concernedparent said:

---

01Bear said:

---

concernedparent said:

---

01Bear said:

---

Rtkbear said:

---

I went to cal undergrad and for law school. There were a lot of students from cal at Berkeley law. Probably more than any other school.

---

I'm not saying Boalt (I refuse to call Cal's law school by any other name) won't accept Cal undergrad alumni whatsoever. Rather the bar is much higher for applicants who graduated from Cal's undergraduate programs than it is for applicants from other schools. In other words, if you went to Cal as an undergraduate and applied to Boalt but had the same GPA and LSAT scores as an applicant from another school (and assuming you're both otherwise qualified fir admissions at Boalt), the other applicant would be preferred over you. Of course, if you scored 180 on the LSAT and had a 4.0 GPA, Boalt would likely admit you (as would just about any other law school in the US). But if you're a borderline candidate (keep in mind, borderline candidates at Boalt still meet the stringent admissions requirements), a Cal undergraduate degree hurts your admissions chances at Boalt more than it helps. At least that's the understanding I have (and I've heard the same from many others in the legal field over the course of my career).*

*Actually, even dating back to when I applied for law school admissions.

---

Does any of this make sense? For what reasons would the law school disfavor applicants from its own (well-regarded) undergrad?

Second, you sure have a strong opinion about the name of a school you didn't attend.

---

I don't pretend to understand the reasoning behind law school admissions. Similarly, I don't pretend to understand the reasoning behind undergraduate admissions. Based on my own admissions process, I know it's not just based on a review of applicants' GPAs and LSAT scores for the law schools. I also know that for undergraduate to admissions, there's more than just GPAs and standardized test scores. I'm merely repeating what I've heard and what I suspect to be true about Boalt and its admissions policies re Cal undergraduate alumni.

As for why I insist on applying the name Boalt, it's mainly a matter of preference. When Inwas an undergraduate, it was Boalt Hall. That's where I fantasized about attending. Berkeley Law isn't quite the same as Boalt Hall, much like how Cal isn't quite the same as Berkeley.

FWIW, I know why the name was changed from Boalt to Berkeley Law. As someone from the group John Boalt hated and oppressed, I would've lived even more to have been a Boalt alumnus specifically because of that. It'd be kind of like dancing on his grave, in a sense.

Even aside from that, whitewashing history by removing reminders of misdeeds by historical figures does no one any good. If anything, it might lead some people to romanticize or mythologize the "lost cause" of these great people, which could lead others into believing them because they don't know better. The upshot is future generations may end up repeating the same horrors. (Here's where I'd normally quote Santayana, but since this is a Cal board, I'm sure we're all familiar with that cliched quote.)

---

I can offer some insight. I went to Berkeley Law and worked with the admissions office as part of recruiting. Law school admissions, at least in the last 10+ years when I attended, is largely driven by perceived prestige and reputation (US News rankings a good proxy for this) of the entering class. GPA/LSAT can affect rankings, or affect how firms recruit at schools, which in return affect job placements, which feed back into GPA/LSAT, and so on. At least with the top 14 law schools you can pretty closely predict which schools you will get into and the ballpark range of your merit scholarship just by GPA/LSAT alone. There is tons of data out there on this. Berkeley is one of the few (along with Yale and Stanford) that have the reputation of being a little bit more unpredictable and soft factor heavy, but by and large, you have the numbers, you have enough on your resume, you don't have any red flags, you get in.

Having exceptional "soft" factors such as impressive job or life experience can help because it increases the employability of the student (and the "potential" that that future alum might make a name for themselves, reflecting positively on the school). All stats and resumes being equal, an Ivy (or similar, such as Berkeley) undergrad carries more weight than say, a Cal State Long Beach degree.

Second, Berkeley Law has lagged behind its most immediate peers (Penn, UVA, and Michigan) in LSAT/GPA stats. The stats are often even lower than some of the schools generally grouped below it (Northwestern, Duke and Cornell). This in my opinion, is due largely to two factors: 1. Berkeley Law is not as generous with merit aid as other schools, 2. east coast bias of the profession... Berkeley Law students tend to self-select into CA jobs, and most of the "prestigious" jobs (top big law firms, DOJ, big non-profits) are NYC or DC based. If you're Eager Beaver student from Michigan with great stats and want to work in NYC, you'd likely favor the schools that have a stronger track record of placing students into NYC positions. I suspect point 2 is part of the reason Berkeley (and maybe Stanford) have the reputation of being more holistic in their review. They can fill a class that is still very appealing to employers despite having slightly lower numbers than their peers.

Now because GPA/LSAT is so closely tied to perceived reputation, the competition for students with high stats is fierce. It doesn't make sense to restrict your ability to compete for those applicants when you're already working with some disadvantages.

