UCLA c/o 2016 Applicants (2012-2013) Forum
-
- Posts: 384
- Joined: Wed Aug 25, 2010 12:44 am
Re: UCLA c/o 2016 Applicants (2012-2013)
Based on some browsing of this thread, it looks like UCLA thinks it has a shot at a 168 median? Those seem like all the people getting money.
-
- Posts: 237
- Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2013 1:09 pm
Re: UCLA c/o 2016 Applicants (2012-2013)
I agree that this is what UCLA seems to be shooting for this cycle. Throwing significant money at splitters, atypical for UCLA.JesusChrist wrote:Based on some browsing of this thread, it looks like UCLA thinks it has a shot at a 168 median? Those seem like all the people getting money.
- VnshngAge
- Posts: 10
- Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2012 8:10 pm
Re: UCLA c/o 2016 Applicants (2012-2013)
In yesterday via skype interview + phone call some hours later!
Numbers: 168/2.9x
Numbers: 168/2.9x
-
- Posts: 384
- Joined: Wed Aug 25, 2010 12:44 am
Re: UCLA c/o 2016 Applicants (2012-2013)
So I guess anyone on the WL with a 167 is probably not going to get in, why hurt their own median?bruin91 wrote:I agree that this is what UCLA seems to be shooting for this cycle. Throwing significant money at splitters, atypical for UCLA.JesusChrist wrote:Based on some browsing of this thread, it looks like UCLA thinks it has a shot at a 168 median? Those seem like all the people getting money.
- andres
- Posts: 94
- Joined: Fri Dec 07, 2012 5:20 pm
Re: UCLA c/o 2016 Applicants (2012-2013)
Congrats! Did mention of aid? Will you be accepting?VnshngAge wrote:In yesterday via skype interview + phone call some hours later!
Numbers: 168/2.9x
Want to continue reading?
Register now to search topics and post comments!
Absolutely FREE!
Already a member? Login
-
- Posts: 2
- Joined: Fri May 10, 2013 12:07 am
Re: UCLA c/o 2016 Applicants (2012-2013)
.
Last edited by muimuixp on Tue May 14, 2013 2:56 pm, edited 1 time in total.
-
- Posts: 126
- Joined: Wed Jun 13, 2012 11:14 am
Re: UCLA c/o 2016 Applicants (2012-2013)
what were your numbers, if you dont mind me asking.muimuixp wrote:Talked to Dean Schwartz a few weeks ago about the chances of me being accepted off of the waitlist. He recommended that I plan on going somewhere else. Anyone else talk to Dean Schwartz about your chances of being admitted off of the wait list?
-
- Posts: 88
- Joined: Tue Jun 19, 2012 7:34 pm
Re: UCLA c/o 2016 Applicants (2012-2013)
167 still has a shot. I know many people with 167 who got $$. Kinda a useless post, I just don't want anyone to lose hope 

-
- Posts: 384
- Joined: Wed Aug 25, 2010 12:44 am
Re: UCLA c/o 2016 Applicants (2012-2013)
Damn that's cold. What were your numbers?muimuixp wrote:Talked to Dean Schwartz a few weeks ago about the chances of me being accepted off of the waitlist. He recommended that I plan on going somewhere else. Anyone else talk to Dean Schwartz about your chances of being admitted off of the wait list?
-
- Posts: 2
- Joined: Fri May 10, 2013 12:07 am
Re: UCLA c/o 2016 Applicants (2012-2013)
JesusChrist wrote:Damn that's cold. What were your numbers?muimuixp wrote:Talked to Dean Schwartz a few weeks ago about the chances of me being accepted off of the waitlist. He recommended that I plan on going somewhere else. Anyone else talk to Dean Schwartz about your chances of being admitted off of the wait list?
I will PM you
-
- Posts: 126
- Joined: Wed Jun 13, 2012 11:14 am
Re: UCLA c/o 2016 Applicants (2012-2013)
mind pm'ing me as well? want to figure out if i should give up...muimuixp wrote:JesusChrist wrote:Damn that's cold. What were your numbers?muimuixp wrote:Talked to Dean Schwartz a few weeks ago about the chances of me being accepted off of the waitlist. He recommended that I plan on going somewhere else. Anyone else talk to Dean Schwartz about your chances of being admitted off of the wait list?
