<p>What's going on is posters like sakky are spinning their wheels. Spend your time studying for the LSAT instead of looking for holes in everyone's arguments.</p>
<p>I'm spinning my wheels? And what exactly have you contributed to the discussion?</p>
<p>So Berkeley does give out A+ grades, although the resulting GPA is calculated by LSDAS, right?</p>
<p>In that case, depending on how Berkeley grades, you could see the phenomena where the top, top students at Berkeley get A+ grades (not saying that there is grade inflation, just that some truly stand-out students might get A+s), while Yale does not give out A+ grades routinely. That alone could account for the discrepancy... although the LSAT, the "Great Equilizer," issue is not one to be ignored.</p>
<p>ariesathena, I need some advice about applying to law school. Is it possible if you could PM me your AIM? I have to make an important decision in a matter of days, and I really need all the help I can attain.</p>
<p>PM me yours - mine is set up so that anyone who is not on my buddy list is blocked.</p>
<p>If Ivy GPA's are so inflated, how come the vast majority of elite law school classes are composed of Ivy Alums...</p>
<p>Do you have stats to back this up, Gatsby? I would think because of the smaller enrollments at the ivies there would be fewer graduates in the elite programs and more from the elite schools that have larger graduating classes like Berkeley, Michigan, etc. This is just my hunch, I can be wrong and I'm not challenging you, just hoping there is some data to substantiate this. Thanks.</p>
<p>Hank</p>
<p>The Ivy-Leagues, Stanford, and Duke have disproportionately higher admit rates into Harvard Law School. The next highest, UT-Austin, can be discounted - in my opinion - due to the sheer size of the institution. The highest after that, Georgetown, is at 37.</p>
<p>Hank, you might want to take a look at the data and links in this thread</p>
<p>I have to agree with jonri on this one. The replies that ricz gave me really fly in the face of much I have heard before, either formally or informally.</p>
<p>I appreciate the nice, heartfelt replies, but I have to suspect them for how close they are to mainstream law school ad-com opinion.</p>
<p>the thing is though, why do berkeley students need to earn A+'s and A's while students at other schools only need to get A's and A-'s? the berkeley students are not only working harder to earn an A+, but because of grade deflation, earning an A is hard in the first place. from my experience at a similar institution (UCLA), you basically have to get a pure A+ that isn't curved (that is, get 98%+ total on all of your work), and A+'s are pretty rare, even if they are given out. </p>
<p>"If Ivy GPA's are so inflated, how come the vast majority of elite law school classes are composed of Ivy Alums..."</p>
<p>because it looks good? i suspect that's one of the several reasons (besides grade inflation and also probably high LSAT scores from many ivy students). wouldn't a certain law school look more prestigious if it's student body is composed of a lot of ivy grads?</p>
<p>
[quote]
So Berkeley does give out A+ grades, although the resulting GPA is calculated by LSDAS, right?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Like I said, the GPA's from ALL schools (not just from Berkeley) are calculated by LSAC/LSDAS. </p>
<p>
[quote]
In that case, depending on how Berkeley grades, you could see the phenomena where the top, top students at Berkeley get A+ grades (not saying that there is grade inflation, just that some truly stand-out students might get A+s), while Yale does not give out A+ grades routinely. That alone could account for the discrepancy... although the LSAT, the "Great Equilizer," issue is not one to be ignored
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I think it's fair to say that Yale also gives out plenty of A+'s. Does Yale give them out at the same rate as does Berkeley? Unclear. </p>
<p>But even so, it does call into play what kfc4u has pointed out - which is why is it that Berkeley students have to get A+'s and A's to get in, while students at other schools only need A's and A-'s? </p>
<p>
[quote]
<a href="http://www.law.harvard.edu/admissions/jd/colleges.php%5B/url%5D">http://www.law.harvard.edu/admissions/jd/colleges.php</a></p>
<p>The Ivy-Leagues, Stanford, and Duke have disproportionately higher admit rates into Harvard Law School. The next highest, UT-Austin, can be discounted - in my opinion - due to the sheer size of the institution. The highest after that, Georgetown, is at 37.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>The most telling figure to me is that Harvard Law has 90 people from Stanford and only 36 from UCBerkeley, this despite the fact that the Berkeley undergraduate student population is almost 4 times that of Stanford. Geography obviously can't be a problem, for after all, Stanford and Berkeley are less than an hour away from each other. </p>
<p>
[quote]
"If Ivy GPA's are so inflated, how come the vast majority of elite law school classes are composed of Ivy Alums..."
