<p>
[quote]
1. The relative difference in the GPA kills your argument... Well, if youre in the middle of Yale, I doubt that is a 3.8. Youve compared the VERY TOP of Yale to the VERY TOP of a TOP public.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Huh? Why should we be comparing the very top grades? Obviously the very top grades at any school are going to be close to all A's. But what does that have to do with anything? I thought we were talking about the relative amounts of grade inflation vs. grade deflation at particular schools, and that purpose is served by the average grades given to ALL students at a particular school. It's an indisputable fact that Yale gives out higher average grades than does Berkeley. </p>
<p>After all, think about it. You talk about the top students at a particular school. Why? What assurance do you have that you are going to be a top student at a particular school? Is that guaranteed? Maybe you will be, maybe you won't. It's not as simple as just deciding one fine day that you're going to be a top student, and then it just happens just "like that". Lots of people want to be top students at their school and can't be. That's why you have to look at averages. </p>
<p>And besides, if you don't want to talk about Yale vs. Berkeley because you think Yale is too selective relative to Berkeley, fine, then consider Northwestern vs. Berkeley According to USNews, the selectivity ratings of Northwestern and Berkeley are roughly the same. Yet, again, you can see that the average grades given out at Northwestern are higher than the average grades given out at Berkeley. </p>
<p><a href="http://www.gradeinflation.com/northwestern.html%5B/url%5D">http://www.gradeinflation.com/northwestern.html</a></p>
<p>So here we have 2 schools that are about the same in terms of selectivity, and yet one gives out higher average grades than the other does. </p>
<p>
[quote]
2. You totally concede to me the idea of the $$$$ saved makes it a better deal. Not even a response.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I didn't realize you were looking for a response to every one of your assertions. I was just pointing out what I thought were the most interesting of your assertions. But fine, you want a response to this, then fair enough.</p>
<p>I think your assertion actually depends on the individual. A public school may save you money, it may not. Take my brother. He could have gone to Berkeley. He could have gone to UCLA. Instead, Caltech offered his the Caltech President's Scholarship which not only paid all his tuition, room and board, but also gave him a stipend. Berkeley and UCLA gave him no such comparable offer. Hence, he actually MADE money by going to Caltech. That's right, he MADE money. So the choice he had was to either go to Berkeley or UCLA and pay them, or go to Caltech and have Caltech pay him. You talk about how saving $$$$ is important. Fine, you tell me which one saves more money, going to a public school and paying them, or going to a private school and having them pay you? </p>
<p>I also know 2 guys who came from rather modest financial backgrounds. They got into Berkeley and Harvard. For them, Harvard actually turned out to be CHEAPER than Berkeley once financial aid was factored in. Basically, Berkeley offered them a package of loans and grants, whereas Harvard offered them a package of full grants. So the choice was to go to Berkeley and take on loans, or go to Harvard and pay nothing. What would you do? I remember one of the guys sarcastically joking that he really wanted to go to Berkeley but he couldn't afford it, so he had "no choice" but to go to Harvard. He had a pretty dark and nihilistic sense of humor. </p>
<p>The point is that public schools only seem cheaper on a nominal "sticker price" basis. The fact of the matter is that public schools tend not to be particularly aggressive when it comes to merit scholarships and/or financial aid. The true price of a private school can actually be CHEAPER than a public school, once scholarships and FA is factored in. Why don't you go tell my brother that public schools are a great financial deal, and watch him laugh in your face. </p>
<p>What's fair to say is that public schools can be a better financial deal for SOME people, but not for others. </p>
<p>
[quote]
...kid who goes to say, the University of Arizona and get a 3.9. These kids will be just as competitive as a Yale student with their average grade inflated 3.5 or whatever, and Id contest that scoring 2 points higher on the LSAT with a 3.9 from Arizona WITH the money saved....
