Top Law Schools

But seriously though Kronk, sounds like you go to Cal. How much better is Cal for California big law than going to another T14 and trying to get back with CA ties? That is really important for this discussion.

BigZuck wrote:But seriously though Kronk, sounds like you go to Cal. How much better is Cal for California big law than going to another T14 and trying to get back with CA ties? That is really important for this discussion.

Much better. Especially considering the OP said they wanted to eventually get into PI. Do you know how few jobs there are here? I don't think 0Ls like yourself have any clue about the scarcity of SAs in California. Claiming 60K at Penn--a peer school of Berkeley--is somehow superior to the same amount at Boalt is insane. The amount of California employers you would come into contact with being at Berkeley alone would make it the better choice, even at slightly more expensive than Penn. Berkeley is also a better choice than NYU for that type of thing. Than the lower T14? Way better. Cornell's biglaw numbers are solid because they place mostly into NYC. Gotta put those things in perspective.

I took Berkeley over Chicago w/ 75K and UVa w/ 90K. Choices like that just aren't objective. The amount of 0L stock advice (entire source: other TLS posts) is nauseating, plus people love to hate on Cal for their admission process. It gets old. I doubt anyone here wishes they were at Penn unless their family or boyfriend is in Philly or something.

lampshade0520 wrote:

ManoftheHour wrote:

BigZuck wrote:I'm not saying don't go to Cal. I'm saying retake the LSAT when there is no downside but possible upside. If they don't score higher, then just go to Cal.

I don't get what there is to argue about. How is this wrong? Let's say OP gets a 120. Go to Berkeley. Let's say he gets a 175. Reconsider, but he can still go to Berkeley if he wants. Unless he's making significant cash or has other things to commit to right now, I don't see why he should leave a retake on the table.

I guess I could retake but it's hard for me to do all that studying again esp since I pretty much ran out of practice tests and haven't ever consistently hit above 170 (never even cracked 172) and i worked my ass off for this test. Maybe now that the pressure is off a bit I could perform better on test day, but it's not like i was hitting high scores even in my PTs. And say I did get a few points higher, best outcomes like others have listed don't seem THAT much more appealing than the offer i have now. not to mention, i'd have to pay for all those applications again and take another year off slaving as an underpaid legal asst. i know i don't HAVE to go to law school in the fall, but i'd really like to. but on the flip side, would i regret not exhausting every last option i have?

You can go to law school this fall and exhaust every last option that you have. Both.

You don't have to take a year off to take the June LSAT. IF you take a year off, that would only mean your LSAT was significantly better to justify another year. That's a GOOD thing. Let's say you got a 177. You then have the option of eating your deposit at Berkeley (or deferring) and taking another year off for next cycle OR still going to Berkeley in the fall. You paid your deposit. There's no reason why you can't still go this fall. Keep in mind that you don't have to take the next cycle, even if you score well. You don't have to pay for all those apps again if you don't want to. You'd only do it if you feel that your new score puts you in a different position. If you get a 169, then fuck it. Go to Berkeley. But what if you get a 175? A 176? A 177? Damn. And if you don't do well, that point is moot. Just go to Berkeley this fall.

The point is, you have a choice if you do well. And absolutely nothing to lose if you bomb it. At the very least, you'll have peace of mind. You gave the LSAT your maximum tries, used every PT ever, and at worst, you'll be attending Berkeley with 60k this fall. That's an enviable position to be in.

you want to be in SF? Take the money at Boalt. (Academic probation for too many W's puts that 3.75 into major question. Few T14 LS will be so forgiving at Boalt).

This is a no-brainer.

OP are you URM?

Kronk wrote:

BigZuck wrote:But seriously though Kronk, sounds like you go to Cal. How much better is Cal for California big law than going to another T14 and trying to get back with CA ties? That is really important for this discussion.

