Berkeley Admission decisions 2009/2010


pedrinus

LOL yeah...it is boiling there :) ehehehhe

Mourinho is super ...!!!!

Where are you heading destiny?

LOL yeah...it is boiling there :) ehehehhe

Mourinho is super ...!!!!

Where are you heading destiny?
quote
Destiny09

He's the Special One...good luck, mate.

He's the Special One...good luck, mate.
quote
pedrinus

quote
Destiny09

More fool you...

More fool you...
quote
pedrinus

where you heading this year?

where you heading this year?
quote
Destiny09

Waiting for Yale...hopefully.

Waiting for Yale...hopefully.
quote
Applyin

Waiting for Yale...hopefully.


Fingers-Crossed :) LOL

You guys should use the P.M. feature to continue your lovefest rather than highjack the post with personal "nice to see you" BS.

Love you though.

<blockquote>Waiting for Yale...hopefully.</blockquote>

Fingers-Crossed :) LOL

You guys should use the P.M. feature to continue your lovefest rather than highjack the post with personal "nice to see you" BS.

Love you though.
quote
Destiny09

We're giving you a chance at comprehension...

We're giving you a chance at comprehension...
quote
Panthers

@ Applyin

Applyin you cheated with the case by quoting only Judge Weis - who disagree with the whole thing.

But you have two more judges in the majority decision who did not say the case was not an antitrust case (see below the last paragraph of the article)...only that a 'quick-look' approach in antitrust (instead of a rule of reason approach in antitrust) was not sufficient as a standard of review to determine the case and then remanded..with the instruction that it should be determined under the ANTITRUST LAW RULE OF REASON STANDARD - with the consequence that if the case passes this standard it will be out of antitrust and if it fails the standard it will be in antitrust(see below in the article). this like all laws - eg, if they prove theft against you, you fall under crime law, if they fail, you fall outside it.

Destiny showed they never got to the remand stages due to the settlement but the case was not determined to be outside antitrust by the Third Circuit...rather they confirm that antitrust law can catch universities

So Destiny)9 was TOTALLY correct...but I disagree on Berkeley with Destiny09..lol

THIS IS THE PART IN THE ARTICLE

The Justice Department agreed to dismiss the case after weeks of discussions between government and MIT attorneys following the unanimous decision Sept. 17 of the Third Circuit Court of Appeals. The Circuit Court reversed the decision of the U.S. District Court in Philadelphia that a simple "quick look" at the cooperative financial aid practices of MIT and the Ivy League schools determined that the schools violated the Sherman Antitrust Act.

The Third Circuit Court of Appeals, recounting the history of the case in its September, 1993 decision, said, "In 1991, the Antitrust Division of the Justice Department brought this suit alleging that the Ivy (League) Overlap Group unlawfully conspired to restrain trade in violation of section one of the Sherman Act ... by (1) agreeing to award financial aid exclusively on the basis of need; (2) agreeing to utilize a common formula to calculate need; and (3) collectively settling, with only insignificant discrepancies, each commonly-admitted student's family contribution toward the price of tuition."

The eight Ivy League schools--Brown, Columbia, Cornell, Dartmouth, Harvard, Princeton, University of Pennsylvania and Yale-- signed a consent decree to stop the practices. But MIT insisted that its actions were both legal and necessary if the university was to continue its long-standing policy of offering admission on a need-blind basis and providing need-based aid so that all those admitted would be able to attend, regardless of financial circumstances. The Antitrust Division of the Justice Department brought suit against MIT on May 22, 1991.

All three appellate judges said the ruling should be reversed. One judge, Joseph F. Weis, Jr., ruled unequivocally in favor of MIT, saying that the 1890 Sherman Antitrust Act did not apply in this case. Judge Weis said, "It does seem ironic ... that the Sherman Act, intended to prevent plundering by the `robber barons,' is being advanced as a means to punish ... philanthropy."

In the majority decision, the two other judges said the decision should be reversed and the case should be remanded for further proceedings on a rule of reason antitrust analysis, rather than the "quick look" ruling made Sept. 2, 1992 by the U.S. District Court in Philadelphia. The decision of the Appeals Court said, "Overlap may in fact merely regulate competition in order to enhance it, while also deriving certain social benefits. If the rule of reason analysis leads to this conclusion, then indeed Overlap will be beyond the scope of the prohibitions of the Sherman Act."

@ Applyin

Applyin you cheated with the case by quoting only Judge Weis - who disagree with the whole thing.

