Berkeley ($$) vs. UCLA/ USC ($$$) Forum

[catch12]

Been reading these forums throughout the application process, although this is the first time I've taken the jump to posting. Anyways, I know TLS loves its East Coast bias, but I am set on working in LA (and have strong ties/ strong connections), and here are my options:

Berkeley with roughly $100k (outside scholarship, don't worry about it)
UCLA/ USC with full rides (combination of school and outside scholarships)

I also have Columbia and NYU acceptances to possibly leverage more money out of Berkeley in a few weeks (before I get jumped on for not wanting to go to CLS, I hate NYC and have talked to a variety of senior and hiring partners in LA about this, and they agree that CLS is not at all my best option here).

So, my debate is between taking on some debt (maybe $100k?) out of Boalt, or taking the slightly higher risks that I don't hit that magical top 1/3 biglaw cutoff at UCLA/ SC. I'm pretty conflicted, so any advice would be great.

and... I'll make it a poll

[071816]

Honestly, if you are dead set on LA I would go with the USC/UCLA full ride unless you are really in love with Berkeley or something. Visit UCLA and USC and see which you like better. Your overall job prospects would be much better at Columbia or NYU though. I don't understand why you don't just pick one of those. NYC is pretty sweet IMO and either will give you a pretty good shot at LA big law.

And about the magic top 1/3 at USC/UCLA...it's not all that simple. Top 1/3 won't guarantee you big law and I don't think dropping outside of the top 1/3 will necessarily preclude you from getting big law (or a decent firm job) out of either school. There are many factors (including luck) involved in the recruitment process.

Where are you from originally/what area(s) do you have ties to?

[catch12]

Honestly, if you are dead set on LA I would go with the USC/UCLA full ride unless you are really in love with Berkeley or something. Visit UCLA and USC and see which you like better. Your overall job prospects would be much better at Columbia or NYU though. I don't understand why you don't just pick one of those. NYC is pretty sweet IMO and either will give you a pretty good shot at LA big law.

And about the magic top 1/3 at USC/UCLA...it's not all that simple. Top 1/3 won't guarantee you big law and I don't think dropping outside of the top 1/3 will necessarily preclude you from getting big law (or a decent firm job) out of either school. There are many factors (including luck) involved in the recruitment process.

Where are you from originally/what area(s) do you have ties to?

Born and raised in LA, left for college.

I appreciate the response. I've read a lot of your posts and know that you're a smart/ reasonable guy (girl?). Basically, here's how I see it- the biglaw percentages go up 10% each step from UCLA/ USC > Boalt > Columbia, so I'm paying an extra 100k (roughly, because of scholarships) for each 10% gain. But, considering the higher number of NLJ 250 firms in NYC and the Columbia self-selection there, the CA schools are probably, in reality, slightly closer.

What appeals to me is Boalt's grading system, which gives you some breathing room in terms of worrying about one or two bad classes killing your GPA (and their OCI does not allow firms to pre-screen). I'm concerned that one bad final at UCLA/ SC could end up knocking me down in a way that it wouldn't at Boalt.

What level of additional money from Boalt would make my reasoning sound?

[071816]

Honestly, if you are dead set on LA I would go with the USC/UCLA full ride unless you are really in love with Berkeley or something. Visit UCLA and USC and see which you like better. Your overall job prospects would be much better at Columbia or NYU though. I don't understand why you don't just pick one of those. NYC is pretty sweet IMO and either will give you a pretty good shot at LA big law.

And about the magic top 1/3 at USC/UCLA...it's not all that simple. Top 1/3 won't guarantee you big law and I don't think dropping outside of the top 1/3 will necessarily preclude you from getting big law (or a decent firm job) out of either school. There are many factors (including luck) involved in the recruitment process.

Where are you from originally/what area(s) do you have ties to?

Born and raised in LA, left for college.

I appreciate the response. I've read a lot of your posts and know that you're a smart/ reasonable guy (girl?). Basically, here's how I see it- the biglaw percentages go up 10% each step from UCLA/ USC > Boalt > Columbia, so I'm paying an extra 100k (roughly, because of scholarships) for each 10% gain. But, considering the higher number of NLJ 250 firms in NYC and the Columbia self-selection there, the CA schools are probably, in reality, slightly closer.

What appeals to me is Boalt's grading system, which gives you some breathing room in terms of worrying about one or two bad classes killing your GPA (and their OCI does not allow firms to pre-screen). I'm concerned that one bad final at UCLA/ SC could end up knocking me down in a way that it wouldn't at Boalt.

