Just accepted to Chicago off the waitlist... now what??? Forum

[hellothisisme]

Sorry for making a new thread. I was pretty much all set on UCLA. Then this happened. I'm thrilled. Don't get me wrong.

To reiterate: UCLA with 105k. (And Duke with 42k). I really want to practice in SoCal but have minimal ties. My SO is originally from CA and has family there. Still waiting on Stanford but I know I won't get in.

Can Chicago get me to CA even though my ties are not that great?

Also, if CA doesn't work out I would be okay with working in Chicago or wherever, then maybe moving after paying off a lot of my debt. But CA is just ideally where I want to practice. New York is not appealing to me at all. I am from the Chicago area and have family here.

Also, I'm not expecting to get any financial aid at Chicago, obviously.

So... Chicago at sticker or UCLA with 105k?

Chicago is just in a whole different league, so I don't know what to do. Also, I've heard that Chicago is very competitive, and I don't really like a very cutthroat atmosphere. I can deal with it, though.

Bumped and edited to add: 15k total scholarship at Chicago, 120k at UCLA

[Doorkeeper]

If you already want biglaw, go Chicago. To my knowledge, SO being from CA counts as a tie, and it can explain to a firm why you want to practice in CA.

[hellothisisme]

If you already want biglaw, go Chicago. To my knowledge, SO being from CA counts as a tie, and it can explain to a firm why you want to practice in CA.

That's good.

I'm just wondering why there was such a drop in the percentage of graduates going to CA from Class of 08/09 to Class of 10? 17.4/16.7% to 8.4%? Is there any reason for this?

[concurrent fork]

Depends on how debt averse you are, and whether you could see yourself staying in Chicago (can't count on transferring to CA if you start in Chicago biglaw). I would probly take UCLA w/close to full ride over Chicago at sticker, but it's close.

(awaits parade of Chicago trolls)

[Veyron]

I'm just wondering why there was such a drop in the percentage of graduates going to CA from Class of 08/09 to Class of 10

Classes of 08' and 09' did OCI before the crash. All markets were hit hard but LA was nuked from space.

[Richie Tenenbaum]

I'm not sure what is the best answer. If you want to maximize biglaw I think Chicago is the answer, but something else to include in your thought process: http://www.top-law-schools.com/forums/v ... 0&t=183509

[hellothisisme]

I'm just wondering why there was such a drop in the percentage of graduates going to CA from Class of 08/09 to Class of 10

Classes of 08' and 09' did OCI before the crash. All markets were hit hard but LA was nuked from space.

Oh yeah, you're right. I didn't think about the actual timing of the OCI. Whoops. Thanks.

[theduffman]

Depends on how debt averse you are, and whether you could see yourself staying in Chicago (can't count on transferring to CA if you start in Chicago biglaw). I would probly take UCLA w/close to full ride over Chicago at sticker, but it's close.

(awaits parade of Chicago trolls)

this. Although I don't think it's as close... UCLA for sure

[hellothisisme]

I'm not sure what is the best answer. If you want to maximize biglaw I think Chicago is the answer, but something else to include in your thought process: http://www.top-law-schools.com/forums/v ... 0&t=183509

Dear God. That thread is scary.

Depends on how debt averse you are, and whether you could see yourself staying in Chicago (can't count on transferring to CA if you start in Chicago biglaw). I would probly take UCLA w/close to full ride over Chicago at sticker, but it's close.

(awaits parade of Chicago trolls)

this. Although I don't think it's as close... UCLA for sure

Yeah, the prospect of giving up 105k to pay sticker somewhere else is daunting to say the least. Giving up a T5 school seems a little insane but so does 250k debt.

[Dany]

Depends on how debt averse you are, and whether you could see yourself staying in Chicago (can't count on transferring to CA if you start in Chicago biglaw). I would probly take UCLA w/close to full ride over Chicago at sticker, but it's close.

(awaits parade of Chicago trolls)

It's not really a "close to full ride" at UCLA. OP will still have like $120k in debt from UCLA.

