UT vs. UCLA vs. Berkeley Forum

[katch]

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).

This is related, but I'm sure people would tell me to do a forum search: what are 'ties' exactly? I'm from Dallas. Lived in Austin area for awhile. Say I go to CA and all the haters are right and there's no jobs. Is me being from Dallas 'ties' enough to allow me to come back here?

And yeah I thought it was weird that everyone is so down on CA legal market considering the first guy that responded pointed out that UCLA's BigLaw numbers were slightly better while UT's clerkship numbers were slightly better.

[katch]

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?

Gross. I think 200k is my upper limit for debt. Unless Stanford. I will sell my soul. And the souls of my children.

[BerkeleyBear]

Gross. I think 200k is my upper limit for debt. Unless Stanford. I will sell my soul. And the souls of my children.

Stanford is magnificent. If you ever visit S stop by Ike's and get a sandwich. S is worth the debt IMO.

[katch]

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.

Berkeley-158,000
UT-105,000 (111,000)
UCLA-90,000

These are the provided numbers. I'm using their own rent and living expense numbers removing any debate about the reality of rent on the ground. I can say with certainty that UT is actually 111,000 because in my meeting with the financial aid person I discovered that UT oddly doesnt include the price of health insurance in their CoL like most schools. I'm guessing they get a lot of young people on their parents' insurance. While I am under 26, I'll be getting the boot when my dad retires in a couple of months and both of my parents are on Medicare. So with their own estimates UT is 15-20K more than UCLA. Berkeley is 50-55K more than UT and 70k more than UCLA.

[unc0mm0n1]

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?

You only spend 20k in 9 months if you choose to.

[katch]

You only spend 20k in 9 months if you choose to.

Yeah, I would expect to come in under the expected at any school, but I see no way to say whether I would come in more under at one school than another so I suppose using their estimates to compare is as good as anything else.

[BigZuck]

I don't think Berkeley is worth 70K more than UCLA if you want to work in Southern CA after graduation AND you have ties to Southern CA. If both those don't apply to you then I would think hard about choosing UCLA over Berkeley.

Also it's pretty obvious that your boner for California is long and hard so I would just go to Berkeley. YOLO. Just realize you'll probably be in a lot more than 150K debt if you decide to attend.

To me, the smart thing to do, all boners aside, would be to go to UT. You have ties to TX and none to CA and that could really come back to haunt you if you get mediocre grades. If I were you I would just make peace with the fact that I'm going to have to live and work in Dallas and go on vacation in CA with dat no state income tax cash money.

Of course I think the real answer might be a lower T14 (Cornell, Duke, NU) with $$$.

[TaipeiMort]

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.

Once again, this is wrong. If your definition of market is the overall market for legal services, you would have a point. However, biglaw in CA continued to hire at prerecession levels for corporate law. Reason is that CA had categories of private/ midsized public companies relatively unaffected by the downturn, including tech, biotech, life sciences, social media, etc. This is why getting Silicon Valley, OC, and SD corporate were much easier than Chicago or DC during the past few hiring cycles. However, other areas like lit, real estate, benefits, etc. were slammed.

[Dr. Dre]

LA is like a third world country:

You have really rich people (santa monica, bel air, brentwood, rancho palos verdes, pacific palisades, etc) and you have really poor people (compton, south central LA, inglewood, east LA). It is so divided. There is nothing in between.

Austin is so much better. LA is overrated. Period.

[J-e-L-L-o]

Austin is so much better. LA is overrated. Period.

Gotta agree with Dre here (for once). LA is overrated. It's got to the point the Governor of Texas is on tv, the radio, and in the news trying to lure CA business to the Lone Star State.

But if you bout that bottles and models, LA is legit. Traffic sux ass though.

True story: My boi was at a club in Hollywood and later that evening ended up at Aubry O'day's mansion and I seen him on her reality TV show.

[Dr. Dre]

i prefer small get togethers than large elaborate parties filled with randos.

ETA: texans gurlz are hot. They're not fake like em' LA gurlz.

[katch]

I don't think Berkeley is worth 70K more than UCLA if you want to work in Southern CA after graduation AND you have ties to Southern CA. If both those don't apply to you then I would think hard about choosing UCLA over Berkeley.

Also it's pretty obvious that your boner for California is long and hard so I would just go to Berkeley. YOLO. Just realize you'll probably be in a lot more than 150K debt if you decide to attend.

To me, the smart thing to do, all boners aside, would be to go to UT. You have ties to TX and none to CA and that could really come back to haunt you if you get mediocre grades. If I were you I would just make peace with the fact that I'm going to have to live and work in Dallas and go on vacation in CA with dat no state income tax cash money.

Of course I think the real answer might be a lower T14 (Cornell, Duke, NU) with $$$.

Any idea about what Cornell will offer and when? How about negotiating tips with Duke? NU is out, didn't apply.

lol I do love the west coast. You may not have seen my question up higher: As a born and bred Texan, would I not be able to come back to Texas after graduating UCLA? Thus minimizing my debt and maximizing my return? (and having a fantastic and happy law school experience) Is it ridiculous to go to TX BigLaw or even midlaw from a California school when I have ties (my entire family)?

Obviously I just plain disagree with all of you that have such low opinions of West LA. I don't plan on spending time in the ghettos of LA or even driving too deep into the traffic mess. Theres really no need. If I'm going to leave the area, it'll be to the north. If I really have a sudden desire to head to OC, then sure, traffic will be a bitch but not gonna happen very often. If I want a beach, it's five minutes away. No need to go somewhere else for what I've got right there. I love the area, the people, and everything else that goes with it. I like Austin plenty, but it's more niche. LA has it all if you ask me. But that really is a matter of opinion. So go ahead and keep hatin, but your opinion on the merits of LA is irrelevant to me as are your inflated(IMO) views of Austin. I know Austin and I've already been there done that.

[Dr. Dre]

Is it ridiculous to go to TX BigLaw or even midlaw from a California school when I have ties (my entire family)?

yes, we're talking UCLA, not Stanford.

[katch]

Is it ridiculous to go to TX BigLaw or even midlaw from a California school when I have ties (my entire family)?

yes, we're talking UCLA, not Stanford.

My impression was that ties mattered. Stanford wouldn't need ties. Does anyone actually have experience here? Of the thirty or so lawyers I know here in Texas, not even a third of them went to law school in Texas, so I know it's possible. I just don't know the actual paths they took or what the interviews and negotiations were like. A lot of them probably didn't start in Texas?

[Dr. Dre]

I'm from LA. You will like it here for a few years, then you'll get over it. Sure, the beach is close, but most likely, you will never go. And if you do go, it's going to be filled with tourists, 909'rs, and foreigners.

It's not that we're hating LA. It's that you have the option of either LA or Austin. In which case, the latter is the far better deal. If it was LA or Hartford, Connecticut, then it would be LA.

In LA you will be stressed out, broke, unhappy, and miserable.

[Dr. Dre]

My impression was that ties mattered. Stanford wouldn't need ties. Does anyone actually have experience here? Of the thirty or so lawyers I know here in Texas, not even a third of them went to law school in Texas, so I know it's possible. I just don't know the actual paths they took or what the interviews and negotiations were like. A lot of them probably didn't start in Texas?

that was years ago. Time has changed. Getting legal jerbs is very hard. That's why you go to the school that is in the region you want to practice.

[katch]

My impression was that ties mattered. Stanford wouldn't need ties. Does anyone actually have experience here? Of the thirty or so lawyers I know here in Texas, not even a third of them went to law school in Texas, so I know it's possible. I just don't know the actual paths they took or what the interviews and negotiations were like. A lot of them probably didn't start in Texas?

that was years ago. Time has changed. Getting legal jerbs is very hard. That's why you go to the school that is in the region you want to practice.

I cant help but think that is ridiculous. Firms aren't going to balk at YHS grads just because the student isn't from Texas. Again I know more lawyers who went to school out of state than vice versa here and these aren't all old people. Some of them are around three years out of school. Young guys.

And leaving LA after three years is precisely what I'm proposing.... And I live in Austin right now so your elevated opinion of Austin, again, doesn't mean anything to me.

[Dr. Dre]

Firms aren't going to balk at YHS grads just because the student isn't from Texas.

you are equivocating UCLA's reach with that of YHS.

[J-e-L-L-o]

But LA is what LA is. You don't know where in the city you will work. Downtown? Century City? Then you have to choose where you want to live. And UCLA is about 5 MILES from the beach not 5 mins. Expect to be in traffic for a while for that short distance. I've commuted from Ventura county in the north to San Diego county. I can tell you EXACTLY how bad LA traffic can be on any given day. Los Angeles county is a great place with lots of stuff to do. But with 25 million residents traffic is just damn ridiculous. It's cool for a few years, then it sux going through the daily grind.

UCLA does have alumni and can place out of state. One reason why UCLA is a better option than USC if SoCal won't be your destination.

Look up the kinds of firms you want to work in Texas and check if UCLA grads are there. Don't expect miracles though w/o good grades.

