Poll: Hawaii v. UIUC v. San Diego v. Irvine

(Rankings, Profiles, Tuition, Student Life, . . . )

Hawaii v. UIUC v. San Diego v. LMU v. Irvine

Hawaii (In State)
9
31%
UIUC (w/50% scholarship no stips)
5
17%
San Diego (75k total scholarship)
3
10%
Irvine (10k...)
3
10%
Complete Mistake (Retake LSAT)
9
31%
 
Total votes: 29

sonny
Posts: 78
Joined: Thu Nov 15, 2012 3:17 am

Poll: Hawaii v. UIUC v. San Diego v. Irvine

Postby sonny » Mon Jan 14, 2013 5:47 pm

Interested in big/medium law after clerkship, mainly litigation experience and debt payoff. Understand that these schools aren't promising for "big law," but I'm ok with slightly smaller firms (such as those in Hawaii with lower salaries... 50-100 at 90-100k).

Interested in PI/nonprofit afterwards.

Like to practice in HI, CA (or West Coast), or Chicago.
Last edited by sonny on Sat Jan 19, 2013 2:04 am, edited 9 times in total.

User avatar
Aberzombie1892
Posts: 1907
Joined: Sun Mar 29, 2009 10:56 am

Re: Poll: Hawaii v. UIUC v. San Diego v. LMU v. Irvine

Postby Aberzombie1892 » Mon Jan 14, 2013 5:50 pm

It's unlikely that you will make $60k from any of these schools.

timbs4339
Posts: 2733
Joined: Sat Apr 02, 2011 12:19 pm

Re: Poll: Hawaii v. UIUC v. San Diego v. LMU v. Irvine

Postby timbs4339 » Mon Jan 14, 2013 10:33 pm

"Biglaw" is relative. Those slightly smaller firms in Hawaii paying close to 100K are "Hawaii biglaw." A federal clerkship is not in the cards from any of those schools. Would you be happy making around 40K doing smallaw?

User avatar
Mick Haller
Posts: 1258
Joined: Mon Mar 28, 2011 3:24 pm

Re: Poll: Hawaii v. UIUC v. San Diego v. LMU v. Irvine

Postby Mick Haller » Mon Jan 14, 2013 10:36 pm

Since you have ties in Hawaii and would be happy in a small firm, it might make sense to go to Hawaii. Can you leverage any scholarship money there?

EDIT: Just saw that you were asking about 50-100 attorney "midlaw" firms in Hawaii. I may be wrong but I think there are approximately four firms that fit that description. I interviewed at two of them (Bays Deaver and Cades Schutte), didn't get callbacks. Ties to Hawaii were extensively probed at interviews.

User avatar
Mick Haller
Posts: 1258
Joined: Mon Mar 28, 2011 3:24 pm

Re: Poll: Hawaii v. UIUC v. San Diego v. LMU v. Irvine

Postby Mick Haller » Mon Jan 14, 2013 10:44 pm

Martindale lists 3 firms with more than 50 attorneys in Honolulu. 5 firms in the 25-50 range. Only 9 firms in Honolulu with more than 10 attorneys.

There are only three Hawaii firms with NALP profiles.

User avatar
Merylian
Posts: 659
Joined: Sat Dec 01, 2012 9:46 pm

Re: Poll: Hawaii v. UIUC v. San Diego v. LMU v. Irvine

Postby Merylian » Mon Jan 14, 2013 11:04 pm

I voted HI because I have been led to understand that it's extremely difficult to find employment there if you didn't go to UH Manoa...and the in-state price isn't too shabby. So long as you're not expecting huge cash flow and you're happy there (and for gods sakes why wouldn't you be :D), I don't see why that wouldn't be a valid plan.

Though obviously if you can retake and get some scholarship cash out of them, that would be good to do.

sonny
Posts: 78
Joined: Thu Nov 15, 2012 3:17 am

Re: Poll: Hawaii v. UIUC v. San Diego v. LMU v. Irvine

Postby sonny » Mon Jan 14, 2013 11:53 pm

Mick Haller wrote:Since you have ties in Hawaii and would be happy in a small firm, it might make sense to go to Hawaii. Can you leverage any scholarship money there?

