<p>And this is about L-School
(Med -School Cal doesn't have it.(UCSF is a different school)</p>
<p>Alas, another fine school appears to be stricken now: UCLA (whose new Dean, Michael Schill, has moved from NYU--a fact which may simply be coincidental). A brochure has just arrived in faculty mailboxes nationwide announcing UCLA's "new faculty" hires--a good set of hires, as I've noted on two different occasions (here and here)--yet the brochure then spoils this fine accomplishment by placing it under the banner of the following laugh-out-loud proclamation:</p>
<p>"UCLA School of Law is emerging as the strongest law faculty in the United States."</p>
<p>I will say this: it seems to me, and I expect other informed observers, that UCLA has a clear edge now over Northwestern, Cornell, and USC (as well as Duke, of course).</p>
<p>By a reliable measure of faculty quality UCLA ranked 14th before these appointments, and by an unreliable measure, it ranked 16th (in "reputation" among academics). The new appointments are, indeed, good ones, and together with recent losses at Cornell, Northwestern, and USC give UCLA a realistic shot at the top ten.</p>
<p>"I will say this: it seems to me, and I expect other informed observers, that UCLA has a clear edge now over Northwestern, Cornell, and USC (as well as Duke, of course)."</p>
<p>This may be an overstatement as applied to the law school as a whole, but there is no doubt that UCLA law has come up in the world in the last 30 years. Top graduates should be able to compete with anyone, except maybe a slightly larger percentage of the top graduates of the top 10 or so schools, for the most credential-bound positions.</p>
<p>Um, Anderson has no undergraduate business major. They have business economics, but it's not business. Haas has business administration. Competition for both biz econ and business admiinstration are fairly fierce.</p>
<p>UCLA Law faculty better than the other schools you named? Maybe. Let's see when it's reflected in the rankings, as that would show something significant and easily observable.</p>
<p>Trying to be vague. The point is that the pass rate, and especially the differences posted here, don't mean anything. At each of three schools there were about 30 people who did not pass the first time. Most of them will pass the second time.</p>
<p>Who were these 30? A mixture of persons admitted with sub-par statistics, for whatever reasons, plus a few who were overconfident and didn't prepare properly, plus a few general slack-offs, one person who was sick that week and one unlucky SOB.</p>
<p>I'm sure talk.collegeconfidential.com probably just attracts the more hostile, obviously in-need-of-medication Berkeley students. (It's about time for my diurnal injection.) </p>
<p>Keeping in mind that I'm not Californian, thus not possessing the polite etiquette of one, I shall maintain my hostility and inevitably post the two links again. </p>
<p>(But, now I post in sobriety, if a certain individual would like to come into the Berkeley forum and incessantly attack it, that individual should probably try to 1) Spell Forbes correctly 2) Provide and link the most recent, up-to-date information. It just wouldn't seem utterly favorable for such attackers to not do so,would it?)</p>
<p>Edit: If you are considering attending Berkeley in the near future, I would like you to not take a forum on the internet to heart. For example, I doubt that certain individuals in real life would approach me to tell me that my university is inferior, hence not provoking me to take a defensive position. Given if a person were to offer his/her sincere opinion, it would not be offensive, but an incessant onslaught of critiquing verbiage does become a bit tiresome. Indeed, the only individual who has told me that "Berkeley is not that good" in real life did not get admitted to any decent university in America, and was forced to stud y in Canada. Of course, we both know how "superb" Canadian universities are, and how they are superior to American universities.</p>
<p>I am not a Berkeley basher, but I am beginning to have doubts about at least the strategic good sense of certain Berkeley fans. Who would want to go to school with such a bunch of *$^%@s?</p>
<p>Daderoo. Berkeley fans? I am not one to say the least. I was somewhat forced to attend Cal because my father gave me the choice of either picking the three UCs I got Regents at or Cal, and yes it was Cal.</p>
<p>I wanted to study on the East Coast, not the West and I can't say I really like the West Coast at all.</p>
<p>But you think it is hostile critiquing someone's spelling and linking abilities when he came into the Berkeley forum to bash Berkeley? (Are you Coto in disguise Daderoo?)</p>
<p>If you don't want to attend Berkeley, I could care less-it's your business-so why even tell me/us?</p>
<p>"Not all the posters here are hostille, play nice, daderoo."</p>
<p>OK. :)</p>
<p>It just seems that the UC Berkeley threads are at least relatively over-populated by hostile jerks. Sensible, moderately polite, posts about the advantages and disadvantages of UCB would be much more helpful to those who really want to learn something here and, for fans, reduce the bad vibes. As for the bashers, the fans should ignore them and let their threads die.</p>