<p>
[quote]
However, Columbia Law School is notably superior and more prestigious than Boalt (Berkeley Law School). One might argue that going to Columbia as an undergrad would give you an advantage in getting into Columbia Law (I in fact was admitted to Columbia Law after I graduated from Columbia undergrad but didn't go), but I don't know if there is any truth to that.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>This is true even though it is according to the stats I have read harder to get into Boalt than into Columbia? Also, since you have had much more of your life revolve around NYC, isn't it possible that you have a geographic bias here? I have never thought of Columbia as being a cut above Boalt, though I have thought of Yale-Harvard and maybe Stanford as being the top tier.</p>
<p>This is simple. Go where you're most comfortable, if you can afford without stretching your pocketbook or the pocketbook of someone you care about too much. The biggest reason to go to Columbia in my opinion would be to get out of California if you grew up there and experience a whole different culture. Education, which involves a hell of a lot more than what you imbibe in your classes, is much aided by our efforts to broaden our cultural horizons.</p>
<p>hi guys
i know i haven't been posting much, but thats becuase i was VISITNG. yes i just came back from a 8 day trip up the east coast, visitng gtown, UPenn, columbia, and amherst.</p>
<p>Althgouth i am slightly afraid of saying this on this board, i think if i do decide to go to the east coast, i will be choosing between amherst and upenn.</p>
<p>i cant exactly place my finger on why i was impressed with upenn and not columbia, but i just felt a connection to upenn. Another factor that probably influenced it was the fact that i did an overnight stay program at columbia and barely got any sleep. my host turned out to be the biggest drinker in the biggest party dorm (carmen) and i am not a drinker. i ended up sleeping in the hallway. another factor was that i decided to sit in a class, and the professor happened to be hospitalized and it was taught by a TA. anyways it felt like the TA was just reading out loud from a text book. another factor is proabbly that when i visited penn, the weather was great, but i was hit by the storm when i was in columbia.</p>
<p>i know all of these factors could be non-unique to columbia and might be the same for upenn. but it just left a bad impression in my mind i couldnt shake off.</p>
<p>everyone was so helpful on this thread i thought you guys might want to know. </p>
<p>anyways, keep talking tho! this thread is so interesting and helpful.</p>
<p>Ouch, what a horrible campus visit experience. I'm sorry you had to see Columbia that way.</p>
<p>If anything, such skewed experiences, isolated though they may be, are the biggest argument against the hordes who insist that "just visit and decide which place fits" is the best way to make a college decision.</p>
<p>Wow, your host sounds like the perfect fit for me. I would have loved that guy! I guess it just depends on what type of person you are. If you're not a big partier, I can understand why you were not really happy there.</p>
<p>
[quote]
If anything, such skewed experiences, isolated though they may be, are the biggest argument against the hordes who insist that "just visit and decide which place fits" is the best way to make a college decision.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I would argue the unvarnished experience is one of the best for showing you one part of the range of experiences you'll get in college. If Columbia set you up with someone like that as a guide, you know at the very least that they seem a bit hands off to a certain extent when it comes to marketing the school to prospectives. The experiences themselves could easily have happened at many colleges. But you got a good gut feeling perspective that I would go with. </p>
<p>I do remember that I had an experience in a private,prestigious grad school where I calculated that the hourly cost of a class I was taking (at least on paper in terms of tuition) amounted to something like $250. We had a world famous professor come in and show us films (semi-related; I felt like I was in high school) or get his buddies to lecture (admittedly these were sometimes really interesting). I couldn't recall anything so egregiously slipshod happening to me as an undergrad at Berkeley. At the very least, your experience at Columbia may demystify to some extent the Ivy League experience. </p>
<p>I would say the greatest range of choice in terms of dollar for dollar quality of education would be between Berkeley and Penn vs. Amherst. There are huge arguments in favor of Amherst. The real question there is whether you want a big school or a small school. Educationally speaking with education limited to the college itself (as opposed to the city you're in for instance), I would say Amherst is a superior product to your other options.</p>
<p>Columbia lets in about 14% of applicants. Boalt 10%. GPAs at Boalt higher on average, LSATS lower. Only Yale and Stanford (I believe there are no others) have a lower admission rate.</p>
