Answers to law school admissions myths

Graduate School Law School
41

<p>At this point, I am seriously doubting ricz's identity as a law school admissions counselor. If you look at his responses, he has basically entirely agreed with anyone who asked him questions that did not contradict his original post - when someone questions his original post, he does not argue with the authority of admissions experience, but simply with 'cute' objections.</p>

<p>I'm pretty sure ricz is a prank. Say what you want ricz, and I'm sure Cardinal will try to back you up - still, I think you are doing students a disservice by giving unsubstantiated advice.</p>

<p>Give proof you are an admissions officer.</p>

42

<p>Eric, I have already given proof to the moderator per his request. I have asked him to keep my identity confidential, but feel free to contact him to satisfy your curiousity.</p>

43

<p>Can the moderator in question at least confirm your purported identity?</p>

44

<p>Wasn't trying to "back anyone up," just thought skazzy's arguments were terribly wrong. If ricz is who he says he is, I welcome his advice. That being said, I would also appreciate having the moderator confirm that he is an admissions counselor.</p>

45

<p>
[quote]
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.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Because, once again, as I have explained over and over, but you choose not to listen, your data is irrelevant. It doesn't matter if Stanford has more applicants than Berkeley does. AFter all, think about it this way. If Stanford has more applicants than Berkeley does, then you have to think about why is that. Is it because Berkeley students for some reason just don't want to go to Harvard Law? Seriously, do you believe that? Or is it because plenty of them don't think they can get in? I think the latter is far far more likely. </p>

<p>(By the way, if you've been warned not to respond to me, then why do you keep doing it?)</p>

<p>Cardinal, by the same reasons that I disagree with ricz, I have to disagree with you. I agree that the official statistics show what they show. What I dispute is how meaningful those official statistics are, because you are not capturing the full picture. Specifically, you are not capturing those people who would have applied but for bad grades. </p>

<p>Think of it this way. Forget about Harvard Law for a moment. I would submit that the total number of applicants from Berkeley to ANY law school (including no-name law schools) vastly dwarfs the number of Stanford prelaws applying to HLS. So clearly lots of Berkeley students want to go to some law school. So why don't all these Berkeley prelaws all apply to Harvard Law? Because they just don't like Harvard? I doubt it. I think it's obvious what the biggest reason is for why they're applying to all these lesser law schools but not Harvard. Yes, some of them may want to stay local or have some other strange requirement. But the biggest reason is that they don't think they can get in. </p>

<p>The point is that you have to capture the 'melt' factor. You can't just look at the fact that one school has more applicants to HLS than another. You also have to look at why one school has more applicants to HLS. The true comparison is to look at who wants to go if given the chance, whether or not they apply. </p>

<p>As to why this is a true apples-to-apples comparison, that is because the fact is, it's almost impossible to get truly bad grades at Stanford, but it is highly possible to get bad grades at Berkeley. Hence a guy who goes to Berkeley and ends up with a 2.0 could easily have ended up with a 3.0 or higher at Stanford. Why? Basically because Stanford hands out far fewer bad grades than does Berkeley. Even in prelaw classes (i.e. English, poli-sci, etc.), even if you're the worst student in the class, you'll probably get no worse than a B-. At Berkeley, you could end up with a grade far lower than that. Hence, the point is that Berkeley effectively eliminates plenty of its students from applying to Harvard Law because Berkeley hands many of its students grades that are bad enough to discourage them from applying to Harvard Law in the first place. Stanford keeps far more of its students alive in the process by handing its students better grades. </p>

<p>Is it then really surprising that, after all that, Stanford ends up with more applicants than Berkeley does? After all, let's say that Stanford made a mistake in admitting you and you are far and away the worst student at Stanford. You're still probably going to end up with something better than straight C's. Youu won't get a 4.0, but at least you're going to graduate, and probably with at least half-decent grades. Contrast that with Berkeley where you could easily flunk out. The point is that Stanford coddles and protects its students more than Berkeley does, which means that more Stanford students wind up with the grades that make them competitive to get into a place like Harvard Law, hence, more of them apply. At Berkeley, only those students who survive the Berkeley grading gauntlet will apply. </p>

<p>That is why you cannot just look at applicants alone. You have to ask why is it that certain schools produce more applicants than others. Again, I think we can all agree that it's not because Berkeley students just don't want to go to Harvard Law. If you want to somehow make that argument, then let's hear it.</p>

46

<p>Actually, Sakky, I know a lot of people who choose just to stay on the West Coast. I know it's hard to believe, but lots of folks just don't bother when they live in California.</p>

<p>This has been verified for me by admissions officers and professors.</p>

<p>Also, a lot of people who want to pass the bar in California choose schools with high passage rates in California. Oddly enough, those are usually California law schools. The two highest bar passage rates are I think Boalt and UCLA.</p>

<p>You'll disagree because you're a prestige monkey, but it makes sense to me...</p>

