<p>
[quote]
Er, but it'd significantly increase my chances.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>If you work harder and earn better grades, you will have a good chance. Even though you may work harder than your peers at other institutions, odds are that it will better prepare you for law school.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Would you not transfer if you were in my position?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I have different plans, as I wish to pursue a joint J.D./Ph.D. The philosophy department at UCB is simply too hard to refuse.</p>
<p>I didn't mean to say that it was easy to get As or A+s at Berkeley. I honestly don't know anything about Berkeley's grading policies. All I was trying to say was that if you want a real shot at HYS, the type of GPA you would need to be competitive depends on the school you come from. Don't think that Berkeley's average GPA for admitted students is the norm - you have to look at your particular school.</p>
<p>As for whether law schools look at your grades from a school you transfered from, the answer is yes, they do. This situation applies to me and I've asked several people and have received that same answer. Still, don't transer because it'll help your law school chances.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Well theoretically,given my 3.8 GPA as of now, it's literally impossible--almost--to even obtain the median accepted GPA of Berkeley graduates to H/S/Y law schools even if I get 4.0 for the rest of my university career. It's almost statistically impossible.</p>
<p>I will still apply, but take these universities as jokes, because frankly, it's not worth it in the end. (This isn't just mere comfort notions either, but I figure even if I forced my way into H/S/Y LS, I might be miserable under stiff competition all the time anyway.)</p>
<p>I'd much rather go to another good law school (top 15), but not have to force myself to study 30 hours a ****ing day, then work 80 hours a week in a firm. I'd have no life, and it's really not worth the 150,000 salary. Maybe I should pursue investment banking after I get a J.D....interesting notion.</p>
<p>I'd rather attend a good law school (top 15), work for a corporation, make a decent wage, and have the ability to say that I know what weekends are. Suffice it to say, I want to go to Columbia/Cornell/NYU rather than the other three, because their standards are damned unfair on Berkeley students and not worth it.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>But Berkeley is my particular school. This is why I am screwed for HYS, because I go to Berkeley.</p>
<p>
As for whether law schools look at your grades from a school you transfered from, the answer is yes, they do. This situation applies to me and I've asked several people and have received that same answer. Still, don't transer because it'll help your law school chances.
</p>
<p>I see, but hypothetically if I were to transfer to Cornell or Georgetown or another university, they would not be able to differentiate between the GPA I received at Berkeley and the new institution, correct? Because the GPAs are cumulative. Hence, their calculations would be primarily based upon the institution I graduated from, rather than the one I transferred from.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I'd much rather go to another good law school (top 15), but not have to force myself to study 30 hours a ****ing day, then work 80 hours a week in a firm. I'd have no life, and it's really not worth the 150,000 salary. Maybe I should pursue investment banking after I get a J.D....interesting notion.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Going to either Columbia, Cornell, or NYU will change that?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Well if you look at the statistics from the career center website, it's much more fair for Berkeley students to apply to those institutions rather than HYS. Thus, no, you wouldn't have to study 30 hours a day.</p>
<p>As for the rest of it, not necessarily, but perhaps HYS are more demanded by top firms, so they might have to work longer hours.</p>
<p>
[quote]
The first thing that strikes me on this thread is that Sakky has no clue what he is talking about. Stanford is significantly more selective than Harvard. Stanford has a 7.7% acceptance rate whereas Harvard has a 11.6% acceptance rate. A basic understanding of statitstics shows that less than 8 out of every 100 applicants to stanford get in...nearly 12 in every 100 get into harvard. The number of applications means very little...the fact that Harvard receives more applications than Stanford actually exposes the fact that it is significantly less selective.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I have no clue what I'm talking about, eh? Keep it up, pal, I'll gladly get you kicked out of college confidential. </p>
<p>As far as your objection is concerned, let me put it to you this way. Since you like to talk about 'simple statistics', let's do so. MIT admits about 25% of all applicants to its graduate engineering school. Michigan State admits about 10%. So I guess according to your 'simple statistics', MIT is clearly 2.5 times easier to get into than is Michigan State, right? Never mind the fact that on practically every other quantitative and qualitative level, those who get into MIT for graduate school are vastly superior to those who get into Michigan
State. All that matters to you is that one admits a higher percentage of applicants than the other does. </p>
<p>I'll give you another example. Harvard Medical School admits 4.9% of its applicants. Boston University Medical School admits 4.8%. So I guess according to you, that must mean that Harvard is less selective than is BU, right?</p>
<p>What you have neglected is the aspect of SELF-SELECTION. Not everybody applies everywhere. Those people who apply to MIT for graduate engineering school are already a highly self-selected group. Let's face it. If you're a terrible engineer, you're not going to apply to MIT for grad engineering. </p>
<p>In theory, a school with a 100% admit rate can nonetheless be one of the most selective schools in the world, if only superstars apply to that school. If those people who know they can't get in choose not to apply, then that will make the admit rate higher. But that doesn't mean that the school is any less 'selective' in any true sense of the word. That's why you have to look at the quality of the students who ultimately matriculate into your program, not just take a simplistic look at admit percentages.</p>
<p>So tell me again about this 'basic understanding' of statistics?</p>