Much better. Especially considering the OP said they wanted to eventually get into PI. Do you know how few jobs there are here? I don't think 0Ls like yourself have any clue about the scarcity of SAs in California. Claiming 60K at Penn--a peer school of Berkeley--is somehow superior to the same amount at Boalt is insane. The amount of California employers you would come into contact with being at Berkeley alone would make it the better choice, even at slightly more expensive than Penn. Berkeley is also a better choice than NYU for that type of thing. Than the lower T14? Way better. Cornell's biglaw numbers are solid because they place mostly into NYC. Gotta put those things in perspective.

I took Berkeley over Chicago w/ 75K and UVa w/ 90K. Choices like that just aren't objective. The amount of 0L stock advice (entire source: other TLS posts) is nauseating, plus people love to hate on Cal for their admission process. It gets old. I doubt anyone here wishes they were at Penn unless their family or boyfriend is in Philly or something.

Dude, he wants a firm job then to transition into PI. I took that to mean big law and assumed he was going to try and go the big law/OCI route not on the ground Northern CA PI hustling. I was looking at it from the perspective of him maximizing big law chances and minimizing debt/risk.

So Berkeley's CA big law chances are "much better?" How do you quantify this much betterness? Likely from median but unlikely from median at other lower T14 schools? That needs to be known. Because his better option might be going to a school like NU or Cornell for cheaper because his big law chances in general (meaning NY big law) will not be diminished and his debt will be lower. Yes, CA big law chances might be hurt but this needs to be quantified because if it is only a slight hit to those chances he very well may be better off somewhere else.

Also stop being so butt hurt. I love Cal, not hating on it at all Broseidon.

Edit: for dum spelling

wow, considering all circumstances, boalt is the answer here.

go there and enjoy it.

Dr. Dre wrote:OP are you URM?

nope

Dr. Dre wrote:Cornell or NYU > Berkeley

As usual, nothing you write is worth reading.

Zuck bro, Cal is far better than Penn at the same cost for CA Biglaw, and those are the employers I was talking about, my dude. Not PI firms. My point was that if he really wants to go into PI after a few years of biglaw, that even furthers the fact that Cal is the right choice considering the school is geared that direction and has amazing connections with them. You don't stop using the CDO just because you've graduated. Big Dog's post is credited. This is a no brainer.

Real Madrid wrote:

Dr. Dre wrote:Cornell or NYU > Berkeley

As usual, nothing you write is worth reading.

h8rs gunna h8

Kronk wrote:Zuck bro, Cal is far better than Penn at the same cost for CA Biglaw, and those are the employers I was talking about, my dude. Not PI firms. My point was that if he really wants to go into PI after a few years of biglaw, that even furthers the fact that Cal is the right choice considering the school is geared that direction and has amazing connections with them. You don't stop using the CDO just because you've graduated. Big Dog's post is credited. This is a no brainer.

How do we know Cal is better for CA big law then Penn (aside from the fact that you say so)? Quantify it. Give us something concrete. Anything.

I don't doubt that you're right. But just saying "it's better" doesn't mean someone should go there no matter what. There might be better options. Maybe those options somewhat limit the chances of getting CA big law. But they keep the same chances of getting big law, period, and they lower debt which thus lowers the risk of striking out. And there are plenty of people striking out at Cal. There's no guaranteed big law from there like Whiskey claims there is.

you tell em' BigZuck

BigZuck wrote: How do we know Cal is better for CA big law then Penn (aside from the fact that you say so)? Quantify it. Give us something concrete. Anything.

According to this sentiment, the only thing concrete is data and so all you have to do is:

Go hit up the top CA biglaw firms and see if you see more Berkeley or Penn grads.

sinfiery wrote:
Go hit up the top CA biglaw firms and see if you see more Berkeley or Penn grads.

eh, this is problematic. I think what we need to know is how many Penn grads decide to do big law in California. If 30 Penn grads apply for California big law jobs and only 27 get it, that's 90 %. But if 150 berkeley grads apply and only 115 get it that's 76%.