What level of additional money from Boalt would make my reasoning sound?

Honestly, it's totally up to you and Bolt is obviously a great school, but what you said about UCLA/USC OCI isn't entirely true. While they do have letter grading systems, their OCIs are lottery (as opposed to preselect). Firms still have grade cutoffs, but it is technically possible to rock an interview with slightly lower grades and get offers. I was born and raised in LA also and I would honestly go with NYU or Columbia in your situation due to the fairly substantial jump in placement and the fact that you will have access to the CA and NYC markets (and wherever else you have ties, perhaps also where you went to college). The USC/UCLA vs. Bolt choice is tough though. I know a few people who got into Bolt and opted for USC with huge scholarships because they wanted to be in LA for personal reasons.

The reality is that Bolt places very well in LA also (they place well throughout the state of CA) whereas USC/UCLA place much better in So Cal (especially USC). The question is, how much more money is Bolt worth to you? You are right that Bolt would give you more room for error and it is an excellent school, but is it really worth 100k more than UCLA or USC in this economy? That is a personal choice. But I tend to think the answer is no. I really don't think there is a wrong answer here though, but you should really think long and hard before making a decision.

Check this out for a rough estimate of 2011 NLJ250 firm placement: http://www.law.com/jsp/nlj/PubArticleNL ... slreturn=1

[catch12]

Honestly, if you are dead set on LA I would go with the USC/UCLA full ride unless you are really in love with Berkeley or something. Visit UCLA and USC and see which you like better. Your overall job prospects would be much better at Columbia or NYU though. I don't understand why you don't just pick one of those. NYC is pretty sweet IMO and either will give you a pretty good shot at LA big law.

And about the magic top 1/3 at USC/UCLA...it's not all that simple. Top 1/3 won't guarantee you big law and I don't think dropping outside of the top 1/3 will necessarily preclude you from getting big law (or a decent firm job) out of either school. There are many factors (including luck) involved in the recruitment process.

Where are you from originally/what area(s) do you have ties to?

Born and raised in LA, left for college.

I appreciate the response. I've read a lot of your posts and know that you're a smart/ reasonable guy (girl?). Basically, here's how I see it- the biglaw percentages go up 10% each step from UCLA/ USC > Boalt > Columbia, so I'm paying an extra 100k (roughly, because of scholarships) for each 10% gain. But, considering the higher number of NLJ 250 firms in NYC and the Columbia self-selection there, the CA schools are probably, in reality, slightly closer.

What appeals to me is Boalt's grading system, which gives you some breathing room in terms of worrying about one or two bad classes killing your GPA (and their OCI does not allow firms to pre-screen). I'm concerned that one bad final at UCLA/ SC could end up knocking me down in a way that it wouldn't at Boalt.

What level of additional money from Boalt would make my reasoning sound?

Honestly, it's totally up to you and Bolt is obviously a great school, but what you said about UCLA/USC OCI isn't entirely true. While they do have letter grading systems, their OCIs are lottery (as opposed to preselect). Firms still have grade cutoffs, but it is technically possible to rock an interview with slightly lower grades and get offers. I was born and raised in LA also and I would honestly go with NYU or Columbia in your situation due to the fairly substantial jump in placement and the fact that you will have access to the CA and NYC markets (and wherever else you have ties, perhaps also where you went to college). The USC/UCLA vs. Bolt choice is tough though. I know a few people who got into Bolt and opted for USC with huge scholarships because they wanted to be in LA for personal reasons.

The reality is that Bolt places very well in LA also (they place well throughout the state of CA) whereas USC/UCLA place much better in So Cal (especially USC). The question is, how much more money is Bolt worth to you? You are right that Bolt would give you more room for error and it is an excellent school, but is it really worth 100k more than UCLA or USC in this economy? That is a personal choice. But I tend to think the answer is no. I really don't think there is a wrong answer here though, but you should really think long and hard before making a decision.

Check this out for a rough estimate of 2011 NLJ250 firm placement: http://www.law.com/jsp/nlj/PubArticleNL ... slreturn=1

Thanks for that input, I appreciate it. Definitely a difficult decision. I'm gonna PM you some more questions, but I'll bump this in case anyone else has an opinion on this...

[splitbrain]

I agree there doesn't seem to be a wrong answer here (and I have to say, grats on having such a good problem to deal with).

That being said, I really think visiting the schools and seeing if one is a significantly better fit for you might be the best course of action.

Also, regarding the big-law cut-off, Chimp said it best: it's not that simple.

Obviously, there are some members of the top of the class that can't get big-law placement for whatever reason, and there was a girl recently at UCLA that didn't have the grades for big-law but rocked moot court and caught the attention of a hiring partner.