[/quote]
</p>
<p>See below.</p>
<p>Also you keep talking about how the public school student is going to get a higher LSAT score than the guy from Yale. Why? You're saying that by going to a public school, your LSAT score is going to be higher than if you went to Yale? How's that? </p>
<p>
[quote]
Your data collection is ALSO highly flawed in that you pick maybe THE TOP PRIVATE. I might be so inclined to agree, id go to yale over mostly everywhere, pay the money , because that advantage is key. But for Northwesterns or JHUs or Boston Colleges, that advantage is not there. Go research their average numbers.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Wait a minute now, you were the one who said that it is better to go to a public school than a private school. You never made any exception before for places like Yale. </p>
<p>Furthermore, you ask for numbers for a place like Northwestern, well, here it is. </p>
<p><a href="http://www.gradeinflation.com/northwestern.html%5B/url%5D">http://www.gradeinflation.com/northwestern.html</a></p>
<p>Unfortunately, Northwestern doesn't print their prelaw admissions profile online (I think it is in hardcopy in their career services office). However, I know some people in the Evanston area, so I might ask them to drop by and take a look at it and report back. Are you sure that they are going to tell me that the Northwestern prelaw profiles are not going to be better than the data about Berkeley? Are you sure? Have you seen the data yourself? If not, then how you can you be so sure of your position? </p>
<p>
[quote]
You dont take into account the way law school rankings work. A 177 3.8 from LSU looks better to US News than 175 3.6 from Vanderbilt. Your little research project fails to understand the dynamics of law school admissions.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>You just went right off the rails. If what you are saying is true, and it's all about how USNews does its rankings, then why is it that according to UChicago Law admissions, 3.85/171 from Berkeley looks the same as a 3.66/169 from Yale? Why is it that according to UPenn Law admissions, a 3.80/172 from Berkeley looks the same as a 3.66/168 from Yale? I thought you said that it was about how USNews does its ranking, yet here are these law schools who are admitting people with LOWER grades and LOWER LSAT's, hence making the law school look WORSE in the USNews ranking. What's that all about? </p>
<p>
[quote]
... While yes some of the schools od have apparently easier numbers for Yale than UCB (which again is flawed because its Yale and not a non ivy private) but take into account the type of student that might be applying from UCB with lower numbers. Id argue that even a low Yale kid will have attempted more soft factors (ie: internships) as opposed to the lower-middle UCB kids. If you were a top dog at a CHEAP STATE UNIVERSITY ...
[/quote]
</p>
<p>And again, who is to say that you are going to be a top dog at a public university? You keep talking about it like that's a guaranteed thing. Lots of people would like to be the top dog at Berkeley, but aren't. Lots of people would like to be the top dog at UCLA, Michigan, Georgia Tech, or Virginia, but aren't. Why not go up to a Berkeley kid and tell him how easy it is for him to get a 3.9, and watch him laugh. </p>
<p>
[quote]
Non responsive to the fact that if youre a Yale quality student going to Arizona, youll negate that advantage by being the top dog all the time.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>And see above. Who says that you are assured of being the top dog at Arizona? </p>
<p>Furthermore, my argument was predicated on going to any public school. I would contend that a Yale-quality student can easily wind up with bad grades at a public school like Berkeley. My argument is based on the simple fact that you are not assured of getting top grades at any school, public or private. You talk about how a top student can just waltz into a public school and get top grades. This is not guaranteed by any means. The fact is, bad things happen. Some top students lose their motivation. Some top students become immature. Some top students decide they'd rather sit around in the dorm and drink all day long instead of going to class. Some top students find the love of their life and decide that he/she is more important than doing schoolwork. Plenty of top students come to a public school and, for various reasons, don't do well. Some do extremely poorly - in fact, sometimes poorly enough to flunk out. I've seen it with my own eyes at Berkeley. Plenty of honors and scholarships students at Berkeley perform poorly. </p>
<p>At most private schools, even if you do poorly, you're highly unlikely to flunk out. Even if you don't do well, you're almost certainly still going to graduate, and probably with halfway decent grades. Maybe not with a 4.0, but with respectable grades. No such assurance is available at most public schools. Public schools have no problem in handing out boatloads of failing grades to students who aren't doing well. </p>
<p>That's the point. A private school is a SAFER choice than a public school. Sure, I agree with you, if you go to a public school and get top grades, then the safety factor didn't matter to you. That's like saying that a trapeze artist who doesn't fall has no need a the net. But what about those who do fall? At a private school, even if you 'fall', you're probably still going to graduate with OK grades. At a public school, if you 'fall', you'll get tagged with a whole bunch of bad grades, and you may well find yourself expelled entirely.</p>