Hey guys!
So I am debating between going to UCBerkeley and UNC Chapel Hill for business right now - I only have one day left!
Berkeley’s undergrad business is #2 (Haas), while UNC’s undergrad is #9 (Kenan-Flagler) in the nation. However, Berkeley is general is more renowned nationally and internationally than UNC. Do you think future employers and graduate schools will care about where I went for my undergrad if I decide to choose UNC? (Another thing to note: I got assured admission into UNC’s business program, and Haas doesn’t offer that - so I would still have to apply for Haas and it’s a 30% acceptance rate/pretty low acceptance) Right now, because of what’s in the parentheses, I’m leaning towards UNC, but all my friends are saying that Berkeley would open up more opportunities and that even with Haas’s low acceptance rate, I should try go to Berkeley and try to get in anyways.
I’m looking to get into a competitive MBA or Law school, particular at either UChicago or at Harvard, and I don’t want to get a bad GPA in my undergrad (esp with Berkeley’s deflation, amirite?), but I also don’t want to be seen as less competitive compared to a Berkeley kid if I go to UNC.
@RMNiMiTz haha no (though that’s kinda true), I was refering Berkeley’s grade deflation issues - the Ivies inflate, UNC is normal, and Berkeley deflates their grades so only a small % of each class is allowed to get an A.
These schools are close enough that it won’t matter much. If you know you want to study business than UNC with a direct admit is a great option (you can study anything undergrad and go on for law school or a MBA). But wherever you go you would need to excel to have a shot for a top grad school. Admission to top grad programs will require excellent GPA & standardized tests, great recommendations, strong essays, valuable ECs/internships etc. and the top MBA programs generally look for 2-5 years of meaningful full time work experience.
Even if you wanted to go to a lower-ranked undergrad business school you’d be fine, but the differences between the #2 and #9 schools are so small they’re pretty much negligible. And the vital part here is that you didn’t get into Haas yet, so there’s no guarantee you’d even be in the #2 business school. Go to UNC and be happy!
I don’t know how top law schools regard business v. liberal arts majors these days.
Harvard Law says it “prescribes no fixed requirements with respect to the content of pre-legal education”… but also that it considers “the nature of candidates’ college work”.
[quote] The Admissions Committee considers that those programs approaching their subjects on a more theoretical level, with attention to educational breadth, are better preparatory training for the legal profession than those emphasizing the practical./quote
It might help to have some math-heavy econ courses in your program (but Berkeley’s and UNC’s business programs may already have that covered.)
Anyway, I’d expect your program rigor (and breadth) to matter much more for law admissions than the college “brand” per se (especially if we’re talking about distinctions among selective schools like UCB and UNC-CH).
Yes the school does matter. An A GPA at MIT or UChicago is not the same as an A at Cornell. But between roughly similarly situated schools and course rigor, the grades are more important. The elite law schools are exceptionally sophisticated in reading transcripts and understand the grading policy in each school.
^What evidence do we have for the above? Are we trying to say that, for instance, a 3.5 GPA at MIT or UChicago is more likely to get admitted to law school than a 3.7 GPA at Cornell, all other things equal? I’m skeptical of this conclusion.
You can be skeptical, but when you have a quiet asides with people in the know including admissions folks at elite law schools, that’s; what they will tell you. Of course GPA , course work and quality of undergrad program are only half of the story. Especially LSAT and somewhat essay are also key.
@juillet The top Law Schools definitely take into account the quality of the undergraduate school, and the grade rigor at each school when making admissions decisions. They have a profile for every school, and that profile includes such factors as undergraduate rigor and grade inflation. I know this from talking to an admissions officer.
There is a reason that tiny Amherst (graduating class 450) has 18 students at Yale Law right now, which is more than the entire SEC conference has (with 400,000 students and some very good schools). The maybe 40 or 50 students from Amherst who apply to law school every year surely have high LSAT scores, but they do not all have higher LSAT scores than all of the thousands of students applying from SEC schools. The perceived quality of their undergraduate degree is helping them.
Here’s another example. There is a reason that 85% of UChicago undergrads who apply to law school get into T-14 law schools, despite UChicago’s reputation for grade deflation. The T-14 schools understand undergraduate rigor and grade deflation, and they give credit for it when evaluating their applicants.
@yikesyikesyikes Nope. Both matter, but LSAT is not more important. A low LSAT will kill your chances, but so will a low GPA (relative to other applicants and the expectations for your particular school).
I am still getting the same answers from my friends who RECENTLY went through the application process both successfully and unsuccessfully (for Harvard, Yale, Penn, Michigan, Columbia, Chicago, Duke, Georgetown and NYU). They are saying GPA is important, but not as important as LSAT.
Furthermore, US News backs up what my friends say:
"The LSAT is given more weight by most law schools, and although a great LSAT score will not completely overcome a lower GPA, it can help a lot. "
Most other online articles express similar sentiments. Perhaps my 80% metric was an exaggeration for most law schools, but it is a commonly expressed sentiment that the LSAT is significantly more important than GPA for most law schools.
@Chrchill , I wasn’t questioning whether the school matters. I was questioning this very specific statement
Cornell, MIT and UChicago are all pretty close together in terms of selectivity and elite status, so it seemed an odd comparison to make. I would imagine it would also depend on which law school we’re talking about - Harvard Law may split hairs like this, but I’m assuming UGA Law wouldn’t.
There are a wide variety of explanations for why that might be. Graduates of top undergraduate schools are wealthier and more able to afford top law schools; they are also more likely to want to go to law school in the first place. I’m not denying that the premise is true; I’m just saying I have not seen any evidence to support the claim.
I’m just curious why law school admissions officers are willing to tell people this individually but won’t put it on their admissions websites.
