<p>But why are there such few posts here? </p>
<p>How strange. I always thought UCLA is better than Brown and Dartmouth. And as good if not slightly better than Cornell.</p>
<p>I'm not sure. People at my school seem to be applying to private schools more so than uc's this year.</p>
<p>This is for you 1600</p>
<p>Is Boalt Hall more worth bolting to or from? How does it compare with other California law schools? Here's a place to find out some of the scoop... </p>
<p>Contrast With Other California Schools </p>
<p>Stanford, UCLA (the University of California--Los Angeles), USC (the University of Southern California), and UC Hastings are probably considered Boalt's closest peer law schools in California. </p>
<p>UCLA is eager to unseat Boalt as what many people consider the top public law school in California. While UCLA has strong international (especially Asian) law, has a meaty public interest program and is overall a pretty outstanding law school, Berkeley is still considered higher reputation wise. UCLA is making a strong bid though; it's under-rated. </p>
<p>USC, a.k.a. University of Spoiled Children, is private so is perhaps more directly an economic competitor with Stanford. Many prominent scholars are numbered among USC's faculty. </p>
<p>Hastings is huge and has gotten worse in the past decade it seems. It's still considered, however, one of the Bay Area Big 3 along with Stanford and Boalt. </p>
<p>Stanford, in the mind of many Berzerkeley-ites, is considered the arch-rival. Each likes to emphasize how it is differentiated from the other. While commonalities are often submerged, there are significant differences... </p>
<p>Public Interest </p>
<p>Boalt has a reputation for sending alumni into that which is called "public interest" legal involvement. This usually pays about 20-60% (roughly) of what the private sector pays. Boalt encourages and helps students pursue such careers more than many law schools. In this regard, Boalt is more distinguished than Stanford. </p>
<p>Boalt also prides itself on being "progressive," avant garde, and on the cutting edge of social/political liberalism. Many think that this edge has been blunted and that those on the conservative parts of the social/political spectrum are a bit more welcome--or at least somewhat tolerated. Stanford is somewhat like a country-club in atmosphere. </p>
<p>If you're a California resident, it is way cheaper than a Stanford or USC. So if you're into less loans, schools like Boalt (or UCLA or Hastings) may be on your list. However, other states have significantly less costly law schools. </p>
<p>Location </p>
<p>You can check out Blondie's Pizza, the Blue Moon (Ethiopian cuisine), and a smorgasbord of other culinary delights at Berkeley. </p>
<p>There are also bums with their own appellations/epithets at Berkeley. For example, the "Hate Man", spews out his venom to all within spitting distance of himself. Berkeley definitely has an underside to it. </p>
<p>To put it positively, you're in a vibrant/dynamic university place that is a BART (Bay Area Rapid Transit) ride away to the Bay Area's Peninsula (think of it simplistically as San Francisco to San Jose) Yet the real estate prices and cost of living in and around the Bay Area is VERY high. </p>
<p>Don't forget that in California, the 4 seasons are: earthquakes, mudslides, fires, drought. (Having grown up in the Bay Area, I'm only half-kidding!) If there's a 5th season, it may be power outages! :-) </p>
<p>Racial Composition </p>
<p>A firestorm erupted when Boalt Hall eradicated its affirmative action policy. The following entering J.D. class contained: Hispanic-Americans 0%; African-Americans: 0%; Native Americans: 0%. (Source: The Chicago Tribune; it may also be found in many other official sources). </p>
<p>Many ethnic advocacy groups were up in arms. Boalt claimed that they weren't discriminating; they were merely basing admissions on sheer merit (read: LSAT, G.P.A., etc.). This is not to say as well that no African-Americans were admitted; it merely states that none entered that Boalt Hall class. (see smiles33's comment for a helpful elucidation) </p>
<p>The Admissions Committee, however, has developed a "hardship" policy. This means that applicants are invited to talk about difficulties that they have encountered in life and have overcome. They say that an otherwise borderline application can receive an admission on the basis of compelling statements about hardships overcome. It would be interesting to know how many actually get in with help from this policy... </p>
<p>Passionate Professor </p>
<p>The man is like an institution within the institution. He is something of a walking firestorm himself. Respected in his areas of specialization (such as criminal law), Philip Johnson has done his most controversial work after receiving tenure at Boalt. </p>
<p>After an adult conversion to a relationship with Jesus, Johnson wrote best-selling books like "Darwin on Trial", "Reason in the Balance" and "The Wedge of Truth". His words have carried more weight in the public discourse because of his endowed chair at Boalt Hall, U.S. Supreme Court and California Supreme Court clerkships, graduating #1 (in G.P.A.) in his class from the University of Chicago Law School, etc. </p>
<p>Johnson is sui generis and in all likelihood is not representative of the sort of professor commonly found at Boalt Hall. Yet he has the sort of passion about his views that is deemed characteristic of those at Berkeley. He is also very engaging as a speaker. He is an example of the sorts of "firebrands" (I don't necessarily use that term negatively) that Berkeley is well-known for. </p>
<p>Ranking </p>
<p>The popular U.S. News and World Report study has regularly placed Boalt within the Top 10 law schools in the country. It is very selective and has an outstanding reputation. This is notwithstanding (or perhaps partially because) it is known to push the envelope. </p>
<p>Yet this ranking tells you very little about important things like: 1) teaching quality 2) student satisfaction 3) quality of life 4) dynamic of the law school community, etc. So rely on rankings like U.S. News only to the extent that what they measure is important to you. Consult other studies/rankings (like Princeton Review/National Jurist) and do visit if you're interested enough. </p>
<p>Conclusion </p>
<p>Boalt is an interesting choice of law school, if for no other reason than one's classmates and some of the professors. It is one of those law schools that could be great for some, and horrible for others. So check it out and see if it could be a good match/bargain for you or not.</p>
<p>California1600, I always check this area but my fellow Bruins never post anything for me to respond to. I know we are out there. I think we have about 4 or 5 Bruins who frequent this site. Usually, I spend my time defending Berkeley because of this. And I never even went to Berkeley! It used to be that it was "in-style" to bash UCLA and now people tend to attack Berkeley. As soon as people start dissing the Bruins again I'll be out there fighting like a good little soldier to set the record strait.</p>
<p>I thought SDSU gets the most applications now...</p>
<p>I just did a quick search on SDSU's number of freshmen applicants...29,129.</p>
<p>UCLA's number of freshmen applicants: 44,974 </p>
<p>No contest here.</p>
<p>I stand corrected!
Remind me never to believe every claim I hear on College Confidential...</p>
<p>flopsy, I remember that guy who said that too.</p>
<p>Number of applicant's doesn't matter so much as percentage of acceptance. In this, I believe Berkeley to be more exclusive than UCLA.</p>
<p>The percentages are within a point or so. As are the incoming SAT scores. UCLA and Berkeley are close enough that the statistical notion of "in the noise" applies and one would be better to compare specific departments and other factors important to the applicant. Assuming one gets into both in the first place.</p>
<p>From a xfer standpoint the gap between acceptance is far more than a point or two between UCLA and UCB. Berkeley's acceptance rate for xfer students is 27.0%, whereas UCLA's is 38.4%.</p>
<p>Overall, the percetange diff between the two schools is very small indeed as already noted...just 0.4% with UCB more exclusive.</p>
<p>Exilio, part of the gap in transfer stats is artificial in that it's not tied to either UC campus. Santa Monica CC does an amazing job in preparing students for UC transfer and the vast majority head to UCLA. SMCC transfers 50 percent more than the #2 CC in the state and 100 percent more than the #6...out of 106 CC's in California.</p>
<p>Put another way, SMCC transfers roughly as many as the bottom 40 CC's all together.</p>
<p>Acceptance vs. Rejection stats are too easily manipulated to be useful. Imagine if Yale sent a letter to everyone who scored above 1100 on the SAT and said "Something about your score interests us, make sure you apply to Yale" How many parents would jump at the chance to have their child respond to that invitation. They could easily triple the number of applicants they get to reject. </p>
<p>I would like to see a comparison based on the last ten years worth of applicants, and what they are up to. That would be relevant to me.</p>
<p>offtopic</p>
<p>Mr. B, do you own a restaurant?</p>
<p>teal, no but I eat at them. More people apply to UCLA because more people live near there than Berkeley and because they think they have a better chance there. As posted elsewhere, I have known students who were accepted at UCLA and Rejected at Berkeley and I have known students where the reverse was true. These institutions handle so many applicants that the result is inconsistancy on who gets in and who is kept out.</p>
<p>The concept of looking at numbers without considering teacher recommendations says something about the limitation of the UC admission process.</p>
<p>Ok lol because there's restaurant called Mr. B's restaurant nearby</p>