That said, I don't like the idea of UChicago at sticker. I wouldn't attend without a scholarship. Try to negotiate for a scholarship - people got money off the waitlist last year.

And finally, UChicago isn't "very competitive" or cutthroat at all. That shouldn't even be a factor in your decision.

[Gail]

Depends on how debt averse you are, and whether you could see yourself staying in Chicago (can't count on transferring to CA if you start in Chicago biglaw). I would probly take UCLA w/close to full ride over Chicago at sticker, but it's close.

(awaits parade of Chicago trolls)

105k is not close to full ride when you're out of state. It's 15k for tuition + CoL in LA.


er... nvm. obvious point was posted before i read.

[Gail]

Depends on how debt averse you are, and whether you could see yourself staying in Chicago (can't count on transferring to CA if you start in Chicago biglaw). I would probly take UCLA w/close to full ride over Chicago at sticker, but it's close.

(awaits parade of Chicago trolls)

It's not really a "close to full ride" at UCLA. OP will still have like $120k in debt from UCLA.

That said, I don't like the idea of UChicago at sticker. I wouldn't attend without a scholarship. Try to negotiate for a scholarship - people got money off the waitlist last year.

And finally, UChicago isn't "very competitive" or cutthroat at all. That shouldn't even be a factor in your decision.

So no school is worth the sticker price? Idk... I think Chicago would be. Maybe I'm too enamored by the idea of going to the University of Chicago.

[Dany]

Depends on how debt averse you are, and whether you could see yourself staying in Chicago (can't count on transferring to CA if you start in Chicago biglaw). I would probly take UCLA w/close to full ride over Chicago at sticker, but it's close.

(awaits parade of Chicago trolls)

It's not really a "close to full ride" at UCLA. OP will still have like $120k in debt from UCLA.

That said, I don't like the idea of UChicago at sticker. I wouldn't attend without a scholarship. Try to negotiate for a scholarship - people got money off the waitlist last year.

And finally, UChicago isn't "very competitive" or cutthroat at all. That shouldn't even be a factor in your decision.

So no school is worth the sticker price? Idk... I think Chicago would be. Maybe I'm too enamored by the idea of going to the University of Chicago.

Maybe a school with no grades or if your family is loaded and debt isn't a factor. For the average applicant, $250k in debt should be absolutely terrifying, and I don't think my school is worth it.

[romothesavior]

Depends on how debt averse you are, and whether you could see yourself staying in Chicago (can't count on transferring to CA if you start in Chicago biglaw). I would probly take UCLA w/close to full ride over Chicago at sticker, but it's close.

(awaits parade of Chicago trolls)

It's not really a "close to full ride" at UCLA. OP will still have like $120k in debt from UCLA.

That said, I don't like the idea of UChicago at sticker. I wouldn't attend without a scholarship. Try to negotiate for a scholarship - people got money off the waitlist last year.

And finally, UChicago isn't "very competitive" or cutthroat at all. That shouldn't even be a factor in your decision.

I agree with your first point. This is nowhere near close to a full ride. 120k in debt is a ton of debt for UCLA.

I do think Chicago is worth sticker personally, but, I can see why people would be hesitant. It's a lotta dough.

[AntipodeanPhil]

I voted for Chicago on the assumption that your preferences are:

SoCal biglaw > other biglaw >>> other employment.

If your preferences are:

SoCal biglaw >>> other biglaw > other employment

then UCLA.

Obviously, the good thing about Chicago is that it puts you in a much better position if you don't get SoCal biglaw.

[buckilaw]

You will have a much smaller class size @ Chicago, and employers will go deeper @ Chicago. + Your gf/gf's family being from CA is a legitimate tie you can point to when asked why you want to work in CA.

I say Chicago hands down.

[Gail]

Maybe a school with no grades or if your family is loaded and debt isn't a factor. For the average applicant, $250k in debt should be absolutely terrifying, and I don't think my school is worth it.

That's very sad for me as I always had a monster crush on Chicago. I waiver back and forth about sticker personally. Terrified of it too.

I'd still pay sticker for the top 14 - Georgetown.