I'd rather go for Penn here than berkeley. In short, #'s in CA big law firms don't tell us anything.

Dr. Dre wrote: eh, this is problematic. I think what we need to know is how many Penn grads decide to do big law in California. If 30 Penn grads apply for California big law jobs and only 27 get it, that's 90 %. But if 150 berkeley grads apply and only 115 get it that's 76%.


I'd rather go for Penn here than berkeley. In short, #'s in CA big law firms don't tell us anything.

yep

the data we have is full of holes
the data we want doesn't exist

so we are subject to the wise words 1L/2L/3L/grads give us

Don't ask for something better. It doesn't exist.

Ok, thanks for the reality check

sinfiery wrote:

BigZuck wrote: How do we know Cal is better for CA big law then Penn (aside from the fact that you say so)? Quantify it. Give us something concrete. Anything.

According to this sentiment, the only thing concrete is data and so all you have to do is:

Go hit up the top CA biglaw firms and see if you see more Berkeley or Penn grads.

Because I am heavily invested in working in SF/SV after I graduate, I've done some work and went through the V1-V50 firms' directories with SF/SV offices and totaled the number of associates from schools I am considering who work in those offices.

Here are the results so far for the Bay Area offices of the top 50 firms:
UPenn 45
Boalt 237

Let me know if you'd like to see more detailed breakdowns (for more of the T14, by firm, etc.)

sinfiery wrote:

BigZuck wrote: How do we know Cal is better for CA big law then Penn (aside from the fact that you say so)? Quantify it. Give us something concrete. Anything.

According to this sentiment, the only thing concrete is data and so all you have to do is:

Go hit up the top CA biglaw firms and see if you see more Berkeley or Penn grads.

I don't really know what you could do other than compare grade cut offs at different schools. The general rule of thumb from people at places like NU and Cornell is you need around top 3rd plus ties to get back to CA. Kronk should at least know what cut offs are like for Cal grads at CA firms. Is it the same? Top half? Even if it is as much as top half there is still a significant risk of striking out.

To me, just saying you want CA big law+ get into Cal with scholarship= go to Cal and don't look back is not enough. If I were the OP and really liked the idea of going to school back east for a few years I would want to see if that's a possibility. Also if there were another option that could mitigate some of the risk of going to law school I would want to explore that too. And if there were some chance I could get into a place like Harvard or Columbia with money I would want to give that a shot too. And retaking the LSAT is a risk free way to do all that.

I know for a fact you can get BigLaw regardless of grades at Cal. Obviously the better your grades are the better your chances. But I know tons of people with BigLaw in CA with poor grades here. While Dr. "FGCU is a better basketball job than USC" Dre can say whatevs, nothing really replaces A.) the larger alumni network B.) the fact that more CA firms have receptions / give more attention / do more recruiting at Boalt C.) the people you will meet here will be better references for your work in CA D.) in most clinics here you will work directly with CA firms and attorneys.

They're peer schools. If Penn is slightly better at placing BigLaw attorneys, I think the better explanation is the wealth of east coast markets and the fact that the New York market is doing much better than most other cities. I doubt a single firm over here considers Penn a better school than Berkeley.

BigZuck wrote:

sinfiery wrote:

BigZuck wrote: How do we know Cal is better for CA big law then Penn (aside from the fact that you say so)? Quantify it. Give us something concrete. Anything.

According to this sentiment, the only thing concrete is data and so all you have to do is:

Go hit up the top CA biglaw firms and see if you see more Berkeley or Penn grads.

I don't really know what you could do other than compare grade cut offs at different schools. The general rule of thumb from people at places like NU and Cornell is you need around top 3rd plus ties to get back to CA. Kronk should at least know what cut offs are like for Cal grads at CA firms. Is it the same? Top half? Even if it is as much as top half there is still a significant risk of striking out.

