Harvard/Yale Law GPA/LSATs

Graduate School Law School
121

<p>
[quote]
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.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>It's all right. I'm not being defensive. And I agree that it's a bit unfair. </p>

<p>But if it makes you feel better, hey, you're better off than the Berkeley students who are majoring in the natural science or engineering. Those students REALLY suffer from grade deflation. Yet, as far as I can tell, law schools don't care that certain majors are graded harder than others. </p>

<p>
[quote]
Maybe you should name these majors...purely for advice.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Allright, I'll give you a big hint. Basically, any major whose name ends in the word 'Studies' is probably not very hard. It's rather ironic too - those majors that have the word 'Studies' in them have lots (not all, but lots) of students who don't really study.</p>

<p>Another clue of course is to check out the kinds of majors that the Cal football and basketball players tend to major in. Few football players major in chemical engineering, for example.</p>

122

<p>Funny you should mention that, Sakky.</p>

<p>One of the cheerleaders for UCLA is, in fact, majoring in chemical engineering.</p>

<p>And there is a <em>lot</em> of major grumbling among UCLA football fanatics that Cal has more elastic admissions standards than UCLA and some mick majors that they can stash their FB players in. "IT SHOULD BE EQUAL!" is there battle cry.</p>

123

<p>Sakky: Here are Harvard's numbers via their website.</p>

<p>What are the median LSAT scores and GPA of last year's admitted applicants?</p>

<h2>Admission decisions are based on the Admission Committee's experienced judgment applied to individual cases, and many factors are taken into account. Each application is given a full file review by at least two readers, taking account of all available information. Because GPA and LSAT alone do not fully or adequately summarize information about individuals that is important to admission decisions, these "numbers" often prove poor predictors of admission decisions on individual applications. At no point on the GPA or LSAT scales are the chances of admission to Harvard Law School 0 or 100 percent. As reported to the ABA, the 75/25 percentile GPAs for the class entering in 2005 were 3.92/3.68 and the 75/25 percentile LSATs were 176/170.</h2>

<h2>In an earlier post you talked about how most apps never get read by Yale, which was untrue. </h2>

<h2>Regarding Stanfords selectivity - most major publications recognize that Stanford is more selective than Harvard. I loved how you ignored the response to you self-selection argument, but I digress as I don't care.</h2>

<p>Mods: Do not worry about banning me. I won't be returning. Good luck to everyone applying!</p>

124

<p>


</p>

<p>So do you recommend that I do a "Studies" major eh? Although I have to admit I'd feel unfulfilled, and there are even less job prospects with "Studies" majors than with English!</p>

<p>I'm not sure about the natural science being "uber-competitive" because IB isn't at competitive as MCB, and thus it depends on what natural science major, but I agree with engineering. Thankfully most engineering majors do not want to pursue graduate school, or else many would be screwed. </p>

<p>As for the athlete/sorority girl majors, do you mean Mass Comm eh?</p>

125

<p>Personal opinion: I would not sell my soul to take a "Studies" major with an eye to LS. Major in what you <em>want</em>. Work hard, prep well for the LSAT, and LS will take care of itself.</p>

126

<p>Mass com is a capped major, although seemingly looked down upon by many. English and Econ are two of Berkeley's strongest and most bragged about departments. Is increasing your chances of getting into law school really so important as to stop studying these? Plenty of people end up at the law schools ranked 4-20 and live fine lives anyway, as far as lawyers go. Is it really that important to you?</p>

<p>Alright, thedad, one cheerleader is majoring in chem e, although he didn't even mention cheerleaders. so what? Yes, the UCLA cheerleaders are better looking than the cal cheerleaders, but are they smarter? Does it matter? Do you think UCLA is so innocent of bending things for sports stars? As a school seemingly more concerned about sports, do you really thing UCLA is without fault?</p>