I will PM you
-
- Posts: 166
- Joined: Thu Sep 20, 2012 9:33 pm
Re: UCLA c/o 2016 Applicants (2012-2013)
So it seems that GPA is just a useless indicator of merit now. To me, and no offense to splitters, it feels like a slap in the face to have worked so hard throughout undergrad to earn 0.5-0.7 GPA points more than some of the people getting accepted only to be left waiting because of 1-2 questions out of 100 on a single test that easily could have been made up with a bit more sleep and luck. Is there any hope for local 166s or is it pointless?LittleTree wrote:167 still has a shot. I know many people with 167 who got $$. Kinda a useless post, I just don't want anyone to lose hope
-
- Posts: 126
- Joined: Wed Jun 13, 2012 11:14 am
Re: UCLA c/o 2016 Applicants (2012-2013)
completely with you on this one. busted my ass in undergrad to get a solid GPA, and now its coming down to a few silly points on some one-off test that appear to be the difference. aggravating.epgenius wrote:So it seems that GPA is just a useless indicator of merit now. To me, and no offense to splitters, it feels like a slap in the face to have worked so hard throughout undergrad to earn 0.5-0.7 GPA points more than some of the people getting accepted only to be left waiting because of 1-2 questions out of 100 on a single test that easily could have been made up with a bit more sleep and luck. Is there any hope for local 166s or is it pointless?LittleTree wrote:167 still has a shot. I know many people with 167 who got $$. Kinda a useless post, I just don't want anyone to lose hope
Register now!
Resources to assist law school applicants, students & graduates.
It's still FREE!
Already a member? Login
- ManOfTheMinute
- Posts: 1557
- Joined: Tue Apr 10, 2012 12:54 am
Re: UCLA c/o 2016 Applicants (2012-2013)
Retakeepgenius wrote:So it seems that GPA is just a useless indicator of merit now. To me, and no offense to splitters, it feels like a slap in the face to have worked so hard throughout undergrad to earn 0.5-0.7 GPA points more than some of the people getting accepted only to be left waiting because of 1-2 questions out of 100 on a single test that easily could have been made up with a bit more sleep and luck. Is there any hope for local 166s or is it pointless?LittleTree wrote:167 still has a shot. I know many people with 167 who got $$. Kinda a useless post, I just don't want anyone to lose hope
-
- Posts: 88
- Joined: Tue Jun 19, 2012 7:34 pm
Re: UCLA c/o 2016 Applicants (2012-2013)
You could have been waitlisted for a million reasons. Half the class is below their median LSAT so there certainly is still hope. People below median have gotten in with good $, applications can be strong or weak for many reasons. This late in the game no one can tell you your shot of getting in off of a waitlist based upon your #s.eomea5 wrote:completely with you on this one. busted my ass in undergrad to get a solid GPA, and now its coming down to a few silly points on some one-off test that appear to be the difference. aggravating.epgenius wrote:So it seems that GPA is just a useless indicator of merit now. To me, and no offense to splitters, it feels like a slap in the face to have worked so hard throughout undergrad to earn 0.5-0.7 GPA points more than some of the people getting accepted only to be left waiting because of 1-2 questions out of 100 on a single test that easily could have been made up with a bit more sleep and luck. Is there any hope for local 166s or is it pointless?LittleTree wrote:167 still has a shot. I know many people with 167 who got $$. Kinda a useless post, I just don't want anyone to lose hope
Have you sent a LOCI? A good one? Perhaps even call and speak to Dean Schwartz, you could even request one of these fabled waitlist interviews.
- luxurylawyer
- Posts: 213
- Joined: Wed Feb 20, 2013 4:17 pm
Re: UCLA c/o 2016 Applicants (2012-2013)
So it appears I am not going to get any love from UCLA. The interview went great, too, so I'm a bit confused.
-
- Posts: 166
- Joined: Thu Sep 20, 2012 9:33 pm
Re: UCLA c/o 2016 Applicants (2012-2013)
I can't afford to retake. I know it's TLS's favorite method but I have to work and can't devote another 4-6 weeks studying full time.ManOfTheMinute wrote:Retakeepgenius wrote:So it seems that GPA is just a useless indicator of merit now. To me, and no offense to splitters, it feels like a slap in the face to have worked so hard throughout undergrad to earn 0.5-0.7 GPA points more than some of the people getting accepted only to be left waiting because of 1-2 questions out of 100 on a single test that easily could have been made up with a bit more sleep and luck. Is there any hope for local 166s or is it pointless?LittleTree wrote:167 still has a shot. I know many people with 167 who got $$. Kinda a useless post, I just don't want anyone to lose hope
Get unlimited access to all forums and topics
Register now!
