Berkeley's Fall 2010 Medians Drop Forum

[IzziesGal]

TITCR. New faculty and buildings are irrelevant compared to $220k debt and a 1/3 chance at biglaw.

This is so irritating. 30% through OCIP probably has something to do with lots of Berkeley kids self-selecting out of firm work and choosing non-profits and gov't instead. It *is* Berkeley.

Not significantly more compared to MVP.
Berkeley: 72% firms, 10% PI, 9% clerkship, 5% gov't
Michigan: 75% firms, 20% PI, 3% judicial
Virginia: 77% firms, 13% clerkship, 7% PI
Penn: 74% firms, 15% clerkship, 3% PI, 2% gov't

And OCIP isn't the only way to get a job. Mailings to target regions actually work. You can be proactive and start setting up stuff on your own before OCIP even begins.

This is true of any school, yet MVP placed close to 50% of their class through OCI.

The out-of-staters who want to go back to different markets won't necessarily do OCIP, but will do mailings targeting their home regions instead. I can attest to this - I successfully did mass mailings. I think people, for the most part, get so hung up on OCIP as the only path to a job, that the statistics become skewed. Our career office highly recommends mass mailings as an alternative to OCIP because they understand that there really isn't a one size fits all approach to law firm recruiting.

[masochist]

The differences are not necessarily statistically significant.

Statistical significance is a measure used to determine whether or not an observed measurement based on a sample is likely to be representative of the group. Berkeley released its median data in 2009, and it did so in 2010. The figures are not based on a random sample, but rather the entire population of enrolled Boalt students. Thus the term 'statistical significance' has no application to this situation.

Random & dependent sampling is not necessary to determine statistical significance. More sophisticated statistical analyses like one-way ANOVA (vs. a simple Student's t-test, for ex.) would do the job of comparing different and independent samples perfectly well, given the full data set. Yearly GPAs and LSATs have means and distributions, and it would be straightforward to determine whether those means are statistically different year to year. Also, just looking at the numbers released, a problem is that we don't have the exact values down to the decimal fraction, especially for the LSAT, nor do we know the yearly distributions. For example, if the 2009 low LSAT average was 164.5, rounded up to 165, and the 2010 low LSAT were 163.4, rounded down to 163, then the year to year differences would be accentuated by rounding, i.e. from actually being only 1.1 apart to apparently being 2 apart. And not knowing the full distributions of scores each year makes such comparisons impossible to really interpret anyway.

1) Of course statistical significance is a relevant concept. “Significance” is defined as a difference of a magnitude unlikely to be the result of random score variation. If your question was whether or not the medians dropped at Berkeley, then statistical significance is of no concern. Unfortunately, that question is also of no value. The valuable question is whether or not the difference in LSAT and GPA indicates that the 2010 entering class is different than the 2009 class. All of the reasons that people have suggested rely upon this inference, and this inference relies upon a statistically significant difference.

2) LSAT and GPA are ordinal (rather than interval) scales. This is why the median is reported instead of the average. You can’t average them without introducing error. The statistical procedures that people have suggested all require averages.

3) None of this matters since we have no variability data.

4) Even a statistically significant drop in medians would not mean very much unless it was repeated for 2011. Two-point-five percent of all law schools would be expected to have a statistically significant decline in their medians every year due to random variation (assuming a p < .05 significance level).

[worldtraveler]

Compare the number of people receiving money at UCB versus MVP on LSN:

http://berkeley.lawschoolnumbers.com/applicants/0910

http://michigan.lawschoolnumbers.com/applicants/0910
http://penn.lawschoolnumbers.com/applicants/0910
http://uva.lawschoolnumbers.com/applicants/0910

Lots of money going around at M and P. Not as large a proportion at UVA, but that's probably due to the high number of ED admits. Also, those at UVA who are getting money are getting pretty solid scholarships.

That's why Berkeley's medians are declining.

This is only merit based aid. Berkeley probably gives the most in the form of need based aid. That doesn't get reported on lawschoolnumbers b/c no one knows if they're being considered for a grant or even received a grant until their financial aid packages are complete around admitted students day.

Part of the reason our tuition is going up is to give out more need based aid. I got need based aid here and I didn't anywhere else. The amount of people I've met getting lots of need based aid money is really pretty high.

[IzziesGal]

Compare the number of people receiving money at UCB versus MVP on LSN:

http://berkeley.lawschoolnumbers.com/applicants/0910

http://michigan.lawschoolnumbers.com/applicants/0910
http://penn.lawschoolnumbers.com/applicants/0910
http://uva.lawschoolnumbers.com/applicants/0910

Lots of money going around at M and P. Not as large a proportion at UVA, but that's probably due to the high number of ED admits. Also, those at UVA who are getting money are getting pretty solid scholarships.

