Kretzy wrote:Knockglock wrote:BeautifulSW wrote:Gosh. Stanford really IS as good as it gets and it's essentially alone in the legal stratosphere of the West Coast. Nevertheless, I'd opt for UCLA. Yeah, yeah, I know, but I'd just rather spend three miserable, expensive years in LA than in the (much more expensive) Bay Area. Palo Alto? What's in Palo Alto? And don't just blow off the money difference. Debt has long term consequences.
And if you got into Stanford, you'll probably blow the curve at UCLA Law so your career options might not be much better coming out of Stanford.
Disagree. Go to Stanford. They don't use traditional grading, just H/P, so there's a lot less pressure on you. From what I've heard, LS grading can be seemingly arbitrary. Plus Stanford is pretty much a paradise. I would easily sell my (non-existent) first, second, and third born to attend school there.
Stanford has a strong LRAP program and also has great job prospects. Since Stanford has the smallest classes out of any T14, only 170 students, their grads are in strong demand. Additionally a significant portion (~20% i've heard tosses around) chooses to go into public-interest work, plus another portion gets clerkships, so there really is much less competition for biglaw, and it seems that anyone who wants it can get it.
This. I love UCLA, but there's a huge employment difference in this economy. Being above the 75ths doesn't guarantee "beating the curve," as folks have made clear on here over and over again. *Correct me if I'm wrong* BUT even if you're bottom 10% at SLS, as long as you can get AT LEAST 1 H, things seem to be fine when it comes to finding a firm gig.
Look, nothing is a guarantee, even HYS. The debt is worth the level of security they provide though, I think.
Haha, I'm becoming Kretzky jr. in terms of pro-Stanford trolling .