<p>The "graduating seniors" angle also explains why Northwestern rejected 100% of the applicants from Berkeley, given its emphasis on work experience.</p>
<p>From the Berkeley Law admissions site:</p>
<p>"Profile of the Class of 2011 ... 104 undergraduate schools represented. Most predominant are UC Berkeley, UCLA, Stanford, Brown, Cornell, Yale, Harvard ..."</p>
<p>The Stanford site linked above showed 14 of the students admitted to Berkeley's law school matriculating there. </p>
<p>I suspect the list of schools above from Berkeley's site is in rank order.</p>
<p>It's a little off topic, but here are the the comparable list for the State Bar of California for law schools:</p>
<p>By Law School
The 25 law schools with the largest number of graduates admitted to the State Bar.</p>
<p>Rank School Population % of Membership
1 UC Hastings COL; San Francisco CA 15,829 7.13 %
2 Loyola Law School; Los Angeles CA 13,167 5.93 %
3 UCLA SOL; Los Angeles CA 11,559 5.20 %
4 UC Berkeley SOL Boalt Hall; Berkeley CA 10,805 4.87 %
5 Southwestern Univ SOL; Los Angeles CA 9,994 4.50 %
6 McGeorge SOL Univ of the Pacific; CA 9,567 4.31 %
7 Univ of San Diego SOL; San Diego CA 8,949 4.03 %
8 Santa Clara Univ SOL; Santa Clara CA 8,213 3.70 %
9 USC Law School; Los Angeles CA 7,663 3.45 %
10 U of San Francisco SOL; San Francisco CA 6,821 3.07 %
11 UC Davis SOL King Hall; Davis CA 5,367 2.42 %
12 Stanford Univ Law School; Stanford CA 5,340 2.40 %
13 Golden Gate Univ SOL; San Francisco CA 5,330 2.40 %
14 Pepperdine Univ SOL; Malibu CA 5,242 2.36 %
15 California Western SOL; San Diego CA 5,154 2.32 %
16 Harvard Univ Law School; Cambridge MA 5,107 2.30 %
17 Western State Univ; CA 4,874 2.19 %
18 Whittier Coll SOL; CA 3,589 1.62 %
19 Western State Univ COL; Fullerton CA 3,037 1.37 %
20 Georgetown Univ Law Ctr; Washington DC 2,958 1.33 %
21 Univ of Michigan Law Sch; Ann Arbor MI 2,534 1.14 %
22 Thomas Jefferson SOL; San Diego CA 1,997 0.90 %
23 Columbia Univ SOL; New York NY 1,988 0.90 %
24 New York Univ SOL; New York NY 1,977 0.89 %
25 Univ of West Los Angeles; Los Angeles CA 1,754 0.79 % </p>
<p>Again, there are five out-of-state schools represented: Harvard, Georgetown, Michigan, Columbia, and NYU.</p>
<p>The number of Stanford Law School graduates admitted to practice in California is almost as large as the number of Stanford undergraduates who have been admitted to practice here.</p>
<p>^ Berkeley's career center site is set up for "What can I do with a major in?"; it reports which industries and graduate schools students go directly after graduation, which is a more telling, pertinent statistic for some people.</p>
<p>I am not surprised UCB. The data from Cal seemed incomplete. The other four (Cornell, Georgetown, Michigan and Penn) seem pretty complete. </p>
<p>It would be great if people could post admissions data from other colleges, such as Brown, Dartmouth, Duke, Emory, Northwestern, Notre Dame, UCLA, UNC, UVA, Vanderbilt, Washington University, William and Mary and Wisconsin.</p>
<p>^^^ note: this is THE only infallible website on the internet with zero point zero chance of omission or error. if you question the veracity of this website, you are crossing the line of "civil discourse"... or at least you'll be hurting someone's feelings.</p>
<p>however the data of Cal may be incomplete, (well, i doubt if some school's isn't anyway) it's more apt than the prestige's suggestion of basing it on the whole student population. I stand by what i've said previously that students who aren't interested in law shouldn't have to be involved here.</p>
<p>And I stand by what I've said previously, that students that attend a particular diverse university, but simply aren't as capable as others, even from that same university, who are applying to a particular law school, also shouldn't have to be involved. Only the results of comparably qualified applicants, but for their colleges, are relevant.</p>
<p>If a particular college has a relatively big chunk of less outstanding students, and these students, surpirise surprise don't get into a top law school, that is not necessarily a knock on the college's performance in law school admissions. So long as their students who are fully qualified are admitted.</p>
<p>And in the case of Cornell, Georgetown, Michigan and Penn, the data seems pretty accurate and relatively consistant with each other. You would expect such consistancy from universities that belong to the same peer group. Admittedly, Cal's data seems incomplete.</p>
<p>
[quote]
there is a difference between potential errors and premedidated lying.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Who said there wasn't a difference? If the data is not 100% kosher - there could be a number of reasons (and potentially a combination of reasons). No one will ever know. Note that I didn't claim that it was ABSOLUTELY premeditated manipulation, merely that it's a POSSIBILITY. </p>
<p>At best, its clearly incomplete data. Is it really that outrageous that I would merely suggest that there could be manipulation? Is that a crime?</p>
<p>
[quote]
that students that attend a particular diverse university, but simply aren't as capable as others, even from that same university, who are applying to a particular law school, also shouldn't have to be involved. Only the results of comparably qualified applicants, but for their colleges, are relevant.