That's why Berkeley's medians are declining.

This is only merit based aid. Berkeley probably gives the most in the form of need based aid. That doesn't get reported on lawschoolnumbers b/c no one knows if they're being considered for a grant or even received a grant until their financial aid packages are complete around admitted students day.

Part of the reason our tuition is going up is to give out more need based aid. I got need based aid here and I didn't anywhere else. The amount of people I've met getting lots of need based aid money is really pretty high.

Yup - in the 20K+ range per year. Pretty amazing, if you ask me.

[beeasy]

It's amazing that they charge a fortune and they give need-based aid?

What if they charged 1,000,000 a year and gave you 950,000 in need-based aid would that be even more amazing?

[oscarthegrouch]

TITCR. New faculty and buildings are irrelevant compared to $220k debt and a 1/3 chance at biglaw.

This is so irritating. 30% through OCIP probably has something to do with lots of Berkeley kids self-selecting out of firm work and choosing non-profits and gov't instead. It *is* Berkeley.

Not significantly more compared to MVP.
Berkeley: 72% firms, 10% PI, 9% clerkship, 5% gov't
Michigan: 75% firms, 20% PI, 3% judicial
Virginia: 77% firms, 13% clerkship, 7% PI
Penn: 74% firms, 15% clerkship, 3% PI, 2% gov't

And OCIP isn't the only way to get a job. Mailings to target regions actually work. You can be proactive and start setting up stuff on your own before OCIP even begins.

This is true of any school, yet MVP placed close to 50% of their class through OCI.

Weird, I thought more than 10% at Berkeley did PI?

[rundoxierun]

Part of the reason our tuition is going up is to give out more need based aid. I got need based aid here and I didn't anywhere else. The amount of people I've met getting lots of need based aid money is really pretty high.

Yup - in the 20K+ range per year. Pretty amazing, if you ask me.

Problem with this strategy is that it doesnt really reward high numbers. Why take your 171-175/3.8 to UCB for their 20k need based aid when you could be in the running for full merit at UVA and UMich or possibly similar need based aid at Columbia.

[IzziesGal]

Part of the reason our tuition is going up is to give out more need based aid. I got need based aid here and I didn't anywhere else. The amount of people I've met getting lots of need based aid money is really pretty high.

Yup - in the 20K+ range per year. Pretty amazing, if you ask me.

Problem with this strategy is that it doesnt really reward high numbers. Why take your 171-175/3.8 to UCB for their 20k need based aid when you could be in the running for full merit at UVA and UMich or possibly similar need based aid at Columbia.

But this is why Berkeley truly is a school that looks at the total package. They reward people who pushed through hardships to be successful....for example, Berkeley appreciates the person who was top of his class in undergrad, who rose up against economic hardships, etc. It's a totally different type of school. They actually care about the applicant as a person, and what that person will bring to the diversity of the Boalt community.

[rundoxierun]

But this is why Berkeley truly is a school that looks at the total package. They reward people who pushed through hardships to be successful....for example, Berkeley appreciates the person who was top of his class in undergrad, who rose up against economic hardships, etc. It's a totally different type of school. They actually care about the applicant as a person, and what that person will bring to the diversity of the Boalt community.

Ehh thats all fine and well until they slip too far in the rankings and the administration demands the dean either gets them back up or ships out. In a vacuum, UCB is my dream school. Reality is though, this is a professional school and a return on investment should be expected. When it comes down to it, Im just not 100% comfortable risking financial suicide for the benefit of the Berkeley environment.

[drdolittle]

But this is why Berkeley truly is a school that looks at the total package. They reward people who pushed through hardships to be successful....for example, Berkeley appreciates the person who was top of his class in undergrad, who rose up against economic hardships, etc. It's a totally different type of school. They actually care about the applicant as a person, and what that person will bring to the diversity of the Boalt community.

You mean they actually believe the often unverifiable BS people claim on their applications?!

[drdolittle]

Random & dependent sampling is not necessary to determine statistical significance. More sophisticated statistical analyses like one-way ANOVA (vs. a simple Student's t-test, for ex.) would do the job of comparing different and independent samples perfectly well, given the full data set. Yearly GPAs and LSATs have means and distributions, and it would be straightforward to determine whether those means are statistically different year to year. Also, just looking at the numbers released, a problem is that we don't have the exact values down to the decimal fraction, especially for the LSAT, nor do we know the yearly distributions. For example, if the 2009 low LSAT average was 164.5, rounded up to 165, and the 2010 low LSAT were 163.4, rounded down to 163, then the year to year differences would be accentuated by rounding, i.e. from actually being only 1.1 apart to apparently being 2 apart. And not knowing the full distributions of scores each year makes such comparisons impossible to really interpret anyway.

