<p>Do they stay in California or most of them go to east coast schools like Harvard and Yale?
How many stay at Berkeley (Boalt) Law (how many applied, accepted and enrolled)?
How many go to Stanford?
Is Stanford Law a more prefered law school than Berkeley's own?</p>
<p>Here is the reported data</p>
<p>Now, it should be noted that this is just the reported data. Clearly there must be some people who did not self-report. But I highly doubt that their inclusion would have drastically changed the data.</p>
<p>That data is useless. I suggest you completely disregard it. I don't want to spend time going over all the reasons why--it has been discussed numerous times on the forum already.</p>
<p>The average LSAT score of Cal students is very high; as a result of this, Cal GPAs are treated seriously. Cal students with high gpas and high lsat scores apply to the top law schools in the country, and many get in.</p>
<p>As far as the specific schools you mentioned: Many apply (and end up going) to Boalt; those with good stats get in (look at the average gpa and lsat score for admits), but there is no preference for Berkeley grads. Few go to Stanford because few students go to Stanford in general, and admission is highly competitive. I would say that in general Stanford seems to be more preferred than Boalt, but it's subjective.</p>
<p>
[quote]
That data is useless. I suggest you completely disregard it. I don't want to spend time going over all the reasons why--it has been discussed numerous times on the forum already.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>The data isn't perfect, but it is FAR from useless. If nothing else, it can be used as a comparative reference with the law school stats from other undergrad programs.</p>
<p>
[quote]
The data isn't perfect, but it is FAR from useless. If nothing else, it can be used as a comparative reference with the law school stats from other undergrad programs.
[/quote]
Go ahead, look at the data. It's useless because it doesn't make any point--it doesn't show Cal students fair well or badly--some of the data fluctuates ridiculously. Basically, it's a super small sample of a sample that is already too small to be of much use.</p>
<p>The same could be said for the law school placement data of ANY undergrad program. </p>
<p>That is why I recommend using the data comparatively with other schools. It is also fairly useful for trend analysis. For example, the data is fairly clearly about the fact that more Berkeley prelaws apply to and get into Boalt than, say, Stanford, Harvard, or Yale.</p>
<p>Look, the data gives you a benchmark. Is it a perfect benchmark? No. But it's better than nothing at all. That is why I would hardly classify the data as 'useless'. It's the best data you are going to get about these sorts of things.</p>
<p>
[quote]
The same could be said for the law school placement data of ANY undergrad program.
[/quote]
Nope. Most schools have very different data than Cal. Many have numbers for ALL who graduated from their schools, as opposed to just graduating seniors in a given year, etc. Any school that has a big enough sample will have useful information (many do); Cal's data is insufficient in that regard.
[quote]
That is why I recommend using the data comparatively with other schools. It is also fairly useful for trend analysis. For example, the data is fairly clearly about the fact that more Berkeley prelaws apply to and get into Boalt than, say, Stanford, Harvard, or Yale.
[/quote]
Nope, the data is insufficient for any use, especially a quantitative comparison. You can't say whether there is or isn't a trend anywhere because the data is insufficient. The numbers for Boalt may be an exception because of the larger number, but it's still a sample of a sample.
[quote]
Look, the data gives you a benchmark. Is it a perfect benchmark? No. But it's better than nothing at all. That is why I would hardly classify the data as 'useless'.
[/quote]
No, it doesn't give you a benchmark. Stats for admission to a particular school one year may be extremely inflated (for instance, over a 4.0 gpa). In such a case it is far from a benchmark--a benchmark would be a law school's actual average gpa, not just the average gpa of a sample of a sample of Cal grads.
[quote]
It's the best data you are going to get about these sorts of things.
