Stanford vs Berkeley - Pick again?

Colleges & Universities A-Z University of California - Berkeley
61

<p>@sakky: I really appreciate that link. Believe it or not in all my searching that’s one resource I actually did not come across somehow. What I’d really like to see, and if you have a site with these statistics I would honestly appreciate it just for my own use, is information regarding the volume of applicants coming from various schools. Afterall, what I was told is that Stanford Law receives a large volume of applicants from Stanford, which is why it’s so competitive. The advisor I briefly spoke with never said it would absolutely be harder. As I said, I was told it simply may be harder to get in as the volume of applicants is markedly higher than from most campuses and the competition for recommendations and position simply makes it a tough fight. Although I have to admit, I doubt any statistic would have changed my decision. By the time it came down to picking Berkeley, the primary competition was coming from UCLA and NYU, not Stanford. I suppose my initial response was a little vague, but in my defense the original poster seemed to be looking for a fairly simple answer for my reasoning and I gave it to him/her. I wasn’t aware I’d have to defend that. As I said, my reasons included money, semesters, and the feel of the campus. To that point I’d like to say I understand your confusion over how I can say I don’t like the campus but plan to apply to their law school. It’s very simple; they have an excellent law school. Stanford Law is most definitely NOT my top choice for law school, far from it in fact. However, as you well know, law school admissions are very competitive. I don’t feel it would be very wise to strike one of the top law schools in the country off my list simply because I’m not comfortable with the environment. Undergrad is a whole different story, you can do your undergrad work anywhere reputable and as long as your LSAT, GPA, and everything else is in order you’ve got a shot at whatever law school you want. Besides, two years from now maybe my opinion will be different. Who knows? I used to hate scotch, now I don’t. People change. Also the “Fear the Tree” thing, come on… you couldn’t see the humor in that? The school mascot could be a tube of Crest, if it’s the school that’ll get me where I want to be I’ll go there. Ruling out a top campus based on a mascot would be ludicrous to say the least. Although I suppose sarcasm and the internet don’t really get along to begin with do they?
Just a side note as well, while I do respect the argument you put up, which is much stronger than anything I got from my family or friends with regard to Stanford, I think it’s a bit presumptuous to assume you’re talking to a freshman. I’ve been on track for law school since I made the decision to attend at age twelve, and the two years I’ve already spent at community college doing concurrent enrollment work at UCLA have not changed that. Though I would agree with your general assessment of college students having a tendency to vary a great deal from their initial goals, some people do walk onto the campus knowing exactly where they want to be headed when they walk off. And as I pointed out, nowhere did I say Stanford Law was where I wanted to be. Simply that it was an option on the table and I’d rather not hurt those chances. Although at this point I suppose it would’ve been easier to simply rule that out. I did read your post on grade inflation at Stanford being a possible flipside to the increased cost, and honestly I do find that to be a valid argument. It’s something I hadn’t really put much thought to but I suppose it does make up some of the cost deficit. Although that’s assuming you can’t pull out straight A’s at Cal, which I believe in some cases is entirely possible. I’ve been doing it at UCLA for a year and that’s on the quarter system, which I’m uncomfortable with. I believe I’ll be able to continue that at Cal.</p>

<p>@2g1bmom: Apologies if this comes out wrong, but I find you to be just downright rude. To insinuate fallacy in another’s statement, especially something as simple as talking to an advisor, simply because it does not agree with your opinion of what is and isn’t correct is absolutely ridiculous. I will say this however, on top of what I’ve already said. Firstly, I’d like you to refer back to high school English (which I assume you’ve taken by this point in your life) and consider the fact that quotation marks are reserved for cases when you’re QUOTING a person. At no point did I say anything about a pre-law advisor, as those do not exist (to my knowledge anyway, although it’d be great if they did!) I said I spoke to an advisor at the law school, and that advisor said that doing undergrad work at Stanford MAY make it harder to get into Stanford Law, nowhere did I say going to Cal made it easier. As I said before, there was no statement of fact there, and the advisor followed with the same thing I’d tell anyone asking me this question, there’s no black and white answer here. Admission decisions are based on LSAT scores, GPA, diversity, recommendations, and a plethora of other things. Any recommendation an advisor makes will obviously be purposely vague because there is no right answer. That said, I would LOVE to see where on Stanford’s website it says they have a 26% admit rate to Stanford Law, because after an admittedly cursory search I found no statistics to corroborate that. Mind you I’m not saying it doesn’t exist, I would just honestly like to see it. I’ve been curious ever since I spoke to the advisor about the actual numbers behind the statement, as it does seem a bit odd to me.</p>

62

<p>

</p>

<p>I am not aware of any public information that displays the number of applicants from various undergrad programs who apply to a specific law school. Such information would have to come from the law school in question, and I know of no such law school that provides that information.</p>

<p>On the other hand, I used to have a link to the various law schools that Stanford prelaws apply to. That link is lost, but 2g1bmom may have rediscovered it.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>I certainly agree that the volume of Stanford undergrads applying to Stanford law is higher than that of most campuses. But Berkeley is not most campuses, being a large school that is closeby to Stanford. A large volume of Berkeley undergrads apply to Stanford Law as well, possibly even larger than the number of applying Stanford undergrads, due to the sheer size of the Berkeley student population, with Berkeley having nearly quadruple the number of total undergrads as Stanford. Hence, however difficult it may be to win admission to Stanford Law as a Stanford undergrad due to the intense competition and the desire for diversity, it may be even more difficult as a Berkeley undergrad for the very same reasons. The data supports that contention, as only 4% of reporting Berkeley undergrads who apply to Stanford Law are admitted, compared to the 9% Stanford Law admission rate for applicants from all schools. I find it highly unlikely that the admissions rate of Stanford undergrads to Stanford Law is only 4%. </p>

<p>

</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>I’m afraid I’m still perplexed. If Stanford Law is far from your first choice of law school, then that obviates the logic against choosing the Stanford undergrad program. After all, the thinking was that Stanford undergrad might hurt your chances to attend Stanford Law…but if Stanford Law is far from your first choice anyway, then who cares? </p>

<p>Furthermore, I would point out that Berkeley Law is also a top-ranked law school that should also be an option on the table, particularly if Stanford is far from your first choice (assuming that one was even competitive for admission to Stanford Law in the first place). You might hurt your chances to be admitted to Berkeley Law by attending Berkeley for undergrad by the same diversity argument. In fact, by the logic of that argument, one would always be hurting your chances of admission to some law school by attending the corresponding undergraduate program - the only solution seemingly being to attend a school that doesn’t have a law school at all, such as a LAC, a lower UC such as UCSC or UCR, or a CalState. </p>

<p>And besides, I consider that entire train of logic to be flawed anyway, as explained in my previous posts. That logic might be plausible if you turned down Stanford in favor of a faraway school whose students rarely apply to Stanford Law. But you’re talking about Berkeley, which ain’t exactly on the other side of the world. Surely you would agree that Stanford Law would not be enhancing its diversity by much by discriminating against applicants from Stanford in favor of ones from Berkeley. </p>

<p>

</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>At the risk of repeating myself, Stanford is well understood to offer grade inflation, relative to Berkeley. Hence, you are likely to obtain higher overall grades at Stanford than you would have at Berkeley, thereby improving your chances towards admission to law school. Who cares if the mascot is a tube of toothpaste and you find the campus chilling, if the school provides you with the high grades that you need?</p>

63

<p>@sakky: Apologies, I have no idea how to quote posts as you have so bear with me here. With regards to your point about Cal being in close proximity, I would agree that it’s a valid point. As I said, I never assumed Cal would give me a better shot, simply that Stanford undergrad isn’t necessarily better off. I suppose I should have worded the first post a bit more accurately, it just didn’t seem all that important at the time. With regard to Boult, I actually hadn’t even considered it until visiting the campus and finding out that they are ranked right up with the east coast schools I’m aiming for. The primary logic in declining Stanford’s admission offer was a combination of factors, only one of which was the information I was given with regard to admission to Stanford Law. Even assuming we ignore that completely, I still don’t believe I would have accepted. As I said with regard to mascots and such inane things, if I truly see a benefit to attending one school or another I will. I simply do not see the benefit in attending Stanford. The fact that I don’t like the campus or the quarter system is significant to me. In my educational experience motivation is the entirety of success or failure. Walking the campus, poking my head in the classrooms, I didn’t feel like that was a campus I could stay motivated on. As I said before, it’s not anything tangible, there’s no statistic for it. I guess the best way I could put it into words is I just wasn’t feelin’ it. Finance was a factor as well. For all I know yeah, maybe grade inflation at Stanford would have helped. It’s also a possibility that being on the semester system (which is relevant in my experience) and being on a campus I feel good about will push my grades higher than any inflation, is it not?</p>

64

<p>Also, if we’re talking about law school here, folks, grade inflation is not a huge data point in favor of either. The fact of the matter is law school doesn’t care much what your major was in. You can get a good GPA pretty surely at Berkeley - this is no Caltech, where your fallback is a hard science class.</p>

<p>The problem is if you insist on doing an especially hard major and getting into law school. But frankly, this is almost a nonexistent concern. I do know people who apply with engineering, math, etc degrees, but the ones who are bold enough to attempt that at ANY school had better be (and likely are) pretty confident of maintaining the grades. Engineering at Stanford is tough stuff, and it’s quite hard to get A’s, from what I hear, which is what Stanford Law wants you to have a lot of anyway. </p>

<p>I think if there are lots of required courses, such as in Medical School admissions, then grade inflation becomes important.</p>

<p>The point of this isn’t to discount grade inflation’s benefits, just to point out the limits of its impact on the topic at hand.</p>

65

<p>

</p>

<p>Don’t call it Boalt, for that name is no more.</p>

<p>[UC</a> Berkeley dropping Boalt Hall from law school’s official name - SFGate](<a href=“http://articles.sfgate.com/2007-10-11/bay-area/17263925_1_berkeley-law-school-edley-boalt-hall-school]UC”>http://articles.sfgate.com/2007-10-11/bay-area/17263925_1_berkeley-law-school-edley-boalt-hall-school)</p>

66

<p>Honestly, I never understood the whole “classrooms are better at Berkeley” deal. A room is a ****** room. How the hell does a lecture hall influence one’s motivation? The “buildings look better” argument doesn’t make sense either. After two years here, I hardly even notice the building I’m going into anymore.</p>

67

<p>MikeRamsey - Sorry for my tone before.</p>

<p>Sakky & MikeRamsey - Although I am too lame to link anything, I can get you to the document. Google Stanford Pre-Law Society. On the top of the page hit “resources”
Under “download UAR handouts” choose “Stanford Student Law School Admits”</p>

<p>For the years 2006-07, there were 163 applicants to Stanford Law and 42 admits
(25.77%). The stats are also provided for admission to many other law schools.</p>

68

<p>@sakky: Hah, I had no idea they dropped the name.
@Batman17: That’s not really what I said. I was more referring just to the vibe I got on the campus. To be honest a few of the buildings on the Cal campus look a little dilapidated. LoL.
@2g1bmom: I really appreciate the apology, as well as the link. I wish they made documents like that more readily available for all schools. Maybe now having a little better idea of what to look for I can find similar statistics for other schools. Thanks again!</p>

69

<p>Mike: Oh I know. I was just going off on a tangent based on what you said because I remember talking to my friends when I was deciding between LA and Cal. Some of them (who already picked Cal) were like Oh the buildings are sooo much nicer looking than at LA’s. UCLA’s buildings are all boring…And I couldn’t help but think, why the hell would that even remotely affect my decision?</p>

70

<p>My friend said they both have equally ugly students :slight_smile: (his wife is a stanfurd alumna)</p>

71

<p>@Batman17: Woah… they liked Cal’s buildings better than UCLA’s? I’ve been on the UCLA campus for a year now and I love it. It looks like they actually take care of it. Haha. And the buildings MATCH. I get what you’re saying though, a couple of my friends have told me the same thing about Cal. They got into the whole historic feel and said something about the place having character, didn’t even give UCLA a legitimate chance. Some people are just… special.</p>