<p>Do the top 4 law schools like Columbia, Yale, and Stanford accept more people from UC Berkeley or UCLA? I know Harvard Law accepts about the same amount from LA and Berkeley. About 15 per year for their JD program. If you do know, cna you please giev me the stats on how many students do get admitted. Also, is a 3.8 GPA at Berkeley at good enough GPA for any of the top 4 Law schools considering a LSAT about 170.</p>
<p>For Yale and Stanford there is no consistency and few if any Berkeley people get in as with most major universities.</p>
<p>You can get the stats at the career center at berkeley at career.berkeley.edu for the stats of people who got in in recent surveys. The site does not show the actual individual statistics of each student, just an aggregate number. </p>
<p>A 3.8 would put you in 25th percentile for HYS and your 170 puts you in the 25th percentile as well (approx). As such you probably would have to consider such schools reaches. Columbia will most likely accept you and give you some kind of merit aid probably.</p>
<p>For Yale and Stanford there is no consistency and few if any Berkeley people get in as with most major universities. They are small classes (200) each and as such can reject 4.0/180's. Harvard is more of a numbers game than these schools.</p>
<p>You can get the stats at the career center at berkeley at career.berkeley.edu for the stats of people who got in in recent surveys. The site does not show the actual individual statistics of each student, just an aggregate number so read them with a grain of salt.</p>
<p>A 3.8 would put you in 25th percentile for HYS and your 170 puts you in the 25th percentile as well (approx). As such you probably would have to consider Yale and Stanford reaches with Harvard a slight reach. Columbia will most likely accept you and give you some kind of merit aid if you're stats are that good probably.</p>
<p>Sorry about the double post, statute of limitations acted on me.</p>
<p>i'd be interested to see a person with a 4.0/180 rejected. just curious...</p>
<p>It was posted before that Yale rejected 1/3 of those with 180/4.0's. I'm not sure as to the source on that, but it seems to make sense. What's the difference statistically to Yale for someone with a 4.0/180 and someone with a 3.95, 177? Statistically, both affect their interquartile range for GPA and LSAT the same (both in top quartile). And if one is seriously more well rounded than the other, its an easier admit. And if you have enough rhodes scholars, uber-volunteers, etc. applying all with 3.8+'s and 170+'s then the 4.0/180 with not much on their record becomes an easier reject.</p>
<p>With the new stats out it seems your stats puts you in the median of Stanford LSAT scores but still 25th percentile for gpa, but you should consider it a reach because noone is an automatic accept at SY.</p>
<p>Those stats are super depressing Sakky and since they don't hold individual statistics or info on the number that actually responded out of the entire population sample, I would not treat it as useful information.</p>
<p>Well, what do you want? Statistics for every single individual that applied? That would violate student privacy. </p>
<p>Furthermore, I've seen you harp on the fact that the data doesn't include info on those that applied. My first response to that is that it's all relative. The Berkeley data may be incomplete, but so is the data from Stanford, Yale, Princeton, or any other school. After all, no school out there can force every one of its prelaws to report their results. I don't see any reason why the Berkeley data would be any MORE incomplete than data from other schools, especially when aggregated over a number of years. </p>
<p>Secondly, if anything the data is actually skewed 'upwards'. Let's face it. If you didn't get into any law schools, I doubt that you are champing at the bit to report this fact. Usually, people who report for surveys like this are people who are happy with their results. So if anything, I would suspect that it is actually MORE difficult to get into law school than the results indicate.</p>
<p>The bottom line is that I think the best way to use surveys like this is on a relative basis. Take the Berkeley data. Compare it to data from Stanford or some other school. Look at the relative differences.</p>
<p>The relative difference is that Berkeley students seem to do less well than students from other schools and that they seem to be in general more to be weaker in terms of soft factors than the other schools because their lsat/gpa's for acceptances is higher than the median by far for big law schools.</p>
<p>Cal's data is very limited. I would use Michigan's data as Michigan andCal have similar placement success.</p>
<p>A 3.8 from Berkeley isn't going to be viewed any differently than a 3.8 from another school. A 3.8/170 wouldn't give you very good chances, but not because the 3.8 is from Berkeley.</p>
<p>To clarify, the stats of Berkeley students admitted to top law schools tend to be higher than the 75th percentile of median ranges of most of these schools.</p>
<p>This leads one to speculate that Berkeley's reputation does nothing toward's one's acceptance chances (because if Berkeley were so reputable, schools would accept berkeley students with lower scores). In addition, the fact that reputation doesn't matter much also leads one to believe that Berkeley students are in general weaker candidates in terms of soft factors versus their competitors since their average LSAT and GPA of admits is higher in general than the averages of HYS.</p>
<p>There is no other conclusion that can be taken from the hard numbers. I agree, Polite.</p>
<p>Bravo Polite. Attending some hard to get into undergrad schools, such as UCB, may make it harder to move on to a competitive law school. THis subject is one of the most mistunderstood by students looking at colleges.</p>
<p>
[quote]
In addition, the fact that reputation doesn't matter much also leads one to believe that Berkeley students are in general weaker candidates in terms of soft factors versus their competitors since their average LSAT and GPA of admits is higher in general than the averages of HYS.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>The averages for accepted students are always, or at least generally, going to be higher than for matriculating students. The fact that this is dealing with such a small sample for HYS (where probably a total of 4 students last year got into any of them, given the likely overlap) makes it impossible to make a conclusion like that.</p>
<p>
[quote]
The averages for accepted students are always, or at least generally, going to be higher than for matriculating students. The fact that this is dealing with such a small sample for HYS (where probably a total of 4 students last year got into any of them, given the likely overlap) makes it impossible to make a conclusion like that.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I agree that the small sample size skews things. That is why it is better to look at law schools with broader applicant pools, like Boalt Hall. Compare the stats for the admitted students from Berkeley undergrad to Boalt Hall to the admitted students from, say, Stanford, to Boalt Hall.</p>
<p>Yeah, well Berkeley definitely seems to offer no advantage there. It is probably only better than podunk schools in terms of placement.</p>
<p>And I agree with the above posts that my analysis was incomplete at best. Though with these criticisms, it makes it very hard to discern how the admissions process works.</p>