Do you personally feel significantly more comfortable with one of those schools over the other 2?

[catch12]

I agree there doesn't seem to be a wrong answer here (and I have to say, grats on having such a good problem to deal with).

That being said, I really think visiting the schools and seeing if one is a significantly better fit for you might be the best course of action.

Also, regarding the big-law cut-off, Chimp said it best: it's not that simple.

Obviously, there are some members of the top of the class that can't get big-law placement for whatever reason, and there was a girl recently at UCLA that didn't have the grades for big-law but rocked moot court and caught the attention of a hiring partner.

Do you personally feel significantly more comfortable with one of those schools over the other 2?

Possibly with Berkeley, but mainly due to the psychological barrier of turning down CCN for a non-T14 versus picking a T10 school. I do know I'm partially crazy for turning down Columbia...

[Nelson]

I do know I'm partially crazy for turning down Columbia...

Not if Columbia is at sticker. Berkeley any day with that much money vs. 200k in debt for Columbia. Especially since you want to work in CA.

[splitbrain]

I agree there doesn't seem to be a wrong answer here (and I have to say, grats on having such a good problem to deal with).

That being said, I really think visiting the schools and seeing if one is a significantly better fit for you might be the best course of action.

Also, regarding the big-law cut-off, Chimp said it best: it's not that simple.

Obviously, there are some members of the top of the class that can't get big-law placement for whatever reason, and there was a girl recently at UCLA that didn't have the grades for big-law but rocked moot court and caught the attention of a hiring partner.

Do you personally feel significantly more comfortable with one of those schools over the other 2?

Possibly with Berkeley, but mainly due to the psychological barrier of turning down CCN for a non-T14 versus picking a T10 school. I do know I'm partially crazy for turning down Columbia...

But you're not basing anything off of personal choices like location, class size, specific professors, etc?

[CanadianWolf]

Berkeley or UCLA based on your goal of working in Los Angeles. Visit both, then decide. Berkeley is definitely worth the reduced cost, in my opinion, and UCLA is a great law school.

[quiver]

I was born and raised in LA also and I would honestly go with NYU or Columbia in your situation due to the fairly substantial jump in placement and the fact that you will have access to the CA and NYC markets (and wherever else you have ties, perhaps also where you went to college)

I thought this was worth highlighting. CLS or NYU can definitely get you LA biglaw since you have ties. Plus, like chimp said, it opens up the largest market in the country (NYC) as a good back up. It would not be a dumb decision at all to take CLS/NYU over Boalt/UCLA/USC.

That said, 100k at Boalt and full rides at UCLA and USC make this a tough decision. Can you get that outside scholarship if you went to CLS/NYU? Did you apply and hear back from Stanford? How risk adverse are you?

[catch12]

I agree there doesn't seem to be a wrong answer here (and I have to say, grats on having such a good problem to deal with).

That being said, I really think visiting the schools and seeing if one is a significantly better fit for you might be the best course of action.

Also, regarding the big-law cut-off, Chimp said it best: it's not that simple.

Obviously, there are some members of the top of the class that can't get big-law placement for whatever reason, and there was a girl recently at UCLA that didn't have the grades for big-law but rocked moot court and caught the attention of a hiring partner.

Do you personally feel significantly more comfortable with one of those schools over the other 2?

Possibly with Berkeley, but mainly due to the psychological barrier of turning down CCN for a non-T14 versus picking a T10 school. I do know I'm partially crazy for turning down Columbia...

But you're not basing anything off of personal choices like location, class size, specific professors, etc?

No, I am. I prefer Berkeley's smaller class size (+ more firms at OCI), and the small prestige bump over the LA schools is nice. I also like the fact that Berkeley opens up SF to a degree in addition to placing well in LA, and I think it allows me a little more leeway in class placement without worrying about career opportunities dropping off.

On the other hand, having spent a lot of time at UCLA and USC over the years, I love both campuses, and the location in LA means I can rent one apartment year round (anticipating SA's/ clerkships in LA each summer), the schools are great, and I would hopefully benefit from the amount of local alumni at the biggest firms (Latham, O'Melveny, Gibson Dunn, Proskauer, Cox Castle, etc.).

I'm just not sure how the pros and cons of each are affected by the scholarship amounts at each...

[splitbrain]

It sounds to me like you are leaning more toward Berkeley, and I believe you've found your answer.

Don't worry about the difference in finances - we're not talking about crushing debt levels at a TTT or anything.

