UT vs. UCLA vs. Berkeley

(Rankings, Profiles, Tuition, Student Life, . . . )
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 10:47 pm

there is indeed a possibility but it's like 10%

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 10:49 pm

irrelevant

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 10:49 pm

katch wrote:
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?


I'm not the best one to ask, as I only lived in Texas for a short while before applying to Texas firms. Nevertheless, my intuition is that if you are looking at Oil and Gas Transactional in Houston, being from anywhere in Texas with interest in the practice may suffice. However, they need more bodies because this area is booming right now. As for traditional corporate, litigation, and specialty practices, a tie means having grown up in that metro/living within 6-8 hours of that metro and having your immediate family living there.

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 10:54 pm

Dr. Dre wrote:there is indeed a possibility but it's like 10%


I agree. 10% chance of getting each Texas biglaw callback if you are numerically qualified at a national school without ties. You only get so many bids at OCI. New York and markets where you have ties are much more likely to get you a job than burning them on Texas attempts. Especially because you can't control the composition of Texans in your class. Plus, callbacks will be very hard, as most of those interviewing you will be from Texas. Great way to strike out.

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

Re: UT vs. UCLA vs. Berkeley

Postby katch » Mon Mar 18, 2013 10:57 pm

TaipeiMort wrote:
katch wrote:
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?


I'm not the best one to ask, as I only lived in Texas for a short while before applying to Texas firms. Nevertheless, my intuition is that if you are looking at Oil and Gas Transactional in Houston, being from anywhere in Texas with interest in the practice may suffice. However, they need more bodies because this area is booming right now. As for traditional corporate, litigation, and specialty practices, a tie means having grown up in that metro/living within 6-8 hours of that metro and having your immediate family living there.


OK, I've got that in Dallas. Born and raised, high school, First job after high school, Parents, 2 siblings with kids, tons of friends (not lawyers necessarily). So I could get into Dallas corporate if I did reasonably well with grades at an out of state school?

User avatar
J-e-L-L-o
Posts: 418
Joined: Sun Dec 04, 2011 8:42 am

Re: UT vs. UCLA vs. Berkeley

Postby J-e-L-L-o » Mon Mar 18, 2013 11:02 pm

Check firms websites for the representative sample of schools they went to. Check hiring date also because shit has changed dramatically.

If you go on 5 of the biggest Dallas' firms and there aint nobody from the school that you want to go to...well gee I wonder what that means

Scholarship money don't mean jack if it won't get you hired where you want to go. Law school is a gamble. If you're not ready for the odds and can't roll the dice, then don't go to LAWLschool

User avatar
J-e-L-L-o
Posts: 418
Joined: Sun Dec 04, 2011 8:42 am

Re: UT vs. UCLA vs. Berkeley

Postby J-e-L-L-o » Mon Mar 18, 2013 11:09 pm

Don't just rely on TLS. Do some research

http://www.law.com/jsp/tx/PubArticleTX. ... 0218230812

*holy fuck thats old, but damnit you get what I mean*
Last edited by J-e-L-L-o on Mon Mar 18, 2013 11:13 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Aawaldrop
Posts: 251
Joined: Thu Nov 01, 2012 11:28 am

Re: UT vs. UCLA vs. Berkeley

Postby Aawaldrop » Mon Mar 18, 2013 11:12 pm

I think it comes down to a very simple thing. If you want to work in Texas then you should go to UT (given your options). Do you have a better reason to tell firms in Texas why you went to UCLA other than the west side and weather?

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

Re: UT vs. UCLA vs. Berkeley

Postby katch » Mon Mar 18, 2013 11:15 pm

J-e-L-L-o wrote:Check firms websites for the representative sample of schools they went to. Check hiring date also because shit has changed dramatically.

If you go on 5 of the biggest Dallas' firms and there aint nobody from the school that you want to go to...well gee I wonder what that means

Scholarship money don't mean jack if it won't get you hired where you want to go. Law school is a gamble. If you're not ready for the odds and can't roll the dice, then don't go to LAWLschool


Well there were three at the largest. The next four wouldnt let me filter by school and I don't feel like clicking on every single name right now to check. Maybe later. Does 3/114 sound like enough? With ties? The firm has an LA-Century City office with almost all UCLA grads.

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

Re: UT vs. UCLA vs. Berkeley

Postby katch » Mon Mar 18, 2013 11:21 pm

Aawaldrop wrote:I think it comes down to a very simple thing. If you want to work in Texas then you should go to UT (given your options). Do you have a better reason to tell firms in Texas why you went to UCLA other than the west side and weather?


Saving $20k? lol Im disappointed that I've come across that way. UCLA is cheaper. I was always planning on UT because I assumed they'd do what they told me: "match the out of pocket tuition costs" But they didn't and UCLA ended up quite a bit cheaper and with a preferred climate (lets not dwell on this point)

User avatar
J-e-L-L-o
Posts: 418
Joined: Sun Dec 04, 2011 8:42 am

Re: UT vs. UCLA vs. Berkeley

Postby J-e-L-L-o » Mon Mar 18, 2013 11:27 pm

UCLA job prospects aren't good enough to get you out of state unless you have top grades. I personally would only pick it for a job in SoCal only.