EDIT: Just saw that you were asking about 50-100 attorney "midlaw" firms in Hawaii. I may be wrong but I think there are approximately four firms that fit that description. I interviewed at two of them (Bays Deaver and Cades Schutte), didn't get callbacks. Ties to Hawaii were extensively probed at interviews.



Thanks. Yeah, Cades would be my hope. From the ABA stats looks like placement at these firms has been minimal in the past couple of years so definitely understand the risk.

EDIT: And I will definitely try with scholarship, but from what I hear they're not too generous.
Last edited by sonny on Tue Jan 15, 2013 1:27 am, edited 1 time in total.

sonny
Posts: 78
Joined: Thu Nov 15, 2012 3:17 am

Re: Poll: Hawaii v. UIUC v. San Diego v. LMU v. Irvine

Postby sonny » Mon Jan 14, 2013 11:58 pm

timbs4339 wrote:"Biglaw" is relative. Those slightly smaller firms in Hawaii paying close to 100K are "Hawaii biglaw." A federal clerkship is not in the cards from any of those schools. Would you be happy making around 40K doing smallaw?


Appreciate the feedback.

Small law would be manageable.

My hope was UIUC could be a potential Chicago big law? Maybe dreaming? haha.

Hoping UIUC/Irvine could allow a possible clerkship?! Not too confident. But I think that Hawaii could at least allow for a possibility in the District of Hawaii (hopeful). I know that externship apps have been low there, so my hope was that it could lead to a clerkship later.

Itinerant
Posts: 37
Joined: Tue Aug 21, 2012 11:54 am

Re: Poll: Hawaii v. UIUC v. San Diego v. LMU v. Irvine

Postby Itinerant » Tue Jan 15, 2013 12:42 am

Mick Haller wrote:Martindale lists 3 firms with more than 50 attorneys in Honolulu. 5 firms in the 25-50 range. Only 9 firms in Honolulu with more than 10 attorneys.

There are only three Hawaii firms with NALP profiles.


Given the legal market in Honolulu, are those 9 firms with 25<10 or more attorneys still considered small law?

allamerican73
Posts: 30
Joined: Wed Mar 16, 2011 1:31 pm

Re: Poll: Hawaii v. UIUC v. San Diego v. LMU v. Irvine

Postby allamerican73 » Tue Jan 15, 2013 10:29 am

sonny wrote:
timbs4339 wrote:"Biglaw" is relative. Those slightly smaller firms in Hawaii paying close to 100K are "Hawaii biglaw." A federal clerkship is not in the cards from any of those schools. Would you be happy making around 40K doing smallaw?


Appreciate the feedback.

Small law would be manageable.

My hope was UIUC could be a potential Chicago big law? Maybe dreaming? haha.

Hoping UIUC/Irvine could allow a possible clerkship?! Not too confident. But I think that Hawaii could at least allow for a possibility in the District of Hawaii (hopeful). I know that externship apps have been low there, so my hope was that it could lead to a clerkship later.



You can definitely achieve Chicago biglaw from UIUC, but I think what the voters are saying is that your background is better suited to Hawaii in light of the fact that you stated that you would be equally happy in Hawaii and Chicago. I think a lot of people in Chicago would LOVE to live and practice in Hawaii, so take advantage of this head start! You can always visit Chicago in the summer!

User avatar
Ludo!
Posts: 4764
Joined: Wed Nov 09, 2011 1:22 pm

Re: Poll: Hawaii v. UIUC v. San Diego v. Irvine

Postby Ludo! » Tue Jan 15, 2013 10:35 am

As someone who goes to UIUC, definitely not UIUC. Hawaii or retake. Your chances of getting biglaw from here are slim and getting any job at all isn't much better than a coin flip. Definitely not worth travelling half way around the world for

timbs4339
Posts: 2733
Joined: Sat Apr 02, 2011 12:19 pm

Re: Poll: Hawaii v. UIUC v. San Diego v. Irvine

Postby timbs4339 » Tue Jan 15, 2013 10:47 am

sonny wrote:
timbs4339 wrote:"Biglaw" is relative. Those slightly smaller firms in Hawaii paying close to 100K are "Hawaii biglaw." A federal clerkship is not in the cards from any of those schools. Would you be happy making around 40K doing smallaw?


