I am in at Cal and WL at SLS, CLS, NYU, Penn and Chi.
Background: 6 years WE, 3 patents, passed patent bar. Interested in IP and working with govt agencies in developing countries. To combine the two, my long-term goals are to try and assist in build patent regimes in the BRIC countries. Don't laugh.
Based on advice from TLS on my earlier posts and my interest in working and living in the Bay Area at least initially, I have decided to withdraw from the WL at CLS, NYU, Penn and Chi.

But what about SLS? I was supposed to register last night (last date) to take the June 2012 LSAT to try and get off the WL at SLS. Because of a lot of personal issues in my family life right now, I haven't even begun studying for a retake though - intended to start today. Bottomline is, involved with family issues, I clean forgot to register last night, woke up at 5 am this morning in a panic, and find the deadline has passed as LSAC said. So they don't leave the register website open for the weekend just to be nice, huh?

My question is, and I am only trying to make myself feel better about missing an opportunity - however small - to go to SLS, would SLS really provide that big of a bump to me over Cal? I know for clerkships or academia it would, but for initially patent biglaw and then govt? I guess the difference is I could do much worse at SLS than Cal and end up at the same place later - that is mainly the benefit.

What do you think?

I assume by Cal you mean Berkeley?

People on the west coast are much more likely to call it Cal rather than Berkeley.

Also: Is there any reason that retaking the LSAT is the only way you are going to be able to get off the WL at SLS?

What are your numbers? I think that would help us determine whether a retake would help your shot at SLS.

But I do think you could get patent BigLaw out of Berkeley almost as easily as you could out of SLS. I think you would probably do just as well at SLS grades-wise as you would at Berkeley, though. From my understanding, it's pretty easy to do well at SLS compared to other T14 law schools because of the way their grades are set up. Although, aren't the grades different at Cal/Berkeley too?

Thanks, I am a 170, 3.48 biomedical-engineer. I think it is the 3.48 that is holding me back at all the schools, not the 170. But if that 170 became a 175, it would mitigate the 3.48 a bit.

From my understanding, it's very hard to get into Stanford with anything less than a 3.8. I have a 3.73, and I'm about to apply for law schools in the fall, but I think I will be largely shut out of SLS no matter what my LSAT is because of my GPA. I know you have 6 years' worth of work experience, but even then, I suspect that even if you get a 175, you still won't get into SLS, so I wouldn't worry about it. I will have about 3-4 years of work experience, but I still think that I will have a very hard time getting into Stanford, or even Harvard, with my GPA.

Berkeley is a great school, especially for your goals, so I think that you will be able to get the kind of jobs you are looking for with a JD from there. Congratulations on getting into one of the best law schools in the country. I hope I can get into an equivalent school, and I would consider myself very lucky if I did.

For what it's worth, Berkeley is actually ranked ahead of Stanford (by one spot, although Berkeley has the honor of being #1 in the country) for intellectual property law, which is what you seem to be interested in.

Nobody in the T-20 with a tech background has a problem getting IP firm offers. People with below median grades get offers coming out of UMN and Illinois. You'll be fine at Cal. The only reason you'd want to do another application is if you think you'll save money via scholarships.

Call the LSAC people and see if you can still get registered. I know they have done it in the past.

I wish I had your problems in terms of which law school to go to, I am also a patent person. Some of the faculty I have met at various law schools (Patent people) were from Stanford, I haven't met any from Cal.

Best of luck.

This. And you're already accepted at the second best school on the west coast (and one of the top schools in the country). You'll be fine. Pick the school you'll enjoy being at more.

Thank you all so much. This is really helpful. Just one last question for my own learning: what career advantages does SLS offer that Cal doesn't? I mean what would SLS give me that Cal would not? I guess a better shot at academic positions, more prestigious clerkships, slightly better law firm offers, lay reputation, school name on resume for lifetime, anything else?

that's pretty much it. but that's a lot, depending on your goals. if your goal is just practicing IP law, then SLS's advantage over Berkeley is minimal.