I think you're in a position to pick the school that is the best fit for you personally. If you were more inclined toward UCLA/USC I'd say great, you have less debt to worry about, but choosing Berkeley with less money is anything but foolish, especially since it sounds like you'd be happier there.

[catch12]

I was born and raised in LA also and I would honestly go with NYU or Columbia in your situation due to the fairly substantial jump in placement and the fact that you will have access to the CA and NYC markets (and wherever else you have ties, perhaps also where you went to college)

I thought this was worth highlighting. CLS or NYU can definitely get you LA biglaw since you have ties. Plus, like chimp said, it opens up the largest market in the country (NYC) as a good back up. It would not be a dumb decision at all to take CLS/NYU over Boalt/UCLA/USC.

That said, 100k at Boalt and full rides at UCLA and USC make this a tough decision. Can you get that outside scholarship if you went to CLS/NYU? Did you apply and hear back from Stanford? How risk adverse are you?

Don't want to out myself, but unfortunately can't get the scholarship at CLS or NYU.

I've applied and am waiting to hear back from Stanford-- an acceptance there would obviously make my choice for me. Otherwise, I'm not necessarily risk adverse. If I was going to make $160k out of Boalt with better exit options or $145k out of UCLA/ USC with slightly worse exit options, I would think paying the extra money would be worth it. The full ride is tempting though.

[071816]

Berkeley or UCLA based on your goal of working in Los Angeles. Visit both, then decide. Berkeley is definitely worth the reduced cost, in my opinion, and UCLA is a great law school.

Rancid anti-USC trolling.

[Shaggier1]

If you are interested in working in LA BigLaw, you should probably look to Berkeley. Boalt places especially well in LA and firms will go deeper into Boalt's classes than they will USC/UCLA's. If you can pull top 10% at one of those two schools, you will do very well at OCI, but it is a mixed bag from there on down, it seems.

Tons of my Boalt friends had offers from (fantastic) LA firms. I am also heading to LA (and had no problem getting offers from multiple LA firms despite having never lived there and having no connection whatsoever to the city).

[nsbane]

Berkeley at sticker over free ride at UCLA. and I love UCLA, it was my undergrad.

[naf34]

Been reading these forums throughout the application process, although this is the first time I've taken the jump to posting. Anyways, I know TLS loves its East Coast bias, but I am set on working in LA (and have strong ties/ strong connections), and here are my options:

Berkeley with roughly $100k (outside scholarship, don't worry about it)
UCLA/ USC with full rides (combination of school and outside scholarships)

I also have Columbia and NYU acceptances to possibly leverage more money out of Berkeley in a few weeks (before I get jumped on for not wanting to go to CLS, I hate NYC and have talked to a variety of senior and hiring partners in LA about this, and they agree that CLS is not at all my best option here).

So, my debate is between taking on some debt (maybe $100k?) out of Boalt, or taking the slightly higher risks that I don't hit that magical top 1/3 biglaw cutoff at UCLA/ SC. I'm pretty conflicted, so any advice would be great.

and... I'll make it a poll

Can you elaborate on the discussions you have had with these hiring partners. Do they honestly say that CLS is worse than UCLA for LA jobs? Also, why is there so much speculation about job prospects when you have some concrete sources to rely on? What did they tell you? Thanks!

[catch12]

Been reading these forums throughout the application process, although this is the first time I've taken the jump to posting. Anyways, I know TLS loves its East Coast bias, but I am set on working in LA (and have strong ties/ strong connections), and here are my options:

Berkeley with roughly $100k (outside scholarship, don't worry about it)
UCLA/ USC with full rides (combination of school and outside scholarships)

I also have Columbia and NYU acceptances to possibly leverage more money out of Berkeley in a few weeks (before I get jumped on for not wanting to go to CLS, I hate NYC and have talked to a variety of senior and hiring partners in LA about this, and they agree that CLS is not at all my best option here).

So, my debate is between taking on some debt (maybe $100k?) out of Boalt, or taking the slightly higher risks that I don't hit that magical top 1/3 biglaw cutoff at UCLA/ SC. I'm pretty conflicted, so any advice would be great.

and... I'll make it a poll

Can you elaborate on the discussions you have had with these hiring partners. Do they honestly say that CLS is worse than UCLA for LA jobs? Also, why is there so much speculation about job prospects when you have some concrete sources to rely on? What did they tell you? Thanks!