Appreciate the feedback.

Small law would be manageable.

My hope was UIUC could be a potential Chicago big law? Maybe dreaming? haha.

Hoping UIUC/Irvine could allow a possible clerkship?! Not too confident. But I think that Hawaii could at least allow for a possibility in the District of Hawaii (hopeful). I know that externship apps have been low there, so my hope was that it could lead to a clerkship later.


You're dreaming with Chicago biglaw from UIUC- top 25% is a liberal estimate. They placed only 5% in federal clerkships.

Don't let UCI try to sell you on the c/o 2012 numbers. Those were 60 students all getting a full ride who had T10 LSAT/GPA. When they key up to a full class of 200-250, they probably won't see employment numbers any better than UCH/UCD. Not a good bet for 200K.

Hawaii placed like 2 students in federal clerkships last year. The best that can be said is it is relatively cheap.

This may seem the overly harsh advice, but you need to lower your sights a bit. Choose schools off the assumption that you will be doing small law or local government law, making 40-50K, and probably will not ever be able to do biglaw or a federal clerkship, and decide if pulling the trigger this cycle is worth it.

Also: http://www.lstscorereports.com/

sonny
Posts: 78
Joined: Thu Nov 15, 2012 3:17 am

Re: Poll: Hawaii v. UIUC v. San Diego v. Irvine

Postby sonny » Tue Jan 15, 2013 12:29 pm

timbs4339 wrote:
sonny wrote:
timbs4339 wrote:"Biglaw" is relative. Those slightly smaller firms in Hawaii paying close to 100K are "Hawaii biglaw." A federal clerkship is not in the cards from any of those schools. Would you be happy making around 40K doing smallaw?


Appreciate the feedback.

Small law would be manageable.

My hope was UIUC could be a potential Chicago big law? Maybe dreaming? haha.

Hoping UIUC/Irvine could allow a possible clerkship?! Not too confident. But I think that Hawaii could at least allow for a possibility in the District of Hawaii (hopeful). I know that externship apps have been low there, so my hope was that it could lead to a clerkship later.


You're dreaming with Chicago biglaw from UIUC- top 25% is a liberal estimate. They placed only 5% in federal clerkships.

Don't let UCI try to sell you on the c/o 2012 numbers. Those were 60 students all getting a full ride who had T10 LSAT/GPA. When they key up to a full class of 200-250, they probably won't see employment numbers any better than UCH/UCD. Not a good bet for 200K.

Hawaii placed like 2 students in federal clerkships last year. The best that can be said is it is relatively cheap.

This may seem the overly harsh advice, but you need to lower your sights a bit. Choose schools off the assumption that you will be doing small law or local government law, making 40-50K, and probably will not ever be able to do biglaw or a federal clerkship, and decide if pulling the trigger this cycle is worth it.

Also: http://www.lstscorereports.com/


Realistic is very much appreciated. I know I may be overly optimistic.

I'd survive with a local (or federal) government position (currently work in the federal system). And while starting salaries aren't great, advancement is at a good enough rate. Heck, I'd even be content going right into legal aid/nonprofit sector.

With that said, the above mentioned is the path most desired. Beyond chipping away at my potential debt I feel that it will also provide me with useful experiences/resources/connections/networking.

sonny
Posts: 78
Joined: Thu Nov 15, 2012 3:17 am

Re: Poll: Hawaii v. UIUC v. San Diego v. LMU v. Irvine

Postby sonny » Tue Jan 15, 2013 12:35 pm

Itinerant wrote:
Mick Haller wrote:Martindale lists 3 firms with more than 50 attorneys in Honolulu. 5 firms in the 25-50 range. Only 9 firms in Honolulu with more than 10 attorneys.

There are only three Hawaii firms with NALP profiles.


Given the legal market in Honolulu, are those 9 firms with 25<10 or more attorneys still considered small law?