<p>
[quote]
In which Stanford clearly has the more accomplished students.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Why? Where is the evidence for this.</p>
<p>Harvard's 25/75 LSAT scores range from 169-175, GPA from 3.73-3.94</p>
<p>Stanford's 25/75 LSAT scores range from 166-172, GPA from 3.77-3.94</p>
<p>I don't see any evidence that Stanford 'clearly' has the more accomplished students. Stanford has a slightly higher lower bracket of GPA, Harvard clearly has an LSAT edge. </p>
<p>That is, of course, unless you are still basing your logic on a simplistic look at admissions percentages only, in which case you would have to believe that Michigan State grad engineering students are clearly more accomplished students than are MIT grad engineering students, a position that would place you well outside the mainstream.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Sakky, are you ****ing serious? You need above a 4.0 to get into YLS and Stanford from Berkeley? And a near-perfect GPA for HLS?</p>
<p>That's literally impossible unless you study 24 hours a day.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Hey, what do you want me to say? These are not my statistics. These are statistics compiled by the Berkeley Career office. If you don't like it, take it up with them. </p>
<p>Sadly, I think all of this reinforces a point that I had made before, which is that Berkeley really isn't all that good of a place to go if you want to get into a top professional school. Fair or not fair, and for whatever reason, it seems as if top professional schools demand Herculean effort from the Berkeley undergrads they admit. Whether it's because Berkeley doesn't seem to prepare its students well, or whether it's because the students themselves aren't very good, or whatever it is, the bottom line is that Berkeley undergrads seem to encounter unusual difficulty in getting into a top professional program, relative to the undergrads of peer schools.</p>
<p>That doesn't mean that I would counsel you to transfer away, but it does mean that you should be cognizant of this fact.</p>
<p>However, let's also point out that there are certain majors at Berkeley in which it really isn't very hard at all to rack up a long string of excellent grades while doing very little work. I am not going to name these majors, but I think anybody who knows Berkeley will be nodding their heads.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I'd much rather go to another good law school (top 15), but not have to force myself to study 30 hours a ****ing day, then work 80 hours a week in a firm. I'd have no life, and it's really not worth the 150,000 salary. Maybe I should pursue investment banking after I get a J.D....interesting notion.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Uh, if you go into investment banking, then an 80 hour work week will actually be a very light week.</p>
<p>Is it possible to get the average LSAT of my school anywhere on the web?</p>
<p>Sakky, so you recommend that I do a joke major rather than transfer?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Uh, your salary would be much higher than 150,000. Then you can retire early, hence not work.</p>
<p>Another Q:
What is the reputation for St.Johns Undergrad (currently Im attending there, and want to know what law schools think about it)</p>
<p>And how is St.Johns Law?</p>
<p>sakky: Do you have any idea what you're talking about? Did you forget that virtually all HYS applicants are the same? Your examples of MIT vs Michigan state are irrelevant because those two schools aren't even on the same level, whereas stanford and harvard are. Stanford is more selective because they look at the entire application (Superior soft factors can make up for lower than normal numbers). Harvard is strictly numbers. Additionally, selective is selective any way you cut it....you can't change the definition to fit your own conception. Your examples are irrelevent if we are talking about Harvard vs Stanford law the number 2 vs number 3 law school.</p>
<p>Your stats for Harvard are wrong btw. You should check out their website. You still didn't respond to the erroneous information you posted about Yale Law Admissions.</p>
<p>I heard from a friend that the starting salary at a reputable I-banking firm is about $60,000/year (coming out of college). Sure, the bonuses are great (on the same order of magnitude as salary), and its fantastic money for someone with a bachelor's, but those are incredibly long hours. Sometime or another, you may realize that you can make the same money (absent the bonus and, of course, the giant increases in salary) with engineering - and work 40 hours a week. You may realize that, with a law degree and the right market (smaller city, west coast, etc) you can make a very nice living (not uber-wealthy, but extremely comfortable) and work reasonable hours. I-banking, from what I've heard, will kill you - and the stress is supposed to be unbelievable - you can get called to the office in the middle of the night. I think even lawyers get to sleep once they've gone home.... </p>
<p>Would not recommend i-banking to anyone who likes his sleep, let's put it that way. Also, would not recommend to anyone who wants a family.</p>
<p>(Just saying... I do feel like a lot of young posters don't realize exactly how grueling some of these professions are. There's someone on the engineering boards who thinks that medicine is a wonderful, stress-free profession that is the road to wealth. Uh huh....)</p>
<p>
<p>Sadly, I think all of this reinforces a point that I had made before, which is that Berkeley really isn't all that good of a place to go if you want to get into a top professional school. Fair or not fair, and for whatever reason, it seems as if top professional schools demand Herculean effort from the Berkeley undergrads they admit. Whether it's because Berkeley doesn't seem to prepare its students well, or whether it's because the students themselves aren't very good, or whatever it is, the bottom line is that Berkeley undergrads seem to encounter unusual difficulty in getting into a top professional program, relative to the undergrads of peer schools.</p>
<p>That doesn't mean that I would counsel you to transfer away, but it does mean that you should be cognizant of this fact.</p>
<p>However, let's also point out that there are certain majors at Berkeley in which it really isn't very hard at all to rack up a long string of excellent grades while doing very little work. I am not going to name these majors, but I think anybody who knows Berkeley will be nodding their heads.
