<p>i heard that it's really difficult to get into boalt hall school of law... especially if you're graduating from berkeley undergrad.
i think, what people mean by such statement is that, it's really difficult to retain a 3.8+gpa; therefore, people get rejected.</p>
<p>i don't know. what's your opinion?</p>
<p>Not impossible, but difficult, yes. As for your rationale, it's not as simple as that. Same applies to UCLA. Having said that, most students who do go to Berkeley or UCLA as an undergrad and do not get accepted to Boalt or UCLAW generally do well enough at one of the "lesser" law schools such that they are able to transfer to their first law school choice after the first year. In other words, don't sweat it. LSATs are generally more important anyway.</p>
<p>
[quote]
i heard that it's really difficult to get into boalt hall school of law... especially if you're graduating from berkeley undergrad.
i think, what people mean by such statement is that, it's really difficult to retain a 3.8+gpa; therefore, people get rejected.</p>
<p>i don't know. what's your opinion?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Here's the data</p>
<p>LSAT's are not "more important" at the top schools -- grades are also very important, as are recommendations. It is true that Boalt takes a large number of transfer students after the first year -- students from places like Golden Gate. But it is a gamble to count on acceptance as a transfer student. And it does "matter" where you go to law school if you want to land a job at a top firm.</p>
<p>LSATs are the most important at top schools, except for Boalt, which cares most about GPA.
A good LSAT can compensate for below average GPA , but not vice versa.</p>
<p>the rumor is boalt does not like its own [berkeley] undergrads and makes higher standards for berkeley students. thus the average gpa for berkeley students admitted to boalt is 3.9 while the entire admitted average is 3.8</p>
<p>Anyway, there are many, many, many very good schools East and North. Boalt isn't the only fish in the water.</p>
<p>I talked with Gina Amato, associate admission director of Boalt, about this before, and she stated that it is not true that it is harder for Berkeley students to get into Boalt. She stated that she has no idea why people are thinking this. She also mentioned that Berkeley makes up the largest portion of students at Boalt.</p>
<p>Perhaps things have changed but when I looked at the statistics for Stanford Law School a few years ago, GPA was the most important element of the application, not LSAT. Indeed, it is counterintuitive that a top law school would factor in a standardized test taken in one 3 hour period over four years of courses as reflected in grades and recommendations. But as for top undergraduate schools, both the standardized tests and grades are important and one can only do so much to compensate for the other -- there are enough students who will excel in both. It can also make a difference what kinds of courses you took -- law schools want students who can write and analyze -- that is what lawyers mostly will be doing, after all.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Indeed, it is counterintuitive that a top law school would factor in a standardized test taken in one 3 hour period over four years of courses as reflected in grades and recommendations.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Well, first off, rec's don't really matter much for law school admissions. Maybe that's not the way it should be, but that is the way it is.</p>
<p>Secondly, I disagree with your notion that it is counterintuitive that top law schools should weigh a 3-hour test over 4 years of coursework. In fact, I would argue that that's * exactly * the way it ought to be - for one simple reason: the different grading standards used by different schools, and by different majors within the same school. </p>
<p>Let's face it. Some schools and some majors are simply easier than others. In some majors in some schools, you can get far higher grades for doing much less work and knowing much less than you can in some other major or in some other school. Hence, if you happen to choose a difficult major at a difficult school, then, relative to the students in easy majors in easy schools, you're getting screwed over not just in one semester, * but for all 4 years *. Hence, the data is consistently slanted. </p>
<p>The LSAT is far from perfect, but at least it's * fair *. It's fair because everybody has to take it. Compare that to the situation where people in certain majors can just choose to not take difficult classes, whereas people in other majors are * required * to endure GPA-crushing weeders. The LSAT is also fair because everybody is scored with the same standard. Again, compare that to the situation where some profs in some classes will give out almost all A's or A-'s, whereas other profs in other classes will give out only a small percentage of A's. </p>