A retake might be TCR for more money if that is the concern. Why didn't you apply to Houston or SMU?

User avatar
Aawaldrop
Posts: 251
Joined: Thu Nov 01, 2012 11:28 am

Re: UT vs. UCLA vs. Berkeley

Postby Aawaldrop » Mon Mar 18, 2013 11:28 pm

katch wrote:
Aawaldrop wrote:I think it comes down to a very simple thing. If you want to work in Texas then you should go to UT (given your options). Do you have a better reason to tell firms in Texas why you went to UCLA other than the west side and weather?


Saving $20k? lol Im disappointed that I've come across that way. UCLA is cheaper. I was always planning on UT because I assumed they'd do what they told me: "match the out of pocket tuition costs" But they didn't and UCLA ended up quite a bit cheaper and with a preferred climate (lets not dwell on this point)


Would you mind sharing what numbers you used for COL for Austin and LA?
Also another thing to consider is the UT locks their tuition for the semester that you matriculate (ie no increases).

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

Re: UT vs. UCLA vs. Berkeley

Postby katch » Mon Mar 18, 2013 11:31 pm

J-e-L-L-o wrote:UCLA job prospects aren't good enough to get you out of state unless you have top grades. I personally would only pick it for a job in SoCal only.

A retake might be TCR for more money if that is the concern. Why didn't you apply to Houston or SMU?


lol I applied to SMU just as a safety. But if we're talking about job prospects.... ewww. My tuition scholarship at SMU doesnt mean anything to anyone because everyone knows SMU is in another league(lower). I also got full rides at GW and Minnesota. No one cares. USC is considering offering me more money after I submitted UCLA's but USC already offered me the same $120k

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 11:33 pm

Aawaldrop wrote:I think it comes down to a very simple thing. If you want to work in Texas then you should go to UT (given your options). Do you have a better reason to tell firms in Texas why you went to UCLA other than the west side and weather?


They gave me a huge scholarship.

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

Re: UT vs. UCLA vs. Berkeley

Postby katch » Mon Mar 18, 2013 11:34 pm

Aawaldrop wrote:
katch wrote:
Aawaldrop wrote:I think it comes down to a very simple thing. If you want to work in Texas then you should go to UT (given your options). Do you have a better reason to tell firms in Texas why you went to UCLA other than the west side and weather?


Saving $20k? lol Im disappointed that I've come across that way. UCLA is cheaper. I was always planning on UT because I assumed they'd do what they told me: "match the out of pocket tuition costs" But they didn't and UCLA ended up quite a bit cheaper and with a preferred climate (lets not dwell on this point)


Would you mind sharing what numbers you used for COL for Austin and LA?
Also another thing to consider is the UT locks their tuition for the semester that you matriculate (ie no increases).


Its all in the thread my friend. After some debate about details, Finally just went back and used what the schools publish themselves. Thats how I got the final 3 year COA for each of the schools. UT:16,700+2,000 for health insurance that isn't included. UCLA:20,500.

User avatar
WokeUpInACar
Posts: 5513
Joined: Tue Nov 01, 2011 11:11 pm

Re: UT vs. UCLA vs. Berkeley

Postby WokeUpInACar » Mon Mar 18, 2013 11:37 pm

Health insurance is included at UCLA? Also it's $1200/year at UT.

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 11:39 pm

Dr. Dre wrote: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.


Did California sleep with you girl or something. I've never seen such an irrational case of hate esp by someone who uses Dr. Dre as his avatar.

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

Re: UT vs. UCLA vs. Berkeley

Postby katch » Mon Mar 18, 2013 11:40 pm

WokeUpInACar wrote:Health insurance is included at UCLA? Also it's $1200/year at UT.


Yes, nearly every other school I look at includes health insurance in its COA estimate. The lady at UT said if I wasnt on my parents' insurance then I could apply to have my limit raised and buy it. Thank you for the info. So UT has narrowed the gap by $2400

User avatar
Aawaldrop
Posts: 251
Joined: Thu Nov 01, 2012 11:28 am

Re: UT vs. UCLA vs. Berkeley

Postby Aawaldrop » Mon Mar 18, 2013 11:41 pm

katch wrote:
Aawaldrop wrote:
katch wrote:
Aawaldrop wrote:I think it comes down to a very simple thing. If you want to work in Texas then you should go to UT (given your options). Do you have a better reason to tell firms in Texas why you went to UCLA other than the west side and weather?


Saving $20k? lol Im disappointed that I've come across that way. UCLA is cheaper. I was always planning on UT because I assumed they'd do what they told me: "match the out of pocket tuition costs" But they didn't and UCLA ended up quite a bit cheaper and with a preferred climate (lets not dwell on this point)


Would you mind sharing what numbers you used for COL for Austin and LA?
Also another thing to consider is the UT locks their tuition for the semester that you matriculate (ie no increases).