I would say no. When discussing it here I've seen the 3 firms generally referred to as big law (even with those who transplanted from big law firms on the continent to Hawaii). However, it created quite a debate on the Hawaii 2016 thread so I reverted to referring to Hawaii firms in mainland terms.

But, salaries definitely reflect their actual size.
Last edited by sonny on Tue Jan 15, 2013 1:41 pm, edited 1 time in total.

timbs4339
Posts: 2733
Joined: Sat Apr 02, 2011 12:19 pm

Re: Poll: Hawaii v. UIUC v. San Diego v. Irvine

Postby timbs4339 » Tue Jan 15, 2013 12:41 pm

sonny wrote:
timbs4339 wrote:
sonny wrote:
timbs4339 wrote:"Biglaw" is relative. Those slightly smaller firms in Hawaii paying close to 100K are "Hawaii biglaw." A federal clerkship is not in the cards from any of those schools. Would you be happy making around 40K doing smallaw?


Appreciate the feedback.

Small law would be manageable.

My hope was UIUC could be a potential Chicago big law? Maybe dreaming? haha.

Hoping UIUC/Irvine could allow a possible clerkship?! Not too confident. But I think that Hawaii could at least allow for a possibility in the District of Hawaii (hopeful). I know that externship apps have been low there, so my hope was that it could lead to a clerkship later.


You're dreaming with Chicago biglaw from UIUC- top 25% is a liberal estimate. They placed only 5% in federal clerkships.

Don't let UCI try to sell you on the c/o 2012 numbers. Those were 60 students all getting a full ride who had T10 LSAT/GPA. When they key up to a full class of 200-250, they probably won't see employment numbers any better than UCH/UCD. Not a good bet for 200K.

Hawaii placed like 2 students in federal clerkships last year. The best that can be said is it is relatively cheap.

This may seem the overly harsh advice, but you need to lower your sights a bit. Choose schools off the assumption that you will be doing small law or local government law, making 40-50K, and probably will not ever be able to do biglaw or a federal clerkship, and decide if pulling the trigger this cycle is worth it.

Also: http://www.lstscorereports.com/


Realistic is very much appreciated. I know I may be overly optimistic.

I'd survive with a local (or federal) government position (currently work in the federal system). And while starting salaries aren't great, advancement is at a good enough rate. Heck, I'd even be content going right into legal aid/nonprofit sector.

With that said, the above mentioned is the path most desired. Beyond chipping away at my potential debt I feel that it will also provide me with useful experiences/resources/connections/networking.


Fed gov is most likely out of the question- those positions are more competitive than biglaw. Hawaii places 9% into government and 16% into state and local clerkships (which would feed into small firms or local government). Another 16% go into small firms. If you go to Hawaii, then the chances of you getting a fed clerkship, biglaw, or fed gov are likely <5% and there is a significant chance of underemployment (33%). But if you can limit debt to 75K, it might be worth it.

However, I do not think Illinois or Irvine give you a shot at your most desired path that is even close to worth the huge loan amounts you'll be racking up.

What are your numbers/retakes left/prior study methods?

mantel
Posts: 7
Joined: Fri Dec 21, 2012 11:00 pm

Re: Poll: Hawaii v. UIUC v. San Diego v. Irvine

Postby mantel » Tue Jan 15, 2013 3:02 pm

sonny wrote:
timbs4339 wrote:
sonny wrote:
timbs4339 wrote:"Biglaw" is relative. Those slightly smaller firms in Hawaii paying close to 100K are "Hawaii biglaw." A federal clerkship is not in the cards from any of those schools. Would you be happy making around 40K doing smallaw?


Appreciate the feedback.

Small law would be manageable.

My hope was UIUC could be a potential Chicago big law? Maybe dreaming? haha.

Hoping UIUC/Irvine could allow a possible clerkship?! Not too confident. But I think that Hawaii could at least allow for a possibility in the District of Hawaii (hopeful). I know that externship apps have been low there, so my hope was that it could lead to a clerkship later.


You're dreaming with Chicago biglaw from UIUC- top 25% is a liberal estimate. They placed only 5% in federal clerkships.

