<p>And to complete my thoughts, I do respect Penn also, though I don’t think it’s similar to UCLA. I’m just not fond of those who blanket ideas as, “it is important to study within an extremely ambitious cohort of one u, rather than be dragged down by the numerous extremely low bottom feeders of another u” kind of attitude when UCLA students are just as competitive, studious, and ambitious. Ennis made it seem as though UCLA were some lowly state school that fought to keep accredited. The handful of subsequent posts to his excoriated him and put him in his place. I’m surprised he came back for more. </p>
<p>“fought to keep accreditation,” or “fought to stay accredited,” among other grammatical missteps. </p>
<p>Sorry, I just read ennisthemenace’s post in which he responded to bluebayou a few posts back. Since bluebayou didn’t respond in kind, I’d like to address this.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Obviously, the bold wouldn’t be true as a standalone statement, and it would be silly to even surmise that someone would incur $200K ($70K/year) debt to HLS over a free ride at UCLAW or Boalt, especially for someone who wanted to practice in CA as UCLA students (and I guess Cal students as possibly by your inference here appears) tend to aspire to. Just to try to prove your point you somehow equated this situation to the OP’s of having essentially a full ride to UCLA versus possibly incurring $7-8K/year debt to Penn. These aren’t anywhere near similar situations.</p>
<p>As bluebayou stated, which you probably missed if you read his/her earlier posts, he/she stated essentially, * Penn doesn’t do a better job of educating and prepping a student to attend a grad program like Harvard Law, but rather, Penn accepts a higher level of test-takers who do better on grad admission tests like the LSAT and thereby places them better into HLS*. (I won’t encase this in quotes but rather italicize this as it is a liberal approximation.) Again, I believe that Penn students do better on the SAT and a tad better on LSAT (maybe materially better for this latter, but not enormously better…) because of better educational funding, per my post two occurrences prior. This is why Penn’s l-school placement is better for those entering l-school immediately upon graduation per db (if it is indeed for those who have just done so). Or, Penn is including alumni as Yale has done in its l-school-placement db, which would stack the deck towards favorable outcomes to places like HLS, because l-schools are trending towards taking more of those who’ve experienced the world outside of academia …; but we know that UCLA’s db is just for those who’ve just graduated in whatever year was referenced. My point is that UCLA”s l-school placement db isn’t complete, whereas Penn’s would be or moreso. The same applies to Cal’s similar to UCLA’s.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Again, you’re basing this on db’s in which for UCLA wouldn’t be comprehensive versus Penn’s which would be, because of the latter’s need to promote itself. UCLA, as an instance, produces many more MD’s than Penn, yet you wouldn’t be able to determine this by looking at UCLA’s and Penn’s m-school placement data. In a typical year, there’s say 800+ applicants for UCLA and for Penn ~350. Even if all Penn’s applicants made it to med school, which I’m sure Penn would like you to believe, this still wouldn’t compare to UCLA’s ~ 500+ who did. Again, private schools will try to produce the magic 90% acceptance-rate figure by culling the strongest applicants and encouraging their applying to m, and “helping” those who aren’t in encouraging their deferring. And, too, again, UCLA’s professional-school placement dbs are more matter-of-fact instead of promotional material and probably wouldn’t manifest the strongest applicants in them, at least for the U’s m-school data.</p>
<p>And bluebayou didn’t say that Penn’s grads are wealther – they may be but not on the average materially more so – he/she stated that Penn’s grads come from wealthier families who can fund whatever professional school aspirations these grads do have. I don’t know if you didn’t latch onto this difference – I’m thinking this is the case, or that you chose to promote Penn instead. </p>
<p>The second sentence in this paragraph is pure comedy. It’s so hilariously out of bounds that I don’t need to address it.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Undoubtedly, UCLA would have a decent amount of 1-5%-er’s sons and daughters, and a lot of UCLA alumni are at least 5%-ers mainly because of real-estate values if not necessarily because family cash-flow. Californians tend to have an appearance of being rich, and they may have much equity because of housing appreciation, but not necessarily in tangible wealth, and therefore, one can see a family in CA living in a 5,000 sf manse near the beach, and spend much of their income paying property tax and mortgage – unless they bought in decades ago, and are unwilling to move their property.</p>
<p>But again, Penn students come from, let’s say, more tangible accessible wealth – they come from families that can fund whatever their offspring want. And let’s not try to make Penn out to be some small LAC – it isn’t.</p>