UCLA? Forum

DallasCowboy · Post by **DallasCowboy** » Sat Dec 19, 2009 5:19 pm

If someone knows he wants to be a lawyer, then why should he be penalized for going straight for it? You don't need work experience to get into medical school.

Quine · Post by **Quine** » Sat Dec 19, 2009 5:24 pm

Yimbeezy · Post by **Yimbeezy** » Sat Dec 19, 2009 5:38 pm

DallasCowboy wrote:If someone knows he wants to be a lawyer, then why should he be penalized for going straight for it? You don't need work experience to get into medical school.

Because someone with work experience is more likely to succeed in law school and when they graduate?

jay115 · Post by **jay115** » Sat Dec 19, 2009 6:08 pm

mctj wrote:I was just rejected outright. 169/3.5/Pretty good softs (other TLSers have agreed). ED.

I would like opinions. I thought my PS was good, and I wrote a really strong essay for their programmatic contribution section. Am I completely wrong? Were these, or one of these, essays complete shit? I am also graduating a year early and a little young (I am 20 now) - is this a deciding factor? Finally, I come from (what I believe to be) a shitty state school; could that have rendered my GPA lower than it already is?

I am going to call Monday and get all of the info I can. Barring some gross error on my application (like writing "Fuck Dean Schwartz" instead of my last name, can anyone figure out (read 'speculate') why I wasn't even given a wait-list spot?

im around your age and i come from a shitty school with weaker numbers, but i was accepted ED - not trying to rub it in your face (sorry about the ding) but contrary to other opinions i dont think your age or school reputation had much to do with it. perhaps your LORs?

Yimbeezy wrote:
DallasCowboy wrote:If someone knows he wants to be a lawyer, then why should he be penalized for going straight for it? You don't need work experience to get into medical school.
Because someone with work experience is more likely to succeed in law school and when they graduate?

this may or may not be true. business schools like experience because running a business clearly helps you understand the fundamentals of transactions plus it diversifies classroom discussion. its not clear that any random job experience would make one more likely to succeed than one without job experience as no one can actually practice law before coming to law school

for instance, if a 25 year old ran his own business after graduating from college and i was a research associate under a relatively famous professor doing graduate-level intensive research, i would imagine the skills i learned as a researcher would make me more likely to succeed in and after law school over an older person who learned business fundamentals. perhaps some work experience as a paralegal might be beneficial.

i think its foolish to make a broad assertion because every situation relies on different contexts with different factors weighing each other out.

jks289 · Post by **jks289** » Sat Dec 19, 2009 6:16 pm

mctj wrote:I was just rejected outright. 169/3.5/Pretty good softs (other TLSers have agreed). ED.

I would like opinions. I thought my PS was good, and I wrote a really strong essay for their programmatic contribution section. Am I completely wrong? Were these, or one of these, essays complete shit? I am also graduating a year early and a little young (I am 20 now) - is this a deciding factor? Finally, I come from (what I believe to be) a shitty state school; could that have rendered my GPA lower than it already is?

I am going to call Monday and get all of the info I can. Barring some gross error on my application (like writing "Fuck Dean Schwartz" instead of my last name, can anyone figure out (read 'speculate') why I wasn't even given a wait-list spot?

I would guess with those numbers it was an age issue. Just because one person with weaker numbers and the same age got in, I don't think means that wasn't what did you in. It is a surprising ding though, sorry to hear you're out.

Hopefullawstudent · Post by **Hopefullawstudent** » Sat Dec 19, 2009 8:22 pm

This is total hearsay, but I've heard that UCLA does count the strength of the undergraduate institution as a significant factor in admission. I use the word "significant" as in "a relevant consideration with noticeable weight" and not as "a major consideration".

I mean, there are "weak state schools" and then there are "zooooomg is that even accredited? state schools". Either way, this is one of those rare cases where we can plainly see that law admissions is not a total numbers game. If it were, then I would have predicted a waitlist at the very least.

Another possibility is that you took a ballsy risk with your PS and it didn't pan out. Did you? I admit some stuff in my PS that some people responded to with "wow. Are you sure you want to write this?", but taking the risk to me was better than providing a bland or disingenuous statement about my personal life.

Either way, I'm sorry about the ding. Fortunately for you, there are plenty of schools that will take your 169 with pleasure, even if you wrote about how you like to kill baby rabbits with plastic silverware in your free time.

-HL

SanBun · Post by **SanBun** » Sat Dec 19, 2009 8:29 pm

Hopefullawstudent wrote:This is total hearsay, but I've heard that UCLA does count the strength of the undergraduate institution as a significant factor in admission. I use the word "significant" as in "a relevant consideration with noticeable weight" and not as "a major consideration".
-HL

interesting, if that's true I could stand a better chance at UCLA than I previously thought...