1) Of course statistical significance is a relevant concept. “Significance” is defined as a difference of a magnitude unlikely to be the result of random score variation. If your question was whether or not the medians dropped at Berkeley, then statistical significance is of no concern. Unfortunately, that question is also of no value. The valuable question is whether or not the difference in LSAT and GPA indicates that the 2010 entering class is different than the 2009 class. All of the reasons that people have suggested rely upon this inference, and this inference relies upon a statistically significant difference.

2) LSAT and GPA are ordinal (rather than interval) scales. This is why the median is reported instead of the average. You can’t average them without introducing error. The statistical procedures that people have suggested all require averages.

3) None of this matters since we have no variability data.

4) Even a statistically significant drop in medians would not mean very much unless it was repeated for 2011. Two-point-five percent of all law schools would be expected to have a statistically significant decline in their medians every year due to random variation (assuming a p < .05 significance level).

Good points on statistical significance, especially about the ordinal nature of reported data. My point above was that, in principle, of course it's possible to determine the statistical significance of any year to year changes in LSAT and GPA, we just don't have enough info to do that. I don't think we disagree on this though.

[masochist]

Random & dependent sampling is not necessary to determine statistical significance. More sophisticated statistical analyses like one-way ANOVA (vs. a simple Student's t-test, for ex.) would do the job of comparing different and independent samples perfectly well, given the full data set. Yearly GPAs and LSATs have means and distributions, and it would be straightforward to determine whether those means are statistically different year to year. Also, just looking at the numbers released, a problem is that we don't have the exact values down to the decimal fraction, especially for the LSAT, nor do we know the yearly distributions. For example, if the 2009 low LSAT average was 164.5, rounded up to 165, and the 2010 low LSAT were 163.4, rounded down to 163, then the year to year differences would be accentuated by rounding, i.e. from actually being only 1.1 apart to apparently being 2 apart. And not knowing the full distributions of scores each year makes such comparisons impossible to really interpret anyway.

1) Of course statistical significance is a relevant concept. “Significance” is defined as a difference of a magnitude unlikely to be the result of random score variation. If your question was whether or not the medians dropped at Berkeley, then statistical significance is of no concern. Unfortunately, that question is also of no value. The valuable question is whether or not the difference in LSAT and GPA indicates that the 2010 entering class is different than the 2009 class. All of the reasons that people have suggested rely upon this inference, and this inference relies upon a statistically significant difference.

2) LSAT and GPA are ordinal (rather than interval) scales. This is why the median is reported instead of the average. You can’t average them without introducing error. The statistical procedures that people have suggested all require averages.

3) None of this matters since we have no variability data.

4) Even a statistically significant drop in medians would not mean very much unless it was repeated for 2011. Two-point-five percent of all law schools would be expected to have a statistically significant decline in their medians every year due to random variation (assuming a p < .05 significance level).

Good points on statistical significance, especially about the ordinal nature of reported data. My point above was that, in principle, of course it's possible to determine the statistical significance of any year to year changes in LSAT and GPA, we just don't have enough info to do that. I don't think we disagree on this though.

Yeah, that wasn't a response specific to you. My point is similar to yours. This data could mean something, or it could mean nothing. We can't really know.

Note that the above two sentences are exactly the reason I want to switch to legal research rather than continue with social science research.

[jay115]

Also, online classes. http://www.usatoday.com/news/education/ ... line_N.htm

Boalt law will essentially be a 70k version if Phoenix law in a few years.

[im_blue]

Also, online classes. http://www.usatoday.com/news/education/ ... line_N.htm

Boalt law will essentially be a 70k version if Phoenix law in a few years.

Nothing wrong with online courses if they're similar to the in-person version, and the quality standards are rigorous - Stanford has enough online classes to complete MS degrees in EE, CS, and a few other depts.

[drdolittle]

Also, online classes. http://www.usatoday.com/news/education/ ... line_N.htm

Boalt law will essentially be a 70k version if Phoenix law in a few years.

Nothing wrong with online courses if they're similar to the in-person version, and the quality standards are rigorous - Stanford has enough online classes to complete MS degrees in EE, CS, and a few other depts.

