Job prospects for Berkeley Forum

[Neatrends]

Wondering what the job prospects are for graduates of Berkeley and how these compare to peer schools

[Neatrends]

Anyone?

[somewhatwayward]

i don't know, but why were you up at 3 AM and then 8 AM? not much sleep, bro

[Neatrends]

LSAT prep/apps have screwed up my sleep schedule. Currently I'm getting sleepy everyday at around mid-afternoon

[Davidbentley]

They're better than most law schools, but not as good as some. Seriously though, berkeley always tended to place less in BigLaw. Whether that was by self-selection or reputation who knows. But, the california legal market makes new york's look like Silicon valley circa 1998. What is certain is a lot of the public interest/govt. jobs that some berkeley grads would have self-selected into have been axed by the budget cuts.

[worldtraveler]

What kind of jobs do you care about?

[Tanicius]

Anecdotal:

For anyone going into IP, tech or trademark stuff, it's an absolute feast. My upper class friends that are going into litigation on the private side also all have jobs. It's more varied for public sector because you're rarely offered jobs before graduation.

I think Berkeley is weird because of its proximity to the Valley. A disproportionate number of grads go into IP instead of transaction, and I imagine that skews numerical figures when looking at things like NLJ statistics. Even a lot of the people that do litigation, people without the science backgrounds, end up in the trademark section of IP. There do seem to be a larger number of people going into public service, and while the Bay Area and LA offer a lot of opportunities for those kinds of jobs, perhaps more than other parts of the country, Berkeley doesn't have an actual employment advantage as far as I can tell - everyone from every school still has to deal with no employment guarantees until sometime after graduation.

[BeautifulSW]

Berkeley is unquestionably a Top Law School and I understand that it generates a fair number of academics. Admissions are also very competitive. But oh my, even for a California resident, it's gotten very expensive. All other things being equal, at sticker Stanford might be the better choice.

[worldtraveler]

Berkeley is unquestionably a Top Law School and I understand that it generates a fair number of academics. Admissions are also very competitive. But oh my, even for a California resident, it's gotten very expensive. All other things being equal, at sticker Stanford might be the better choice.

I don't think anyone would disagree with that. However, very, very few people would be in the position to make that choice given Berkeley and Stanford are both incredibly selective.

[Yukos]

Berkeley is unquestionably a Top Law School and I understand that it generates a fair number of academics. Admissions are also very competitive. But oh my, even for a California resident, it's gotten very expensive. All other things being equal, at sticker Stanford might be the better choice.

No matter what your goals are, taking Berkeley over Stanford at equal cost is pretty much unjustifiable. But if you got into Stanford, you can be pretty confident you're getting some $$$ from Cal (Stanford still seems like TCR though...).

[jmoney]

Berkeley is unquestionably a Top Law School and I understand that it generates a fair number of academics. Admissions are also very competitive. But oh my, even for a California resident, it's gotten very expensive. All other things being equal, at sticker Stanford might be the better choice.

No matter what your goals are, taking Berkeley over Stanford at equal cost is pretty much unjustifiable. But if you got into Stanford, you can be pretty confident you're getting some $$$ from Cal (Stanford still seems like TCR though...).

Wow. I find statements like this so sad and naive. That's part of the problem with the student body at these schools--it's so prestige/rankings obsessed that it's disconcerting. Maybe it's because we're in finals and the environment stinks, but there's something to be said about the kinds of people that attend these two very different institutions.

Ok, study break over.

[drdolittle]

Berkeley is unquestionably a Top Law School and I understand that it generates a fair number of academics. Admissions are also very competitive. But oh my, even for a California resident, it's gotten very expensive. All other things being equal, at sticker Stanford might be the better choice.

No matter what your goals are, taking Berkeley over Stanford at equal cost is pretty much unjustifiable. But if you got into Stanford, you can be pretty confident you're getting some $$$ from Cal (Stanford still seems like TCR though...).

Wow. I find statements like this so sad and naive. That's part of the problem with the student body at these schools--it's so prestige/rankings obsessed that it's disconcerting. Maybe it's because we're in finals and the environment stinks, but there's something to be said about the kinds of people that attend these two very different institutions.

Ok, study break over.

Well then you must find your classmates sad and naive.

[BeautifulSW]

When I first started reading this forum, I also thought that rank obsession was "sad and naive". I got my J.D. a very long time ago from a State school that charged me less in nominal dollars than you all likely spend on your daily Starbucks and in those days I had not the slightest difficulty finding my first job with a starting salary comfortably greater than my debt to Sallie Mae. But I've begun to realize that the obsession, within certain bounds, is horribly, brutally realistic, especially in California.

Almost wherever you choose to go in CA, your law degree tuition will be well over $110,000. Stanford is higher but even fourth tier ABA schools do not charge less. This is a HUGE investment and to make it work the student must scramble for any competitive advantage. Well, graduating from Stanford is probably the best competitive edge you can hope for outside of having a Big Law partner for an uncle. Or maybe going to Yale. Or both.

I think that ranking below the top 100 is just silly, ranking below the top 14 is highly debatable, but there IS a difference between the employability of an HYS grad and everyone else. So no, I don't think it's naive to prefer Stanford over Berkeley, especially since they cost about the same.

I am fairly familiar with Berkeley and Stanford and I agree that in general the sorts of people who go to these schools are different from each other. But the cost is the cost and has become an overwhelming consideration.