I've actually asked someone in admissions point blank if they disfavor Berkeley undergrads (because I was one) because I had also heard the rumor. Now maybe take their response with a grain of salt, but given the "logic" that drives law school admissions it makes sense. They said they don't hold a Cal degree against the applicant, but that undergrad institution does matter to some degree. Given where Berkeley sits versus all other schools in the nation, I'm inclined to think it helps more than most schools.

Re: The John Boalt thing, I'm not going to get into it, but majority of API students and alum don't share your view, and the only "Boalties" who I've come across who feel strongly about it have been White and over 50. Take that as you will.

---

Much appreciated! Thank you for your well-explained and thoughtful response. I truly do appreciate it.

I will say this, I got rejected by Boalt but accepted at Northwestern (where I wound up matriculating). I know a couple other Cal undergraduate alumni who had the same thing happen. After their first years, they transferred to Boalt (it was still Boalt back then). I thought about applying for a transfer, but figured I'd tough it out for another couple years in Chicago. Sometimes I wonder if I made the right decision. While I made some great (lifelong) friends in Chicago, I can't help but feel I would've been better off returning to the Bay (it's honestly one of the most best places in the state--if not the best).

As for the Boalt thing, I suspect I am an outlier. But then again, I happen to believe heavily in teaching history, both the good and bad. History without the bad is merely propaganda and mythology. The best way to counter the racist ideology of the past is to shine a light on it, not hide it. As the old saying goes, sunshine is the best disinfectant.

Also, FWIW, the Boalt alumni I know have all been super smart and sharp. I have nothing but the greatest respect for anyone who made it through Boalt. In that vein, I salute you, sir!

pingpong2 said:

---

calumnus said:

---

01Bear said:

---

badger said:

---

There are many who see the value that big time football brings a university. Michigan and Wisconsin are two examples, they are relatively close to the academic tier of Cal, but both have great game day atmospheres and on the field success. Rankings and Nobel Prizes are important but students who work hard can be very successful going to schools that are perceived to be less prestigious. Many students want a holistic experience; highly thought of programs alongside an atmosphere that promotes spirit and pride in your school. We want a reason to come back to campus and football is very often that reason.

For most who don't go the PhD route, ten years post-graduation, if you are looking for a new job, is anyone going to really care if you went to Cal or Alabama? It will be about your work history and performance. That first job, sure being a Cal grad will make a difference, but thereafter, not so much. So, if I am a top student who wants fun football Saturdays, do I go to Cal, great school, bad football, or do I go to Michigan (and BTW I hate Michigan) and have nearly the same great education, yet also a great football team. Take it the next level, is it really that far a drop to Alabama, (Alabama is a Carnegie R1, the same as Cal); maybe, but maybe not. We are not talking about the difference between Cal and say Fresno State.

Commitment is what needs to be looked at. I think Cal's problem is leadership can't commit to one direction or the other, does the Cal leadership want to make a commitment to sports or do they want to go the U of Chicago way and give them up and go D3? They seem to be in that middle ground, not committing to having great football, but also refusing to give it up. To me a choice needs to be made, are you in or are you out?

I would prefer they make that commitment, perhaps the new chancellor will go the way Donna Shalala did when she became chancellor at Wisconsin in 1988. She saw the potential value of big time football and made a commitment, without negatively impacting the academics of the school. Prior to her taking over UW was much like Cal, a good season every once in a while, but for the most part the on the field performances in football and basketball were mediocre. That is now very different.

---

Even for those seeking to pursue higher education beyond the BA/BS, attending Cal as an undergraduate can have negative consequences. For instance, it's commonly mentioned (at least in law schools and legal circles) that Cal tends to decline applicants who graduated from Cal with a BA/BS whose applications are otherwise competitive with applicants who graduated from other universities.

If anything, this suggests that those seeking to go to Cal for law school (or really any graduate program) would be better served by going to another undergraduate program. In the long run, this means the quality of Cal undergraduates will diminish as those who wish to earn a graduate degree from Cal will opt to matriculate at other undergraduate universities. This, in turn, would make Cal less selective, further diminishing its standing in those rankings that take rejection rate and high school GPA into account*.

Beyond the fact that Cal graduate programs tend to reject otherwise qualified Cal alumni, there's also the level of competition amongst Cal undergraduates, which can negatively impact a Cal student's graduate school applications. Simply put, a Cal student who might otherwise be at the top of his class in a less challenging academic institution could find himself in the middle of the pack at Cal. While there are undoubtedly some truly big fish at Cal (even in the undergraduate ranks), most Cal students are no more than just biggish fish. Given that Cal professors grade on curves with (more or less) set numbers of As, Bs, and Cs, all those biggish fish students are competing with one another for the few A grades. Whereas, if the same biggish fish students attended a less challenging institution, they may more easily snap up the As needed to attend a competitive graduate school/program.

While it is a common truism that steel sharpens steel, most people use rocks to sharpen knives and other blades. It makes more sense for those with (for instance) medical school aspirations not to struggle at Cal for an A when it's easier to get the same grade at a school where there aren't as many equally bright and hard-working students fighting for a limited number of As. In other words, instead of sharpening oneself against other steel-level students, a long-term planning and ambitious student would seek to sharpen him/herself against rock-level students. All of this suggests that the years of Cal's undergraduate student body being the best and brightest may well be coming to an end, if it's not already over.

Anecdotally, I spoke with a younger cousin who is not interested in attending Cal, despite how much I tried to promote it to him. He's smart enough to know that he'd have to work harder to achieve the same grades at Cal as he would achieve at a less challenging school. While I tried to play up the first job angle, he also (rightly) pointed out that he won't be pursuing a job as a junior investment banker or any other such job immediately out of undergrad. Moreover, he plans to find a job in the local area, so it's not like he needs his undergrad university to carry the Cal cachet. Finally, it's undeniable that graduates of universities with prestigious academic reputations have also found great success in their chosen fields. So really, there's little incentive for him to matriculate at, let alone graduate from, Cal.

Based on this one datum point, even among some of those who do not seek a graduate degree, the potential rewards are simply not worth competing against other hard working and bright students. If this belief becomes widespread, it may not be long before the caliber of undergraduate students Cal attracts will be far below anything any of us alumni would ever have imagined.

*I would've included standardized test scores, but I'm unsure if they're even used in any rankings given the move from significant numbers of universities (including prestigious Cal) from requiring standardized test scores.

---

My niece is a senior in high school in San Diego. She has a 4.8 gpa and is set on being premed. She has visited most of the UC campuses, Stanford and privates back east and Cal is far and away her favorite. However, when she told her guidance councilor and a private "pre-med coach" that Cal was her favorite, both said "Absolutely not." They are telling her to forget about Cal and to not even apply even though it is just $75 and an extra checked box. Their belief is It is harder at Cal to get the grades you need to get into med school. I would think med schools know Cal is tough and take it into account, but I'm not pushing Cal because they are the experts and I don't want it to be my fault if she goes to Cal and doesn't get into med school. I think she may apply anyway.

---

I gave my brother the same advice (he was pre-law).

He intended up going to an Ivy and then HLS, so it worked out well for him.

I was pre-med, until I wasn't because I was getting smoked by the competition. Had high school friends at Davis who shared their exams with me and they were much easier with a nicer curve. Sometimes, it's better to be a big fish in a small pond than average at Cal.

---

I matriculated at Cal as a premed student. Chem 1A and Math 1A (really, I could not understand a single word that came out of my professor's mouth!) killed that dream for me. I switched gears and drifted in neutral for a while. That was the best decision I made in college. I got to take all sorts of classes (though, sadly, no underwater basket weaving). I took seminars with Boalt professors, I took classes in mass communication, marine biology, optometry, and film studies. I also took standard college courses in sociology, English (including bonehead writing, though I tested out of the requirement*), classics, and foreign languages. Interspersed with all these different were a hodgepodge of history classes. In fact, I took so many history classes, I managed to graduate in 4 years while not meeting with my major advisor until just before my senior year.

I really cannot express how much I enjoyed my wide breadth of education at Cal. I really hope kids are still able to do something similar, today. I really doubt I would've enjoyed college as much had I followed the initial premed route where every semester's curriculum was pretty much planned out before I even set foot on campus.

Cal's got so much to offer undergrads with its large collection of experts across multiple disciplines. It would be a shame not to be able to branch out and experience something outside the narrow premed track.

*It was well-worth taking as I believe it helped me to be a better writer.

01Bear said:

---

Much appreciated! Thank you for your well-explained and thoughtful response. I truly do appreciate it.

I will say this, I got rejected by Boalt but accepted at Northwestern (where I wound up matriculating). I know a couple other Cal undergraduate alumni who had the same thing happen. After their first years, they transferred to Boalt (it was still Boalt back then). I thought about applying for a transfer, but figured I'd tough it out for another couple years in Chicago. Sometimes I wonder if I made the right decision. While I made some great (lifelong) friends in Chicago, I can't help but feel I would've been better off returning to the Bay (it's honestly one of the most best places in the state--if not the best).

As for the Boalt thing, I suspect I am an outlier. But then again, I happen to believe heavily in teaching history, both the good and bad. History without the bad is merely propaganda and mythology. The best way to counter the racist ideology of the past is to shine a light on it, not hide it. As the old saying goes, sunshine is the best disinfectant.

Also, FWIW, the Boalt alumni I know have all been super smart and sharp. I have nothing but the greatest respect for anyone who made it through Boalt. In that vein, I salute you, sir!

---

Cheers, appreciate you being open to hearing another viewpoint.

You made life long friends and have (I assume) a good career, by that metric, you probably did make the right choice going to an equally fantastic school and experiencing a different part of the nation.