[/quote]
Completely wrong. Cal could have better data; I'm not sure why they post such crap, but I know that it is pretty much ignored by most serious pre-law students here. Further, you can utilize a law school's average data; in comparison to the data Cal has available, it will be far more useful.</p>
<p>Keep in mind the CAL bar is the most dfficult bar exam in the nation w/o any doubt - so by heading east they are facing far easier bar exams in for example New York and the District of Columbia</p>
<p>Note approx 10% of Harvard Law grads fail the CAL bar on the first try</p>
<p>Indeed, there was an excellent article in the Los Angeles Times about the difficulty of the California Bar (not CAL bar...CAL refers to Berkeley). Moreover, east coast schools are in states that do not have community property for the most part, so they don't teach it. If you plan to practice in California, you will need to cover community property on your own or through some help.</p>
<p>And New York is not far easier. Its the second most difficult exam in the nation after California. JFK, Jr. failed the exam (I believe twice) before passing it.</p>
<p>The question should be: where do you want to practice law? Or think you want to practice law?</p>
<p>Also, bar exam reciprocity is rare for Californian lawyers. Though if you can pass the bar in CA, you can probably do well with study elsewhere. That being said, according to an attorney, lawyers who hold pass the bar in multiple states tend to work for company with interests in those states. For example, some Californian lawyers passed the bar in California, Oregon, and Washington (regional) or California and New York.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Nope. Most schools have very different data than Cal. Many have numbers for ALL who graduated from their schools, as opposed to just graduating seniors in a given year, etc. Any school that has a big enough sample will have useful information (many do); Cal's data is insufficient in that regard.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I highly doubt that there are a lot of schools that have data about ALL of their grads. After all, how exactly are you going to be able to compel all of your students to tell you these things? What if some of them don't want to release that information? </p>
<p>Compare Berkeley's prelaw data to that schools like Stanford, Princeton, Harvard, Yale, etc. (which you may need to obtain through a current student), and you will notice that the same problems with the data exist as with Berkeley's data. </p>
<p>But anyway, I'll put the ball back in your court. Name me a set of schools comparable to Berkeley that actually publishes data about ALL of its prelaws. If there are many such schools, then you should have little difficulty in naming a bunch of them. </p>
<p>
[quote]
Nope, the data is insufficient for any use, especially a quantitative comparison. You can't say whether there is or isn't a trend anywhere because the data is insufficient. The numbers for Boalt may be an exception because of the larger number, but it's still a sample of a sample.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Who said anything about performing trend analysis? The data simply exists to give you a rough view of the types of stats you would need to be competitive for a particular law school. </p>
<p>
[quote]
No, it doesn't give you a benchmark. Stats for admission to a particular school one year may be extremely inflated (for instance, over a 4.0 gpa). In such a case it is far from a benchmark--a benchmark would be a law school's actual average gpa, not just the average gpa of a sample of a sample of Cal grads.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>So take the average over 5 years. I think you are far too hung-up on year-to-year chronological comparisons. I never said that the data was appropriate to do that sort of analysis. The OP never asked for such chronological analysis either. </p>
<p>The data is useful because it answers some of the OP's questions, particularly those questions relating to relative comparisons of where Berkeley prelaws go to law school. I think it's fairly clear from the data that more Berkeley prelaws go to Boalt than to any of the East Coast law schools or to Stanford. Are we prepared to say how much more? No, probably not. But I think the data suffices to answer the question of whether more or less go to Boalt or not. </p>
<p>
[quote]
Completely wrong. Cal could have better data; I'm not sure why they post such crap, but I know that it is pretty much ignored by most serious pre-law students here. Further, you can utilize a law school's average data; in comparison to the data Cal has available, it will be far more useful.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I doubt that Cal has better data and is simply refusing to post it. Why do that? If Cal wanted to hide data, then it wouldn't even bother to post any data online at all, as many schools currently refuse to do. </p>
<p>But fine, have it your way. If you want to ignore this data, then pray tell, what data do supposedly serious pre-laws at Berkeley actually use, and why don't you post it?</p>
<p>An addendum to my post:</p>
<p>"Tough testing</p>
<p>California had the lowest percentage of people passing the bar exam in 2004. Here are the states that had the greatest and smallest percentage of people passing the bar in 2004:</p>
<p>Top 5</p>
<ol>
<li><p>Utah: 87%</p></li>
<li><p>Mississippi: 86%</p></li>
<li><p>Minnesota: 83%</p></li>
<li><p>Missouri: 81%</p></li>
<li><p>Iowa: 80%</p></li>
</ol>
<p>Bottom 5</p>
<ol>
<li><p>Wyoming: 60%</p></li>
<li><p>Nevada: 56%</p></li>
<li><p>New Hampshire: 56%</p></li>
<li><p>District of Columbia: 51%</p></li>
<li><p>California: 44%"</p></li>
</ol>
<p>So apparently NY state bar exam doesn't fall into the bottom 5. But DC (which was supposed to be "far easier" didn't have good rates either. New York's pass rate is 61%.</p>
<p>Information taken from: <a href="http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/la-me-bar21feb21,0,6262975,full.story%5B/url%5D">http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/la-me-bar21feb21,0,6262975,full.story</a></p>
<p>NY compared to California is easier, but its still difficult. I believe part of the problem with California is that they have to permit huge numbers from unaccredited schools to take it - thus they have to set the standard very high</p>
<p>With DC note that they are the only jurisdiction where mere active membership status in another jurisidiction meets the (common in many states) 5 year practice rule (apparently initially setup for Congressman and their staffs who obviously could not (by definition) be engaged in practice at certain times) - or simply by getting over a 132 on the MBE when testing outside of DC in another state (old rule at least) then you can waive right into DC.</p>
<p>So actually the best way to get into DC is to take the test in another state and get a high MBE score</p>
<p>Why practice in California? Making partner in New York is the most lucrative place by far.</p>
<p>And the information is useful.</p>
<p>Cal graduates go mainly to law schhools just outside of the top 10 from 11-20. Their placement rates at the very top law schools is anemic at best considering how many apply and their stats compared to undergrad programs ranked higher (and even lower if they are private).</p>
<p>
[quote]
Their placement rates at the very top law schools is anemic at best considering how many apply and their stats compared to undergrad programs ranked higher (and even lower if they are private).