47

<p>What is your problem, Sakky? You need some serious help. Get your facts straight because everything you post has no back-up. I graduated from high school in Los Gatos, CA in the late '70's. I attended Stanford for three semesters barely scraping through with about a 2.4 gpa in English. My father was laid off from his job at Lockheed Sunnyvale and my younger sister was starting college so I was forced to transfer. I applied to Berkeley and to my surprise was admitted. I had to take an extra semester to graduate, but finished Berkeley with a gpa of 3.7. I found my classes and profs at Berkeley more accessible and frankly, easier. My nephew will graduate from Stanford next year in Biology and his mother (my sister) is not a happy camper as she and my brother-in-law are paying full fare for him and his gpa is not even a 2.5 so he's going to have to get a master's degree before applying to med school. I realize these are just two examples, but there are many that are similar and others that are not...the "bottom line", sakky is please share with us where you can substantiate your claim that Stanford grades easier than Berkeley. And by the way, you don't need to bore us with 500 lines of rubbish - just the facts, jack.</p>

48

<p>ricz claim is in the process of being verified. Until such time as there is verification, I would just advise everyone to remember that this is public web-board and take all advice -- from anyone -- with a grain of salt.</p>

49

<p>You want facts, pal, you got 'em.</p>

<p>According to this, in 1996, the average GPA at Berkeley was a 3.10. The average GPA at Stanford in 1992 was a 3.44. Note, that was in 1992. The average GPA at Stanford had been rising every single year that the data was available, which probably means that the average GPA in 1996 would be even higher than a 3.44.</p>

<p><a href="http://www.gradeinflation.com/berkeley.html%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.gradeinflation.com/berkeley.html&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p><a href="http://www.gradeinflation.com/stanford.html%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.gradeinflation.com/stanford.html&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>So, you have your 2 anecdotes, but I actually have data. So perhaps you are the one who needs serious help. Go and get it before you come back here.</p>

<p>
[quote]
Actually, Sakky, I know a lot of people who choose just to stay on the West Coast. I know it's hard to believe, but lots of folks just don't bother when they live in California.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Pardon me, but last time I checked, Stanford is located on the West Coast, so Stanford prelaws have also experienced what it means to live on the West Coast. So why is it that Berkeley prelaws would want to stay in California, but Stanford prelaws don't seem to have this problem? </p>

<p>
[quote]
Also, a lot of people who want to pass the bar in California choose schools with high passage rates in California. Oddly enough, those are usually California law schools. The two highest bar passage rates are I think Boalt and UCLA.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I'm afraid not. According to the USNews graduate rankings, the law school with the highest bar passage rate in California is Stanford Law, with a passage rate of 90.2%. Boalt Law has a rate of 89%. UCLA Law has a rate of 88.7%. Go look it up yourself if you don't believe me.</p>

<p>Furthermore, think of it this way. If Berkeley people just want to stay on the West Coast to go to law school, well, Stanford Law was a West Coast law school the last time I checked. Yet according to this, far more Berkeley prelaws applied to USC Law than Stanford Law. Why is that? Is it just because Berkeley prelaws just irrationally dislike Stanford Law? It can't be just because Berkeley prelaws really want to go study in in Los Angeles - after all, more Berkeley prelaws apply to Boalt than to UCLA Law.</p>

50

<p>Regarding the data presented by sakky...Berkeley's method of data gathering is "unspecified" and Stanford's data includes graduate coursework where a substandard grade is a "C". This is even farther off than comparing apples to oranges.</p>

51

<p>"So, you have your 2 anecdotes, but I actually have data. So perhaps you are the one who needs serious help. Go and get it before you come back here."</p>

<p>Hey Saki - you do have data, but it's all wrong. How can anyone be so foolish to try to compare grade point averages for undergrads using statistics that include graduate program grades? I guess you are the one that needs the help - Maybe you should take Statistics 101 - oh and take it at Stanford because you'll probably get a higher grade. Ciao!!</p>

52

<p>Hey, if you want to look up the Chronicle of Higher Education of July 25, 1997, and find out where they got their data from, by all means, knock yourself out. </p>

<p>You still haven't answered the question as to why so many Berkeley students would not want to apply to Harvard Law, yet seem to have no problem in applying to lesser law schools. Heck, I see that more Berkeley prelaws applied to Georgetown Law than did Harvard Law. Why? It is just because they just don't like Harvard? I would venture to say that most of those Berkeley prelaws who applied to Georgetown would rather be going to Harvard. So why didn't they just apply to Harvard? I suspect it's because they don't think they will get in, so they decide not to waste the effort and money in applying. </p>

<p>That's the point. There is a strong self-selection bias going on here. Those who apply to Harvard Law are distinctly unrepresentative of not just the entire student body, but also of the prelaws. Basically, if you're applying to Harvard Law, then you probably think you have a chance of getting in, which means that your grades are obviously very high. If you are a Berkeley prelaw and your grades are not that good, then you will probably end up applying to Chapman Law or Whittier Law. If your grades are REALLY bad, then you may end up choosing not to apply anywhere. Only if your grades are top-notch will you apply to Harvard Law. Looking at those who choose to apply to a given school ignores the self-selection that is happening.</p>