I have noticed this too. At my local T2 law school, I met the patent law prof several times, he's from SLS and very friendly. I haven't seen any from Cal when reading lists of profs' bios at the top 14 schools. There may be, but not in IP, which are the only bios I glanced through. I see Yale, SLS, HLS, and Chi. I could try calling LSAC on Monday, they are closed today.

Oh, wait! We forgot the biggest patent prof of all, Mark Lemley who teaches at SLS, went to Cal!

Ah, thanks, that is exactly what I wanted to know, so you kinda read my mind there. What I meant was that other than the name on my resume and prestige, the other career advantages that SLS offers to me, I am not very interested in.

Really? Mark Lemley, who is the top IP prof at SLS, is a Boalt grad.

Haha, yep! I caught myself before I saw your note above and edited my previous post. You are right. ML taught at Cal too before SLS lured him away.

If I had a $130K salary at my present job, no schol from Cal, a wife and kid to support, would you still say it would be a good decision to go to Cal? In another thread, a poster with a $80K salary was advised not to give it up and go to GWU.

Think of it this way: Your opportunity cost is 390k. And you'll be paying full boat (conservatively 220k). You will be 612k behind at the time you graduate. Is that worth it to you? I say no.

Financially, it doesn't make sense for you to go to any law school right now given those facts. Three years in school to come out making $30k a year more than you are now isn't a great value proposition. Why are you going?

On top of that, I don't know what your hours as an engineer are, but I have to believe they're better than what you'd do the first 5-7 years out of law school, if not your entire legal career.

I don't think it's going to be worth it for you to take the LSAT again, at least not for SLS. SLS doesn't care as much about high LSATs and even with a 180, your GPA would likely make it impossible. Berkeley is great for patent law, although SLS is better at everything because the only rankings that really matter are the main ones, but Berkeley is a great option. Since you can't change your GPA, you aren't going to really do much better than Berkeley so I would stick with that.

This is what I hear from my finances guy too. He said, if not HYS, it's not worth it. Cal is the best place I've gotten in to.

Even HYS isn't really going to make financial sense. The most money you're likely going to make is at a firm for a few years and then in-house somewhere, and you may find that in-house salaries start around what you're currently making. Even with a full ride to HYS the financial aspect would probably be marginally worth it at best. If you want to go into law for some reason other than the money, then okay.

OP, what exactly are you trying to do with your career? You talk a good game about BRIC or whatever it is you're on about. For that, you don't need a law degree at all. Go join the UN or some thinktank. Don't waste $250k on a law degree if you are going to become a policy hack. You just need a college degree for that. And a Stanford degree is nice. As is a Georgetown degree. As is a "whatever else" degree. The upside from a JD to your plans about becoming a BRIC-saver is paltry compared to the cost you're about to incur. I don't know what your personal situation is that precludes you from burning more money and time on another LSAT on the off chance that SLS will grant you the ability to pay them a quarter million dollars and expend three years of your life.

But whatever, I'll play along. What exactly do you want out of life in terms of patent law? I don't see the point of you asking "What additional benefits can SLS bestow upon me over Cal?" What are you going to do with that information? Create new goals? That seems like an ass-backwards way of going about goal-setting. You don't draw a bulls-eye around wherever your arrow lands. You aim at a goal and then go for it. That's the more logical approach. So please distill for us exactly what you want 5, 10, 20 years out of a JD. And please spare us the BRIC-crap. Anyone who tells you to waste $250k and 3 years of your life getting an irrelevant diploma toward being a BRIC-saver has lost their mind. A JD is as relevant to BRIC-saving as a PhD in International Affairs, i.e. both irrelevant.

Combine my technical background with a law degree will give me a boost in the rat race I think, learning a new subject and being in class again, potentially more $$ when I graduate over the next 20 years (my current raises are only cost-of-living if any), move out of this small town we are in, get into a job that cannot be outsourced as easily as engineering, and maybe make a difference to my parent's home country (in the 3rd world). Some of these reasons probably are not good or sound silly, I mean not worth taking such a financial hit for.