It would probably be more accurate to say "not necessarily" the best option. Is CLS better for jobs than UCLA overall? Yes. You could even potentially have better LA OCI options from the median at CLS than UCLA. But in reality, its become obvious that TLS far overstates prestige differences, especially between two T10 schools like CLS and Boalt. A relative of mine graduated from an LA school and was a hiring partner (albeit not at a V100 firm) for many years, and laughs at the suggestion that Columbia is magically going to open more doors. As I've heard from a dozen different people, the only truly "national" schools are HYS. CLS is not one of those.

During OCI, CA schools are going to have more LA firms there, and during your 3 years you can network with partners at firms that (supposedly) won't give you the time of day once you're no longer a student. Outside of (and during) OCI, partners love to hire grads of their alma mater. If there are 95 UCLA grads at Latham, 55+ at Gibson Dunn, etc (actual numbers), you can bet UCLA grads have a better chance of getting their attention.

None of the partners I'm talking to (generally family friends or parents of friends) are going to give me exact hiring data in casual conversation, and none are going to push me to one school out of respect for it being my choice. But they can tell me how few CLS grads they come across during deals, or how most CLS grads they do come across moved out here after being in NYC for 4+ years. Not that I don't anecdotally know of CLS grads who work at V50s in LA, but hopefully you get my point.

Obviously at sticker, CLS > UCLA. But throwing in all that money at UCLA (and at Boalt) makes it a different story, which is basically why its come down to the CA schools for me (and thats where my dilemma has been).

[canon]

This is a no-brainer. Boalt places extremely well all over California.

Berkeley sticker > full ride UCLA for private sector IMO.

[071816]

Fuck it just go to Berkeley man.

[dproduct]

If this were my choice: I would go to Berkeley and never look back.

In regards to UCLA to USC:

The UCLA academic brand has more weight in LA than does USC (in general). Whether or not this is merited is up for debate. However, I find that USC grads and much more fervent and willing to take in their fellow Trojans. In addition, USC has the stronger footing in the OC firm market. However, I am very interested to see how UCI plays into this. Orange County is going all-in with UCI. Firms are going out of their way to take these kids in because they all want UCI to succeed on a national level. I'm intrigued to see how UCI affects USC's job prospects.

In any case, go to Boalt. You may end up loving the bay area and landing an awesome job there. And if you REALLY want to work in socal, the Boalt brand is still powerful. UCLA/USC placement in the bay does not work the same way.

[071816]

If this were my choice: I would go to Berkeley and never look back.

In regards to UCLA to USC:

The UCLA academic brand has more weight in LA than does USC (in general). Whether or not this is merited is up for debate. However, I find that USC grads and much more fervent and willing to take in their fellow Trojans. In addition, USC has the stronger footing in the OC firm market. However, I am very interested to see how UCI plays into this. Orange County is going all-in with UCI. Firms are going out of their way to take these kids in because they all want UCI to succeed on a national level. I'm intrigued to see how UCI affects USC's job prospects.

In any case, go to Boalt. You may end up loving the bay area and landing an awesome job there. And if you REALLY want to work in socal, the Boalt brand is still powerful. UCLA/USC placement in the bay does not work the same way.

The bolded comments are simply not true. Both schools place equally into OC and LA. However, UCLA does seem to place slightly better outside of California.

[dproduct]

If this were my choice: I would go to Berkeley and never look back.

In regards to UCLA to USC:

The UCLA academic brand has more weight in LA than does USC (in general). Whether or not this is merited is up for debate. However, I find that USC grads and much more fervent and willing to take in their fellow Trojans. In addition, USC has the stronger footing in the OC firm market. However, I am very interested to see how UCI plays into this. Orange County is going all-in with UCI. Firms are going out of their way to take these kids in because they all want UCI to succeed on a national level. I'm intrigued to see how UCI affects USC's job prospects.

In any case, go to Boalt. You may end up loving the bay area and landing an awesome job there. And if you REALLY want to work in socal, the Boalt brand is still powerful. UCLA/USC placement in the bay does not work the same way.

The bolded comments are simply not true. Both schools place equally into OC and LA. However, UCLA does seem to place slightly better outside of California.

My comments regarding USC placement in OC law is purely observational in that I worked at an OC firm for over six years and also worked with OCTLA.

What I picked up from that is this: The USC almuni were definitely more pronounced and, appeared to be, better placed at a lot of the OC firms, particularly, south county firms (Costa Mesa/Newport/San Clemente/Irvine etc.) They also seemed to be very active at Deloitte, which has offices near South Coast Plaza in Costa Mesa.

That being said, there are also a lot of powerful attorneys in OC that went to Western State and Chapman... so yes, it doesn't indicate much. But for two schools so statistically close, I figured I'd throw in some observations that I've picked up over the years.