I think Edley was talking more about UG courses going online, but the idea of online instruction supplanting in-person class time is out there in the ether of law school academia. A prof at the UC Davis ASD mentioned something along these lines as well, for better or worse...Stanford can do whatever the hell it wants to and get away with it, but a school like Berkeley would have to offer a substantial discount for online instruction to stay competitive, when similar institutions are still offering in-person, less mass produced education. Not to mention Davis.

[jay115]

Also, online classes. http://www.usatoday.com/news/education/ ... line_N.htm

Boalt law will essentially be a 70k version if Phoenix law in a few years.

Nothing wrong with online courses if they're similar to the in-person version, and the quality standards are rigorous - Stanford has enough online classes to complete MS degrees in EE, CS, and a few other depts.

Well whatever school - I think there's a very important part of learning that happens during face-to-face interaction. But, that could just be me and my lib arts college experience. I've heard that Berkeley has 600+ person lecture classes, and classes that size can't be conducive to learning either.

[IzziesGal]

But this is why Berkeley truly is a school that looks at the total package. They reward people who pushed through hardships to be successful....for example, Berkeley appreciates the person who was top of his class in undergrad, who rose up against economic hardships, etc. It's a totally different type of school. They actually care about the applicant as a person, and what that person will bring to the diversity of the Boalt community.

Ehh thats all fine and well until they slip too far in the rankings and the administration demands the dean either gets them back up or ships out. In a vacuum, UCB is my dream school. Reality is though, this is a professional school and a return on investment should be expected. When it comes down to it, Im just not 100% comfortable risking financial suicide for the benefit of the Berkeley environment.

You won't be risking financial suicide. PM me if you want a more private discussion about my experience. Not comfortable sharing it with the world lol.

[IzziesGal]

Also, online classes. http://www.usatoday.com/news/education/ ... line_N.htm

Boalt law will essentially be a 70k version if Phoenix law in a few years.

Nothing wrong with online courses if they're similar to the in-person version, and the quality standards are rigorous - Stanford has enough online classes to complete MS degrees in EE, CS, and a few other depts.

Well whatever school - I think there's a very important part of learning that happens during face-to-face interaction. But, that could just be me and my lib arts college experience. I've heard that Berkeley has 600+ person lecture classes, and classes that size can't be conducive to learning either.

That's a total lie. The biggest lecture class I have sat in was about 100 students. They cap most of the bigger classes at 120 or so (corporations is an exception - capped at 196, but right now, enrollment is 135). Most of my classes this fall are capped at 60. And there are TONS of business classes that are capped at 40 or so. It should be noted that the bigger classes - the 100-150 student range - are absolutely no different from large freshman year lecture hall style classes.

I hate to be the Berkeley cheerleader on this thread, but there are so many misconceptions about the school, and I can't just sit by and say nothing while people who don't go there speculate. If you don't want to go there, fine - but don't feed misinformation to applicants who really want to be there.

EDIT: The last part wasn't directed to the last poster I quoted, but to people in general. And it's good advice for all law school threads, not just this one.

[Shaggier1]

I've heard that Berkeley has 600+ person lecture classes, and classes that size can't be conducive to learning either.

Why would a law school of ~900 have 600+ people in one lecture? That would mean that over 66% of the student body is taking the same class at once.

The Berkeley bashing in this thread has surpassed "merely uninformed" and is now approaching ridiculous. Not sure where it is coming from...

[Hannibal]

Berkeley has lecture classes over 500...in UG.

[emilybeth]

I've heard that Berkeley has 600+ person lecture classes, and classes that size can't be conducive to learning either.

Why would a law school of ~900 have 600+ people in one lecture? That would mean that over 66% of the student body is taking the same class at once.

The Berkeley bashing in this thread has surpassed "merely uninformed" and is now approaching ridiculous. Not sure where it is coming from...

The school doesn't even have a classroom that would fit 600 people. Good lord!

[BenJ]

Guys, he was obviously talking about undergrad, not the law school. I think everyone knows that not even Cooley has enough law students to have 600-person lectures. Chill out and stop being so defensive.

[jay115]

I've heard that Berkeley has 600+ person lecture classes, and classes that size can't be conducive to learning either.

Why would a law school of ~900 have 600+ people in one lecture? That would mean that over 66% of the student body is taking the same class at once.

The Berkeley bashing in this thread has surpassed "merely uninformed" and is now approaching ridiculous. Not sure where it is coming from...

Yeah, I was referencing undergraduate Berkeley, but I guess that wasn't obvious. Sorry.

[emilybeth]

Why are we talking about undergrad class size in a thread about Berkeley Law on a message board devoted to law school?

[tamlyric]

Just face it guys, Berkeley sucks! (Just kidding.)