I'm pretty sure I told you it's FREE...
Already a member? Login
-
- Posts: 166
- Joined: Thu Sep 20, 2012 9:33 pm
Re: UCLA c/o 2016 Applicants (2012-2013)
I've sent in a couple LOCIs, visited the campus and spoke to Dean Schwartz. Still don't have any idea where I stand.LittleTree wrote:You could have been waitlisted for a million reasons. Half the class is below their median LSAT so there certainly is still hope. People below median have gotten in with good $, applications can be strong or weak for many reasons. This late in the game no one can tell you your shot of getting in off of a waitlist based upon your #s.eomea5 wrote:completely with you on this one. busted my ass in undergrad to get a solid GPA, and now its coming down to a few silly points on some one-off test that appear to be the difference. aggravating.epgenius wrote:So it seems that GPA is just a useless indicator of merit now. To me, and no offense to splitters, it feels like a slap in the face to have worked so hard throughout undergrad to earn 0.5-0.7 GPA points more than some of the people getting accepted only to be left waiting because of 1-2 questions out of 100 on a single test that easily could have been made up with a bit more sleep and luck. Is there any hope for local 166s or is it pointless?LittleTree wrote:167 still has a shot. I know many people with 167 who got $$. Kinda a useless post, I just don't want anyone to lose hope
Have you sent a LOCI? A good one? Perhaps even call and speak to Dean Schwartz, you could even request one of these fabled waitlist interviews.
-
- Posts: 42
- Joined: Fri Mar 29, 2013 5:39 pm
Re: UCLA c/o 2016 Applicants (2012-2013)
I think for some of us it is frustrating to hear this because some programs are more rigorous than others, some assign grades on a bell curve and some just give away 4.0s. So to suggest that GPA is good indicator of merit is probably not true at all. Without calling in Nate Silver to do a statistical analysis, Im going to guess GPA is going to be less correlated with merit than is LSAT score simply bc the LSAT is in a much more controlled environment. Personally I know that I spent countless hours in my program to earn a 3.5 and I highly doubt you worked any harder or deserve any more credit--perhaps I am wrong. Regardless, we know the game going in -- and truth is if you want to get into ucla with certainty you need a 168.epgenius wrote:So it seems that GPA is just a useless indicator of merit now. To me, and no offense to splitters, it feels like a slap in the face to have worked so hard throughout undergrad to earn 0.5-0.7 GPA points more than some of the people getting accepted only to be left waiting because of 1-2 questions out of 100 on a single test that easily could have been made up with a bit more sleep and luck. Is there any hope for local 166s or is it pointless?LittleTree wrote:167 still has a shot. I know many people with 167 who got $$. Kinda a useless post, I just don't want anyone to lose hope
-
- Posts: 384
- Joined: Wed Aug 25, 2010 12:44 am
Re: UCLA c/o 2016 Applicants (2012-2013)
I agree with you and understand why you're upset. But think about it this way, us splitters were delayed until the very end. I think when you get towards the accepting-off-WL stage of the cycle, it's just all about numbers and trying to hit your medians. So I'm sure all the other stuff on your application did matter to them when they first read it.epgenius wrote:So it seems that GPA is just a useless indicator of merit now. To me, and no offense to splitters, it feels like a slap in the face to have worked so hard throughout undergrad to earn 0.5-0.7 GPA points more than some of the people getting accepted only to be left waiting because of 1-2 questions out of 100 on a single test that easily could have been made up with a bit more sleep and luck. Is there any hope for local 166s or is it pointless?LittleTree wrote:167 still has a shot. I know many people with 167 who got $$. Kinda a useless post, I just don't want anyone to lose hope
-
- Posts: 11730
- Joined: Tue Sep 04, 2012 9:53 am
Re: UCLA c/o 2016 Applicants (2012-2013)
Retakeepgenius wrote:I can't afford to retake.ManOfTheMinute wrote:Retake
Communicate now with those who not only know what a legal education is, but can offer you worthy advice and commentary as you complete the three most educational, yet challenging years of your law related post graduate life.
Register now, it's still FREE!
Already a member? Login
- StLNE
- Posts: 84
- Joined: Wed Nov 14, 2012 11:02 am
Re: UCLA c/o 2016 Applicants (2012-2013)
UncleStew wrote:I think for some of us it is frustrating to hear this because some programs are more rigorous than others, some assign grades on a bell curve and some just give away 4.0s. So to suggest that GPA is good indicator of merit is probably not true at all. Without calling in Nate Silver to do a statistical analysis, Im going to guess GPA is going to be less correlated with merit than is LSAT score simply bc the LSAT is in a much more controlled environment. Personally I know that I spent countless hours in my program to earn a 3.5 and I highly doubt you worked any harder or deserve any more credit--perhaps I am wrong. Regardless, we know the game going in -- and truth is if you want to get into ucla with certainty you need a 168.epgenius wrote:So it seems that GPA is just a useless indicator of merit now. To me, and no offense to splitters, it feels like a slap in the face to have worked so hard throughout undergrad to earn 0.5-0.7 GPA points more than some of the people getting accepted only to be left waiting because of 1-2 questions out of 100 on a single test that easily could have been made up with a bit more sleep and luck. Is there any hope for local 166s or is it pointless?LittleTree wrote:167 still has a shot. I know many people with 167 who got $$. Kinda a useless post, I just don't want anyone to lose hope
I agree. Not trying to flame this thread, but I personally believe there is a rational reason for the shift. There's an argument to be made that there is very little parity between undergraduate institutions. This is amplified further among majors (engineering/hard sciences vs. soft "sciences"). Law schools were forced to make a decision between the two metrics due to declining applications (coupled with rampant grade inflation by undergraduate institutions) and many chose to more heavily weight what they see as the more objective of the two standards in evaluating students. It's not a personal thing; I think they are simply attempting to adapt to their new reality while staying within established confines.
-
- Posts: 166
- Joined: Thu Sep 20, 2012 9:33 pm
Re: UCLA c/o 2016 Applicants (2012-2013)
At those levels, I'm sure we are probably more equal (I got a 3.64) but there is much less variation when you take into consideration someone with 1 point more on the LSAT who got, say a 2.9, getting in over people in our position. Of course there is some grade inflation and there are discrepancies but it should not be to the point of rendering the difference between an A- and a B average arbitrary.UncleStew wrote:I think for some of us it is frustrating to hear this because some programs are more rigorous than others, some assign grades on a bell curve and some just give away 4.0s. So to suggest that GPA is good indicator of merit is probably not true at all. Without calling in Nate Silver to do a statistical analysis, Im going to guess GPA is going to be less correlated with merit than is LSAT score simply bc the LSAT is in a much more controlled environment. Personally I know that I spent countless hours in my program to earn a 3.5 and I highly doubt you worked any harder or deserve any more credit--perhaps I am wrong. Regardless, we know the game going in -- and truth is if you want to get into ucla with certainty you need a 168.epgenius wrote:So it seems that GPA is just a useless indicator of merit now. To me, and no offense to splitters, it feels like a slap in the face to have worked so hard throughout undergrad to earn 0.5-0.7 GPA points more than some of the people getting accepted only to be left waiting because of 1-2 questions out of 100 on a single test that easily could have been made up with a bit more sleep and luck. Is there any hope for local 166s or is it pointless?LittleTree wrote:167 still has a shot. I know many people with 167 who got $$. Kinda a useless post, I just don't want anyone to lose hope
-
- Posts: 166
- Joined: Thu Sep 20, 2012 9:33 pm
Re: UCLA c/o 2016 Applicants (2012-2013)
Pay me for 6 weeks of study time and I will gladly retake. You can PM me to find out where to send the $3,000...BigZuck wrote:Retakeepgenius wrote:I can't afford to retake.ManOfTheMinute wrote:Retake
-
- Posts: 42
- Joined: Tue Apr 12, 2011 6:02 pm
Re: UCLA c/o 2016 Applicants (2012-2013)
I was offered 37.5k over 3 years. Do you think it would be possible to negotiate this up a bit? I was offered 65k at Vanderbilt but they already know that so I'm not sure if thats much help to me.
Seriously? What are you waiting for?
Now there's a charge.
Just kidding ... it's still FREE!
Already a member? Login