Yimbeezy · Post by **Yimbeezy** » Sat Dec 19, 2009 8:49 pm

jay115 wrote:
mctj wrote:I was just rejected outright. 169/3.5/Pretty good softs (other TLSers have agreed). ED.

I would like opinions. I thought my PS was good, and I wrote a really strong essay for their programmatic contribution section. Am I completely wrong? Were these, or one of these, essays complete shit? I am also graduating a year early and a little young (I am 20 now) - is this a deciding factor? Finally, I come from (what I believe to be) a shitty state school; could that have rendered my GPA lower than it already is?

I am going to call Monday and get all of the info I can. Barring some gross error on my application (like writing "Fuck Dean Schwartz" instead of my last name, can anyone figure out (read 'speculate') why I wasn't even given a wait-list spot?
im around your age and i come from a shitty school with weaker numbers, but i was accepted ED - not trying to rub it in your face (sorry about the ding) but contrary to other opinions i dont think your age or school reputation had much to do with it. perhaps your LORs?

Yimbeezy wrote:
DallasCowboy wrote:If someone knows he wants to be a lawyer, then why should he be penalized for going straight for it? You don't need work experience to get into medical school.
Because someone with work experience is more likely to succeed in law school and when they graduate?
this may or may not be true. business schools like experience because running a business clearly helps you understand the fundamentals of transactions plus it diversifies classroom discussion. its not clear that any random job experience would make one more likely to succeed than one without job experience as no one can actually practice law before coming to law school

for instance, if a 25 year old ran his own business after graduating from college and i was a research associate under a relatively famous professor doing graduate-level intensive research, i would imagine the skills i learned as a researcher would make me more likely to succeed in and after law school over an older person who learned business fundamentals. perhaps some work experience as a paralegal might be beneficial.

i think its foolish to make a broad assertion because every situation relies on different contexts with different factors weighing each other out.

I wasn't discussing WE vs. other softs, I was discussing WE, ceteris paribus. And as a broad assertion, you would be silly to argue against it. And I don't think that's what you mean to do. Someone who has worked 40 hour weeks in a business environment for several years will have a major head start viz. someone who doesn't. Naturally, if you have significant res. assistant positions in undergrad, it will help. But if you have res. assistant in undergrad then work for several years, it's even better. 'knamean?

ze2151 · Post by **ze2151** » Sat Dec 19, 2009 8:57 pm

mctj wrote:
ViP wrote:
mctj wrote:I was just rejected outright. 169/3.5/Pretty good softs (other TLSers have agreed). ED.

I would like opinions. I thought my PS was good, and I wrote a really strong essay for their programmatic contribution section. Am I completely wrong? Were these, or one of these, essays complete shit? I am also graduating a year early and a little young (I am 20 now) - is this a deciding factor? Finally, I come from (what I believe to be) a shitty state school; could that have rendered my GPA lower than it already is?

I am going to call Monday and get all of the info I can. Barring some gross error on my application (like writing "Fuck Dean Schwartz" instead of my last name, can anyone figure out (read 'speculate') why I wasn't even given a wait-list spot?
I think your essays (and probably LORs) simply weren't as strong as you had hoped. Unfortunately, our own perceptions of our applications are irrelevant.

My PS was fine, though nothing spectacular. My LORs kicked all kinds of ass, though (I have seen them).

I didn't think my PS was incredibly compelling, but multiple qualified opinions tell me it was solid. My LORs kicked all kinds of ass, though (my recommenders showed me and I've known them forever). I feel like even if this stuff was mediocre, that wouldn't warrant an outright rejection with my numbers, degrees, and softs.

Sorry about the ding .

mctj- i'm sorry if my comment further bummed you out. this is probably a pretty bad day for you, and i apologize. that said, what could anyone say that would make you feel better? and you came on a forum asking for comments. as far as i'm concerned, chalking it up to age and (lack of) life experience is about the nicest explanation anyone could offer. otherwise, 1) your p.s. was off, 2) you've been convicted of a crime you're not disclosing, or 3) one of your LOR writers sold you down the river. none of those options reflects back very positively on you. you can't help your age. obviously something must have gone haywire b/c your numbers are just fine.

you'll surely get into plenty of great schools, regardless of your age. i wish my career goals had been so clear at 20. best of luck.

jay115 · Post by **jay115** » Sat Dec 19, 2009 8:59 pm

Yimbeezy wrote:
jay115 wrote: im around your age and i come from a shitty school with weaker numbers, but i was accepted ED - not trying to rub it in your face (sorry about the ding) but contrary to other opinions i dont think your age or school reputation had much to do with it. perhaps your LORs?