<p>Amherst is a great school. Lovely campus, and not too far from Northampton, which is fun little town. I got into Amherst, but never did a campus visit (I only visited Brown, Yale and Columbia). During my freshman year at Columbia, I visited some friends at Amherst and finally saw the campus. Must say, at that time I had a huge tinge of regret... (sigh). </p>
<p>Can't go wrong with any of your top choices ... good luck.</p>
<p>Columbia's median student is in the 99th percentile on the LSAT. Berkeley's median student is in the 94th percentile. That's not even close. And the 25-75 ranges barely even overlap. Boalt simply lets in people who wouldn't have gotten into Columbia.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Boalt simply lets in people who wouldn't have gotten into Columbia.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>And the other way around too. Boalt is known for not emphasizing the LSAT, but instead GPA, which the school maintains is a better indication of performance. And that's why the GPA of Boalt admits is significantly higher than that of Columbia's. Again, the barest measure: 10% of Boalt's applicants get in, closer to 14-15% for Columbia.</p>
<p>Yes, it's true that Boalt gets a disproportionate number of California resident applicants, but that's not so much a skew given the number of people from the East Coast in California, and California's great population anyway.</p>
<p>It's still valid to stay Boalt is harder to get into than Columbia.</p>
<p>
[quote]
And that's why the GPA of Boalt admits is significantly higher than that of Columbia's. Again, the barest measure: 10% of Boalt's applicants get in, closer to 14-15% for Columbia.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Interesting you cite two metrics -- caving one as "the barest metric" -- on which no direct comparison can be made to refute the fact that the LSAT demonstrates that Boalt's student body is inferior to Columbia's. GPA is a weaker metric for comparing student bodies because it varies from college to college and from major to major. Acceptance rate is a weaker metric because it depends on the quality of the applicant pool.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Boalt is known for not emphasizing the LSAT, but instead GPA, which the school maintains is a better indication of performance.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Lots of schools "maintain" things that are complete BS, backed up by no empirical evidence, and rationalizations for marketing/PR purposes.</p>
<p>Fair enough. You could argue it's more complicated. But as I admit this, you would likewise have to admit that using LSAT in the same way, as your argument clearly did, is likewise clearly specious. And you can't say that your argument for the quality of the applicant pool is that you just know the quality of the applicant pool for Columbia is better because Columbia is better. The facts remains: Boalt admits a significantly smaller number of folks applying relative to those admitted, it admits a pool of students with significantly higher GPAs than does Columbia, and Columbia admits people with a higher LSAT. </p>
<p>Many studies show that standardized tests are much weaker indicators of performance than GPAs, full-stop. And if you doubt the quality of schools from whom Boalt students come, look at them. Clearly a sound set of admissions criteria will take into account the issues you named -- i.e., majors and schools and difficulty of courses, etc.. </p>
<p>As regards your assumption that the position of weighing LSATS lower is always just marketing spin, remember that the University of California as a whole has been an extremely strong critic of standardized tests and often backs up this stance with its selection criteria. You too are making assumptions about what a school values and, therefore, about the cross-comparability of applicant pools; if a school simply doesn't value LSATs as much, the fact that the scores of admitted students varies in an unfavorable fashion in terms of comparison of admitted students is going to reflect that fact. It would be just as valid to say that Columbia is a whore to the rankings systems and test scores, weighing them most heavily because they know that they will back up such simplistic positions as the one you are espousing. </p>
<p>But let's end this, 'cause its clear we disagree. The facts are as stated above, and really open to interpretation.</p>
<p>This is my likely last post on this thread, and we've played enough ping-pong, but let me just respond to your main point:</p>
<p>
[quote]
The facts remains: Boalt admits a significantly smaller number of folks applying relative to those admitted, it admits a pool of students with significantly higher GPAs than does Columbia, and Columbia admits people with a higher LSAT.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Yes, all three are "facts." But only one of those three facts makes for an appropriate and accurate comparison of the strength of the Columbia and Boalt student bodies. And that fact demonstrates a major difference between the two.</p>