<p>I agree with thedad's most recent post (besides the soul selling).</p>

127

<p>
[quote]
One of the cheerleaders for UCLA is, in fact, majoring in chemical engineering.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Hey, there are exceptions for everything. Heck, Ayla Vain, a former San Francisco Gold Rush Girl (the cheerleading squad for the NFL San Francisco 49'ers) graduated from MIT in EECS. Pretty darn impressive.</p>

<p><a href="http://www.aylavain.com/%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.aylavain.com/&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>Nevertheless, the point still stands. Football players in all schools, but especially in Division 1A, tend to choose the easier majors. One could even view this as an entirely rational thing to do. If they lose eligibility by getting less than a 2.0 GPA, then they may lose their athletic scholarship. It's pretty easy to end up with less than a 2.0 if you're in a difficult major like engineering. Never mind that somebody with, say, a 1.7 in chemical engineering may actually have worked harder than a guy with a 2.3 in a creampuff major. The NCAA doesn't care about that. All they care about is that you maintain a 2.0, and if that means taking easy classes in an easy major where you can get passing grades without doing very much, then so be it. </p>

<p>
[quote]
Admission decisions are based on the Admission Committee's experienced judgment applied to individual cases, and many factors are taken into account. Each application is given a full file review by at least two readers, taking account of all available information. Because GPA and LSAT alone do not fully or adequately summarize information about individuals that is important to admission decisions, these "numbers" often prove poor predictors of admission decisions on individual applications. At no point on the GPA or LSAT scales are the chances of admission to Harvard Law School 0 or 100 percent. As reported to the ABA, the 75/25 percentile GPAs for the class entering in 2005 were 3.92/3.68 and the 75/25 percentile LSATs were 176/170.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Those specific numbers you are quoting are basically the same as mine (which I got from USNews). The GPA is a bit lower, the LSAT is a bit higher. Hence, it all goes to show that Harvard Law students tend to have better numbers than Stanford Law students. Which only gets back to what I've been saying - for people with strong numbers, Stanford is more selective. For people who don't have strong numbers, Harvard is more selective. Hence, you can't categorically state that one is more selective than the other, and you certainly can't base this off a supposedly simple examination of admissions percentages.</p>

<p>
[quote]
Regarding Stanfords selectivity - most major publications recognize that Stanford is more selective than Harvard.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>So name some of these publications. If there are so many of them it should be easy for you to cite, right? </p>

<p>
[quote]
I loved how you ignored the response to you self-selection argument, but I digress as I don't care

[/quote]
</p>

<p>If you really don't care, then why do you keep bringing it up? Make up your mind. </p>

<p>And did I ignore it? I don't think so. Since you are the one asserting that self-selection is not occurring, I think it's up to you to demonstrate that it is not occurring. In particular, you are the one who asserted that selectivity could be ascertained simply by looking solely at admissions percentages. </p>

<p>
[quote]
In an earlier post you talked about how most apps never get read by Yale, which was untrue.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Fine, I should have said that most apps are not read CAREFULLY by Yale. I don't consider a perfunctory once-over to be a true 'read'. And the truth is, if you have a poor GPA and a poor LSAT score, your app will be, at best, skimmed over quickly. It is precisely those people who have strong numbers who will be placed into a better bucket and will therefore undergo a more thorough examination. </p>

<p>
[quote]
I'm not sure about the natural science being "uber-competitive" because IB isn't at competitive as MCB, and thus it depends on what natural science major,

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Yeah, but both are more competitive than the creampuff majors. Hence, I don't think it really does depend on which natural science major. On average, natural science majors are more competitive than the creampuff majors. For example, I would assert that Physics may be even more difficult than Engineering. Even the easiest natural science tends to be more difficult than the easiest 'Studies' major.</p>

128

<p>


</p>

<p>I thought we were comparing natural science with economics and English...unless those are "creampuff" majors...I'd agree that MCB is more competitive than those two, but maybe not IB.</p>

<p>On that note, I must point out I hate the notion that economics majors are Haas-rejects. Honestly, not all economics majors want to do business nor do many apply despite having a good enough GPA for it! </p>

<p>But yes, physics is more difficult than engineering. The renowned prodigies of the world are usually physicists.</p>