To me, just saying you want CA big law+ get into Cal with scholarship= go to Cal and don't look back is not enough. If I were the OP and really liked the idea of going to school back east for a few years I would want to see if that's a possibility. Also if there were another option that could mitigate some of the risk of going to law school I would want to explore that too. And if there were some chance I could get into a place like Harvard or Columbia with money I would want to give that a shot too. And retaking the LSAT is a risk free way to do all that.

If you think grade cutoffs for law firms work this way, you shouldn't be contributing to the discussion.

Penn also has a secondary market at Penn that helps inflate its biglaw numbers but the fact that Penn places well in Pennsylvania biglaw probably doesn't impress CA biglaw even .001%.

Kronk wrote:I know for a fact you can get BigLaw regardless of grades at Cal. Obviously the better your grades are the better your chances. But I know tons of people with BigLaw in CA with poor grades here. While Dr. "FGCU is a better basketball job than USC" Dre can say whatevs, nothing really replaces A.) the larger alumni network B.) the fact that more CA firms have receptions / give more attention / do more recruiting at Boalt C.) the people you will meet here will be better references for your work in CA D.) in most clinics here you will work directly with CA firms and attorneys.

They're peer schools. If Penn is slightly better at placing BigLaw attorneys, I think the better explanation is the wealth of east coast markets and the fact that the New York market is doing much better than most other cities. I doubt a single firm over here considers Penn a better school than Berkeley.

If grades don't matter why isn't employment closer to 100%? Poor interviewing skills? Never wanted to be a lawyer to begin with?

dixiecupdrinking wrote:

BigZuck wrote:

sinfiery wrote:

BigZuck wrote: How do we know Cal is better for CA big law then Penn (aside from the fact that you say so)? Quantify it. Give us something concrete. Anything.

According to this sentiment, the only thing concrete is data and so all you have to do is:

Go hit up the top CA biglaw firms and see if you see more Berkeley or Penn grads.

I don't really know what you could do other than compare grade cut offs at different schools. The general rule of thumb from people at places like NU and Cornell is you need around top 3rd plus ties to get back to CA. Kronk should at least know what cut offs are like for Cal grads at CA firms. Is it the same? Top half? Even if it is as much as top half there is still a significant risk of striking out.

To me, just saying you want CA big law+ get into Cal with scholarship= go to Cal and don't look back is not enough. If I were the OP and really liked the idea of going to school back east for a few years I would want to see if that's a possibility. Also if there were another option that could mitigate some of the risk of going to law school I would want to explore that too. And if there were some chance I could get into a place like Harvard or Columbia with money I would want to give that a shot too. And retaking the LSAT is a risk free way to do all that.

If you think grade cutoffs for law firms work this way, you shouldn't be contributing to the discussion.

Obviously I have a lot to learn. Teach me.

BigZuck wrote:

Kronk wrote:I know for a fact you can get BigLaw regardless of grades at Cal. Obviously the better your grades are the better your chances. But I know tons of people with BigLaw in CA with poor grades here. While Dr. "FGCU is a better basketball job than USC" Dre can say whatevs, nothing really replaces A.) the larger alumni network B.) the fact that more CA firms have receptions / give more attention / do more recruiting at Boalt C.) the people you will meet here will be better references for your work in CA D.) in most clinics here you will work directly with CA firms and attorneys.

They're peer schools. If Penn is slightly better at placing BigLaw attorneys, I think the better explanation is the wealth of east coast markets and the fact that the New York market is doing much better than most other cities. I doubt a single firm over here considers Penn a better school than Berkeley.

If grades don't matter why isn't employment closer to 100%? Poor interviewing skills? Never wanted to be a lawyer to begin with?

There is just a lot more that goes into hiring than people on TLS acknowledge. It's not like the top 55-60% of a class get BigLaw and the other 40-45% scramble. Some people in the top 20% get shut out. Some people in the bottom 20% get jobs. Some people at the median get shut out, some people get jobs.