UC Hastings v.s. Santa Clara? Forum

[tbesancon]

If you are really set on not retaking the LSAT and are even more certain that you want to be in CA, I would look at Davis over SC or UCH. Its a T30 and has better employment statistics. At least you would get in-state tuition as well. But to echo everyone else, you really should just retake the test. Manhattan books are like $40 (probably cheaper on Amazon) and you can just self study. You're wasting a great gpa.

"T30" isn't a meaningful distinction in any way.

Better than SC which is ~100 and right down the road from Stanford and an hour away from Berkeley. Davis at least has Sac.

[ManoftheHour]

If you are really set on not retaking the LSAT and are even more certain that you want to be in CA, I would look at Davis over SC or UCH. Its a T30 and has better employment statistics. At least you would get in-state tuition as well. But to echo everyone else, you really should just retake the test. Manhattan books are like $40 (probably cheaper on Amazon) and you can just self study. You're wasting a great gpa.

LMAO. Instate tuition in CA is TTT as fuck. All UCs cost like 45k/yr. On tuition. Alone. Out of state is like 55k.

I knew it was expensive for in-state but I didn't realize that there was the little of a difference between in state and out of state for the UC system.

It's ridiculous. Who the f@#$ pays 55k/yr on tuition alone for Yu See HasTTTTings and Yu See Davis?! Granted, you'll get instate after living one year in CA.

[Big Dog]

f you are really set on not retaking the LSAT...

Then you should forego LS and head over to Starbucks and apply now.

[BigZuck]

Neither.

Santa Clara's employment stats are inflated by tech companies who send their employees to law school so they can immediately return to work in house IP after they graduate. I'm assuming UCH has a similar phenomenon.

If you can't get into a T14, I'd choose Davis and then McGeorge. The greater Sacramento area isn't nearly as competitive as the Bay and you would probably have a better chance of lateraling into SF from Sac than getting a job straight out of UCH.

Plus the cost of living is so much less and Davis is a really pleasant area.

wut

No.

[PepperJack]

Coolio folks. Can't disclose my softs because it would make it apparent who I am for people who know me or have read my application

Anyway, we'll have to see. It's funny how much emphasis is on retake. Anyone here actually happy with their law school and that their law school isn't a T-14?

I'm going to go out on a limb and say that the vast majority of people who have legitimately strong softs are also not the type who would take the LSAT once and be happy with a 159 and look at the career prospects for someone coming out of a school like Hastings and say "Yup, sign me up for that!" Maybe I'm just naive (I'm probably just naive?) but I would think that most people with legitimately strong softs (PhDs and other high level academic achievements, people with strong community involvement, military experience, etc.) would be strivers and (over?)achievers and people who are willing to work hard to attain a goal such as getting into the best law school that they can rather than just settle for whatever TTT is willing to take their hard-earned student loan money.

And for the record I do not attend a T14 and I am very happy with my law school choice.

What was your reasoning for a school that isn't T14 if you don't mind me asking?

And yes I'm aware I haven't presented the thread with a real reason for these two schools alone. It was just a curiosity of comparison. Wasn't really seeking to get the approval for why I choose one or another. Just wanted to hear people's thoughts for the time being.

Full disclosure: my school is a T15 and sometimes a T14

But...it was cheaper than my T14 options. The debt load I would have from a T14 would necessitate big law while at UT I won't have to get big law if I can't/don't want it because my debt load should be manageable on a relatively small salary. I knew my career prospects we taking a hit but not such a huge hit that the so called "prestigious" jobs were totally unattainable. Plus I also had personal/family reasons for staying in Texas.

Anyway that's not particularly helpful for your situation. The problem you're going to have is the CA legal market is bad and over saturated and you have really painted yourself into a corner if you insist on attending law school in Northern CA because, in my opinion, there are only two schools in that region that justify the cost/opportunity cost of attending and those two schools happen to be two of the most notoriously difficult schools to get in to/predict who will get in. If you can broaden your geographical consideration (and retake the LSAT, which is mandatory IMO) then you can start to consider schools that would make this venture worthwhile. But if you can't or won't at the very least retake then you're almost certainly better off just not going to law school and finding something else to do.

Any chance you can parlay your softs into a different career or continue the work that those softs have to do with? For example, if you're a community organizer can you work for some organization in a non-legal capacity?

Basically, I'm just saying to be careful about backing yourself into a corner when you don't have to. You have plenty of options, you don't HAVE to attend a crappy law school.

Zuck, did you take a law preview course in 2011? I think I may have had a falafel sandwich with you.

I would say you shouldn't be a slave to rankings to OP. If you go to TX but need to be in so-cal, you're going to be in worse shape than if you went to USC.

[BigZuck]

Zuck, did you take a law preview course in 2011? I think I may have had a falafel sandwich with you.

wut

No.

[BigZuck]

I would say you shouldn't be a slave to rankings to OP. If you go to TX but need to be in so-cal, you're going to be in worse shape than if you went to USC.

I'm not sure I understand what you're saying here, was this directed at the OP? It doesn't sound like the OP will be a slave to rankings at all, the OP is just looking at schools in Northern CA. Doesn't sound like they will be all "Oh, Georgia is ranked higher than Santa Clara!" and pack up and go to UGA.

[Moonlight]

Content Deleted

[jordan15]

Neither.

Santa Clara's employment stats are inflated by tech companies who send their employees to law school so they can immediately return to work in house IP after they graduate. I'm assuming UCH has a similar phenomenon.

If you can't get into a T14, I'd choose Davis and then McGeorge. The greater Sacramento area isn't nearly as competitive as the Bay and you would probably have a better chance of lateraling into SF from Sac than getting a job straight out of UCH.

Plus the cost of living is so much less and Davis is a really pleasant area.

The thing about Davis is that I wouldn't have the option to live at home. With UCH and SCU I can live at home if need be. But I am curious now that you mention it, what people think of Davis? It's rank is higher than UCH and it surprised me because I hadn't previously heard much about the school.

Oh, ok that makes a significant difference in debt. I'd still choose Davis over Hastings though...I have a few friends who went to Hastings and let's just say none of them are attorneys. One had a part time legal job that she had to supplement with double shifts waitressing to cover her bills. Yuck. My friends in Sacramento, however, are comfortable, and the Davis and McGeorge are the only schools (I think) for the entire area stretching to Reno, Modesto, and Woodland.

Have you ever been to Davis? It's a really lovely college town, and you'd have all of the amenities of a large university vs Hastings (gym, multiple libraries, etc). The weather is so much better than SF and the housing is all fairly new and cheap.

There's also a cheap/free shuttle for UC students that runs from UCB to UCD so you have another travel option to see your family aside from car or Amtrak.

[BigZuck]

The above poster is leading you astray (or trolling you). Davis is no better than Hastings (and I would argue worse because the market it feeds into is less desireable than Hastings').

Outside of maybe some very rare circumstances, the only schools worth attending in CA are Stanford, Berkeley, UCLA, and USC. Maaaaaaybe UCI (sorry Dre). The rest just don't justify the cost/job prospects.

[hiima3L]

Neither.

Santa Clara's employment stats are inflated by tech companies who send their employees to law school so they can immediately return to work in house IP after they graduate. I'm assuming UCH has a similar phenomenon.

If you can't get into a T14, I'd choose Davis and then McGeorge. The greater Sacramento area isn't nearly as competitive as the Bay and you would probably have a better chance of lateraling into SF from Sac than getting a job straight out of UCH.

Plus the cost of living is so much less and Davis is a really pleasant area.

The thing about Davis is that I wouldn't have the option to live at home. With UCH and SCU I can live at home if need be. But I am curious now that you mention it, what people think of Davis? It's rank is higher than UCH and it surprised me because I hadn't previously heard much about the school.

It is essentially identical to UCH except COL is much cheaper. Those rankings do not matter whatsoever.

[Moonlight]

Content Deleted

[20160810]

Davis and Hastings have identical job placement prospects and you save a boatload of living cost money in Davis. Living in SF is more fun of course, but if your priority is savings (which it should be at any of these schools), then there's no great reason to go to UCH (this is assuming OP applied to and got into UCD and UCH - generally people choose between the two and get into both).

Of the two schools mentioned, I'd go to UCH and drop out if you don't finish 1L in the top quarter (srs).

[hiima3L]

Davis and Hastings have identical job placement prospects and you save a boatload of living cost money in Davis. Living in SF is more fun of course, but if your priority is savings (which it should be at any of these schools), then there's no great reason to go to UCH (this is assuming OP applied to and got into UCD and UCH - generally people choose between the two and get into both).

Of the two schools mentioned, I'd go to UCH and drop out if you don't finish 1L in the top quarter (srs).

Top 25% means nothing. You need to be in the top 10%, maybe top 15%.

I know plenty of people who were top 25% after 1L (and top 10-15% at graduation) who didn't get anything through OCI. Only about 10% get big law. Some are still looking for jobs 18 months out.

[Moonlight]

Content Deleted

[BigZuck]

Davis and Hastings have identical job placement prospects and you save a boatload of living cost money in Davis. Living in SF is more fun of course, but if your priority is savings (which it should be at any of these schools), then there's no great reason to go to UCH (this is assuming OP applied to and got into UCD and UCH - generally people choose between the two and get into both).

Of the two schools mentioned, I'd go to UCH and drop out if you don't finish 1L in the top quarter (srs).

Top 25% means nothing. You need to be in the top 10%, maybe top 15%.

I know plenty of people who were top 25% after 1L (and top 10-15% at graduation) who didn't get anything through OCI. Only about 10% get big law. Some are still looking for jobs 18 months out.

Big law aside, are OCI not encompassing in house stuff or small and medium firms? I know a lawyer who works small firm and gets $10,000 a month (no joke) I'm talking small like 3 lawyers.

For me cost saving would mean UCD has to offer me enough to offset the package UCH offers and the COL because I can live at home if I go to UCH but the problem is the commute can be pretty expensive too.

When did this lawyer graduate law school?

