Top Law Schools

TTTehehe wrote:

PennBull wrote:

TTTehehe wrote:
The question you should ask yourself is how will being in the middle of Northwestern pay off for you vs. being middle at UCLA. This of course is "worst case" scenario, as we're all destined to be top 10% (or so everyone thinks).

Why would you suggest to somebody that being in the middle is the worst case scenario? That's cruelly shitty advice. People work very hard and still end up at the bottom, which is the actual worst case scenario.

You're not good with sarcasm, are you?

Generally not, haha. But I'll gladly take the fall so that somebody even more gullible than me doesn't do something stupid.

PennBull wrote:

AssumptionRequired wrote:In this case, I would take UCLA for sure. You dont want to live outside so-cal. You have (small) money to go there BUT you also have what could be considered abother 15-20k a year in $$ because of your bf. I dont know how serious you are but if he pays your rent/food costs for the year, that is a lot of money. He will also likely be able to help you get the feel for law school and maybe help you network.

Take UCLA here.

For 150k+ of debt, would you take UCLA?

I still vote neither school is a good choice, with the limitations OP has placed on themselves.

150k is a little high... do you mean after interest for the 3 years? tuition for in state is below 45k a year. She will have the chance to get a 2L SA position that pays (if she does well). So really its like 135 - savings - (at least) 10k (likely 30k) - (possibility) of 36k for second summer - anything she can swindle from her loving bf

That 10k may be once, but more likely it will be each year.

So worse case (no 2L paying SA) I think it is 35k a year (with that 10k finaid each year). I think UCLA is worth 105k without a ?

AssumptionRequired wrote:

PennBull wrote:

AssumptionRequired wrote:In this case, I would take UCLA for sure. You dont want to live outside so-cal. You have (small) money to go there BUT you also have what could be considered abother 15-20k a year in $$ because of your bf. I dont know how serious you are but if he pays your rent/food costs for the year, that is a lot of money. He will also likely be able to help you get the feel for law school and maybe help you network.

Take UCLA here.

For 150k+ of debt, would you take UCLA?

I still vote neither school is a good choice, with the limitations OP has placed on themselves.

150k is a little high... do you mean after interest for the 3 years? tuition for in state is below 45k a year. She will have the chance to get a 2L SA position that pays (if she does well). So really its like 135 - savings - (at least) 10k (likely 30k) - (possibility) of 36k for second summer - anything she can swindle from her loving bf

That 10k may be once, but more likely it will be each year.

She said Northwestern would be 100k more expensive, at 240k. Let's trust her on the numbers since she hasn't clarified anything, so let's call UCLA 140k. That's pre-interest.

We don't know if she has any "savings", or if she should be using any "savings" at all to pay for law school.

It is not reasonable to factor in money potentially received the 2L summer. She doesn't have this job yet, and she is more likely to not get a biglaw 2L SA than she is to get one.

If OP can get her costs to sub-100k of debt total (including undergrad debt), then I would consider UCLA. Anything more than that, and I would be very hesitant. And I am not a very risk-averse individual (hence why I would pay sticker price for Northwestern, if I did not have any geographic limitations).

ETA: I should emphasize that OP left us to deduce that UCLA will cost her 140k. If you're right, and it is 105k, then we might have something. But, of course, that doesn't factor in any living expenses. Even though she could be supported by the boyfriend, can't bank on it.

Also, tuition won't stay at 35k every year in the UC system.

PennBull wrote:If OP can get her costs to sub-100k of debt total (including undergrad debt), then I would consider UCLA. Anything more than that, and I would be very hesitant. And I am not a very risk-averse individual (hence why I would pay sticker price for Northwestern, if I did not have any geographic limitations).

Pretty much this. $100k is where I also consider the rough cutoff to take a non-T14 over a T14 (especially one like NU). OP, if you can leverage your situation to only take out debt for tuition (assuming you retain your $10k/yr in need aid), I could see going to UCLA, especially considering your strong desire for LA. However, if that's just not possible, I think you have to pony up for NU. NU students don't have issues getting back to LA and actually has a pretty large class of CA students. We get all the splitters that the grades-obsessed CA schools don't want.

Samara wrote: NU students don't have issues getting back to LA and actually has a pretty large class of CA students. We get all the splitters that the grades-obsessed CA schools don't want.

While this is generally true, OP has inferred she won't take anything but going back to LA. She has no backup plan.

I would pay sticker for NU, but not if I wasn't willing to to use the New York or Chicago markets (or even other California markets) as backup markets. NU's excellent biglaw placement (or any school's biglaw placement) doesn't look great when it's limited to a single market (unless maybe that market is NY?).

If she enters OCI only trying for LA firms, she's going to have a bad time.

PennBull wrote:

Samara wrote: NU students don't have issues getting back to LA and actually has a pretty large class of CA students. We get all the splitters that the grades-obsessed CA schools don't want.

While this is generally true, OP has inferred she won't take anything but going back to LA. She has no backup plan.

I would pay sticker for NU, but not if I wasn't willing to to use the New York or Chicago markets (or even other California markets) as backup markets. NU's excellent biglaw placement (or any school's biglaw placement) doesn't look great when it's limited to a single market (unless maybe that market is NY?).

If she enters OCI only trying for LA firms, she's going to have a bad time.

Right. To clarify, I meant that NU isn't disadvantaged for getting back to LA compared to peer schools. The rules of OCI/market targeting still apply, as you say. I wouldn't even limit myself to NYC if paying sticker.

anyone at the bottom of their class at UCLA that regrets their decision to choose LA over a T14?

NU isn't going to be perceived any different from UCLA in LA. If you're LA or bust, then go to UCLA and do well there.

rayiner wrote:NU isn't going to be perceived any different from UCLA in LA. If you're LA or bust, then go to UCLA and do well there.

That's pretty interesting, especially coming from an NU guy. I was leaning towards UCLA already given the 10k/year plus assistance from the boyfriend (probably worth 15-20k/year) and the desire to work in LA, but especially in light of that statement you should go UCLA.

Just because one choice is better than one other choice, doesn't mean it is the best choice.

UCLA at 150k is not reasonable to me. NU for 240k and only bidding LA is not reasonable to me. Just because UCLA is a better choice doesn't make it right.

OP needs to decide if UCLA at 150k is a prudent decision. IMO it's extremely risky. I am generally not a risk-averse individual.

TheZoid wrote:

rayiner wrote:NU isn't going to be perceived any different from UCLA in LA. If you're LA or bust, then go to UCLA and do well there.

That's pretty interesting, especially coming from an NU guy. I was leaning towards UCLA already given the 10k/year plus assistance from the boyfriend (probably worth 15-20k/year) and the desire to work in LA, but especially in light of that statement you should go UCLA.

UCLA/Texas/Vandy are a bit of a special situation. Generally, the peking order in any major market is going to be:
1) HYS
2) Local T14
3) Non-local T14
4) Local non-T14

This is true even in markets where the local regional is a T25. E.g. Atlanta firms go deeper into the non-local T14s than they do at Emory. The exceptions are UCLA/USC in LA, UT in Texas, and Vanderbilt in the southeast. These schools have national reputations on the cusp of the T14 and are all in fairly insular markets.

If you've got strong ties to the market in question, I don't think it'll hurt you to go to NU over UCLA. And in a situation where the person would be happy in NY or Chicago I'd take NU over UCLA with $80k or however much OP will save going to UCLA. But if OP is LA or bust, it's not going to help her to go to NU and she might as well take the money.

rayiner wrote:

TheZoid wrote:

rayiner wrote:NU isn't going to be perceived any different from UCLA in LA. If you're LA or bust, then go to UCLA and do well there.

That's pretty interesting, especially coming from an NU guy. I was leaning towards UCLA already given the 10k/year plus assistance from the boyfriend (probably worth 15-20k/year) and the desire to work in LA, but especially in light of that statement you should go UCLA.

UCLA/Texas/Vandy are a bit of a special situation. Generally, the peking order in any major market is going to be:
1) HYS
2) Local T14
3) Non-local T14
4) Local non-T14

This is true even in markets where the local regional is a T25. E.g. Atlanta firms go deeper into the non-local T14s than they do at Emory. The exceptions are UCLA/USC in LA, UT in Texas, and Vanderbilt in the southeast. These schools have national reputations on the cusp of the T14 and are all in fairly insular markets.

If you've got strong ties to the market in question, I don't think it'll hurt you to go to NU over UCLA. And in a situation where the person would be happy in NY or Chicago I'd take NU over UCLA with $80k or however much OP will save going to UCLA. But if OP is LA or bust, it's not going to help her to go to NU and she might as well take the money.

Hmm so do you think (this is all speculation of course) that big law la firms look at a median ucla kid and a median NU kid in exactly the same light?

Eta assuming ties for both

Also interested in the above question

Elston Gunn wrote:What about big money at UCI? Is that an option? I can see why you wouldn't want NU sticker, but even that much debt at UCLA is dangerous.

Are you serious bro?

Seasaltcoffee wrote:Also interested in the above question

Usually when we yell at people to search the archives first it's for a general question that has been answered a million times before. For a question specific to your situation, that I assume while similar to OP's is also different than OP's in some way, make a new thread so people don't wade through two pages of year long comments.

NU unless you want LA

willwilliams1334 wrote:NU unless you want LA

Read the thread bro