129

<p>I was comparing the average natural science major vs. the average humanities major. And the truth is, the average natural science major is more difficult than the average humanities major, notably because of the presence of all those 'Studies' majors. </p>

<p>
[quote]
I must point out I hate the notion that economics majors are Haas-rejects.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Yeah, but like it or not, that's how it works. It works that way because there is a grain of truth to it - the Econ major really does have a lot of Haas rejects. It's like when they say that Yale students are people who couldn't get into Harvard. Obviously that's not true of ALL Yale students. But there is a grain of truth to it - Yale really does have a lot of students who wanted to go to Harvard but didn't get in. </p>

<p>As I've said in other threads, if the Berkeley econ department doesn't like being seen as the dumping ground for Haas rejects, then it should raise its admissions standards to actually make it harder to declare Econ than to get into Haas. And it should also try to raise its desirability so that students will prefer to go to Econ rather than go to Haas. Until and unless that happens, people will always unfairly tag the econ department as a dumping ground. Like it or not, that's how it works.</p>

130

<p>DRab, if Cal were less concerned about sports, they wouldn't let some of the athletes in that UCLA won't take, e.g., Marshawn Lynch, who couldn't get past UCLA admissions but did Cal's. It's a major frustration with many UCLA sports fans...not me...that Cal doesn't employ the same standards that UCLA does. Cal also maintains some "mick" majors that UCLA doesn't...do they still have P.E.? I know they have some farcial design-your-own Independent Majors that let the athletes duck harder courses all over the place.</p>

<p>I take the view that people shouldn't expect Macy's to look like Norstrom's and that both are all of a lot better than K-Mart.</p>

131

<p>Hmmm . . . </p>

<p><a href="http://www.registrar.ucla.edu/catalog/catalog05-07under-4.htm%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.registrar.ucla.edu/catalog/catalog05-07under-4.htm&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>Communication Studies Interdepartmental Program</p>

<p>Communication Studies B.A. </p>

<p>sounds like mass comm.</p>

<p>Individual Field of Concentration</p>

<p>Individual Field of Concentration B.A.</p>

<p>European Studies Interdepartmental Program</p>

<p>European Studies B.A.</p>

<p>Global Studies Interdepartmental Program</p>

<p>Global Studies B.A.</p>

<p><a href="http://www.registrar.ucla.edu/catalog/majors-1.htm%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.registrar.ucla.edu/catalog/majors-1.htm&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>Do all UCLA women's studies and history majors have to do thesi in order to graduate?</p>

<p>At first glance, these seem just as suspect as any "creampuff" Berkeley sports star major. Listen- I'm not saying Berkeley is some sort of innocent party. What I am saying is that UCLA has similar practices. I heard that Reggie Bush is at USC and not Stanford because Stanford wouldn't take him because of his grades. UCLA or Cal would have bent over backwards for him. Yes, even your precious Bruins.</p>

132

<p>


</p>

<p>But Haas accepts 50% of applicants. It's really not that tough to get in either.</p>

<p>It's annoying because economics is actually more difficult than business, yet people perceive Haas as more prestigious, although I have to admit I am biased and perceive a business degree to be less valuable than an economics one.</p>

133

<p>Delicatess, fwiw...probably nothing...my prejudices align with yours regarding Econ vs. undergrad Business. If I were in a hiring position, I'd be much more interested in the former than the latter.</p>

<p>Wow, DRab. From one throwaway line about one UCLA cheerleader majoring in Chem E...(though several others have impressive majors as well, not the "World Arts & Cultures: Dance Concentration" major so popular with the dance team)...you've sure displayed something of a complex. Fwiw, I never said anything about the relative merits of UCLA's cheerleaders in looks or smarts vs. Cal, you did. </p>

<p>As for the academics, it's just flat undisputed fact that Cal takes athletes that don't pass muster with UCLA admissions. Make of that what you will but don't blow a gasket over it. Cal has several players that UCLA would have liked to have gotten. Karma. I'm not losing any sleep over it...though some of the "sports first" UCLA types certainly are.</p>