53

<p>Sakky, you haven't answered why you were using statistics from grad and undergrad grad reports to make your point of grade inflation at Stanford. Can you respond in less than five sentences? I bet you can't.</p>

54

<p>Henrypollard, do you think that including graduate grading seriously changes the mix? Hate to break it to you, but PLENTY of undergraduates at Stanford take graduate classes, hence they are benefitting from whatever grading scheme the Stanford graduate classes use. There is no hard barrier between Stanford undergraduates and Stanford graduate courses. As a Stanford undergrad, you are basically free to take most graduate courses, and many do just that. Unless you're trying to argue that Stanford graduate courses are unusually grade inflated relative to Stanford undergraduate courses, which is an unsupported assertion, then inclusion of Stanford graduate courses produces no skewing one way or another. If you have data that states that such skewing is in fact what is going on, then please present it.</p>

55

<p>By the way, henrypollard, this has just led me to a 'brilliant' idea for your nephew. If you truly believe that Stanford graduate courses are unusually grade inflated, then why doesn't your nephew just take all graduate courses? After all, the Stanford administration will surely allow your nephew to substitute undergraduate courses for graduate courses, and if it's really true that such graduate courses are super-inflated, then he will get excellent grades, right? So why doesn't he do that?</p>

56

<p>Sakky, Stanford is less largely populated by California natives than Berkeley and UCLA.</p>

<p>Look, knock yourself out. At the end of the day, who cares if you went to USC law instead of Boalt or Harvard? You care too much about this stuff, good Lord. </p>

<p>Are you going to choose your spouse solely based on their alma mater? This whole board is filled with people who just can't see that none of this makes you:</p>

<p>successful
a good person
happy
rich
important
anything</p>

<p>It's not that big of a deal. I know a lot of the people on this board are too young, and too inexperienced to understand this, but trust everyone older...it's not that big of a deal.</p>

<p>This prestige pandering is irritating.</p>

57

<p>Hey, I'm not the one who started this whole thread. It's not about prestige pandering. I am merely stating my interpretation of the events. The prestige of these law schools doesn't matter to me. I'm not going to law school. However, for some people, the prestige matters. Hence, for those people, they ought to know what is going on. The fact is, Harvard Law has far more Stanford people than it has Berkeley people. It may well be true that Stanford produces more HLS applicants than Berkeley does, but then you have to ask why is that? I would argue that it is self-selection.</p>

<p>Also, it still doesn't make any sense to me that if all Berkeley prelaws want to do is stay on the West Coast and that is the reason that more of them don't apply to Harvard Law, then why is it that more Berkeley prelaws choose to apply to USC Law than Stanford Law? It can't be a Los Angeles thing. After all, more Berkeley prelaws apply to Boalt than UCLA Law. Again, I think this is evidence of self-selection. People don't apply to Stanford Law not because they don't want to go but because they don't think they can get in.</p>

58

<p>
[quote]
It may well be true that Stanford produces more HLS applicants than Berkeley does, but then you have to ask why is that? I would argue that it is self-selection.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I think the issue is ostensibly less substantive than you make it seem. After thinking on this matter, there is some plausibility to your claim; however, when looking purely at numbers, those who applied and those admitted, one must look at the percentage admitted from each school. Though Berkeley may not possess as many HLS qualified students as Stanford, one must still assess the admission numbers, based on those who are qualified, and thus, who applied, and those admitted. When we limit the scope of this discussion to that, perhaps Berkeley does have a higher percentage of admitted applicants in comparison to Stanford. If that is the case, then no matter what evidence you can produce, that everyone would want to go to HLS if they granted open admissions or that UCB students do not have as high GPAs, the conclusion that HLS favors Stanford students does not necessarily follow.</p>

59

<p>For instance, let us suppose that Stanford and Berkeley comprise of 300 and 500 students who want to attend HLS, respectively. Let us further suppose that in the former, 200 applicants are qualified - and let us assume that those who qualify are applicants - and in the latter, 100 students are qualified. Furthermore, suppose that HLS admits 50 applicants from Stanford and 35 applicants from Berkeley. What that tells me is that, though HLS accepted less Berkeley students than Stanford students, a higher percentage of applicants were chosen from the former than in the latter.</p>

<p>If this is, indeed, the case, then perhaps applying from Stanford may be even tougher, considering the fact that Harvard accepts less from a larger pool of competitive applicants.</p>

60

<p>Sakky wouldn't you agree that any school's grad courses are slightly inflated compared to those at the undergraduate level? By virture of the fact that a "C" is usually a failing grade in grad school I would think it is hard to compare the undergraduate gpa at Berkeley versus Stanford where you state that students freely take graduate courses. I'm not criticizing you - I would be interested in your comments regarding this. Thanks.</p>