Top Law Schools

BruceWayne wrote:I seriously doubt going to NYU is going to give you a leg up for a job in San Francisco compared to Boalt. Even with CC I doubt it.

You haven't yet seen how the OCI process goes. I'm sure plenty of 2L+s would agree that picking against a school's top market is a good idea.

It is generally very easy to get CA interviews (and callbacks) at UVA, and I'd assume at CCN as well. At Boalt you're battling with all those people who ran the H-train as a 1L. At CCNMVP most of the top students are dispersed among NY/DC/Chicago.

RVP11 wrote:

BruceWayne wrote:I seriously doubt going to NYU is going to give you a leg up for a job in San Francisco compared to Boalt. Even with CC I doubt it.

You haven't yet seen how the OCI process goes. I'm sure plenty of 2L+s would agree that picking against a school's top market is a good idea.

It is generally very easy to get CA interviews (and callbacks) at UVA, and I'd assume at CCN as well. At Boalt you're battling with all those people who ran the H-train as a 1L. At CCNMVP most of the top students are dispersed among NY/DC/Chicago.

It's a good idea in terms of how many screening interviews you get. I've heard of people at M getting 25+ interviews when they bid on CA, because it's a lottery system and there are relatively much fewer bids for CA than the East Coast markets.

irishman86 wrote:

RVP11 wrote:

BruceWayne wrote:I seriously doubt going to NYU is going to give you a leg up for a job in San Francisco compared to Boalt. Even with CC I doubt it.

You haven't yet seen how the OCI process goes. I'm sure plenty of 2L+s would agree that picking against a school's top market is a good idea.

It is generally very easy to get CA interviews (and callbacks) at UVA, and I'd assume at CCN as well. At Boalt you're battling with all those people who ran the H-train as a 1L. At CCNMVP most of the top students are dispersed among NY/DC/Chicago.

It's a good idea in terms of how many screening interviews you get. I've heard of people at M getting 25+ interviews when they bid on CA, because it's a lottery system and there are relatively much fewer bids for CA than the East Coast markets.

Yep. It's a beautiful thing.

So I want to work in SF or SV. I currently have NYU at sticker and UCLA at 90k. Which one is better if I want to do corporate/IP law in the Bay Area?

Also, I'm still waiting on 11 other schools, including Stanford and Berkeley.

irishman86 wrote:

RVP11 wrote:

BruceWayne wrote:I seriously doubt going to NYU is going to give you a leg up for a job in San Francisco compared to Boalt. Even with CC I doubt it.

You haven't yet seen how the OCI process goes. I'm sure plenty of 2L+s would agree that picking against a school's top market is a good idea.

It is generally very easy to get CA interviews (and callbacks) at UVA, and I'd assume at CCN as well. At Boalt you're battling with all those people who ran the H-train as a 1L. At CCNMVP most of the top students are dispersed among NY/DC/Chicago.

It's a good idea in terms of how many screening interviews you get. I've heard of people at M getting 25+ interviews when they bid on CA, because it's a lottery system and there are relatively much fewer bids for CA than the East Coast markets.

Bump- can someone discuss this some more? As a 0L I know nothing about bidding but am really interested in making sure I get back to Cali. Would I be better off at NYU or Mich instead of boalt? This seems contrarian. Or just pick where I get the most $?

BruceWayne wrote:

RVP11 wrote:Why are people encouraging a 3.8/171 to apply to UCI, Davis, or Hastings?

im_blue wrote:would definitely pick CCN or Berkeley over the rest of the T14 (besides HYS obviously).

CCN yes. But Berkeley? MVP might be better choices, even for SF. Assuming you have SF ties.

I seriously doubt going to NYU is going to give you a leg up for a job in San Francisco compared to Boalt. Even with CC I doubt it.

This. The Boalt stench is strong in Cali. Out here my guess would be, Stanford>HY>Boalt>CCN> the rest.

Way to go resurrecting a dead thread bro.

Anyways, placement here depends on schools and ties.

If you have ties to Cali, as in are from there, or your fiancee or spouse and family are there, then one can go to T14 schools and have a shot (although your grades need to be competitive, as in at least around top third).

Without ties, you need Stanford, or Berkeley.

Forget UCLA or USC, unless you are okay with LA. You want SF/SV? Okay, get at least top 15%, since you need at least top 30% for biglaw in LA.

twinkletoes16 wrote:Bump- can someone discuss this some more? As a 0L I know nothing about bidding but am really interested in making sure I get back to Cali. Would I be better off at NYU or Mich instead of boalt? This seems contrarian. Or just pick where I get the most $?

Basically in a lottery system, each firm has a certain number of screening interviews and students then rank all of the firms they wish to interview with. If a firm has 20 spots, then the 20 students who rank the firm highest get screening interviews. But screening interviews don't mean you have a good shot at getting the firm. Firms generally have a certain GPA range that they hire in and if you have a 3.0 and the firm you're interviewing at has a GPA callback median of 3.8, you're probably not getting a callback even if you crush the interview. So having a lot of screeners doesn't necessarily translate into success, but it helps.

The problem with choosing UMich over Berkeley is that, even if it is easier to get screening interviews at UMich than it is at Berkeley, firms expect to hire more people from Berkeley than UMich. So the firm goes to UMich with the intent of calling back 2-3 people but goes to Berkeley with the intent of calling back 10-12 people. If you absolutely want CA, you should probably go to Berkeley over UMich or NYU. A certain amount of money might make another T14 a better choice than Berkeley financially, but it won't make it a better choice for getting you CA.

bk187 wrote:

twinkletoes16 wrote:Bump- can someone discuss this some more? As a 0L I know nothing about bidding but am really interested in making sure I get back to Cali. Would I be better off at NYU or Mich instead of boalt? This seems contrarian. Or just pick where I get the most $?

Basically in a lottery system, each firm has a certain number of screening interviews and students then rank all of the firms they wish to interview with. If a firm has 20 spots, then the 20 students who rank the firm highest get screening interviews. But screening interviews don't mean you have a good shot at getting the firm. Firms generally have a certain GPA range that they hire in and if you have a 3.0 and the firm you're interviewing at has a GPA callback median of 3.8, you're probably not getting a callback even if you crush the interview. So having a lot of screeners doesn't necessarily translate into success, but it helps.

The problem with choosing UMich over Berkeley is that, even if it is easier to get screening interviews at UMich than it is at Berkeley, firms expect to hire more people from Berkeley than UMich. So the firm goes to UMich with the intent of calling back 2-3 people but goes to Berkeley with the intent of calling back 10-12 people. If you absolutely want CA, you should probably go to Berkeley over UMich or NYU. A certain amount of money might make another T14 a better choice than Berkeley financially, but it won't make it a better choice for getting you CA.

Ceterus paribus save UCLA with 75k instead of Berkeley.

Same advice?

bk187 wrote:

twinkletoes16 wrote:Bump- can someone discuss this some more? As a 0L I know nothing about bidding but am really interested in making sure I get back to Cali. Would I be better off at NYU or Mich instead of boalt? This seems contrarian. Or just pick where I get the most $?

Basically in a lottery system, each firm has a certain number of screening interviews and students then rank all of the firms they wish to interview with. If a firm has 20 spots, then the 20 students who rank the firm highest get screening interviews. But screening interviews don't mean you have a good shot at getting the firm. Firms generally have a certain GPA range that they hire in and if you have a 3.0 and the firm you're interviewing at has a GPA callback median of 3.8, you're probably not getting a callback even if you crush the interview. So having a lot of screeners doesn't necessarily translate into success, but it helps.

The problem with choosing UMich over Berkeley is that, even if it is easier to get screening interviews at UMich than it is at Berkeley, firms expect to hire more people from Berkeley than UMich. So the firm goes to UMich with the intent of calling back 2-3 people but goes to Berkeley with the intent of calling back 10-12 people. If you absolutely want CA, you should probably go to Berkeley over UMich or NYU. A certain amount of money might make another T14 a better choice than Berkeley financially, but it won't make it a better choice for getting you CA.

Thank you for answering my question in a thorough manner- had a feeling that was how it worked. Lots to consider.

megagnarley wrote:Ceterus paribus save UCLA with 75k instead of Berkeley.

Same advice?

Really with the Latin?

UCLA w/ 75k vs a non-Berkeley T14 at sticker really depends on what you want. If you wouldn't work anywhere other than CA, then take UCLA. If you're willing to work elsewhere, I'd probably go with the T14. 75k is just not enough to make a sizable dent in your debt and UCLA's outcomes are definitely behind the T14. You're still looking at almost 200k debt from UCLA. If it were more than 75k (say 100k+), then it would be tough imo and really depend on what you wanted out of law school. If biglaw were more important I would lean towards the T14 still, but if CA were more important I would lean towards UCLA.

bk187 wrote:

megagnarley wrote:Ceterus paribus save UCLA with 75k instead of Berkeley.

Same advice?

Really with the Latin?

UCLA w/ 75k vs a non-Berkeley T14 at sticker really depends on what you want. If you wouldn't work anywhere other than CA, then take UCLA. If you're willing to work elsewhere, I'd probably go with the T14. 75k is just not enough to make a sizable dent in your debt and UCLA's outcomes are definitely behind the T14. You're still looking at almost 200k debt from UCLA. If it were more than 75k (say 100k+), then it would be tough imo and really depend on what you wanted out of law school. If biglaw were more important I would lean towards the T14 still, but if CA were more important I would lean towards UCLA.

I'd hardly call any phrase that deeply lexical anything but English.

Thank you for the response.

Confirms my own thoughts. The amount of debt to tip the balances is an incredibly fine line; consenus seems to dictate 75k (sadly) doesn't qualify.

camelcrema wrote:For California placement (ideally SF):

With 3.78/171, I'm applying to

1) Berkeley
2) Columbia
3) Chicago
4) NYU
5) Michigan
6) UCLA

Are there other schools I should apply to for CA placement? (Or has someone else already asked this on another thread?)

You can get a full ride at UCLA and USC(rothman and a SA at skadden).

HYS>Berkeley>UCLA/USC>Rest of the T14>Hastings

Nowhere else is worth it.

John_rizzy_rawls wrote:HYS>Berkeley>UCLA/USC>Rest of the T14>Hastings

Nowhere else is worth it.

The bolded is not true for someone with ties to the Bay Area.