</p>
<p>Firstly, no need to be defensive. I'm just damn irritated that HYS have such different standards for Berkeley students when we are the ones without grade inflation. </p>
<p>I'd have to say that Berkeley students are just as good if not better than the median accepted applicants to HYS. I mean their LSAT scores are up there, and even higher than most medians. It's just SO DAMNED UNFAIR. </p>
<p>Me being cognizant of this fact doesn't help my chances of getting in. And let's face it, my chance of getting a 4.1 GPA is approximately 0%.</p>
<p>Maybe you should name these majors...purely for advice.</p>
<p>My current majors are economics and English. Would you recommend I transfer out of these majors into something easier eh? Or are they easy in the first place? (Which I don't think so, but others may disagree...)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Well I'm not sure about the last bit. Lawyers who work in top firms put in 80 hours a week, especially if they want to make partner some day.</p>
<p>I just hope to work for a corporation, making slightly less, but still good money, working less hours. I'm not sure how feasible this is though.</p>
<p>As for I-banking, do you need any training or know-how prior to starting?</p>
<p>I am well aware that lawyers for top firms put in 80 hours a week. But - you'll find out that 80 hours in lawyering is not 80 hours in i-banking - kind of the same way that putting in 80 (or 100, sometimes) hour weeks with undergrad work was just different. </p>
<p>My assumption is that, if you are a lawyer, you will often leave the office at midnight. Then you return at 7 am. With i-banking, you'll leave at midnight, then go to sleep with your Blackberry next to you in case they need you at the office at 3 am. There's an 80-hour culture and a 24-hour culture. </p>
<p>I worked long hours as an engineer. But - except in a few circumstances - when I left the office, I was done for the day. Sure, "the day" meant from 9 pm until I had to wake up in the wee hours of morning, but I was done. It's a great feeling to just leave the office and know that, at least for a little bit, you don't have to think about stuff anymore.</p>
<p>
[quote]
sakky: Do you have any idea what you're talking about?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Keep it up, pal, and see what the moderators do to you. I certainly won't shed any tears to see you banned. </p>
<p>
[quote]
Did you forget that virtually all HYS applicants are the same? Your examples of MIT vs Michigan state are irrelevant because those two schools aren't even on the same level, whereas stanford and harvard are. Stanford is more selective because they look at the entire application (Superior soft factors can make up for lower than normal numbers). Harvard is strictly numbers. Additionally, selective is selective any way you cut it....you can't change the definition to fit your own conception. Your examples are irrelevent if we are talking about Harvard vs Stanford law the number 2 vs number 3 law school.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>No no no. I'm using YOUR definition of selectivity, not mine, and your definition is based purely on admissions percentages. </p>
<p>Besides, you said it yourself. These 2 schools are using different criteria to determine who to admit. So how can you really say that one truly is more selective than the other? For a person with lower numbers, Harvard is more selective. For a person with lower 'soft skills (as you put it), Stanford is more selective. Can you really tell me that one school is more selective overall? I don't think so. Not unless you are going to fall back to your old definition of looking at admissions percentages only, which I have explained is erroneous. </p>
<p>
[quote]
Your stats for Harvard are wrong btw. You should check out their website. You still didn't respond to the erroneous information you posted about Yale Law Admissions.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>My stats are what are reported by USNews. If you want to say USNews is wrong, then perhaps you should take it up with them. And what exactly is this erroneous information I posted about Yale Law?</p>