Don't let UCI try to sell you on the c/o 2012 numbers. Those were 60 students all getting a full ride who had T10 LSAT/GPA. When they key up to a full class of 200-250, they probably won't see employment numbers any better than UCH/UCD. Not a good bet for 200K.

Hawaii placed like 2 students in federal clerkships last year. The best that can be said is it is relatively cheap.

This may seem the overly harsh advice, but you need to lower your sights a bit. Choose schools off the assumption that you will be doing small law or local government law, making 40-50K, and probably will not ever be able to do biglaw or a federal clerkship, and decide if pulling the trigger this cycle is worth it.

Also: http://www.lstscorereports.com/


Realistic is very much appreciated. I know I may be overly optimistic.

I'd survive with a local (or federal) government position (currently work in the federal system). And while starting salaries aren't great, advancement is at a good enough rate. Heck, I'd even be content going right into legal aid/nonprofit sector.

With that said, the above mentioned is the path most desired. Beyond chipping away at my potential debt I feel that it will also provide me with useful experiences/resources/connections/networking.


Let's clarify a few things about UCI for federal clerkships. With 58 students they had the 3rd highest percentage of clerkships in the nation. http://abovethelaw.com/2011/12/uc-irvin ... yone-else/

Even if the number of students with clerkships didn't increase (and the percentage thereby decreased) with a class of 120, their clerkship percentage would be better than most of the T-14.

UCI Law has no plans to ever have 200-250 students. The long term target is 180. It's going to stay at around 120 for the next number of years.

I'm not advocating for it, and with UCI Law there's a lot to take into account, but let's be clear what the indicators are.

timbs4339
Posts: 2733
Joined: Sat Apr 02, 2011 12:19 pm

Re: Poll: Hawaii v. UIUC v. San Diego v. Irvine

Postby timbs4339 » Tue Jan 15, 2013 3:29 pm

mantel wrote:
Let's clarify a few things about UCI for federal clerkships. With 58 students they had the 3rd highest percentage of clerkships in the nation. http://abovethelaw.com/2011/12/uc-irvin ... yone-else/

Even if the number of students with clerkships didn't increase (and the percentage thereby decreased) with a class of 120, their clerkship percentage would be better than most of the T-14.

UCI Law has no plans to ever have 200-250 students. The long term target is 180. It's going to stay at around 120 for the next number of years.

I'm not advocating for it, and with UCI Law there's a lot to take into account, but let's be clear what the indicators are.


The indicators are that UCI is not going to be able to pull students with T10 numbers without serious scholarship outlays. They can't make that investment anymore, so they are not going to get the same caliber of student.

Distilled to its essence, UCI is a bet that employers hire students based on the prestige and horsepower of the faculty, not on the inputs (the perceived intelligence of the student). I think this is bullshit, and the number of clerkships will decline as the caliber of student declines. There is a secondary argument that UCIs clerkship placement will continue to be strong since federal clerkship hiring is very recommendation based and the list of judge's in the faculty's "black book" is just larger than other schools. Whether they can do this while their medians keep dropping, or whether the same number of federal judges will come back to UCI year after year when they have Stanford, Boalt, UCLA/USC, and T14 grads beating down their doors, is not something I'd bet 250K on.

User avatar
twenty
Posts: 3153
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2012 1:17 pm

Re: Poll: Hawaii v. UIUC v. San Diego v. Irvine

Postby twenty » Tue Jan 15, 2013 4:30 pm

Hawaii for sure and it's not even close. It sucks that it's 20k a year still, though.

This is more to say "don't go to UCI or USD (assuming you don't have ties), and definitely not UI." than saying "definitely go to UH"


Lord Randolph McDuff
Posts: 1587
Joined: Wed Jun 08, 2011 4:37 pm

Re: Poll: Hawaii v. UIUC v. San Diego v. Irvine

Postby Lord Randolph McDuff » Tue Jan 15, 2013 4:57 pm



That barely worse than most of the bottom half of T1. Also isn't the 25 LSAT at UH like 153? I'm lazy and I would still smoke most of those kids. (Yes, correlation blah blah it looks like I believe in correlation)