Its all in the thread my friend. After some debate about details, Finally just went back and used what the schools publish themselves. Thats how I got the final 3 year COA for each of the schools. UT:16,700+2,000 for health insurance that isn't included. UCLA:20,500.


Using those numbers and published tuitions I'm getting a difference of less than 10k

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

Re: UT vs. UCLA vs. Berkeley

Postby katch » Mon Mar 18, 2013 11:44 pm

Aawaldrop wrote:
Using those numbers and published tuitions I'm getting a difference of less than 10k


Many seem to be unaware that you become a CA resident after the first year. Add 12k to the difference

User avatar
WokeUpInACar
Posts: 5513
Joined: Tue Nov 01, 2011 11:11 pm

Re: UT vs. UCLA vs. Berkeley

Postby WokeUpInACar » Mon Mar 18, 2013 11:45 pm

katch wrote:
WokeUpInACar wrote:Health insurance is included at UCLA? Also it's $1200/year at UT.


Yes, nearly every other school I look at includes health insurance in its COA estimate. The lady at UT said if I wasnt on my parents' insurance then I could apply to have my limit raised and buy it. Thank you for the info. So UT has narrowed the gap by $2400

But I'm not sure how including it in the COA estimate makes it less expensive? I guess they don't let you take out as much in loans? But that doesn't mean it costs any more at UT right?

User avatar
J-e-L-L-o
Posts: 418
Joined: Sun Dec 04, 2011 8:42 am

Re: UT vs. UCLA vs. Berkeley

Postby J-e-L-L-o » Mon Mar 18, 2013 11:45 pm

katch wrote:I'm familiar with Austin: working in Round Rock right now and I have visited the campus a number of times over the years. I'm as proud as the next Texan to say that Austin is a great city and completely bucks any negative stereotypes someone may believe about Texas. That being said, LA and SF are still out in front as far as the incredibly subjective criteria that make a great city. I guess Im just trying to gauge cost/benefit here. Is there a substantial difference between my chances at biglaw between UT and UCLA? Are Berkeley's chances worth the added debt?


The thing is California and Texas are different markets and the schools service them separately. If you want to go to a school that will give you the flexibility in choosing markets, then your Michigan offer is the better option. UCLA will give you SoCal, and UT will give you Texas.

Thinking strategically, take the big scholarship and hedge your bets on Biglaw in SoCal. If you get it, work a few years and try to lateral out to Texas. I just don't understand what your end goal is OP.

User avatar
Aawaldrop
Posts: 251
Joined: Thu Nov 01, 2012 11:28 am

Re: UT vs. UCLA vs. Berkeley

Postby Aawaldrop » Mon Mar 18, 2013 11:47 pm

katch wrote:
Aawaldrop wrote:
Using those numbers and published tuitions I'm getting a difference of less than 10k


Many seem to be unaware that you become a CA resident after the first year. Add 12k to the difference

http://www.registrar.ucla.edu/residence/establish.htm
To establish California residence, an adult student at least 18 years of age must be a U.S. citizen, permanent resident, other immigrant, or eligible alien who meets all of the following requirements:

has been physically present in the state for 366 days prior to the residence determination date (RDD) of the term for which he or she wishes to be considered a resident
has the intent to make California his or her home (as opposed to coming to California for the purpose of attending school)
is financially independent (see note) if his or her parents are not California residents as defined by UC.
Note: The financial independence requirement makes it extremely difficult for most undergraduate students whose parents are not California residents, including students from community colleges and other post-secondary institutions within California, to qualify for classification as a resident at the University of California. Transfer students who were classified as residents of California at their previous school should not assume that they will be classified as residents at UCLA.

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

Re: UT vs. UCLA vs. Berkeley

Postby katch » Mon Mar 18, 2013 11:50 pm

WokeUpInACar wrote:
katch wrote:
WokeUpInACar wrote:Health insurance is included at UCLA? Also it's $1200/year at UT.


Yes, nearly every other school I look at includes health insurance in its COA estimate. The lady at UT said if I wasnt on my parents' insurance then I could apply to have my limit raised and buy it. Thank you for the info. So UT has narrowed the gap by $2400

But I'm not sure how including it in the COA estimate makes it less expensive? I guess they don't let you take out as much in loans? But that doesn't mean it costs any more at UT right?


It doesn't. It simply means that the reported COA at UT is less expensive than reality meaning the gap is narrower. UT is still cheaper CoL (and sticker price). UCLA's better scholarship outweighs all of that though making UCLA cheaper overall.

User avatar
WokeUpInACar
Posts: 5513
Joined: Tue Nov 01, 2011 11:11 pm

Re: UT vs. UCLA vs. Berkeley

Postby WokeUpInACar » Mon Mar 18, 2013 11:52 pm

I just can't fathom how the COL difference between Austin and Los Angeles could be <$2k/year




Return to “Choosing a Law School”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests