<p>So, I'll be transferring as a junior to UC Santa Cruz this coming January. So far, I've decided that Boalt @ UCB is where I want to attend law school. I'll be majoring in politics, with either a minor or a double-major in philosophy. Does anyone have any idea how much better I'll have to do, as far as GPA and LSAT (and whatever else you may know), than someone from, say UCLA or UCSD? And is it true that Boalt accepts virtually 100% of its applicants who score 168 or higher on the LSAT? I love SC, and I know I want to live there and study there, but I'm starting to get kind of nervous about my chances of getting accepted to Boalt after turning down UCSD to attend UCSC (but then again, I do tend to get nervous after making big decisions/commitments). Does anyone have any insights...?</p>
<p>Boalt requires top grades, so a 3.8 from UCSC won’t be viewed much different as a similar gpa from UCLA. And, no, Boalt rejects plenty of 170’s…</p>
<p>
Boalt’s middle 50% range on the LSAT is 164-170. A student with a 170+ and 3.9-4.0 would have a very solid shot, and students scoring slightly lower still have decent chances.</p>
<p>Boalt is a notoriously GPA-heavy school. If you can nail down a 168 with a 4.0 or whatever, you’ll have a very solid shot.</p>
<p>Great, thanks for the info guys! :]</p>
<p>bluedevilmike, do u know any LSAT-heavy school?</p>
<p>All of the non-California schools are LSAT-heavy.</p>
<p>why do you think Berkeley prefers high GPA over high LSAT? is that any particular reason for that?</p>
<p>The commonly cited theory is that it’s a result of Berkeley’s being prohibited from using affirmative action. Berkeley law had one black student the year after Proposition 207(?) passed and had to revise their admissions standards accordingly.</p>
<p>As similarly shown by Texas’s 10% requirement for undergraduate admissions, it’s a lot easier to find minorities with high grades than with high test scores, for what is presumably a variety of reasons.</p>
<p>The flaw in this theory is that Stanford is sort of GPA-heavy as well, and Proposition 207 (?) does not apply to it. So it’s not clear what the precise motivation is.</p>
<p>If anyone was wondering, here’s where my question about Boalt accepting virtually all applicants who score 168 or higher came from:</p>
<p>[Advice</a> for Getting Into Law School - UC Berkeley - A must read.](<a href=“SULTANSLOT 👍 Situs Pragmatic Paling Gacor Di Indonesia”>SULTANSLOT 👍 Situs Pragmatic Paling Gacor Di Indonesia)</p>
<p>Is this write-up totally off or what?</p>
<p>(1) Notice that this is only among applicants with 3.5 GPAs or higher.
(2) Even considering that, the information is flat-out wrong. Getting a 164/3.5 is not a 99% chance of admission into Boalt. In fact it’s basically 0%. </p>
<p>Use this instead:
[LSN</a> :: University of California Berkeley - Admissions Graph](<a href=“Recently Updated J.D. Profiles | Law School Numbers”>Recently Updated J.D. Profiles | Law School Numbers)</p>
<p>What a great resource, thanks! It seems the two lowest admissions were 160/3.3, and 173/3.09. I’ll be using this site a lot, thanks again!</p>
<p>Both were almost certainly special class admits, perhaps given extra consideration for certain socioeconomic considerations.</p>
<p>PS: The more I think about it, the more it was probably Prop 209. I knew I had those question marks for a reason.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>With those numbers, the applicant could have been an Olympic athlete (gold medal winner), or scion of a world leader. But, even with Prop 209, the UCs do take into account overcoming “adversity” in its holistic admissions process.</p>
<p>btw: using the link that bdm posted, anyone below a 3.8/170 barely has any chance at all of admission!</p>
<p>“…anyone below a 3.8/170 barely has any chance at all of admission!”</p>
<p>I think this is correct, although perhaps it’s more like 3.8/168 or 3.8/169.</p>
<p>If the 160/3.3 accepted is an Olympic gold medalist, who may the 3.99/179 rejected be?</p>
<p>In 2007 a kid like that was rejected across the board. One of the relatively few things that Internet boards could find was that he was only 19 years old.</p>
<p>Other explanations here might include a false data point, somebody who had insulted the school, a horribly written essay, missing the deadline, getting a 179 after several 145’s, being obnoxious when contacting the admissions office, etc.</p>
<p>^^or the kid of the Dean of Stanfurd law. :D</p>
<p>Heh, that reminds me of this show I saw on MTV. It’s called True Life (I think) and they follow these kids around to see their life. One day, they follow around this teen with a really high IQ and it was around college admissions time and he was also appearing on the teen edition of Jeopardy. And man, this kid did not hesitate about flaunting his IQ around.</p>
<p>He goes on Jeopardy and get whupped. So as their taping his reaction after his loss he’s like “I just didn’t know the questions. They asked me things I didn’t know. I guess it doesn’t matter how smart you are if you don’t know the questions”, which I thought was pretty arrogant to begin with.</p>
<p>So now all he has to look forward to is college admissions. And he talks about how sure he is that he’ll get in because of his IQ and how he’s sure Stanford would want someone as smart as him. It ends with him getting rejecting from Stanford.</p>
<p>So in response to this, he says, really bitterly, ‘well I guess being a genius isn’t enough for Stanford’.</p>
<p>And i’m just thinking “You ass. Did you really write about your IQ in your admissions essay? i wonder why you didn’t get in.”</p>