[jmoney]

When I first started reading this forum, I also thought that rank obsession was "sad and naive". I got my J.D. a very long time ago from a State school that charged me less in nominal dollars than you all likely spend on your daily Starbucks and in those days I had not the slightest difficulty finding my first job with a starting salary comfortably greater than my debt to Sallie Mae. But I've begun to realize that the obsession, within certain bounds, is horribly, brutally realistic, especially in California.

Almost wherever you choose to go in CA, your law degree tuition will be well over $110,000. Stanford is higher but even fourth tier ABA schools do not charge less. This is a HUGE investment and to make it work the student must scramble for any competitive advantage. Well, graduating from Stanford is probably the best competitive edge you can hope for outside of having a Big Law partner for an uncle. Or maybe going to Yale. Or both.

I think that ranking below the top 100 is just silly, ranking below the top 14 is highly debatable, but there IS a difference between the employability of an HYS grad and everyone else. So no, I don't think it's naive to prefer Stanford over Berkeley, especially since they cost about the same.

I am fairly familiar with Berkeley and Stanford and I agree that in general the sorts of people who go to these schools are different from each other. But the cost is the cost and has become an overwhelming consideration.

The fundamental premise that makes this issue a point of contention is the real problem: that somehow what school you attend has a determinative impact on your success. I can see this being a valid point when comparing certain schools (say, Stanford v. USF). But within the top schools (t14, t10, t6, whatever), what school you attend has a limited and likely negligible effect on your career success. (check out the Alan Krueger paper on college education outcomes; http://papers.nber.org/papers/w7322).

Spending 3 years during your 20s at a school where you're unhappy is a steep price to pay for what is ostensibly a questionable career boost.

[Yukos]

When I first started reading this forum, I also thought that rank obsession was "sad and naive". I got my J.D. a very long time ago from a State school that charged me less in nominal dollars than you all likely spend on your daily Starbucks and in those days I had not the slightest difficulty finding my first job with a starting salary comfortably greater than my debt to Sallie Mae. But I've begun to realize that the obsession, within certain bounds, is horribly, brutally realistic, especially in California.

Almost wherever you choose to go in CA, your law degree tuition will be well over $110,000. Stanford is higher but even fourth tier ABA schools do not charge less. This is a HUGE investment and to make it work the student must scramble for any competitive advantage. Well, graduating from Stanford is probably the best competitive edge you can hope for outside of having a Big Law partner for an uncle. Or maybe going to Yale. Or both.

I think that ranking below the top 100 is just silly, ranking below the top 14 is highly debatable, but there IS a difference between the employability of an HYS grad and everyone else. So no, I don't think it's naive to prefer Stanford over Berkeley, especially since they cost about the same.

I am fairly familiar with Berkeley and Stanford and I agree that in general the sorts of people who go to these schools are different from each other. But the cost is the cost and has become an overwhelming consideration.

The fundamental premise that makes this issue a point of contention is the real problem: that somehow what school you attend has a determinative impact on your success. I can see this being a valid point when comparing certain schools (say, Stanford v. USF). But within the top schools (t14, t10, t6, whatever), what school you attend has a limited and likely negligible effect on your career success. (check out the Alan Krueger paper on college education outcomes; http://papers.nber.org/papers/w7322).

Spending 3 years during your 20s at a school where you're unhappy is a steep price to pay for what is ostensibly a questionable career boost.

Just to let you know, I grew up in the Bay Area and have been on both these campuses countless times (though I didn't attend either). I love both of them and would be ecstatic to go to either. But everything I hear from law students and lawyers tells me that there is a DISTINCT difference between them w/r/t job prospects. Law school is professional school, which means you have to look at the return on investment and if we're talking about Stanford vs. Cal at sticker, this isn't really a debate.

[jmoney]

Just to let you know, I grew up in the Bay Area and have been on both these campuses countless times (though I didn't attend either). I love both of them and would be ecstatic to go to either. But everything I hear from law students and lawyers tells me that there is a DISTINCT difference between them w/r/t job prospects. Law school is professional school, which means you have to look at the return on investment and if we're talking about Stanford vs. Cal at sticker, this isn't really a debate.

If "word on the street" isn't a debatable point, I don't know what is.

Look, I realize I'm swimming upstream in this discussion. I'm not going to try to upset the "conventional wisdom" of these forums that is so characteristic of law school/legal groupthink. But at the very least, let's admit that is never going to be a settled issue.

[drdolittle]

Just to let you know, I grew up in the Bay Area and have been on both these campuses countless times (though I didn't attend either). I love both of them and would be ecstatic to go to either. But everything I hear from law students and lawyers tells me that there is a DISTINCT difference between them w/r/t job prospects. Law school is professional school, which means you have to look at the return on investment and if we're talking about Stanford vs. Cal at sticker, this isn't really a debate.

If "word on the street" isn't a debatable point, I don't know what is.

Look, I realize I'm swimming upstream in this discussion. I'm not going to try to upset the "conventional wisdom" of these forums that is so characteristic of law school/legal groupthink. But at the very least, let's admit that is never going to be a settled issue.

Like it or not, law school and the profession/biz embrace groupthink. Perception is reality. Sure there are exceptions but the generalities hold. Don't differences between Stanford's and Cal's employment stats back this up plainly as far as we can tell, irrespective of student "quality" (which I'm sure overlaps)?

[BeautifulSW]

I do not mean to overstate the case. A Boalt Hall grad is surely well positioned for a career in the law, whether as a practicing attorney or as an academic.