134

<p>
[quote]
But Haas accepts 50% of applicants. It's really not that tough to get in either.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>But it's all relative. You may say that Haas only accepts 50% of its applicants. However, I have a feeling that the econ department accepts more than 50%. Hence, econ is still easier than Haas and is therefore seen as a "backup major".</p>

<p>Let's not forget about the strong self selection aspect. A lot of people who want to get into Haas (or econ) don't even apply because they know they can't get in. Let's face it. If you have a 2.5, you're not going to apply to Haas because you know you won't make it, so why waste time trying? The point is that that 50% figure is deceptively high. It's only 50% of those who choose to apply. </p>

<p>Nevertheless, I would still state that if the Berkeley econ department wants to fix this problem, it should make itself more selective and more desirable. Then people would be treating Haas as the dumping ground for econ. </p>

<p>
[quote]
It's annoying because economics is actually more difficult than business, yet people perceive Haas as more prestigious, although I have to admit I am biased and perceive a business degree to be less valuable than an economics one.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Well, to put it in perspective, I would argue that an engineering degree from, say, Georgia Tech, is probably more difficult to get than a humanities degree from Harvard. But which is more prestigious, especially to the common man?</p>

135

<p>Thedad, I have no complex. I guess I just wasn't aware of your flat undisputed fact. Perhaps you could present something in support of it? Maybe you're right, there just hasn't been any reason to believe you yet. I'm not losing any sleep over it, either, but I just felt like pointing out how rediculous it was to pretend UCLA does not have majors which are essentially like the Berkeley majors which you or other make fun of.</p>

136

<p>If you're very confident in how you'll do on the LSAT, you can always pull a Matt Leinart and major in Ballroom Dancing. Muster a 3.9-4.0 GPA, and a nice LSAT...and welcome to Yale Law School!</p>

137

<p>


</p>

<p>Oh c'mon. An average GPA of accepted applicants to Haas on prereqs was 3.6. That's really not that tough to get.</p>

<p>


</p>

<p>How does that put anything in perspective? We are comparing different majors at the SAME university. Frankly, most people have not heard of "Haas"--that name alone--but have heard of Berkeley. Heck, ask the common man what Haas is, and I bet that person would have no idea.</p>

<p>Prior to coming to Berkeley, I had not even heard of Haas, just Wharton.</p>

<p>Also, isn't Georgia Tech good?</p>

<p>Compare Harvard to another university, one that isn't good.</p>

<p>To put it in "perspective": I think I would be able to obtain an engineering degree at a worthless university, but I probably wouldn't ace humanities at Harvard.</p>

138

<p>a little under an A- average after two years, particularly with some of the required classes (an extra English class, Undergrad Business Administrationg 10, econ 1 or 2, calc is really tough for some people, and computer science, which few enjoy) isn't really easy. I would think it takes a lot of work, but is possible, nonetheless.</p>

<p>The common man knowing the name of something isn't a quality check, really. Yes, I agree, most people haven't heard of Haas Business. Wharton is the biggest name in business school, but guess what? Most people probably haven't heard of that. The average person hasn't heard of many liberal arts colleges, either. The common person probably couldn't name all the schools in the Ivy league. The average person doesn't know much about colleges in general, considering the average person doesn't get a four year degree . . . and perhaps we're worrying about things that aren't that important, something the average person realized long ago.</p>

139

<p>Delicatess, I have to concur with DRab. </p>

<p>I don't get this board's fascination with what the "common man" cares about. If you plan on being part of the "uncommon elite," why care so much about the so-called "plebes?"</p>

140

<p>I wasn't the one to bring up the "common man." Sakky did, and I really don't understand why either. (And this is when I ask: why are we talking about the this again? )But hey, part of the reason we attend the universities we are at, is because we all have egos: to not be "the common man." So in a sense what the common man thinks is what instills the intellectual hierarchy and that makes us the "intellectual elite." Without the common man, there would be no elite. </p>

<p>Hence:


</p>