But you have two more judges in the majority decision who did not say the case was not an antitrust case (see below the last paragraph of the article)...only that a 'quick-look' approach in antitrust (instead of a rule of reason approach in antitrust) was not sufficient as a standard of review to determine the case and then remanded..with the instruction that it should be determined under the ANTITRUST LAW RULE OF REASON STANDARD - with the consequence that if the case passes this standard it will be out of antitrust and if it fails the standard it will be in antitrust(see below in the article). this like all laws - eg, if they prove theft against you, you fall under crime law, if they fail, you fall outside it.

Destiny showed they never got to the remand stages due to the settlement but the case was not determined to be outside antitrust by the Third Circuit...rather they confirm that antitrust law can catch universities

So Destiny)9 was TOTALLY correct...but I disagree on Berkeley with Destiny09..lol

THIS IS THE PART IN THE ARTICLE

The Justice Department agreed to dismiss the case after weeks of discussions between government and MIT attorneys following the unanimous decision Sept. 17 of the Third Circuit Court of Appeals. The Circuit Court reversed the decision of the U.S. District Court in Philadelphia that a simple "quick look" at the cooperative financial aid practices of MIT and the Ivy League schools determined that the schools violated the Sherman Antitrust Act.

The Third Circuit Court of Appeals, recounting the history of the case in its September, 1993 decision, said, "In 1991, the Antitrust Division of the Justice Department brought this suit alleging that the Ivy (League) Overlap Group unlawfully conspired to restrain trade in violation of section one of the Sherman Act ... by (1) agreeing to award financial aid exclusively on the basis of need; (2) agreeing to utilize a common formula to calculate need; and (3) collectively settling, with only insignificant discrepancies, each commonly-admitted student's family contribution toward the price of tuition."

The eight Ivy League schools--Brown, Columbia, Cornell, Dartmouth, Harvard, Princeton, University of Pennsylvania and Yale-- signed a consent decree to stop the practices. But MIT insisted that its actions were both legal and necessary if the university was to continue its long-standing policy of offering admission on a need-blind basis and providing need-based aid so that all those admitted would be able to attend, regardless of financial circumstances. The Antitrust Division of the Justice Department brought suit against MIT on May 22, 1991.

All three appellate judges said the ruling should be reversed. One judge, Joseph F. Weis, Jr., ruled unequivocally in favor of MIT, saying that the 1890 Sherman Antitrust Act did not apply in this case. Judge Weis said, "It does seem ironic ... that the Sherman Act, intended to prevent plundering by the `robber barons,' is being advanced as a means to punish ... philanthropy."

In the majority decision, the two other judges said the decision should be reversed and the case should be remanded for further proceedings on a rule of reason antitrust analysis, rather than the "quick look" ruling made Sept. 2, 1992 by the U.S. District Court in Philadelphia. The decision of the Appeals Court said, "Overlap may in fact merely regulate competition in order to enhance it, while also deriving certain social benefits. If the rule of reason analysis leads to this conclusion, then indeed Overlap will be beyond the scope of the prohibitions of the Sherman Act."



quote
bud

Folks, give Applyin a break, the fella didn't had patience to read through the case law in entirety and he was just taking a chance by foul play but didn't succeed in making his point. In my view he may have tried to emphasize on privacy laws, more than that of anti-trust but could not resist his temptation to prove somebody wrong and put himself on hole. Anyway, he's just 'Applyin' now whereas 'Destiny' has got some fixed destinations in 09. So just chill.

Folks, give Applyin a break, the fella didn't had patience to read through the case law in entirety and he was just taking a chance by foul play but didn't succeed in making his point. In my view he may have tried to emphasize on privacy laws, more than that of anti-trust but could not resist his temptation to prove somebody wrong and put himself on hole. Anyway, he's just 'Applyin' now whereas 'Destiny' has got some fixed destinations in 09. So just chill.
quote

Sacha, could you please tell us if there are "additional conditions" for this deposit, such as the withdrawal of any pending applications, the refusal of any current admission offers from other schools etc.?

NYU adopts this aggresive policy... how about Berkeley?
Thanks!

Hurray,

Berkeley admission decisions are out and I am in :-). Received the email tonight. Awful narrow deadline: They want an answer by March 19th including a $ 500 deposit.


No such conditions.


Sorry, I have to correct myself. The Statement of Intent to Register contains such conditions (Withdraw applications and remove from waiting lists).

<blockquote><blockquote>Sacha, could you please tell us if there are "additional conditions" for this deposit, such as the withdrawal of any pending applications, the refusal of any current admission offers from other schools etc.?

NYU adopts this aggresive policy... how about Berkeley?
Thanks!

<blockquote>Hurray,

Berkeley admission decisions are out and I am in :-). Received the email tonight. Awful narrow deadline: They want an answer by March 19th including a $ 500 deposit. </blockquote></blockquote>

No such conditions. </blockquote>

Sorry, I have to correct myself. The Statement of Intent to Register contains such conditions (Withdraw applications and remove from waiting lists).

quote
Stagista11

wow! I mean, if I get admitted into Berkeley, have I to give up the idea to join Harvard once (and if) I'll be admitted there? it's no big deal to give up my spot at Northwestern, but if they tell me I cannot accept Harvard...could you please clear my mind? one last other question; do admissions offices work also on saturday?

wow! I mean, if I get admitted into Berkeley, have I to give up the idea to join Harvard once (and if) I'll be admitted there? it's no big deal to give up my spot at Northwestern, but if they tell me I cannot accept Harvard...could you please clear my mind? one last other question; do admissions offices work also on saturday?
quote
slave.lex

Congratulations to those already admitted.

I applied to Berkeley LL.M as well, my question is, is it true, as someone stated in an earlier post, that Berkeley makes all its admissions decisions and communicates them together?

In other words, if i didn't receive an acceptance email last week, should i count my self as not admitted? What have you guys heard? What do you think are our chances?

Congratulations to those already admitted.

I applied to Berkeley LL.M as well, my question is, is it true, as someone stated in an earlier post, that Berkeley makes all its admissions decisions and communicates them together?

In other words, if i didn't receive an acceptance email last week, should i count my self as not admitted? What have you guys heard? What do you think are our chances?
quote
MAP2009

hm actually I don't think they communicate their decisions at once. It states clearly at their homepage that decisions will be made even till April. Be patient.

hm actually I don't think they communicate their decisions at once. It states clearly at their homepage that decisions will be made even till April. Be patient.
quote

hm actually I don't think they communicate their decisions at once. It states clearly at their homepage that decisions will be made even till April. Be patient.


I agree with MAP2009. Another indication: On Friday a colleague and I spoke to a law professor from Berkeley who was visiting my law school in Germany (First hellos etc.). He mentioned that my colleague's admission notice should arrive eventually (provided, of course, that he would be admitted at all), even though several other students from Germany had already received theirs in the night from Thursday to Friday.

<blockquote>hm actually I don't think they communicate their decisions at once. It states clearly at their homepage that decisions will be made even till April. Be patient. </blockquote>

I agree with MAP2009. Another indication: On Friday a colleague and I spoke to a law professor from Berkeley who was visiting my law school in Germany (First hellos etc.). He mentioned that my colleague's admission notice should arrive eventually (provided, of course, that he would be admitted at all), even though several other students from Germany had already received theirs in the night from Thursday to Friday.
quote
Stagista11

never heard of such system. not even Yale, with its 25-spot class, uses to notify to all at once...don't worry. many applicants have yet to get a decision. give yourself a couple of weeks, and only then start to worry...

never heard of such system. not even Yale, with its 25-spot class, uses to notify to all at once...don't worry. many applicants have yet to get a decision. give yourself a couple of weeks, and only then start to worry...
quote

So far, only 2 persons have been admitted in this board? Really crucial...
I have not received any decision for me and just keep my fingers crossed.

So far, only 2 persons have been admitted in this board? Really crucial...
I have not received any decision for me and just keep my fingers crossed.
quote
Stagista11

few hours and another week of passion starts...keep you hopes up fellow! it's almost time to get some decisions...

few hours and another week of passion starts...keep you hopes up fellow! it's almost time to get some decisions...
quote
Bowen

I am also wating for a decision...

I am also wating for a decision...
quote

Add me to the waiting room.

Although I'm pretty relaxed as I've got mostly positive results from the "East Coast" already...

Add me to the waiting room.

Although I'm pretty relaxed as I've got mostly positive results from the "East Coast" already...
quote

Reply to Post

Related Law Schools

Berkeley, California 1168 Followers 561 Discussions
San Francisco, California 57 Followers 51 Discussions
Davis, California 81 Followers 54 Discussions

Other Related Content

Summer Law Programs 2020: Legal English & US Law

News Feb 13, 2020