Less than 50% of the class gets lawyer jobs 9 months out, let alone high paying lawyer jobs. You have to look at odds and probabilities, not one dude. I know you feel like you're special but you're probably just a normal dude like the rest of us.

In another thread it sounded like you're a young K-JDer, you sure you have the softs/life experience to assume that you're special and will continue to be so during and after law school?

[hiima3L]

Davis and Hastings have identical job placement prospects and you save a boatload of living cost money in Davis. Living in SF is more fun of course, but if your priority is savings (which it should be at any of these schools), then there's no great reason to go to UCH (this is assuming OP applied to and got into UCD and UCH - generally people choose between the two and get into both).

Of the two schools mentioned, I'd go to UCH and drop out if you don't finish 1L in the top quarter (srs).

Top 25% means nothing. You need to be in the top 10%, maybe top 15%.

I know plenty of people who were top 25% after 1L (and top 10-15% at graduation) who didn't get anything through OCI. Only about 10% get big law. Some are still looking for jobs 18 months out.

Big law aside, are OCI not encompassing in house stuff or small and medium firms? I know a lawyer who works small firm and gets $10,000 a month (no joke) I'm talking small like 3 lawyers.

For me cost saving would mean UCD has to offer me enough to offset the package UCH offers and the COL because I can live at home if I go to UCH but the problem is the commute can be pretty expensive too.

I know way more unemployed and very underemployed recent law grads and lawyers.

[Moonlight]

Content Deleted

[Moonlight]

Content Deleted

[BigZuck]

Moonlight, you said you know a lawyer at a small firm making 10K a month, when did he graduate law school? And why would that one anecdote be more valuable than statistics?

[20160810]

Davis and Hastings have identical job placement prospects and you save a boatload of living cost money in Davis. Living in SF is more fun of course, but if your priority is savings (which it should be at any of these schools), then there's no great reason to go to UCH (this is assuming OP applied to and got into UCD and UCH - generally people choose between the two and get into both).

Of the two schools mentioned, I'd go to UCH and drop out if you don't finish 1L in the top quarter (srs).

Top 25% means nothing. You need to be in the top 10%, maybe top 15%.

I know plenty of people who were top 25% after 1L (and top 10-15% at graduation) who didn't get anything through OCI. Only about 10% get big law. Some are still looking for jobs 18 months out.

Eh, I was about top quarter after 1L and stuck the landing. Might not get biglaw off the bat but you'll land something decent with good personal skills and a little hustle.

[rickgrimes69]

Like everyone else said, neither of these schools is worth spending a penny to attend. Frankly, IMO no school in CA south of USC/UCLA is worth paying for.

Retake the LSAT or don't go. FWIW, I also self-studied and improved my score 18 points over my diagnostic. A 159 is not the best you can do.

[OneMoreLawHopeful]

Davis and Hastings have identical job placement prospects and you save a boatload of living cost money in Davis. Living in SF is more fun of course, but if your priority is savings (which it should be at any of these schools), then there's no great reason to go to UCH (this is assuming OP applied to and got into UCD and UCH - generally people choose between the two and get into both).

This is a superficial analysis, and it has the potential to lead astray as per Hastings v. Davis.

Hastings has better biglaw placement than Davis does (13.3% v. 11.3% for 2012 per LST). The difference between 13.3 and 11.3 sounds small, until you consider class size. In 2012, Hastings had 443 grads, and Davis had 202. This means that Hastings sent ~60 students into biglaw vs. Davis' ~20. Speaking as a student at UC Hastings, this makes a HUGE difference in terms of alumni networks. I can remember interviewing with SF/SV biglaw offices during OCI and having attorneys tell me that legitimately did not know UC Davis even had a law school, but all of them knew about Hastings, and most had at least one coworker who had gone to Hastings.

Throw in the fact that 50% of Davis' grads end up in Sacramento, and comparing the job outcomes looks even more stark since the vast majority of law students don't want to spend their lives in Sacramento.

Throw in the fact that Davis' tuition is $6k/year higher, even for in-state residents, and it's not even clear that you would come out ahead financially. Neither school is known for giving out huge grants, so it's not like Davis's financial aid is going to save you that money either.

To the OP: I'm a 3L at Hastings, and I'd be happy to answer any questions you have. Feel free to PM me if you want.

[jordan15]

To be fair, everyone who has ever heard of UC Hastings is well aware it has a law school because it is *only* a law school. UC Davis is a huge university with a lot of really well respected UG and grad programs in addition to its very small law school.

Is there biglaw in the greater Sacramento area?

[OneMoreLawHopeful]

To be fair, everyone who has ever heard of UC Hastings is well aware it has a law school because it is *only* a law school. UC Davis is a huge university with a lot of really well respected UG and grad programs in addition to its very small law school.

Is there biglaw in the greater Sacramento area?

Riiight, but the point is that the average SF biglaw office has someone in it who went to Hastings, the same simply cannot be said for Davis.

A handful of biglaw firms have offices in Sacramento, I know offhand that both MoFo and Orrick have offices there. However, it's not uncommon for Sacramento offices to pay less than market (120-145 instead of 160). CoL is less too, though.