I'd love to see the employment stats on the OOS kids at UH. I bet they are actually considerable better than in-state. Ties and insular and all that, but if the local kids average 3.4 155 and the 10% from out of state crowd 3.8 166, OOS with the easy win. (Rad, for what it is worth I don't fight the "ties" thing as it applies to the local school in regards to UH. I've been there a few times and that place truly is hostile to outsiders, and while I don't know if that pervades the legal community, I don't want to have ties fight 2.0 with you)

rad lulz
Posts: 9844
Joined: Sun Feb 19, 2012 10:53 pm

Re: Poll: Hawaii v. UIUC v. San Diego v. Irvine

Postby rad lulz » Tue Jan 15, 2013 5:00 pm

Lord Randolph McDuff wrote:


That barely worse than most of the bottom half of T1.

So what? Those schools aren't good idea either.

User avatar
somewhatwayward
Posts: 1446
Joined: Wed Sep 30, 2009 5:10 pm

Re: Poll: Hawaii v. UIUC v. San Diego v. Irvine

Postby somewhatwayward » Tue Jan 15, 2013 5:05 pm

I wish I could vote more than once! Correct answer here for your stated goals (fed clerkship or mid/big law but okay with non-profit/local gov work) is to retake! None of these schools is going to give you what you are seeking unless you can decrease the cost a lot. Decreasing the cost a lot won't make a fed clerkship or big law job more likely but at least you won't be screwed if you get nothing out of school.

Your stated goals are only realistic out of the T6, maybe the T14. Good shot at either a fed clerkship or a big law job with the grads that either miss out on those or were not interested in them in the first place getting something legal, often non-profit or local gov. At the schools you are considering, for the most part, your fallback option is probably a better outcome than the median student has, especially at USD (not sure about Hawaii). People often come on here asking if they should go to some T1 and saying they would be happy with $60K/year without realizing that more than half the graduates from the school they are asking about would kill to make $60K/year. I was just explaining to someone on here recently that 2/3 of GWU grads c/o 2011 are making less than $65K. GWU is an better school than the ones you are considering although it is in a bad market and way too big. UCI's c/o 2012 employment outcomes probably give GWU a run for its money, but don't expect the same thing when the class triples in size and Chemerinsky runs out of favors to call in.

If you decide that a coin's flip of a chance at a legal job (likely paying ~$40K/year) with maybe a 10-20% of the clerkship/big law outcome is okay with you, then I suppose UIUC or Hawaii would be okay but only if they are free! Really you should only go to any of these schools if they are free. Good luck!

Lord Randolph McDuff
Posts: 1587
Joined: Wed Jun 08, 2011 4:37 pm

Re: Poll: Hawaii v. UIUC v. San Diego v. Irvine

Postby Lord Randolph McDuff » Tue Jan 15, 2013 5:25 pm

rad lulz wrote:
Lord Randolph McDuff wrote:


That barely worse than most of the bottom half of T1.

So what? Those schools aren't good idea either.


I just want UH to get its appropriate level of shit.

User avatar
romothesavior
Posts: 14772
Joined: Fri Jun 26, 2009 4:29 pm

Re: Poll: Hawaii v. UIUC v. San Diego v. Irvine

Postby romothesavior » Tue Jan 15, 2013 11:14 pm

Lord Randolph McDuff wrote:


That barely worse than most of the bottom half of T1. Also isn't the 25 LSAT at UH like 153? I'm lazy and I would still smoke most of those kids. (Yes, correlation blah blah it looks like I believe in correlation)

I'd love to see the employment stats on the OOS kids at UH. I bet they are actually considerable better than in-state. Ties and insular and all that, but if the local kids average 3.4 155 and the 10% from out of state crowd 3.8 166, OOS with the easy win. (Rad, for what it is worth I don't fight the "ties" thing as it applies to the local school in regards to UH. I've been there a few times and that place truly is hostile to outsiders, and while I don't know if that pervades the legal community, I don't want to have ties fight 2.0 with you)

I'd prefer not to have that fight either, but if you really think UH is a good idea of an OOSer, you're nutso.

But anyways, OP is from Hawaii anyway, and I still say it's a bad call. Terrible employment prospects and not much of a legal market at all.




Return to “Choosing a Law School”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests