Top Law Schools

.

njskatchmo wrote:Can anyone explain why Berkeley has only 1 rejection so far on LSN, and a lot of lower gpa acceptances?

Cuz they didn't feel like being mean yet?

njskatchmo wrote:Can anyone explain why Berkeley has only 1 rejection so far on LSN, and a lot of lower gpa acceptances?

The University of California has decided to make up its entire budget shortfall by ordering Berkeley Law to accept all 8,000 of its applicants this year. Because most of those applicants aren't getting into other schools in the top 10, Berkeley's yield will be extraordinarily high. With over 7,000 1Ls paying full tuition at Berkeley next year, the UC system will take in about 300 million dollars.

It's true, of course, that the lower LSAT median, lower GPA median, and rather unfavorable faculty-to-student ratio will push Berkeley well out of the T14 for the April 2011 USNWR rankings, but the law school will have succeeded in subsidizing the rest of the UC system in the meantime.

Dignan wrote:

njskatchmo wrote:Can anyone explain why Berkeley has only 1 rejection so far on LSN, and a lot of lower gpa acceptances?

The University of California has decided to make up its entire budget shortfall by ordering Berkeley Law to accept all 8,000 of its applicants this year. Because most of those applicants aren't getting into other schools in the top 10, Berkeley's yield will be extraordinarily high. With over 7,000 1Ls paying full tuition at Berkeley next year, the UC system will take in about 300 million dollars.

It's true, of course, that the lower LSAT median, lower GPA median, and rather unfavorable faculty-to-student ratio will push Berkeley well out of the T14 for the April 2011 USNWR rankings, but the law school will have succeeded in subsidizing the rest of the UC system in the meantime.

!

Because I haven't applied yet.

Dignan wrote:

njskatchmo wrote:Can anyone explain why Berkeley has only 1 rejection so far on LSN, and a lot of lower gpa acceptances?

The University of California has decided to make up its entire budget shortfall by ordering Berkeley Law to accept all 8,000 of its applicants this year. Because most of those applicants aren't getting into other schools in the top 10, Berkeley's yield will be extraordinarily high. With over 7,000 1Ls paying full tuition at Berkeley next year, the UC system will take in about 300 million dollars.

It's true, of course, that the lower LSAT median, lower GPA median, and rather unfavorable faculty-to-student ratio will push Berkeley well out of the T14 for the April 2011 USNWR rankings, but the law school will have succeeded in subsidizing the rest of the UC system in the meantime.

There's a lot I could say about this issue, but since the last time I went off topic it completely effed up the thread, I'll just say that this was very amusing.

.

Could it have something to do with LSN users who report their application data being a self-selecting pool not representative of the applicant pool at large?

gprime wrote:Could it have something to do with LSN users who report their application data being a self-selecting pool not representative of the applicant pool at large?

You (and I) would think that. Thing is, the more I look at the numbers on LSN, the more I am convinced that they are representative of the entire applicant pool. I am preparing a bunch of charts and graphs (I've prepared a lecture) that looks at the numbers for the Top 14, UCLA, UT, Vandy, WUSTL, USC, and GW to see how much they match up. So far, my opinion is that they don't mirror them exactly, but they do a really good job of approximating across the board (e.g. comparing GW's acceptance grid against acceptance numbers in GW, you see very similar numbers... we'll see how similar when I do some basic statistical analysis.)

wired wrote:

gprime wrote:Could it have something to do with LSN users who report their application data being a self-selecting pool not representative of the applicant pool at large?

You (and I) would think that. Thing is, the more I look at the numbers on LSN, the more I am convinced that they are representative of the entire applicant pool. I am preparing a bunch of charts and graphs (I've prepared a lecture) that looks at the numbers for the Top 14, UCLA, UT, Vandy, WUSTL, USC, and GW to see how much they match up. So far, my opinion is that they don't mirror them exactly, but they do a really good job of approximating across the board (e.g. comparing GW's acceptance grid against acceptance numbers in GW, you see very similar numbers... we'll see how similar when I do some basic statistical analysis.)

Postal Service, FTW!

OGR3 wrote:

wired wrote:

gprime wrote:Could it have something to do with LSN users who report their application data being a self-selecting pool not representative of the applicant pool at large?

You (and I) would think that. Thing is, the more I look at the numbers on LSN, the more I am convinced that they are representative of the entire applicant pool. I am preparing a bunch of charts and graphs (I've prepared a lecture) that looks at the numbers for the Top 14, UCLA, UT, Vandy, WUSTL, USC, and GW to see how much they match up. So far, my opinion is that they don't mirror them exactly, but they do a really good job of approximating across the board (e.g. comparing GW's acceptance grid against acceptance numbers in GW, you see very similar numbers... we'll see how similar when I do some basic statistical analysis.)

Postal Service, FTW!

+1 for the gold.