<p>The LSAT certainly completely ameliorate the problems of different grading standards used by different majors/schools. Law school admission are still unfair towards those people who happened to take difficult classes. But at least the LSAT makes the process MORE fair. Not completely fair, but more so. At least, the LSAT makes the process more fair than if the LSAT didn't exist at all.</p>
<p>Personally, I happen to think that the LSAT should be weighted * even more*. In fact, I could see a situation where GPA isn't considered at all. If the LSAT is lacking, then the answer would be to make the LSAT longer and more comprehensive (i.e. something like the professional CPA or CFA exams). Like I said, the major benefit of the LSAT is that it is fair. That's a far cry from the use of grades, which are clearly unfairly biased agaist those students who happen to be in difficult majors at difficult schools. </p>
<p>The sad truth is that law school admission are a game. It shouldn't be that way. But it is that way. Specifically, it's a game that tends to reward those students who happen to cherry-pick their way through the easiest possible classes and/or classes on things that you already know (i.e. taking intro language courses in languages that you are already fluent in just to get a string of easy A's). In the law school admissions "game", it's better to not take a difficult class at all, than to take it and get a poor grade. Hence, students rationally respond by simply not taking difficult courses if they're not required. It's a sad game. But that's how it is.</p>
<p>^Sakky, reading your post is kinda funny....i notice tha you only post on things where you can give an extreme view. All your posts are pretty extreme in content.</p>
<p>Anyways, the LSAT is far from fair. Grades may not be fair either, but it is important to note that the LSAT is equally as unfair. Consider this: most people who are able to afford a test course (~$1500) see their test scores go up on average by about 10 points. That 10 point difference could be the difference between a T14 school and a T100 school. Many people who take courses like Testmasters and Powerscore realize score increases upwards of 15 or even 20 points. Thats the difference between a T14 and a Tier 2 or 3 school. </p>
<p>Thus, if test courses are able to increase one's likelihood of getting into a certain law school by that much, i would hardly call it fair to the people who cant word to put down $1500.</p>
<p>Now, i understand that you may come back and say, "hey, go study on your own instead of taking an expensive course." But, lets be real here...studying on your own doesnt help your score even close to as much of one of those courses.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Anyways, the LSAT is far from fair. Grades may not be fair either, but it is important to note that the LSAT is equally as unfair. Consider this: most people who are able to afford a test course (~$1500) see their test scores go up on average by about 10 points. That 10 point difference could be the difference between a T14 school and a T100 school. Many people who take courses like Testmasters and Powerscore realize score increases upwards of 15 or even 20 points. Thats the difference between a T14 and a Tier 2 or 3 school. </p>
<p>Thus, if test courses are able to increase one's likelihood of getting into a certain law school by that much, i would hardly call it fair to the people who cant word to put down $1500.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Oh come on now. This is a wash, at best. You think this doesn't happen with courses too?</p>
<p>Let me clue you in. There are plenty of rich students at any school, including Berkeley, who hire private tutors to help them learn the material for their classes. Surely you've seen the flyers that people staple on bulletin boards and telephone poles all around campus asking or offering tutoring services. A lot of these tutors are students who took the class before and got A's, and now they're basically selling their "insight" to others about how to do well in the class. Some of them are former graduate TA's of the class. I've personally seen this in the most competitive classes, i.e. premed classes. Rich students will hire private tutors to teach them OChem so that they maximize their chances of getting A's. But it's not just OChem. These tutoring services are available for PLENTY of other courses at Berkeley.</p>
<p>This actually gets to another problem about any school (including Berkeley). The truth of the matter is, a lot of courses are just not well taught. The prof isn't a good teacher. The TA's for the class aren't good teachers. Hence, having your own private tutor teaching you the material may be the difference between getting a top grade in the class and doing poorly. I remember a couple of guys who always seemed to possess highly advanced insight and knowledge into OChem, and always seemed to deeply understand topics of the class that nobody else understood. Unsurprisingly they always got top grades on their exams - basically breaking the curve every time. It was revealed later that they had their own private tutors helping them out and that's why they understood the material so well. </p>