[katch]

But LA is what LA is. You don't know where in the city you will work. Downtown? Century City? Then you have to choose where you want to live. And UCLA is about 5 MILES from the beach not 5 mins. Expect to be in traffic for a while for that short distance. I've commuted from Ventura county in the north to San Diego county. I can tell you EXACTLY how bad LA traffic can be on any given day. Los Angeles county is a great place with lots of stuff to do. But with 25 million residents traffic is just damn ridiculous. It's cool for a few years, then it sux going through the daily grind.

UCLA does have alumni and can place out of state. One reason why UCLA is a better option than USC if SoCal won't be your destination.

Look up the kinds of firms you want to work in Texas and check if UCLA grads are there. Don't expect miracles though w/o good grades.

obvi you need good grades. That's true everywhere for everything.

Traffic. Are we pretending that Texas doesn't have traffic? I drove to Santa Monica Pier from my friend's apartment. Less than 15 minutes. It's not a downtown highway or anything like that. Middle of the day on a Thursday.

So what is the process for getting out of state? OCI doesn't help with that so you have to apply on your own? Or can you just tell OCI firms with offices in Texas that you are interested in going there? I'm pretty uneducated on the reality of OCI

[katch]

Firms aren't going to balk at YHS grads just because the student isn't from Texas.

you are equivocating UCLA's reach with that of YHS.

No I'm not. I'm challenging your implication that a Stanford grad would need ties to get out of state. A lower ranked school ought to be able to with ties.

[Dr. Dre]

I'm challenging your implication that a Stanford grad would need ties to get out of state. A lower ranked school ought to be able to with ties.

A stanfurd grad would prob not need ties. UCLA grad would need ties, but, even with ties, it will still be hard to get to get a jerb. Especially in a place like Texas.

[katch]

I'm challenging your implication that a Stanford grad would need ties to get out of state. A lower ranked school ought to be able to with ties.

A stanfurd grad would prob not need ties. UCLA grad would need ties, but, even with ties, it will still be hard to get to get a jerb. Especially in a place like Texas.

Is there some reason I should think you know how things work out here in Texas? But at least you finally admitted the possibility

[TaipeiMort]

Firms aren't going to balk at YHS grads just because the student isn't from Texas.

you are equivocating UCLA's reach with that of YHS.

No I'm not. I'm challenging your implication that a Stanford grad would need ties to get out of state. A lower ranked school ought to be able to with ties.

I can't speak for Stanford, but at Chicago Texas firms' attitudes to no ties varied widely. Some were completely unwilling to take anyone, no matter how high their GPA was or what journal they were on (most). Others, like Baker Botts, took nearly 10% of Chicago's class on callbacks. However, most of these people had ties or a really high GPA. Chicago may be an outlier though, we have an extensive conservative alumni network with a lot of ties at Texas firms. I believe it is our fourth market behind NY, Chicago, and California. These firms seemed to read "family," or "Christian," or "FedSoc" as proxies for "Texan."

IMO, it would be a bad bet to assume that you can leverage a national school, even Yale or Stanford, to get to Texas without ties or great grades. This is especially true with Stanford because they do not have an established Texas alumni network.

[katch]

Firms aren't going to balk at YHS grads just because the student isn't from Texas.

you are equivocating UCLA's reach with that of YHS.

No I'm not. I'm challenging your implication that a Stanford grad would need ties to get out of state. A lower ranked school ought to be able to with ties.

I can't speak for Stanford, but at Chicago Texas firms' attitudes to no ties varied widely. Some were completely unwilling to take anyone, no matter how high their GPA was or what journal they were on (most). Others, like Baker Botts, took nearly 10% of Chicago's class on callbacks. However, most of these people had ties or a really high GPA. Chicago may be an outlier though, we have an extensive conservative alumni network with a lot of ties at Texas firms. I believe it is our fourth market behind NY, Chicago, and California. These firms seemed to read "family," or "Christian," or "FedSoc" as proxies for "Texan."

IMO, it would be a bad bet to assume that you can use levy a national school, even Yale or Stanford, to get to Texas without ties or great grades. This is especially true with Stanford because they do not have an established Texas alumni network.

So you're saying 'ties'(this just means family in the area? What else is a 'tie'?) is not really a big deal or anything? Hardly a deciding or enabling factor most of the time?

Edit: I'm from Texas and have my parents and 5 older brothers and sisters, all with kids, here. I'm trying to figure out what this means for me. Does it enable me to do something special? Is it basically irrelevant?