UT vs. UCLA vs. Berkeley

(Rankings, Profiles, Tuition, Student Life, . . . )
katch
Posts: 94
Joined: Sun Mar 17, 2013 8:18 pm

Re: UT vs. UCLA vs. Berkeley

Postby katch » Mon Mar 18, 2013 10:50 am

BigZuck wrote:WTF is that site? Have you actually clicked on any links? The third one down that says its a 2 bed/2 bath for 795 a month is actually a shared bedroom with a female. Meaning more than three people in a two bedroom. Total rent at that place is probably 2400 a month or thereabouts.

Rent in LA and Austin isn't close at all.


lol I didnt click on any of those but in my actual in-person experience at UCLA, I found actual apartments for rent and actual students living in actual apartments that they were renting for $900-$1000 a month and I thought they were better apartments than the ones I saw students living in at UT for $700 a month.

Edit: and if you're curious, these apartments were two people living in a two-bedroom apartment and sharing a bathroom.
The $1200(includes all charges) on-campus at UCLA was two people in a huge two-bedroom each with a private bathroom. And really quite nice.

Edit 2: also just to be clear, I'm not talking about the total rent paid for the apartment, I'm talking strictly about the amount of money a person pays to live there. If I get crazy about debt, I suppose I could share a room, but frankly I despise people so that is unlikely to happen. Private room pls.

katch
Posts: 94
Joined: Sun Mar 17, 2013 8:18 pm

Re: UT vs. UCLA vs. Berkeley

Postby katch » Mon Mar 18, 2013 11:18 am

BigZuck wrote:1. LA sucks. Santa Monica does not but LA does. While I like to think that is an objectively true statement your results may vary.

2. I have just one parent who is retired and has not supported me for years and years and UCLA offered me less than 2K need based. Wouldn't count that chicken until it hatches.

3. I voted Duke. Maybe Cornell or NU if they offer you enough money.


So no love for Berkeley? Duke sounds expensive. I never really planned on going there. And I actually never filled out their secondary financial aid stuff so they never made me a scholarship offer. Maybe I can ask?

Also, I only have one parent that works and they will both be 70 before I graduate. I suppose they probably base that need grant on how much you have left to pay after scholarship though. Meh it was worth a shot. Even without it, UCLA is cheaper.

BigZuck
Posts: 10872
Joined: Tue Sep 04, 2012 9:53 am

Re: UT vs. UCLA vs. Berkeley

Postby BigZuck » Mon Mar 18, 2013 11:27 am

katch wrote:
BigZuck wrote:1. LA sucks. Santa Monica does not but LA does. While I like to think that is an objectively true statement your results may vary.

2. I have just one parent who is retired and has not supported me for years and years and UCLA offered me less than 2K need based. Wouldn't count that chicken until it hatches.

3. I voted Duke. Maybe Cornell or NU if they offer you enough money.


So no love for Berkeley? Duke sounds expensive. I never really planned on going there. And I actually never filled out their secondary financial aid stuff so they never made me a scholarship offer. Maybe I can ask?

Also, I only have one parent that works and they will both be 70 before I graduate. I suppose they probably base that need grant on how much you have left to pay after scholarship though. Meh it was worth a shot. Even without it, UCLA is cheaper.


At full sticker price Duke is the cheapest or second cheapest T14 (it's either them or Chicago). They have been giving out solid money this year. It's a significantly better school than UT/UCLA and would give you more flexibility in terms of placement (although CA is probably out without ties and/or stellar grades). Should be cheaper than Berkeley.

Ditto NU and Cornell but they haven't offered any money yet this cycle so no telling how generous they will be.

Just to reiterate: cost of living in LA will be significantly more than Austin. Rent, food, beer, gas, etc. I know this from experience. But just do UCLA if you want it that bad.

katch
Posts: 94
Joined: Sun Mar 17, 2013 8:18 pm

Re: UT vs. UCLA vs. Berkeley

Postby katch » Mon Mar 18, 2013 11:37 am

BigZuck wrote:
katch wrote:
BigZuck wrote:1. LA sucks. Santa Monica does not but LA does. While I like to think that is an objectively true statement your results may vary.

2. I have just one parent who is retired and has not supported me for years and years and UCLA offered me less than 2K need based. Wouldn't count that chicken until it hatches.

3. I voted Duke. Maybe Cornell or NU if they offer you enough money.


So no love for Berkeley? Duke sounds expensive. I never really planned on going there. And I actually never filled out their secondary financial aid stuff so they never made me a scholarship offer. Maybe I can ask?

Also, I only have one parent that works and they will both be 70 before I graduate. I suppose they probably base that need grant on how much you have left to pay after scholarship though. Meh it was worth a shot. Even without it, UCLA is cheaper.


At full sticker price Duke is the cheapest or second cheapest T14 (it's either them or Chicago). They have been giving out solid money this year. It's a significantly better school than UT/UCLA and would give you more flexibility in terms of placement (although CA is probably out without ties and/or stellar grades). Should be cheaper than Berkeley.

Ditto NU and Cornell but they haven't offered any money yet this cycle so no telling how generous they will be.

Just to reiterate: cost of living in LA will be significantly more than Austin. Rent, food, beer, gas, etc. I know this from experience. But just do UCLA if you want it that bad.


lol I know it's coming off like I've already decided on UCLA, but I haven't. I was defending it because people were saying "obvious choice, UT is cheaper and better" But its not (I dont drink, and dont have a car). So if UCLA is actually the cheaper option (refer to my previous post), do my career prospects at UT outweigh the cost advantage of UCLA? And lest we again forget Berkeley, is that worth still more?

User avatar
Rahviveh
Posts: 2271
Joined: Mon Aug 06, 2012 12:02 pm

Re: UT vs. UCLA vs. Berkeley

Postby Rahviveh » Mon Mar 18, 2013 12:18 pm

katch wrote:
BigZuck wrote:
katch wrote:
BigZuck wrote:1. LA sucks. Santa Monica does not but LA does. While I like to think that is an objectively true statement your results may vary.

2. I have just one parent who is retired and has not supported me for years and years and UCLA offered me less than 2K need based. Wouldn't count that chicken until it hatches.

3. I voted Duke. Maybe Cornell or NU if they offer you enough money.


So no love for Berkeley? Duke sounds expensive. I never really planned on going there. And I actually never filled out their secondary financial aid stuff so they never made me a scholarship offer. Maybe I can ask?

Also, I only have one parent that works and they will both be 70 before I graduate. I suppose they probably base that need grant on how much you have left to pay after scholarship though. Meh it was worth a shot. Even without it, UCLA is cheaper.


At full sticker price Duke is the cheapest or second cheapest T14 (it's either them or Chicago). They have been giving out solid money this year. It's a significantly better school than UT/UCLA and would give you more flexibility in terms of placement (although CA is probably out without ties and/or stellar grades). Should be cheaper than Berkeley.

Ditto NU and Cornell but they haven't offered any money yet this cycle so no telling how generous they will be.

Just to reiterate: cost of living in LA will be significantly more than Austin. Rent, food, beer, gas, etc. I know this from experience. But just do UCLA if you want it that bad.


lol I know it's coming off like I've already decided on UCLA, but I haven't. I was defending it because people were saying "obvious choice, UT is cheaper and better" But its not (I dont drink, and dont have a car). So if UCLA is actually the cheaper option (refer to my previous post), do my career prospects at UT outweigh the cost advantage of UCLA? And lest we again forget Berkeley, is that worth still more?


Are you a guy? Don't go to UCLA without a car

BigZuck
Posts: 10872
Joined: Tue Sep 04, 2012 9:53 am

Re: UT vs. UCLA vs. Berkeley

Postby BigZuck » Mon Mar 18, 2013 12:30 pm

And don't go to law school if you don't drink.

User avatar
The Brainalist
Posts: 317
Joined: Wed Oct 14, 2009 1:12 pm

Re: UT vs. UCLA vs. Berkeley

Postby The Brainalist » Mon Mar 18, 2013 12:40 pm

katch wrote:
BigZuck wrote:WTF is that site? Have you actually clicked on any links? The third one down that says its a 2 bed/2 bath for 795 a month is actually a shared bedroom with a female. Meaning more than three people in a two bedroom. Total rent at that place is probably 2400 a month or thereabouts.

Rent in LA and Austin isn't close at all.


lol I didnt click on any of those but in my actual in-person experience at UCLA, I found actual apartments for rent and actual students living in actual apartments that they were renting for $900-$1000 a month and I thought they were better apartments than the ones I saw students living in at UT for $700 a month.

Edit: and if you're curious, these apartments were two people living in a two-bedroom apartment and sharing a bathroom.
The $1200(includes all charges) on-campus at UCLA was two people in a huge two-bedroom each with a private bathroom. And really quite nice.

Edit 2: also just to be clear, I'm not talking about the total rent paid for the apartment, I'm talking strictly about the amount of money a person pays to live there. If I get crazy about debt, I suppose I could share a room, but frankly I despise people so that is unlikely to happen. Private room pls.


Just FYI, Zillow is listing fake rents, for reasons I don't know. Zillow says $925 for 527 Midvale, 2 bedroom, but here is the site for those apartments: --LinkRemoved--

Studio: $1725 to $1810
1 Bedroom: $2043 to $2293


So... yeah. You probably aren't going to win on a rent argument about Westwood.

User avatar
unc0mm0n1
Posts: 1714
Joined: Sat Dec 25, 2010 1:06 pm

Re: UT vs. UCLA vs. Berkeley

Postby unc0mm0n1 » Mon Mar 18, 2013 5:30 pm

BigZuck wrote:There are $900 a month apartments in LA? Where in LA?


get a roommate. There is no way would I be paying 20k COL for a year in LA. I spent a summer in NYC and survived on 3k and I was perfectly fine. Those Col numbers out of whack unless you want to live nice. I figure if I'm not working it's prudent to live frugal.

katch
Posts: 94
Joined: Sun Mar 17, 2013 8:18 pm

Re: UT vs. UCLA vs. Berkeley

Postby katch » Mon Mar 18, 2013 5:35 pm

The Brainalist wrote:
katch wrote:
BigZuck wrote:WTF is that site? Have you actually clicked on any links? The third one down that says its a 2 bed/2 bath for 795 a month is actually a shared bedroom with a female. Meaning more than three people in a two bedroom. Total rent at that place is probably 2400 a month or thereabouts.

Rent in LA and Austin isn't close at all.


lol I didnt click on any of those but in my actual in-person experience at UCLA, I found actual apartments for rent and actual students living in actual apartments that they were renting for $900-$1000 a month and I thought they were better apartments than the ones I saw students living in at UT for $700 a month.

Edit: and if you're curious, these apartments were two people living in a two-bedroom apartment and sharing a bathroom.
The $1200(includes all charges) on-campus at UCLA was two people in a huge two-bedroom each with a private bathroom. And really quite nice.

Edit 2: also just to be clear, I'm not talking about the total rent paid for the apartment, I'm talking strictly about the amount of money a person pays to live there. If I get crazy about debt, I suppose I could share a room, but frankly I despise people so that is unlikely to happen. Private room pls.


Just FYI, Zillow is listing fake rents, for reasons I don't know. Zillow says $925 for 527 Midvale, 2 bedroom, but here is the site for those apartments: --LinkRemoved--

Studio: $1725 to $1810
1 Bedroom: $2043 to $2293


So... yeah. You probably aren't going to win on a rent argument about Westwood.


Ok I'm just about at my wits end here. I have PHYSICALLY searched and found what I'm talking about, but I'll play along. Say I just live in the student housing which is $1200 Private room, Private bath, large living and kitchen, includes all utilities, is a great location ON CAMPUS, and NEW, it still doesn't equal the increased tuition at UT! $700 at UT(for lesser living conditions) so a difference of $500 9 months, 3 years= $13,500 more to live at UCLA while the tuition is still $24k cheaper! I still dont know how you can't believe me about rents. The on campus housing is the high end which is why many people move for 2L and 3L to find cheaper rents ie. less than $1200. With the given scholarship amounts UCLA IS CHEAPER including cost of living.

Which brings me back to the real question that everyone is distracted from because they just can't believe that anywhere in all of West LA could possibly be priced under $1500 (except, ya know the high end on campus housing at $1200...): Should I go to Texas even though the quality of life is lower and it is more expensive because of better career prospects, or should I go to UCLA with lower career prospects, but higher quality of life and cheaper? Or should I go to Berkeley at 60k more overall than UCLA?

BigZuck
Posts: 10872
Joined: Tue Sep 04, 2012 9:53 am

Re: UT vs. UCLA vs. Berkeley

Postby BigZuck » Mon Mar 18, 2013 5:40 pm

I can't imagine quality of life in LA being better than Austin. Austin is cheaper, the people there are better/cooler/nicer, and it doesn't suck like LA does.

Also you never addressed what Romo asked. It would help if you told everyone what total cost of attendance including tuition and cost of living for all 3 years will be before anyone can offer any advice.

User avatar
BerkeleyBear
Posts: 257
Joined: Tue Aug 14, 2012 10:22 pm

Re: UT vs. UCLA vs. Berkeley

Postby BerkeleyBear » Mon Mar 18, 2013 5:53 pm

katch wrote:Which brings me back to the real question that everyone is distracted from because they just can't believe that anywhere in all of West LA could possibly be priced under $1500 (except, ya know the high end on campus housing at $1200...): Should I go to Texas even though the quality of life is lower and it is more expensive because of better career prospects, or should I go to UCLA with lower career prospects, but higher quality of life and cheaper? Or should I go to Berkeley at 60k more overall than UCLA?


OP, LA is more expensive compared to Austin. On just about every level. I'm from Texas and I can unequivocally say that TX is winning the "higher" quality of life category. Go to UT. CA is a joke.
Edit: To answer the actual question you asked: yes, even if TX costs a little more you should take it over LA because the job/legal market in CA is absolute shit and isn't going to improve any time soon.

katch
Posts: 94
Joined: Sun Mar 17, 2013 8:18 pm

Re: UT vs. UCLA vs. Berkeley

Postby katch » Mon Mar 18, 2013 5:57 pm

BigZuck wrote:I can't imagine quality of life in LA being better than Austin. Austin is cheaper, the people there are better/cooler/nicer, and it doesn't suck like LA does.

Also you never addressed what Romo asked. It would help if you told everyone what total cost of attendance including tuition and cost of living for all 3 years will be before anyone can offer any advice.


Jesus Christ. OP: "By my calculations UCLA is roughly $10k cheaper than UT even with CoL, and lets be honest, living in LA is worth a little extra money. Berkeley and UCLA end up with nearly the same sticker price (planning on CA residency after first year) so it would be $60k more (assuming they match Michigan) to go to Berkeley." I wrote out all the damned math just to end up finally showing the same $10k difference (on the low end given our rent discussions) that I began with! I gave you their given CoL and talked plenty about the issues I see in there and worked out the final difference at $18,600 but people flipped a bitch about rent so I used the guaranteed price of on campus housing for rent and still came out with my original $10k advantage for UCLA. I'm not sure what you people want!!! Just take my word for it: its a $10k difference (on the low end.)

Taking that as given, back to the real question!

User avatar
Dr. Dre
Posts: 2347
Joined: Mon Feb 18, 2013 7:10 pm

Re: UT vs. UCLA vs. Berkeley

Postby Dr. Dre » Mon Mar 18, 2013 6:02 pm

BerkeleyBear wrote:OP, LA is more expensive compared to Austin. On just about every level. I'm from Texas and I can unequivocally say that TX is winning the "higher" quality of life category. Go to UT. CA is a joke.
Edit: To answer the actual question you asked: yes, even if TX costs a little more you should take it over LA because the job/legal market in CA is absolute shit and isn't going to improve any time soon.

katch
Posts: 94
Joined: Sun Mar 17, 2013 8:18 pm

Re: UT vs. UCLA vs. Berkeley

Postby katch » Mon Mar 18, 2013 6:03 pm

BerkeleyBear wrote:
katch wrote:Which brings me back to the real question that everyone is distracted from because they just can't believe that anywhere in all of West LA could possibly be priced under $1500 (except, ya know the high end on campus housing at $1200...): Should I go to Texas even though the quality of life is lower and it is more expensive because of better career prospects, or should I go to UCLA with lower career prospects, but higher quality of life and cheaper? Or should I go to Berkeley at 60k more overall than UCLA?


OP, LA is more expensive compared to Austin. On just about every level. I'm from Texas and I can unequivocally say that TX is winning the "higher" quality of life category. Go to UT. CA is a joke.
Edit: To answer the actual question you asked: yes, even if TX costs a little more you should take it over LA because the job/legal market in CA is absolute shit and isn't going to improve any time soon.


*sigh* cheaper isn't quality of life for me. You pay more in LA because the quality is higher. I too am from Texas! I don't know how Texans can look someone in the eye and say "The weather is great, the landscape is beautiful and varied, the awesome beaches of the gulf are only two and half hours away." Austin is a lot of fun, but I'm assuming they just haven't visited West LA. and while CoL is cheaper in Austin it doesn't outweigh the tuition differences given my scholarships.

But thank you for giving your opinion on the real deal there. Its been the most useful thing I've gotten, along with the guy who said he was a happy UT Law student.

User avatar
BerkeleyBear
Posts: 257
Joined: Tue Aug 14, 2012 10:22 pm

Re: UT vs. UCLA vs. Berkeley

Postby BerkeleyBear » Mon Mar 18, 2013 6:11 pm

katch wrote:*sigh* cheaper isn't quality of life for me. You pay more in LA because the quality is higher. I too am from Texas! I don't know how Texans can look someone in the eye and say "The weather is great, the landscape is beautiful and varied, the awesome beaches of the gulf are only two and half hours away." Austin is a lot of fun, but I'm assuming they just haven't visited West LA. and while CoL is cheaper in Austin it doesn't outweigh the tuition differences given my scholarships.

But thank you for giving your opinion on the real deal there. Its been the most useful thing I've gotten, along with the guy who said he was a happy UT Law student.


Yeah, it totally depends on what you are into. I've spent plenty of time in Westwood and it is a great place no doubt. The weather in southern California is unbeatable. I honestly am not a huge fan of the weather here in Berk. It's depressing as shit most of the time and the humidity/ heat in TX doesn't bother me very much. I also miss those classic TX lightning/thunderstorms.

So out of UT, UCB and UCLA I think UT or UCLA are both solid choices. If UCB does match that 60K then I think you should head up here. Visit UCLA and if you love it go for it Katch. The BBQ here in CA is just :lol: though.

BigZuck
Posts: 10872
Joined: Tue Sep 04, 2012 9:53 am

Re: UT vs. UCLA vs. Berkeley

Postby BigZuck » Mon Mar 18, 2013 6:15 pm

katch wrote:
BigZuck wrote:I can't imagine quality of life in LA being better than Austin. Austin is cheaper, the people there are better/cooler/nicer, and it doesn't suck like LA does.

Also you never addressed what Romo asked. It would help if you told everyone what total cost of attendance including tuition and cost of living for all 3 years will be before anyone can offer any advice.


Jesus Christ. OP: "By my calculations UCLA is roughly $10k cheaper than UT even with CoL, and lets be honest, living in LA is worth a little extra money. Berkeley and UCLA end up with nearly the same sticker price (planning on CA residency after first year) so it would be $60k more (assuming they match Michigan) to go to Berkeley." I wrote out all the damned math just to end up finally showing the same $10k difference (on the low end given our rent discussions) that I began with! I gave you their given CoL and talked plenty about the issues I see in there and worked out the final difference at $18,600 but people flipped a bitch about rent so I used the guaranteed price of on campus housing for rent and still came out with my original $10k advantage for UCLA. I'm not sure what you people want!!! Just take my word for it: its a $10k difference (on the low end.)

Taking that as given, back to the real question!


We would like to see the total cost for all three years for each school. Please provide that so we can help you. Since you've done the calculations those figured should be readily accessible.

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

Re: UT vs. UCLA vs. Berkeley

Postby romothesavior » Mon Mar 18, 2013 6:18 pm

OP you seem like an asshole. Stop snapping at everyone. Chill out duder.

And no, you didn't "do the damned math." You still haven't told us the expected COA of the two schools.

BigZuck
Posts: 10872
Joined: Tue Sep 04, 2012 9:53 am

Re: UT vs. UCLA vs. Berkeley

Postby BigZuck » Mon Mar 18, 2013 6:22 pm

Also Westwood is a ghost town with mediocre food and a bunch of closed shops. I don't see how that compares to Austin.

Close to the beach and weather can't be beat so that's something. But when you look at LA as a whole basically all you've got is Houston minus the hellacious heat. Mexican food is way better in CA. But then BBQ is better in Texas so that kind of balances out.

Honestly though from a pure quality of life standpoint I can't imagine a law school being better than UT all things considered. Maybe Northwestern.

Eta: or maybe Vanderbilt?
Last edited by BigZuck on Mon Mar 18, 2013 6:24 pm, edited 1 time in total.

katch
Posts: 94
Joined: Sun Mar 17, 2013 8:18 pm

Re: UT vs. UCLA vs. Berkeley

Postby katch » Mon Mar 18, 2013 6:23 pm

BerkeleyBear wrote:
katch wrote:*sigh* cheaper isn't quality of life for me. You pay more in LA because the quality is higher. I too am from Texas! I don't know how Texans can look someone in the eye and say "The weather is great, the landscape is beautiful and varied, the awesome beaches of the gulf are only two and half hours away." Austin is a lot of fun, but I'm assuming they just haven't visited West LA. and while CoL is cheaper in Austin it doesn't outweigh the tuition differences given my scholarships.

But thank you for giving your opinion on the real deal there. Its been the most useful thing I've gotten, along with the guy who said he was a happy UT Law student.


Yeah, it totally depends on what you are into. I've spent plenty of time in Westwood and it is a great place no doubt. The weather in southern California is unbeatable. I honestly am not a huge fan of the weather here in Berk. It's depressing as shit most of the time and the humidity/ heat in TX doesn't bother me very much. I also miss those classic TX lightning/thunderstorms.

So out of UT, UCB and UCLA I think UT or UCLA are both solid choices. If UCB does match that 60K then I think you should head up here. Visit UCLA and if you love it go for it Katch. The BBQ here in CA is just :lol: though.


Thunderstorms are a definite pro for Texas. Though they happen less down in Austin than up in Dallas, where I grew up. So expound on Berkeley. Even if you're a 1L, you should have an idea by now. Are you satisfied with your career prospects compared to your debt load? Did you think CoL was unreasonable for what you got? I hear Berkeley fairs well for social life... (I was being totally facetious when I said I didn't drink ;) )

katch
Posts: 94
Joined: Sun Mar 17, 2013 8:18 pm

Re: UT vs. UCLA vs. Berkeley

Postby katch » Mon Mar 18, 2013 6:25 pm

romothesavior wrote:OP you seem like an asshole. Stop snapping at everyone. Chill out duder.

And no, you didn't "do the damned math." You still haven't told us the expected COA of the two schools.


Dude did you read?
katch wrote:Maybe it will help if I write out the numbers like you did:

UT Resident Tuition:
$33k/yr - $15k/yr = $18k/yr x 3 = $54k
Listed CoL: $16,700 (plus $2k for medical insurance which I will need = $18,700)

UCLA Tuition:
$54k - $40k = $14k, $48k/yr - $40k/yr = $8k x 2 = $16k + $14k = $30k
Listed CoL: $20,500

I would plan on living under that CoL at either place but even at the stated difference, $1800 x 3 = $5400 while the tuition differences amount $24k. $24k - $5400 = $18,600 in UCLA's favor.

Also, while weather/city are not factors on which you should totally base your law school decision, you could bring it in to CoL and simply say that it is very much worth it to pay higher prices in Westwood/Santa Monica/ Beverly Hills (West LA) because it DOES have better weather and location (Beach!, second largest city in America, extremely high end area). And further on my point about need-based grants: while I suppose he is right that you can't depend on them because anything can happen, the available data seem to suggest my amounts were well within the ballpark and that they've been fairly consistent.

And finally for those skeptical of the rent: http://www.zillow.com/homes/for_rent/We ... ect/13_zm/
I too used to think that it would be crazy expensive to live in LA. Until I actually went there myself and researched it.

User avatar
BerkeleyBear
Posts: 257
Joined: Tue Aug 14, 2012 10:22 pm

Re: UT vs. UCLA vs. Berkeley

Postby BerkeleyBear » Mon Mar 18, 2013 6:31 pm

katch wrote:Thunderstorms are a definite pro for Texas. Though they happen less down in Austin than up in Dallas, where I grew up. So expound on Berkeley. Even if you're a 1L, you should have an idea by now. Are you satisfied with your career prospects compared to your debt load? Did you think CoL was unreasonable for what you got? I hear Berkeley fairs well for social life... (I was being totally facetious when I said I didn't drink ;) )


I grew up just outside of Houston. I'm a 0L so I can't answer those questions. I'm still in UG. I think Boalt at sticker is insane and would advise anyone considering the option to think hard about 300K in debt. Personally, it would take at least 90k for me to matriculate at Boalt. I'm not even going to lawl school unless I get $$$ from UVA or UT. It all comes down to your fiscal situation and what you want to do career wise.

katch
Posts: 94
Joined: Sun Mar 17, 2013 8:18 pm

Re: UT vs. UCLA vs. Berkeley

Postby katch » Mon Mar 18, 2013 6:34 pm

BerkeleyBear wrote:
katch wrote:Thunderstorms are a definite pro for Texas. Though they happen less down in Austin than up in Dallas, where I grew up. So expound on Berkeley. Even if you're a 1L, you should have an idea by now. Are you satisfied with your career prospects compared to your debt load? Did you think CoL was unreasonable for what you got? I hear Berkeley fairs well for social life... (I was being totally facetious when I said I didn't drink ;) )


I grew up just outside of Houston. I'm a 0L so I can't answer those questions. I'm still in UG. I think Boalt at sticker is insane and would advise anyone considering the option to think hard about 300K in debt. Personally, it would take at least 90k for me to matriculate at Boalt. I'm not even going to lawl school unless I get $$$ from UVA or UT. It all comes down to your fiscal situation and what you want to do career wise.


Berkeley Law at sticker is 150,000 (a little less for residents which you are after one year). You would spend $50k a year on living expenses?

User avatar
TaipeiMort
Posts: 874
Joined: Tue Jun 02, 2009 11:51 pm

Re: UT vs. UCLA vs. Berkeley

Postby TaipeiMort » Mon Mar 18, 2013 6:36 pm

All I want to say is that this new collective TLS wisdom that CA legal market sucks is wrong. CA's private side corporate is one if the few areas not destroyed by the recession. CA's problem is an oversaturation of new grads. NY transactional and Texas are also doing well. Problem with UT is that ties will be a factor (e.g., kid from Houston at top 1/3 has an outside shot at work right now, while you have to be higher up the curve w/out ties).

User avatar
BerkeleyBear
Posts: 257
Joined: Tue Aug 14, 2012 10:22 pm

Re: UT vs. UCLA vs. Berkeley

Postby BerkeleyBear » Mon Mar 18, 2013 6:38 pm

katch wrote:
BerkeleyBear wrote:
katch wrote:Thunderstorms are a definite pro for Texas. Though they happen less down in Austin than up in Dallas, where I grew up. So expound on Berkeley. Even if you're a 1L, you should have an idea by now. Are you satisfied with your career prospects compared to your debt load? Did you think CoL was unreasonable for what you got? I hear Berkeley fairs well for social life... (I was being totally facetious when I said I didn't drink ;) )


I grew up just outside of Houston. I'm a 0L so I can't answer those questions. I'm still in UG. I think Boalt at sticker is insane and would advise anyone considering the option to think hard about 300K in debt. Personally, it would take at least 90k for me to matriculate at Boalt. I'm not even going to lawl school unless I get $$$ from UVA or UT. It all comes down to your fiscal situation and what you want to do career wise.


Berkeley Law at sticker is 150,000 (a little less for residents which you are after one year). You would spend $50k a year on living expenses?


With COL Berkeley would run around 70K a year. With interest, the total is near/at/over 300K depending on a multitude of factors. It would absolutely be over 250K. Pretty lame, huh?

User avatar
BerkeleyBear
Posts: 257
Joined: Tue Aug 14, 2012 10:22 pm

Re: UT vs. UCLA vs. Berkeley

Postby BerkeleyBear » Mon Mar 18, 2013 6:39 pm

TaipeiMort wrote:All I want to say is that this new collective TLS wisdom that CA legal market sucks is wrong. CA's private side corporate is one if the few areas not destroyed by the recession. CA's problem is an oversaturation of new grads. NY transactional and Texas are also doing well. Problem with UT is that ties will be a factor (e.g., kid from Houston at top 1/3 has an outside shot at work right now, while you have to be higher up the curve w/out ties).


CA's legal market does suck though. No matter how you choose to look at it.




Return to “Choosing a Law School”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot], charmonster, Yahoo [Bot] and 4 guests