<p>But the point is, these private tutoring services are not available to anybody. That's why they're * private *. They're available only to those students who can afford to pay. If you're not rich enough to afford your own private tutor, then you're left to fend with the curve yourself. Is that fair?</p>
<p>If anything, again, I would point out that this is situation is * even more unfair * than the LSAT tutoring. After all, you can hire tutors in * every semester *, if you can afford it. Hence, in theory, you can press your financial advantage over multiple semesters. At least with the LSAT, it's 'one and done'. You get an LSAT tutor, you do well on the LSAT, and you're done. Private course tutors can help you multiple times.</p>
<p>^Ok, Sakky. I have been in Berkeley for 3 years now and have yet to find a flyer/advertisement on any of the courses that I, or most pre-laws for that matter take. The fact is, virtually no pre-law (sans the VERY few hard science/math/engineering majors) will ever take organic chemistry or any course in which private tutoring would help that student very much. </p>
<p>The bulk of a typical pre-law's courseolad is comprised of humanities and social science courses. In those courses, not only have i never seen an ad for private tutoring, but even such a service existed, it would not help the student very much, if at all. Unless that tutor writes the students' essays, because after all the biggest component of one's grade in a social science/humanities course is writing. Now, if that student is willing to take the enormous risk of having someone else write his essays, then so be it.</p>
<p>Now, you're point remains valid for hard science/engineering/math majors, however these disciplines are not highly represented in law schools. Most pre-laws major in history, political science, sociology, etc. </p>
<p>But the point is, the LSAT is less fair than grades because LSAT scores can dramatically increase with test prep courses, while grades cannot be improved dramatically, if at all, for MOST pre-law students (again, sans the ultra-wealthy hard science/engineering/math majors who can afford hiring a tutor EVERY semester for their classes).</p>
<p>So, neither is COMPLTELEY fair, but the point remains: the LSAT is a less fair measure than grades for the VAST majority (considering that this group is mostly comprised of social science/humanities majors) of pre-law applicants.</p>
<p>
[quote]
^Ok, Sakky. I have been in Berkeley for 3 years now and have yet to find a flyer/advertisement on any of the courses that I, or most pre-laws for that matter take. The fact is, virtually no pre-law (sans the VERY few hard science/math/engineering majors) will ever take organic chemistry or any course in which private tutoring would help that student very much. </p>
<p>The bulk of a typical pre-law's courseolad is comprised of humanities and social science courses. In those courses, not only have i never seen an ad for private tutoring, but even such a service existed, it would not help the student very much, if at all. Unless that tutor writes the students' essays, because after all the biggest component of one's grade in a social science/humanities course is writing. Now, if that student is willing to take the enormous risk of having someone else write his essays, then so be it.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Uh, it doesn't even have to stretch to the point of 'writing your essays'. It can be a simple matter of * essay consulting *. The tutor doesn't write the essay for you, but advises you on how to write strong essays - i.e. giving you grammar tips, telling you where to find good data sources, telling you to how to write in a powerful style, etc. </p>
<p>These sorts of services as * especially powerful * if it's coming from a current PhD student in the department, and * especially * if it's coming from one who happens to be studying under the prof whose class you are taking. After all, such a student would obviously know EXACTLY what it is that the prof is looking for. If you can't find one of them, then 2nd best would be finding a current undergrad (or alumni) who happened to take the same course under the same prof, and got an A. </p>
<p>
[quote]
Now, you're point remains valid for hard science/engineering/math majors, however these disciplines are not highly represented in law schools. Most pre-laws major in history, political science, sociology, etc.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I think you would agree that it also remains completely 100% valid for economics, and PLENTY of econ students go to law school. Let's face it. Econ is basically just applied math, and is therefore extremely "tutorable". Heck, I seem to recall that right after graduation, more econ undergrads go off to law school than to * any other * kind of grad school, including econ graduate programs). And I think you would find that there are PLENTY of private econ tutors around, especially for the gateway courses: Econ 1, 100A/B, and 101A/B, as well as obviously for the technical prereqs (the math and statistics). </p>