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I think the answer is implicit in your question. I believe that part of the reason that elite law schools classes have so many Ivy alums is PRECISELY because the Ivies are inflated. After all, it has been stated time and time again on this board by me and others that grade, despite ricz's assertions, grade inflation is good when it comes to getting into law school. If you're trying to get into law school, you want your grades to be inflated. As evidenced by the data I presented, it looks like law schools don't compensate people for attending grade deflated schools, either because they don't know that they are grade deflated, or (I suspect) they don't care. If you don't believe that, then ask yourself why is it that Berkeley prelaws consistently need HIGHER grades than Yale prelaws do to get into elite law schools?</p>
<p>From sakky:
:
"I think it's fair to say that Yale also gives out plenty of A+'s"</p>
<p>The title says it all--the A+ grade is never given on a Yale transcript. The highest grade which can be entered at the registrar's office is an A.</p>
<p>sakky - Stanford may have more students enrolled at HLS than Berkeley, but you need to know how many more applicants they had in the period that that 90 students were enrolled. These statistics are only telling half the story - Stanford may have a quarter the student population as Berkeley, but have had 10 times the applicants. If you send me a PM I'll provide you with these statistics. I think you may be surprised and find your reasoning to be off. Cheers...</p>
<p>Come now, ricz, applicants? Do you not see the logical fallacy in that?</p>
<p>Think of it this way. What if I was to walk around the Berkeley campus and announce that I was offering 'magic' automatic admissions to Harvard Law School to every Berkeley undergrad I could find. Honestly, how many people do you think would turn me down? I think we can both agree that the answer is 'few'. I think it's safe to say that most Berkeley undergrads would happily jump at the chance at getting into Harvard Law.</p>
<p>The same is true at Stanford. If I went around offering free automatic admission to HLS there, then I am fairly certain that most Stanford undergrads would take me up on that offer. </p>
<p>The point is that there is a huge difference between wanting to go to a place like HLS and then actually applying. Lots and lots of people want to go to HLS. However, only a subset of that actually apply. Let's face it. The application process is not exactly trivial. You gotta pay the app fee, you gotta write a bunch of essays, get rec's, etc. etc. Hence you apply to HLS only if you think that you actually have a semi-decent chance of getting in. We all know that a guy with straight C's is not going to apply to HLS. We all know that a guy with a 130 LSAT score is not going to apply to HLS. Just because you want to go doesn't mean that you're actually going to go through the hassle of applying.</p>
<p>And the fact of the matter is, there is a far greater percentage of people with mediocre grades and/or LSAT scores at Berkeley than at Stanford. We both know that it's practically impossible to get a truly bad GPA at Stanford, however, it is very possible to get that at Berkeley. Stanford does a better job of keeping more of its students 'alive' to be credible candidates for a place like HLS. Berkeley has no problem in handing its students boatloads of bad grades. </p>
<p>Hence, the REAL way of making the comparison is to examine how many people actually want to go to HLS from both schools, not just at how many people apply. That would be the most accurate number we could use. However, since, again, I think it's fair to say that most people at both Berkeley and Stanford would want to go, then I think that the total sizes of the two schools is a comparable proxy number.</p>
<p>Sakky, about the only thing I can derive out of your responses is that 1) you have a lot of time on your hands; and 2) you enjoy arguing. The latter will assist you in law school. I offered to provide you with some statistics, but you have gone off on a rampage that makes no sense. Let me make it simple...the HLS website shows that there are more students from Stanford that attend HLS than Berkeley. These numbers only mean something when it can be determined how many of these students from say, Stanford attend compared to how many applicants from Stanford applied to HLS. If 300 from Stanford applied, 100 were accepted and 90 attend and 40 from Berkeley applied, 38 were accepted and 36 attend then you can draw conclusions. I'll ask you again, I will be happy to provide you with these statistics if you PM me.</p>
