<p>How much of an advantage do undergrads of a college have in law school admissions to that same school?</p>
<p>ex: UCLA undergrad, liberal arts eduaction--> applying to UCLA law school</p>
<p>Is this person pretty much in the law school if their grades and LSAT are in line?</p>
<p>also, UCLA is simply an example.. comments on any undergrad to law school relationship are welcome (Harvard, whatever)</p>
<p>good question. It depends on the school itself. For example, Berkeley undergrads have a more difficult time getting into Boalt. (Stats show that we're expected to have a 3.9+ instead of just a 3.8. Even our PhD programs expect more from us.)</p>
<p>I'm not too sure about UCLA, but I do know that there is a lot of high Ivy/elite (HY,etc.) school incest going on. Maybe it's because they tend to the score the highest on the LSAT, but looking at the matriculating class data, they do love their own undergrads and those of similar caliber undergraduate institutions.</p>
<p>For your example, I'd say that if the numbers are in line, that person has a very good shot. Also because UCLA is a public school it's easier getting in as a California resident than out-of-stater. I have no idea if UCLA "likes" its undergrads or not though. Berkeley doesn't seem to. ;)</p>
<p>You are pretty much in UCLA law school (and all other, besides maybe Stanford and Yale) if your grades and LSAT are in line, no matter what UG you went to, so it's a meaningless example. But no, generally there is no advantage (besides a general in-state one for some schools), except maybe for Harvard and Yale, but a lot of that's due to the fact that it's Harvard and Yale, rather than the fact that it's the same UG.</p>
<p>Actually, it is not harder for Berkeley students to get into Boalt. I have spoken to both the director of admissions and associate director of admission who both told me that they have no idea why people think that is the case. In fact the career site website listed Berkeley's average admittance GPA to Boalt is about 3.8 something. Moreover, this year my professional pre-law fraternity saw 6 or 7 of it's seniors get admitted into Boalt, with with average GPAs of 3.7 or 3.8s. So its absolutely untrue that is harder for Berkeley undergrads to get into Boalt.</p>
<p>^ Yeah I have spoken to admissions too and they told me the same thing. They also told me it is 1/3 LSAT, 1/3 GPA, 1/3 ECs when it's probably more like 50%+ GPA. If you have a low GPA you are not getting into Boalt, regardless of how high your LSAT is. But then again admissions at other law schools say that they care about extracurriculars and look at the candidate as a whole. They also say that there is no "set formula." But then you look at the statistics and it seems that LSAT means 60%+ for other top law schools. The average GPA for everyone getting in is LOWER than Berkeley's average accepted GPA to Boalt.</p>
<p>These are the statistics for Berkeley undergrads going to Boalt:
2007 67 19 13 3 4 1 169 3.81
2006 78 9 10 1 3 0 171 3.89
2005 97 12 17 3 9 2 166 3.89
2004 132 19 19 2 9 0 168 3.89
2003 117 10 19 3 15 2 165 3.81</p>
<p>As you can tell for some odd reason 2007 is much lower than 2004-2006. The general trend is ~3.9 </p>
<p>In Fall 2007 the total average GPA for ALL admitted was 3.79 and the average LSAT was 167. Entering</a> J.D. Class Profile</p>
<p>Now no offense, but the 2 point difference between a 169 and 167 (the average LSATs for those accepted from Berkeley vs. total accepted) is somewhat significant. Plus the GPA for the total accepted is still lower. In the past years (2004-2006) I recall that the GPA difference was even greater, at about 0.1.</p>
<p>This is off-topic but I've always thought how hilarious it is for Berkeley undergrads to get into Stanford law school:</p>
<p>Stanford University (2)
2007 33 8 1 1 0 0 na na
2006 37 5 3 0 1 0 170 4.00
2005 51 6 2 0 0 0 171 4.01
2004 76 9 3 0 1 0 170 3.99
2003 66 3 2 0 1 0 169 4.12</p>
<p>Yes 4.12 GPA. Career</a> Center - Profile of Law School Admissions - UC Berkeley</p>
<p>Now, no offense, but there is a big difference between the people attending and the people accepted, and the accepted will always have higher stats than the matriculated (besides maybe for Yale). Here are students who were accepted from all schools last year: University</a> of California Berkel.. | LawSchoolNumbers.com
The mean accepted was 3.85, 171.9, while the mean attending was 3.81, 168.5. Both numbers are skewed high, because the site users are self-selected with high numbers, but it illustrates the difference between the two.</p>
<p>If 70% of the Berkeley UG accepted don't attend (as the statistics show), that will be the people with the highest stats since they have better options elsewhere. The one year when the accepted almost equaled the attending (15/19), the averages were only 165, 3.81. The data also uses means rather than medians, unlike the class profile statistics, so it is affected much more by outliers. If only two people with 178+s applied and went elsewhere (as I did), that would raise the average by that two points already.</p>
<p>so the general feeling im getting is that most law schools look more at your GPA and LSAT as opposed to your UG?</p>
<p>but, if you are an ivy league UG, you may get some advantage when applying to ivy league law schools...comments??</p>
<p>
[quote]
If 70% of the Berkeley UG accepted don't attend (as the statistics show), that will be the people with the highest stats since they have better options elsewhere. The one year when the accepted almost equaled the attending (15/19), the averages were only 165, 3.81.
[/quote]
You forgot the 2/3 URM. Anyway, </p>
<p>Mentioning Berkeley's 2003 data is useless unless we can compare it to 2003's admissions statistics for the entire population. The averages may have been lower than in future years, but we're comparing Berkeley and the entire accepted population, not Berkeley in 03 versus future years. Maybe 03's applicant pool was particularly disappointing. </p>
<p>I understand your point about accepted vs. matriculating class. However since we don't have the data for the total accepted (just the matriculating) and even though the career center's data is incomplete (many students have n/a's) this is the most complete data we do have. maybe you can find better data?</p>
<p>Woow, advantages generally lie with HYP, not really the "lower tiered" Ivies.</p>
<p>And yes, LSAT is most important (except for Boalt) then GPA.</p>
<p>Re #9: LSAT and GPA are the keys. However, very rarely, (very elite undergrad, low GPA, high LSAT) there are some situations in which undergrad will matter.</p>
<p>This is written on the career site website "The Top 20 Law Schools & California Law Schools report is based upon a subset of data and consists only of students who agreed to report their admissions data."</p>
<p>Unlike private institutions, Berkeley cannot require all applicants to report their admission results. If all Berkeley grads were to report their admission results, the GPA averages on the website would be lower. In fact, most people do not report their results. Even though It says on the website the average GPA's of Stanford Law is 4.12, I have spoken to two people who have gotten int Stanford from Berkeley this year, and their GPAs were about 3.9 something, not 4.12. So the data on the site is most likely inaccurate. </p>
<p>Also, I wouldn't discredit what the top two admissions representatives from Boalt has told me. Ed Thom, Director of Admissions, also stated that Berkeley consistently is the top feeder to school to Boalt.</p>
<p>^ Like I mentioned earlier "the career center's data is incomplete (many students have n/a's)". I realize that some students do not report their results. In fact, I won't release my results when I apply. & Is it the top feeder school because of the number of Berk undergrads that apply? Perhaps a greater number of Berk students apply than other schools'.</p>