<p>actually the real insult would be if there was any manipulation going on however subtle. i have every right to question it: 1) schools have every motive to and 2) there is no way to prove it.</p>
<p>Public universities have a hard time covering up their lies since all their records are subject to public scrutiny. And even though there is no way to prove those numbers, you have to admit they seem pretty reliable. Untill such a time when those figures are proven to be manipulated, they are the most accurate data we have on actual placement rates into top Law schools.</p>
<p>While certain folks want to question Cal's numbers, let me suggest a different thought. Assume for the moment, the Cal's numbers are correct (we have no reason to think they aren't), and that they include 100% of its graduating class (from LSAC data). In contrast, other colleges post data that includes graduates for 2, 5, 10?, 25? years later.</p>
<p>Which is more "correct" (particularly since this thread started out with a grad rate/student population). Does it really make sense to use an ever changing numerator (regardless of grad year), vs. only graduating seniors? Dutr, a school like NW loves work exeperience, so using seniors means close to zero matriculants to NW. </p>
<p>But the question, from a statistical research perspective, which is data better answers the question?</p>
<p>"But the question, from a statistical research perspective, which is data better answers the question? "</p>
<p>None of this data really answers the actually material question, unless they address admissions results of truly comparably qualified applicants.</p>
<p>What this data might address is: what colleges have the most homogeneous group in attendance, the highest concentration of highly capable students who are also interested in law school. But have a lesser proportion of students who are interested in other careers, and/or are academically less qualified. </p>
<p>But this says nothing about the results of those students at other schools who are equally inclined and equally qualified. Which to me is the only important question for a potential applicant to college considering such career down the road.</p>
<p>As an applicant what you want to know is: if YOU are qualified, what college attended gives you a better chance of getting into top law schools, if you are interested in doing so. If any. This should not be polluted by results of less qualified applicants from a particular college, or those students at a particular college who are interested in other fields.</p>
<p>I really don't understand what all the fuss is here. This isn't "Cal's data" or "Cornell's data." It's all data from the Law School Admission Council, which gets the data directly from the law schools to which people are applying. There's frankly no reason to question any of it. In the case of those two schools in particular, it's labeled very clearly. The UC Berkeley website presents data on law school applications and success rate among "last year's graduating seniors" only. Cornell's website presents data on "all Cornellians (seniors and aumni) who applied to law school last year." The category presented by UC Berkeley is clearly and unambiguously a subset of the category presented by Cornell; graduating seniors + alumni = (graduating seniors & alumni). What part of that is so difficult to understand? There's no reason to suppose either school is lying about it. UC Berkeley is presenting data on last year's seniors in the context of advising this year's seniors who may be applying to law school. Any crime in that? Cornell is presenting data on all its seniors and alumni who applied to law schools last year in the context of presenting information---and boasting a bit---about how well people who get their undergraduate degrees at Cornell do, if and when they apply to law school. Any crime in that?</p>
<p>It's not just Cornell. Georgetown, Michigan and Penn's data are also for last year's seniors as well as all alumni applying to Law school. Generally speaking, from what I have seen, roughly 50%-65% of applicants apply to Law school at least one year after graduating from college. So it is safe to assume that Cal's numbers, in order to be adjusted to match those of the other programs, should be doubled. </p>
<p>I think the_prestige finds it hard to believe that applicants from Cal and Michigan have similar admissions rates into top Law schools as Cornell, Georgetown and Penn.</p>