<p>And once again, those statistics that you constantly tout are meaningless unless we get a sense of how many people actually want to go, but don't apply because they don't think they can get in. Why do you constantly harp upon the number of people who apply? Do you really think that that number accurately portrays how many people actually want to go? If you think about it, the number of applicants actually means little in the grand scheme of things. What really matters is the number of people who want to go if they had gotten in, regardless of whether they apply or not. What the number of applicants actually conveys is that subset of people who want to go who also think they have a reasonable chance of getting admitted. Like I said, if you have a 2.0 GPA, you're not going to apply, even if you want to go. And let's face it, there are a lot of people at Berkeley with 2.0's (or close to it) who would like to go to HLS but know they have no chance of getting in so they don't apply. But just because they don't apply doesn't mean that they don't want to go. It just means that they don't think they can get in. There are comparatively very few students at Stanford with 2.0's. </p>
<p>Hence, I will summarize it for you. We should not be looking at the number of applicants. The number of applicants only tell us the number of people who want to go AND actually think they have a decent chance of getting in. What we should be looking at is the number of people who want to go, regardless of whether they think they can get in or not. However, that number is impossible to determine. A close approximate is the total number of students in that school. Why is that a close approximate? For the reasons I stated before - I think we can both agree that few students at either school would turn down admission to HLS if we just handed it to them. I also see no reason to believe that Berkeley students would be any more prone to turn down a magical admission to HLS that was handed to them than would Stanford students. If you see such a reason, by all means, let's hear it.</p>
<p>"What really matters is the number of people who want to go if they had gotten in, regardless of whether they apply or not."</p>
<p>Ever play poker? Can't win anything unless you're willing to throw some chips in. Nobody says "oh man, that guy would have won if he would've known what was coming and played!" By the same token, you can't say that just because someone wants to go Harvard law, they should be counted in these "statistics" of yours.</p>
<p>Here's an undergrad example: NYU, for the second year in a row, was ranked the #1 dream school in America. Which according to your logic means, since more people "want" to go there, it should have the best students in the country. Does it? As much as I love my alma mater, the answer is obviously no. Just because someone wants to go doesn't mean they can afford it/have the grades/willing to leave home for NY, etc. etc. Those who apply and are rejected, they should be counted in admission statistics. But people who say "should have, could have, would have?" I think not.</p>
<p>Nobody's handing anybody admission. Yes, Stanford students probably have higher grades than most Berkeley students (although I don't know if it's to the degree you say it is), but then again, that's why they're at Stanford and not at Berkeley (I know generalization, but you get the idea).</p>
<p>All ricz is trying to say is you need to compare apples with apples, not apples with oranges. Let's say I have 300 students from Stanford who actually APPLY, 90 of them get in. And let's say for whatever reason, only 100 students from Berkeley apply, and 36 get in. To me that seems pretty equitable. This doesn't mean we should include Berkeley english major with a 2.0 who didn't apply because he knew he wouldn't get in. Or even Stanford theoretical math major with a 4.0 who if you said "would you like to go to HLS ?" said "sure", but is going to have more fun doing his grad math work at MIT and doesn't apply. All we want to know is who applied, who got in, and who didn't. THAT's what you base your statistics off of.</p>
<p><em>Disclaimer</em> All these numbers are hypothetical, I don't think all Stanford kids are smart and all Berkeley kids are stupid (as my mock trial coach is a Cal grad and would have me crucified).</p>
<p>Thanks for your support, Cardinal. You can't argue with sakky - I've been warned to not respond to him as he wastes everyone's time with his "dissertations". I've offered to provide him with the data to refute his conclusions, but he has refused to respond.</p>
<p>
[quote]
"dissertations".
[/quote]
</p>
<p>There is nothing wrong with a lengthy post; I would think that referring to his post as a "dissertation" is a compliment. It is rare that one is able deliver a coherent and deliberate response in a terse post.</p>