<p>But let's put economics aside. Let's speak directly to your point. Even of the majors that you cite, there are aspects of the major that are highly tutorable. You mentioned sociology, so let's talk about that. First off, sociology has a logic/statistics prereq (and most people will do stats). I think we can agree that that's eminently tutorable. Secondly, many of the lower-division sociology courses have standard tests. These are also highly tutorable, because those tests basically mean that you have to memorize a bunch of facts. For example, consider Sociology 5 under Hout. In-class tests make up 40% of the grading. Very tutorable, especially if you can hire a Sociology grad student who formerly served as a TA for the class, who can give you predigested information about what to know about each reading you have to do, and about all of the important concepts of the class that are likely to be asked, and what kinds of question to expect. </p>
<p>Here's the sociology 1 syllabus under Gold. 60% of the course grade is from exams. </p>
<p>This extends even to the upper division. For example, 50% of your grade in Soc 101B is from in-class exams.</p>
<p>In Soc 170, in-class exams make up 45% of your grade</p>
<p>I could go on about Soc, but I think you got my point. There are large swaths of Sociology that are highly tutorable. Anything that relies on in-class exams based on short answers and short essays is highly tutorable. </p>
<p>Political science? Ok, let's talk about that. </p>
<p>60% of the grading in poli-sci 2 consists of in-class exams.</p>
<p>Political Science 3 is * definitely * highly tutorable. After all, poli-sci 3 is basically a modified statistics and modeling class. More than half of the grading is based on in-class exams, and will basically ask you questions on stats and research methods (hence, experimental design). </p>
<p>You want to talk about history? OK, fine. Many of Berkeley's history courses, including many upper division courses, rely a LOT on simple regurgitation of events and dates, as well as the ability to quickly come up with short answers as to why those events are important. Again, very tutorable. Take History 130A as an example - notice how a whopping 75% of the course grading is based on in-class exams.</p>
<p>I could go on and on, but I think my point is quite clear. These majors are in fact HIGHLY tutorable, either through simply helping you memorize all of the concepts you need to know for the exams, or through essay consulting. </p>
<p>
[quote]
So, neither is COMPLTELEY fair, but the point remains: the LSAT is a less fair measure than grades for the VAST majority (considering that this group is mostly comprised of social science/humanities majors) of pre-law applicants.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Nope, COMPLETELY disagree. After all, like I said, let's line up the facts. Grades are warpable on MANY levels. The easiest way to warp your grades is to simply cherry-pick the easiest possible classes you can find. For example, take a whole string of language classes for a language that you're already fluent in - that's a pretty easy way to get a string of A's. You won't learn anything, but hey, at least you got a bunch of A's. You can also just go to an easier (i.e. grade-inflated) school. AND the courses, even in the "pre-law" classes, are highly tutorable. The LSAT, on the other hand, is just tutorable. Hence, grades are more warpable.</p>
<p>
[quote]
But the point is, the LSAT is less fair than grades because LSAT scores can dramatically increase with test prep courses, while grades cannot be improved dramatically, if at all, for MOST pre-law students (again, sans the ultra-wealthy hard science/engineering/math majors who can afford hiring a tutor EVERY semester for their classes).</p>
<p>So, neither is COMPLTELEY fair, but the point remains: the LSAT is a less fair measure than grades for the VAST majority (considering that this group is mostly comprised of social science/humanities majors) of pre-law applicants.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Fair doesn't mean that everyone has the same exact chances of success. Fair means everyone is measured by the same stick.</p>
<p>To that end, the LSAT (and other standardized tests) are the closest thing you'll get to "fair" in admissions. The point is that history of underwater basketweaving may be a REALLY hard course at Berkeley, but it may be super easy at Cornell. The A from Cornell, therefore, is not the same measure of success as the B from Berkeley.</p>