Yimbeezy wrote:
DallasCowboy wrote:If someone knows he wants to be a lawyer, then why should he be penalized for going straight for it? You don't need work experience to get into medical school.
Because someone with work experience is more likely to succeed in law school and when they graduate?
this may or may not be true. business schools like experience because running a business clearly helps you understand the fundamentals of transactions plus it diversifies classroom discussion. its not clear that any random job experience would make one more likely to succeed than one without job experience as no one can actually practice law before coming to law school

for instance, if a 25 year old ran his own business after graduating from college and i was a research associate under a relatively famous professor doing graduate-level intensive research, i would imagine the skills i learned as a researcher would make me more likely to succeed in and after law school over an older person who learned business fundamentals. perhaps some work experience as a paralegal might be beneficial.

i think its foolish to make a broad assertion because every situation relies on different contexts with different factors weighing each other out.
I wasn't discussing WE vs. other softs, I was discussing WE, ceteris paribus. And as a broad assertion, you would be silly to argue against it. And I don't think that's what you mean to do. Someone who has worked 40 hour weeks in a business environment for several years will have a major head start viz. someone who doesn't. Naturally, if you have significant res. assistant positions in undergrad, it will help. But if you have res. assistant in undergrad then work for several years, it's even better. 'knamean?

i might still disagree. people who work 40 hours/week in a business environment might be be stuck thinking a very particular way, which might not be what law schools are looking for. a CEO of a successful major startup firm (who would most likely not go to law school) is probably creative and flexible in their mental abilities, but a financial firm drone or techie doesnt necessarily have a heads up when it comes to legal analysis and practice. starting your own firm and working at an entry-level firm at say bloomberg or booz allen are two very different experiences, even if the latter is still very prestigious.

Quine · Post by **Quine** » Sat Dec 19, 2009 10:19 pm

Quine · Post by **Quine** » Sat Dec 19, 2009 10:22 pm

Hopefullawstudent wrote:This is total hearsay, but I've heard that UCLA does count the strength of the undergraduate institution as a significant factor in admission. I use the word "significant" as in "a relevant consideration with noticeable weight" and not as "a major consideration".

-HL

I'm pretty sure that the dean talks about this in an interview somewhere. It's also evidenced by the fact that most of their students come from T25 undergrads.

Space_Cowboy · Post by **Space_Cowboy** » Sat Dec 19, 2009 10:27 pm

mctj wrote:
Hopefullawstudent wrote:This is total hearsay, but I've heard that UCLA does count the strength of the undergraduate institution as a significant factor in admission. I use the word "significant" as in "a relevant consideration with noticeable weight" and not as "a major consideration".

-HL
I'm pretty sure that the dean talks about this in an interview somewhere. It's also evidenced by the fact that most of their students come from T25 undergrads.

No, not really. This could easily be interpreted as better candidates coming from better schools (not exactly an earth shattering expectation). On average, LSAT scores are higher at better schools. On average, people who were academically accomplished in high school and probably likely to be academically accomplished in college ended up at better schools.

Quine · Post by **Quine** » Sun Dec 20, 2009 12:14 am

Space_Cowboy wrote:
mctj wrote:
Hopefullawstudent wrote:This is total hearsay, but I've heard that UCLA does count the strength of the undergraduate institution as a significant factor in admission. I use the word "significant" as in "a relevant consideration with noticeable weight" and not as "a major consideration".

-HL
I'm pretty sure that the dean talks about this in an interview somewhere. It's also evidenced by the fact that most of their students come from T25 undergrads.
No, not really. This could easily be interpreted as better candidates coming from better schools (not exactly an earth shattering expectation). On average, LSAT scores are higher at better schools. On average, people who were academically accomplished in high school and probably likely to be academically accomplished in college ended up at better schools.

I had thought about qualifying that, but I didn't feel the need. I say 'qualify' and not 'strike' because I was referring specifically to the T25 or so undergrads, not T100. It is striking that Harvard, for example, is one of the single largest alma maters of UCLA Law students. This is not likely because those students are exceptionally numerically qualified and are choosing to go someplace outside of the T10. More likely is that UCLA is giving a boost to the GPA of applicants from Harvard that makes them more competitive than their numbers irrespective of school make them, and like most, these students then attend the highest ranked/most generous law school to attend.

Noble · Post by **Noble** » Sun Dec 20, 2009 12:19 am

to the guy with the 3.5 169 - you didn't get in because of your gpa. Not your LOR, PS, or any of the other factors you've suspected. UCLA is notoriously GPA-heavy. I know a ton of people there who had 3.9+ and low 160 LSAT's and all got in. As in, 161 3.9, 163 4.0 kind of thing. if i were you i'd apply to usc and try to squeeze money out of them, they love LSAT scores like yours

TheWire · Post by **TheWire** » Sun Dec 20, 2009 12:33 am

Sorry to hijack...but in brighter news, I finally received my admittance packages in the mail about 2 wks after the acceptance phone call

Quine · Post by **Quine** » Sun Dec 20, 2009 12:36 am

Quine · Post by **Quine** » Sun Dec 20, 2009 12:37 am

TheWire wrote:Sorry to hijack...but in brighter news, I finally received my admittance packages in the mail about 2 wks after the acceptance phone call

Haha, I was the one hijacking. Congrats!

Also, fuck UCLA.

lifeaway1985 · Post by **lifeaway1985** » Mon Dec 21, 2009 5:02 am

How does UCLA inform the applicants of acceptance? Do UCLA has a status checker?

msch0i · Post by **msch0i** » Mon Dec 21, 2009 3:49 pm

lifeaway1985 wrote:How does UCLA inform the applicants of acceptance? Do UCLA has a status checker?

Phone call/email/possibly mail. It seems to be random? I got my [waitlist] decision via e-mail but acceptances have apparently come via e-mail also, and I've read about several phone calls. They don't have a status checker.

ruleser · Post by **ruleser** » Mon Dec 21, 2009 4:02 pm

To above poster, I got a bizarre hold the other day at a school I should've gotten on - I asked the dean and he was able to tell me the specific issue - I would just ask politely and ul get an answer, though I agree it was likely your gpa made you borderline, and they just went with someone else for that limited opening, like the other poster on this thread.

CrimsonCal · Post by **CrimsonCal** » Mon Dec 21, 2009 7:34 pm

regatsrj wrote:
Kretzy wrote:
tintin wrote:very miffed that i haven't gotten a decision from ucla yet. i applied in like sept or oct. it was so long ago i can't even remember.....

shouldn't they have accepted/waitlisted/denied me yet???
+eleventybillion.

I'm actually considering withdrawing before I hear.
Withdrawing seems a bit needless. It's not like it'll teach them a lesson.

Having said that, I sympathize with your wait. UCLA is actually the only school I've heard back from, which freakishly accepted me two weeks after I submitted. I'm still at a loss to explain why it was so fast. If I may ask, did you play the gay card in your application? I did, and I'm wondering if that somehow contributed to my speedy decision. I've heard UCLA hearts the gays more than most schools.

omg.... I played the gay card too! and heard back in a week after application went complete

lol

daniel5215 · Post by **daniel5215** » Mon Dec 21, 2009 8:36 pm

CrimsonCal wrote:
regatsrj wrote:
Kretzy wrote:
tintin wrote:very miffed that i haven't gotten a decision from ucla yet. i applied in like sept or oct. it was so long ago i can't even remember.....

shouldn't they have accepted/waitlisted/denied me yet???
+eleventybillion.

I'm actually considering withdrawing before I hear.
Withdrawing seems a bit needless. It's not like it'll teach them a lesson.

Having said that, I sympathize with your wait. UCLA is actually the only school I've heard back from, which freakishly accepted me two weeks after I submitted. I'm still at a loss to explain why it was so fast. If I may ask, did you play the gay card in your application? I did, and I'm wondering if that somehow contributed to my speedy decision. I've heard UCLA hearts the gays more than most schools.
omg.... I played the gay card too! and heard back in a week after application went complete

lol

+1, my PS is about gay rights in China. Will UCLA inform applicants when the app is complete? Now they have been closed until Jan. 4. Hope they'll get back to me soon too.

msch0i · Post by **msch0i** » Mon Dec 21, 2009 9:00 pm

You should get an e-mail notifying you that your application is complete.

daniel5215 · Post by **daniel5215** » Mon Dec 21, 2009 9:07 pm

msch0i wrote:You should get an e-mail notifying you that your application is complete.

Thanks

UCLA? Forum

Re: UCLA?

Re: UCLA?

Re: UCLA?

Re: UCLA?

Re: UCLA?

Register now to search topics and post comments!

Re: UCLA?

Re: UCLA?

Re: UCLA?

Re: UCLA?

Register for access!

Re: UCLA?

Re: UCLA?

Re: UCLA?

Re: UCLA?

Resources to assist law school applicants, students & graduates.

Re: UCLA?

Re: UCLA?

Re: UCLA?

Re: UCLA?

Register now!

Re: UCLA?

Re: UCLA?

Re: UCLA?

Re: UCLA?

Register now, it's still FREE!

Re: UCLA?

Re: UCLA?

Re: UCLA?

Re: UCLA?

Seriously? What are you waiting for?