[concurrent fork]

Depends on how debt averse you are, and whether you could see yourself staying in Chicago (can't count on transferring to CA if you start in Chicago biglaw). I would probly take UCLA w/close to full ride over Chicago at sticker, but it's close.

(awaits parade of Chicago trolls)

It's not really a "close to full ride" at UCLA. OP will still have like $120k in debt from UCLA.

That said, I don't like the idea of UChicago at sticker. I wouldn't attend without a scholarship. Try to negotiate for a scholarship - people got money off the waitlist last year.

And finally, UChicago isn't "very competitive" or cutthroat at all. That shouldn't even be a factor in your decision.

I was obviously referring to tuition only. I know I'm on TLS when 3 posters nitpick the characterization of 2/3 tuition as "close to full." I gladly amend the statement to "significantly more than half, but not quite full."

[hellothisisme]

Thank you for all the input.

I would rather be employed outside of CA than unemployed in CA, if that answers any questions.

And I agree that Chicago is great for all the reasons everyone listed. My #1 reservation is the monstrous load of debt I am going to have to take on. I am having a hard time justifying turning down a 105k scholarship at the best school in my target market of SoCal to pay sticker even at the #5 school in the nation. I hope to be able to get some money out of Chicago, but I doubt I will. :/ If I don't get any... this is going to really be a tough decision that I have like five days to make.

That said, I don't like the idea of UChicago at sticker. I wouldn't attend without a scholarship. Try to negotiate for a scholarship - people got money off the waitlist last year.

How large of a scholarship would you say is acceptable to justify attending?

[Gail]

I was obviously referring to tuition only. I know I'm on TLS when 3 posters nitpick the characterization of 2/3 tuition as "close to full." I gladly amend the statement to "significantly more than half, but not quite full."

This did make me laugh. So thanks for that.

[JasonR]

Also, I've heard that Chicago is very competitive, and I don't really like a very cutthroat atmosphere. I can deal with it, though.

I don't get the impression that it's particularly cutthroat from friends. I would bet UCLA, where basically only the top third of the class has a shot at BigLaw even in the law school's home city, would be more competitive.

[snailio]

Chicago gets So Cal deep in the class. Serious girlfriend works for ties.

[hellothisisme]

I am bumping this because after discussing and negotiating with each school, UCLA increased my scholarship to 120k. Chicago is offering me 15k total (5k per year). I'm just wondering if this would change anybody's opinions. I think I know where I am leaning at this point. But if anybody has any additional insight I'd appreciate it.

[Doorkeeper]

I am bumping this because after discussing and negotiating with each school, UCLA increased my scholarship to 120k. Chicago is offering me 15k total (5k per year). I'm just wondering if this would change anybody's opinions. I think I know where I am leaning at this point. But if anybody has any additional insight I'd appreciate it.

At UCLA you will have to make sure you are top third to have a chance at biglaw.

At Chicago you are pretty close to biglaw secure so long as you don't royally bomb.

Is the difference worth 100k to you?

[hellothisisme]

I am bumping this because after discussing and negotiating with each school, UCLA increased my scholarship to 120k. Chicago is offering me 15k total (5k per year). I'm just wondering if this would change anybody's opinions. I think I know where I am leaning at this point. But if anybody has any additional insight I'd appreciate it.

At UCLA you will have to make sure you are top third to have a chance at biglaw.

At Chicago you are pretty close to biglaw secure so long as you don't royally bomb.

Is the difference worth 100k to you?

The thing is, I am not one of those biglaw or bust people. My parents are helping me out a little bit (about 20k total over the 3 years) with living expenses. At UCLA I don't think my debt amount would be so much that I would HAVE to get biglaw to pay it off. Whereas at Chicago, with that massive amount of debt, I would have to become a slave to the biglaw lifestyle, which is not something I'm sure I would want. Also, 100k isn't just a drop in the bucket.. at least not to me. I am pretty debt averse.

Not saying I'm 100 percent decided on UCLA at this point (though I do have to pay the deposit today). But these are things I need to think about.