Cornell Sticker vs. UCLA In-state (Sticker)

[flyingpanda]

Personally, and I'm in-state, I'd pick UCLA over Cornell at sticker. UCLA offers more opportunities to network for Callifornia, the surrounding area around the school is very nice, and the alumni base is much stronger.

I'm a little hesitant to believe this. However, I think with time, UCLA's alumni base will surpass USC's. This is the thing about UCLA: It seems like everything is going to improve with time. It is really a young school. It just needs to make that aggressive push like the push Northwestern did back in the 2000s and recruit a class with a median LSAT of 170 and relax that GPA wall a bit. UCLA could totally push its numbers up a bit more if you ask me.

As for the price, yea, I'm not really concerned so much about the cost of attendance at any law school, but to have in-state tuition added on top of everything else is of course nice. I simply cannot justify spending 60k more in tuition at Cornell. Unless Cornell comes through with a scholarship, this battle is looking like it's over.

-HL

Sorry, I meant the alumni base specifically in California. Most UCLA grads stay in CA by choice though, so it's not as strong nationally.

[los blancos]

Personally, and I'm in-state, I'd pick UCLA over Cornell at sticker. UCLA offers more opportunities to network for Callifornia, the surrounding area around the school is very nice, and the alumni base is much stronger.

I'm a little hesitant to believe this. However, I think with time, UCLA's alumni base will surpass USC's. This is the thing about UCLA: It seems like everything is going to improve with time. It is really a young school. It just needs to make that aggressive push like the push Northwestern did back in the 2000s and recruit a class with a median LSAT of 170 and relax that GPA wall a bit. UCLA could totally push its numbers up a bit more if you ask me.

As for the price, yea, I'm not really concerned so much about the cost of attendance at any law school, but to have in-state tuition added on top of everything else is of course nice. I simply cannot justify spending 60k more in tuition at Cornell. Unless Cornell comes through with a scholarship, this battle is looking like it's over.

-HL

Sorry, I meant the alumni base specifically in California. Most UCLA grads stay in CA by choice though, so it's not as strong nationally.

Well, it's lay prestige and probably even its prestige within the law can't compare to Cornell's

I agree though with HL's general sentiment that UCLA is a rising star. All it really needs is for the economy to bounce back so it can start placing really well in LA biglaw, thus enabling it to recruit people with numbers like mine. (EDIT: that completely sounded douchey, sorry)

[Hopefullawstudent]

Personally, and I'm in-state, I'd pick UCLA over Cornell at sticker. UCLA offers more opportunities to network for Callifornia, the surrounding area around the school is very nice, and the alumni base is much stronger.

I'm a little hesitant to believe this. However, I think with time, UCLA's alumni base will surpass USC's. This is the thing about UCLA: It seems like everything is going to improve with time. It is really a young school. It just needs to make that aggressive push like the push Northwestern did back in the 2000s and recruit a class with a median LSAT of 170 and relax that GPA wall a bit. UCLA could totally push its numbers up a bit more if you ask me.

As for the price, yea, I'm not really concerned so much about the cost of attendance at any law school, but to have in-state tuition added on top of everything else is of course nice. I simply cannot justify spending 60k more in tuition at Cornell. Unless Cornell comes through with a scholarship, this battle is looking like it's over.

-HL

Sorry, I meant the alumni base specifically in California. Most UCLA grads stay in CA by choice though, so it's not as strong nationally.

Well, it's lay prestige and probably even its prestige within the law can't compare to Cornell's

I agree though with HL's general sentiment that UCLA is a rising star. All it really needs is for the economy to bounce back so it can start placing really well in LA biglaw, thus enabling it to recruit people with numbers like mine. (EDIT: that completely sounded douchey, sorry)

Ha, well you ARE leaning towards Duke right now, aren't you?

As you said, which I agree on, the economy in CA needs to pick up a bit of steam to help out UCLA's placement statistics. Having said that, if anyone is entering law school with the West Coast as a definite goal, then I think UCLA's strength belies its rank outside the T14. I know Duke, Michigan, and Cornell have national prestige. However, California is like Texas: It is one of those states that has an insular culture, and an economy that grows increasingly autonomous with time. My point: California prestige trumps national prestige, at least by lay standards. I'd assume since UCLA's rank is well-known and well-respected in California, it scores big points with firms on the West, probably pushing it up to a close tie with, or even an advantage over Michigan, Duke, and probably certainly Cornell and Georgetown.

From the many threads I've read, and from advice from a UChicago Law professor, as long as I know I want to work on the West Coast, UCLA Law is very hard to beat. This professor said, "Outside of the top 6 schools and Berkeley, UCLA is the next best choice for California. Go with it." I think that pretty much settled my decision!

-HL

[los blancos]

Ha, well you ARE leaning towards Duke right now, aren't you?

As you said, which I agree on, the economy in CA needs to pick up a bit of steam to help out UCLA's placement statistics. Having said that, if anyone is entering law school with the West Coast as a definite goal, then I think UCLA's strength belies its rank outside the T14. I know Duke, Michigan, and Cornell have national prestige. However, California is like Texas: It is one of those states that has an insular culture, and an economy that grows increasingly autonomous with time. My point: California prestige trumps national prestige, at least by lay standards. I'd assume since UCLA's rank is well-known and well-respected in California, it scores big points with firms on the West, probably pushing it up to a close tie with, or even an advantage over Michigan, Duke, and probably certainly Cornell and Georgetown.

I agree with all of that, and from what I've read I think it's got an advantage over CG and is probably as good as MVPDN (though I think MVP are better if you have CA ties, especially M). But here's the problem. I bet there's a fairly decent population of people like me who really want to end up in CA but aren't willing to sacrifice an overall shot at a big firm job to do so. Let's say I get dinged everywhere I apply except for Duke and UCLA. If I strictly want CA, I would go with UCLA. But my preference list looks like this: CA BigLaw >>> non-CA BigLaw >>> CA gvmt or small firm job. That NLJ250 chart from back in 08 is biased against West Coast firms, but it's fairly obvious that MVPDN's BigLaw placement is on a different level than UCLA, and this effect is probably amplified ITE.

Someone like me is wary of sacrificing career prospects for location, especially ITE. That's why if UCLA was able to become a NU-like local powerhouse in LA/SD and, to a lesser extent, in NorCal, it could really skyrocket very fast, because its location is amazing and a LOT of people want CA, and right now wanting CA makes it very difficult to chose a law school unless you can crack HYSCCB. It seems that, to a certain extent, the West Coast firms have traditionally addressed this issue by showing up in strong numbers to OCI at MVP (especially M) and hiring people with CA ties. That's where I have another problem: I have no CA ties. Basically, I need to get into Berkeley. Hence why it's my #1.

[Hopefullawstudent]

Ha, well you ARE leaning towards Duke right now, aren't you?

As you said, which I agree on, the economy in CA needs to pick up a bit of steam to help out UCLA's placement statistics. Having said that, if anyone is entering law school with the West Coast as a definite goal, then I think UCLA's strength belies its rank outside the T14. I know Duke, Michigan, and Cornell have national prestige. However, California is like Texas: It is one of those states that has an insular culture, and an economy that grows increasingly autonomous with time. My point: California prestige trumps national prestige, at least by lay standards. I'd assume since UCLA's rank is well-known and well-respected in California, it scores big points with firms on the West, probably pushing it up to a close tie with, or even an advantage over Michigan, Duke, and probably certainly Cornell and Georgetown.

I agree with all of that, and from what I've read I think it's got an advantage over CG and is probably as good as MVPDN (though I think MVP are better if you have CA ties, especially M). But here's the problem. I bet there's a fairly decent population of people like me who really want to end up in CA but aren't willing to sacrifice an overall shot at a big firm job to do so. Let's say I get dinged everywhere I apply except for Duke and UCLA. If I strictly want CA, I would go with UCLA. But my preference list looks like this: CA BigLaw >>> non-CA BigLaw >>> CA gvmt or small firm job. That NLJ250 chart from back in 08 is biased against West Coast firms, but it's fairly obvious that MVPDN's BigLaw placement is on a different level than UCLA, and this effect is probably amplified ITE.

Someone like me is wary of sacrificing career prospects for location, especially ITE. That's why if UCLA was able to become a NU-like local powerhouse in LA/SD and, to a lesser extent, in NorCal, it could really skyrocket very fast, because its location is amazing and a LOT of people want CA, and right now wanting CA makes it very difficult to chose a law school unless you can crack HYSCCB. It seems that, to a certain extent, the West Coast firms have traditionally addressed this issue by showing up in strong numbers to OCI at MVP (especially M) and hiring people with CA ties. That's where I have another problem: I have no CA ties. Basically, I need to get into Berkeley. Hence why it's my #1.

I think we see things pretty much the same. I have very strong connections with Michigan by the way, and I can tell you that its reputation and placement in California are outstanding. Still, there's the point I think you and I are getting at: The game changes over time, rankings change as well (ever slightly albeit), and if there is one school that I think can really change the game up, it is UCLA Law. I think recruiters know that the law classes are just so much stronger than they were back in the day. A student at UCLA Law today would have easily been accepted to Michigan less than 10 years ago. The students at Michigan today are outstanding, generally, but I think you'd be surprised at how many shocking "splitters" Michigan is happy to accept whereas UCLA said "no thank you" to. From the top of my head, there are a handful of people I know in that situation. I'm not trying to take away the quality of Michigan, but ITE I really do think that UCLA accepts students of similar quality to Michigan, and employers increasingly will come to recognize that.

My view: You really wouldn't be alone! If you want the West Coast, then maybe you should choose UCLA over Duke, all else equal.

-HL

[PDaddy]

Neither at sticker. I would never pay 60k/year for UCLA, but if you really want LA, go to UCLA.

$60K? Is that estimated cost of attentance at UCLA in-state?

[los blancos]

Ha, well you ARE leaning towards Duke right now, aren't you?

As you said, which I agree on, the economy in CA needs to pick up a bit of steam to help out UCLA's placement statistics. Having said that, if anyone is entering law school with the West Coast as a definite goal, then I think UCLA's strength belies its rank outside the T14. I know Duke, Michigan, and Cornell have national prestige. However, California is like Texas: It is one of those states that has an insular culture, and an economy that grows increasingly autonomous with time. My point: California prestige trumps national prestige, at least by lay standards. I'd assume since UCLA's rank is well-known and well-respected in California, it scores big points with firms on the West, probably pushing it up to a close tie with, or even an advantage over Michigan, Duke, and probably certainly Cornell and Georgetown.

I agree with all of that, and from what I've read I think it's got an advantage over CG and is probably as good as MVPDN (though I think MVP are better if you have CA ties, especially M). But here's the problem. I bet there's a fairly decent population of people like me who really want to end up in CA but aren't willing to sacrifice an overall shot at a big firm job to do so. Let's say I get dinged everywhere I apply except for Duke and UCLA. If I strictly want CA, I would go with UCLA. But my preference list looks like this: CA BigLaw >>> non-CA BigLaw >>> CA gvmt or small firm job. That NLJ250 chart from back in 08 is biased against West Coast firms, but it's fairly obvious that MVPDN's BigLaw placement is on a different level than UCLA, and this effect is probably amplified ITE.

Someone like me is wary of sacrificing career prospects for location, especially ITE. That's why if UCLA was able to become a NU-like local powerhouse in LA/SD and, to a lesser extent, in NorCal, it could really skyrocket very fast, because its location is amazing and a LOT of people want CA, and right now wanting CA makes it very difficult to chose a law school unless you can crack HYSCCB. It seems that, to a certain extent, the West Coast firms have traditionally addressed this issue by showing up in strong numbers to OCI at MVP (especially M) and hiring people with CA ties. That's where I have another problem: I have no CA ties. Basically, I need to get into Berkeley. Hence why it's my #1.

I think we see things pretty much the same. I have very strong connections with Michigan by the way, and I can tell you that its reputation and placement in California are outstanding. Still, there's the point I think you and I are getting at: The game changes over time, rankings change as well (ever slightly albeit), and if there is one school that I think can really change the game up, it is UCLA Law. I think recruiters know that the law classes are just so much stronger than they were back in the day. A student at UCLA Law today would have easily been accepted to Michigan less than 10 years ago. The students at Michigan today are outstanding, generally, but I think you'd be surprised at how many shocking "splitters" Michigan is happy to accept whereas UCLA said "no thank you" to. From the top of my head, there are a handful of people I know in that situation. I'm not trying to take away the quality of Michigan, but ITE I really do think that UCLA accepts students of similar quality to Michigan, and employers increasingly will come to recognize that.

My view: You really wouldn't be alone! If you want the West Coast, then maybe you should choose UCLA over Duke, all else equal.

-HL

All credited. Honestly, at this point I'm just hoping that I can nail one of HSCCB and render this argument moot. If not, then Mich would probably be next on my list (and I think I should get into Mich, but this cycle is just impossible to predict) and I'd go to work trying to make some connections in CA and getting any CA summer 1L job I can get and maybe even an internship this summer. As for Duke vs UCLA, I think it'd take some money out of UCLA, and that's even assuming I get in - they seem to have a penchant for WLing people with my numbers.