, and Chicago. I know this does not consider 25th and 75th percentile. Anyways, enough UVA trolling for one night.

I suspect they are trying to pull this off. It'll be interesting to see what that does to the rankings.

Actually, I disagree because of all the 3.85-/170 EDs they took. Besides, if they were aiming for a 171 median, they would certainly have to accept a lower GPA median as a tradeoff, as CCN do. Raising their LSAT median by just 1 point would instantly make them more numerically selective than all of CCN and even Stanford.

[atitz]

Berkeley is my top choice now, save for HLS.
I'd pick Berkeley law over Staford law, after doing my "personal" research on the matter.
I visited Berkeley and fell in love with it.

[booboo]

What some may forget is... Even if they admit the certain 170+ students into the school, granted that they are not ED (I would like to think that the majority of 170+ scorers did not ED due to GPA or other insecurities), those students would have to matriculate at their law school for it to change the median. This would mean that they would be taking away students from CCN, which may occur, but not at a rate that would probably allow a substantial increase in median. Since this is the first year, I would assume another year of this trend will, however, raise that median.

On a side note, the ED acceptances only hurt them, assuming GPA splitters, since it's GPA 25-75 is already one of the highest of the T14.

[sirchristaylor]

I <3 Berkeley with all my <3

Please let me in!

[ughOSU]

For many on TLS - their respect for a given school is determined by its LSAT range. Hence, Berkeley should not be anywhere near T6 (or so the unspoken argument goes)

Then where's UVA with its 170 median?!?! MVP = trash. VMP = win.

ps: I am in no way trolling for UVA I am an objective and impartial observer of fact and reason.

It is solidly behind the schools with a 171 median.

Your logic is sound. Next year when UVA's median is 172 (due to the copious amount of dollars it throws at the high LSAT earners due to all the ED kids they don't have to give any scholarship money to) we can talk about HYV. I mean UVA's median GPA is just behind Stttanford's anyways. Better jump on the UVA ship...next stop...guaranteed biglaw for everyone!!

TCR. e: I'm sending in my ED form now!!!

[deadatheist]

See I haven't seen any public school haters on here either. I have seen people say that Berkeley doesn't deserve its ranking, but it's supposedly because they've been gaming the USNWR system. How they've been doing this, and how it compares to other schools, I do not know.

fwiw, i [strike]think[/strike] know there's a handful of people in academia who think the reason berkeley's grad programs are ranked so high is bc there are so many of them. there's what... ~30 berkeley grad programs ranked in the top 10 in their respective areas, more so than any other school - does that sound right? some think each program on its own may not be able to hold out such good rankings. don't necessarily buy that, but it is a sentiment out there.

[APimpNamedSlickback]

.

[sirchristaylor]

their laughably tepid lsat range makes me worry about the quality of class discussion. interesting backgrounds and great essays =/= intellectual horsepower.

there, i said it

I laugh at you.

[APimpNamedSlickback]

their laughably tepid lsat range makes me worry about the quality of class discussion. interesting backgrounds and great essays =/= intellectual horsepower.

there, i said it

I laugh at you.

ad hominem attack + not having a sense of humor ftw?