[/quote]
</p>
<p>That's wrong and not even supported by the data. If you knew anything about law school admission you'd know that. Berkeley has a very high average LSAT score, which is a key factor law schools use in determining the worth of one's degree.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Why practice in California? Making partner in New York is the most lucrative place by far.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Money=happiness. I mean, the extra couple tens of thousands of dollars really make a difference in how happy one is, all else being equal, right? And that's if you make partner . . . call us when that happens, boingy.</p>
<p>:rolleyes:</p>
<p>
[quote]
Berkeley has a very high average LSAT score, which is a key factor law schools use in determining the worth of one's degree.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>According to the published data, the average LSAT score for ACCEPTED applicants is around 161-165, which is about the 90th percentile. Is that 'very high'? I guess that's determined by how you define the term 'very high'. </p>
<p>Now, of course, one might say that that's only the published data. Sure, but then that begs the question of what do you think the full data would loo like, including those students who refuse to release their data. Somehow I suspect that there aren't that many Berkeley students who score extremely highly on the LSAT, but don't report themselves. For example, I doubt that there are a lot of Berkeley 180 LSAT scorers who are not reporting in. I would think that, if anything, the people who do poorly on the LSAT would be the ones who are likely to not want to report in. Couple this with the fact that the reported data discusses only those prelaws who actually got into a law school. Some people get rejected from ever school they apply to. And some don't even apply anywhere (perhaps because they see their LSAT score and then decide not to apply). I think it's reasonable to assume that a disproporionate number of these people did rather poorly on the LSAT.</p>
<p>Sakky, sorry, but you have no idea what you're talking about here.</p>
<p>
[quote]
According to the published data, the average LSAT score for ACCEPTED applicants is around 161-165, which is about the 90th percentile. Is that 'very high'? I guess that's determined by how you define the term 'very high'.
[/quote]
I said Berkeley students have a high average LSAT score, not that Berkeley applicants (accepted or not) have a high average. The reason this is important is that the average LSAT score of students from Berkeley is used to gauge whether Berkeley is a good undergraduate institution. Harvard and probably most of the other ivies, have higher average scores than Berkeley, partly because they have fewer students. (Also, 161-165 IS a high AVERAGE SCORE for a school, especially one as large as Berkeley--it is not a score good enough to place one at a top 5 school, but as for an average for a school's students it's very high)</p>
<p>And by the way, the average LSAT number has nothing to do with reporting or not. LSAC tells law schools what the average score is from any undergraduate institution.</p>
<p>I encourage Cal students interested in law to disregard a lot of the BS spread on this board and look into a more reliable source.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Sakky, sorry, but you have no idea what you're talking about here.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Oh? And where exactly is the flaw in what I said? I think I know EXACTLY what I am talking about. You better be careful about dissing others here. </p>
<p>
[quote]
I said Berkeley students have a high average LSAT score, not that Berkeley applicants (accepted or not) have a high average.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>And what would that average score be? </p>
<p>
[quote]
Harvard and probably most of the other ivies, have higher average scores than Berkeley, partly because they have fewer students.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Uh, no, not quite. I think what you mean to say is that those schools have higher average scores because their students are, on average, better. Now, one could say that this is an indirect consequence of having fewer students, chiefly because it means that they have a far less prominent long tail end that Berkeley has. But it's not really the number of students that is important here, it's the quality of the students. </p>
<p>Consider the following thought exercise. If I was to think about one "superschool" comprising of HYPSM + AWS, that school would actually have more undergrads than Berkeley would, AND would also have a higher average LSAT score. That illustrates that the key variabe is not so much size, but rather the quality. </p>
<p><a href="Also,%20161-165%20IS%20a%20high%20AVERAGE%20SCORE%20for%20a%20school,%20especially%20one%20as%20large%20as%20Berkeley--it%20is%20not%20a%20score%20good%20enough%20to%20place%20one%20at%20a%20top%205%20school,%20but%20as%20for%20an%20average%20for%20a%20school's%20students%20it's%20very%20high">quote</a>
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Again, like I said, it depends on what you call 'very high'. I obviously agree that the score is significant higher than the national average. But is it really 'very high'? I suppose it's up to your definition of what 'very high' is. </p>
<p>
[quote]
And by the way, the average LSAT number has nothing to do with reporting or not. LSAC tells law schools what the average score is from any undergraduate institution.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Uh, actually, yeah it does because LSAT and LSAC are 2 different things. There are people who will just take the LSAT score and then never submit anything to LSAC, probably because they get too low of a score and thus realize they won't get into any decent law school and so they don't even bother to apply. There is no requirement that you report your undergrad school when you actually take the LSAT (at least, there wasn't any such requirement in the past). It is only when you complete LSAC that you do so, but not everybody will do that. As a case in point, I highly doubt that there are a lot of people who get 180 LSAT scores who decide not to register through LSAC. </p>
<p>
[quote]
I encourage Cal students interested in law to disregard a lot of the BS spread on this board and look into a more reliable source.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>And I asked you before, what would this 'more reliable' source be? If you have it, please present it.</p>
<p>Everyone,</p>
<p>Please, for everyone's sake, keep the personal attacks out of it. There is the possibility for good information here, but attacking each other isn't going to produce that. </p>
<p>Cheers,
UCLAri</p>