UC Hastings v.s. Santa Clara?

(Rankings, Profiles, Tuition, Student Life, . . . )
Moonlight
Posts: 753
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 2:19 am

Re: UC Hastings v.s. Santa Clara?

Postby Moonlight » Tue Oct 08, 2013 8:16 pm

Content Deleted
Last edited by Moonlight on Tue Oct 08, 2013 11:21 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Moonlight
Posts: 753
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 2:19 am

Re: UC Hastings v.s. Santa Clara?

Postby Moonlight » Tue Oct 08, 2013 8:16 pm

Content Deleted
Last edited by Moonlight on Tue Jun 30, 2015 10:01 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
MoMettaMonk
Posts: 513
Joined: Thu Jul 04, 2013 3:29 pm

Re: UC Hastings v.s. Santa Clara?

Postby MoMettaMonk » Tue Oct 08, 2013 8:21 pm

Moonlight wrote:
Nova wrote:
hiima3L wrote:Retake the LSAT.

+1

Are you studying for Dec?


No. Another LSAT class isn't in my budget right now, plus I already applied.


There have been plenty of people on this forum who never took a class and managed to improve drastically (5-10+ points). Even buying every PT ever made and the books that are most regularly recommended around here would run you less than what you'll pay on ONE MONTH of sticker debt from these schools once you graduate. Retaking the LSAT really is the most cost effective course of action for you.

BigZuck
Posts: 10865
Joined: Tue Sep 04, 2012 9:53 am

Re: UC Hastings v.s. Santa Clara?

Postby BigZuck » Tue Oct 08, 2013 8:24 pm

Moonlight wrote:
BigZuck wrote:Lots of misconceptions ITT unless schools have drastically changed their admissions tactics/scholarship offers.

165 will not get the OP into Berkeley. If the OP is a vanilla candidate (not strong softs/diversity) they are going to need a 170+, more realistically probably like a 172+ to have a good shot at Cal.

Also, I had a slightly higher LSAT and GPA when I applied to these two schools and I got 8.5K a year at Santa Clara and 11.5K at Hastings (which was the need grant that basically everyone got). Again, unless things have changed the OP won't get anything close to a worthwhile scholarship with those numbers.

Personally, I wouldn't go to either of those schools, period. I guess maybe if they were completely and totally free and you were ok with working at a small firm and you were locked in to staying in Northern CA then maybe you could roll the dice. I think Hastings is the better school in pretty much every way but the employment stats are too terrible to justify attending IMO.

Retake and if you're set on going to school in Northern CA then you have got to find a way in to Berkeley somehow (Stanford I assume will be virtually impossible).


lol Vanilla? That's creative. I'm Asian but we're not URM anymore this year so I guess it's the same thing as being White this year. And yea see again my problem with retaking is I doubt I'll get past 165 and certainly not 170 so its pointless to retake and still not get into Berkeley and waste my year.

I went to see Hastings today. Surprised by the condition of the area around them.


Asians have never been URM. They are actually ORM in law school so no boost there.

If you can't get in to Cal at a minimum and you insist on going to law school in Northern CA then don't go to law school.

If you're willing to go to a school outside of Northern CA and you insist on going to law school with a 159 then don't go to law school.

If you are willing to go to a school outside of Northern CA then retake the LSAT until you get a score that can get you a scholarship to a school worth attending. That would probably take about a 166 minimum.

Just out of curiosity, what specifically are your strong softs? If they really are strong that could really help at Cal. But if they're vanilla strong then they probably won't help at all.

BigZuck
Posts: 10865
Joined: Tue Sep 04, 2012 9:53 am

Re: UC Hastings v.s. Santa Clara?

Postby BigZuck » Tue Oct 08, 2013 8:27 pm

MoMettaMonk wrote:
Moonlight wrote:
Nova wrote:
hiima3L wrote:Retake the LSAT.

+1

Are you studying for Dec?


No. Another LSAT class isn't in my budget right now, plus I already applied.


There have been plenty of people on this forum who never took a class and managed to improve drastically (5-10+ points). Even buying every PT ever made and the books that are most regularly recommended around here would run you less than what you'll pay on ONE MONTH of sticker debt from these schools once you graduate. Retaking the LSAT really is the most cost effective course of action for you.


I never took a class and through self study I jumped 8 points. Instead of near sticker at SCU/Hastings (schools I was strongly considering the first cycle I applied), I got near full rides to USC/UCLA along with 2/3 scholarships to schools like Cornell and Duke.

/anecdote

Moonlight
Posts: 753
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 2:19 am

Re: UC Hastings v.s. Santa Clara?

Postby Moonlight » Tue Oct 08, 2013 9:10 pm

Content Deleted
Last edited by Moonlight on Tue Jun 30, 2015 10:01 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
hephaestus
Posts: 2385
Joined: Mon Jan 07, 2013 4:21 pm

Re: UC Hastings v.s. Santa Clara?

Postby hephaestus » Tue Oct 08, 2013 9:13 pm

Moonlight wrote: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?

These schools have horrible employment prospects, which is the entire point of law school. Why the emphasis on them?

User avatar
cotiger
Posts: 1648
Joined: Tue Jul 23, 2013 11:49 pm

Re: UC Hastings v.s. Santa Clara?

Postby cotiger » Tue Oct 08, 2013 9:37 pm

BigZuck wrote:I never took a class and through self study I jumped 8 points. Instead of near sticker at SCU/Hastings (schools I was strongly considering the first cycle I applied), I got near full rides to USC/UCLA along with 2/3 scholarships to schools like Cornell and Duke.

/anecdote



Same here. Jumped 12 points from a cold diagnostic. Took over 25 full-length PTs, but it was easily worth the time and minimal expense of buying books.

OP, if you're not willing to go even as far as LA, then you're going to need to get at least a 168 to have a respectable shot at Berkeley, even if your softs are as good as you think. Improving 9 points is difficult, sure, but not impossible.

Hastings and Santa Clara give you less than a 50/50 shot at getting a law job of any kind. That's doesn't mean a 50/50 chance at a well-paying legal job... that means less than a 50/50 chance at ANY legal job. Over 40% of Hastings grads are either unemployed or working part-time. If you don't see these outcomes as reason to shoot for that improvement, I don't really know what to tell you..

BigZuck
Posts: 10865
Joined: Tue Sep 04, 2012 9:53 am

Re: UC Hastings v.s. Santa Clara?

Postby BigZuck » Tue Oct 08, 2013 9:49 pm

Moonlight wrote: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.

User avatar
MoMettaMonk
Posts: 513
Joined: Thu Jul 04, 2013 3:29 pm

Re: UC Hastings v.s. Santa Clara?

Postby MoMettaMonk » Tue Oct 08, 2013 10:13 pm

BigZuck wrote:
Moonlight wrote: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?



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


I think this is an important point. There are plenty of reasons not to go t14 or bust, but as of yet you haven't presented this thread with any of those reasons, so the best advice we can give you knowing what we know is to retake.

Moonlight
Posts: 753
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 2:19 am

Re: UC Hastings v.s. Santa Clara?

Postby Moonlight » Tue Oct 08, 2013 11:20 pm

Content Deleted
Last edited by Moonlight on Tue Jun 30, 2015 10:01 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Moonlight
Posts: 753
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 2:19 am

Re: UC Hastings v.s. Santa Clara?

Postby Moonlight » Tue Oct 08, 2013 11:23 pm

Content Deleted
Last edited by Moonlight on Tue Jun 30, 2015 10:01 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
hephaestus
Posts: 2385
Joined: Mon Jan 07, 2013 4:21 pm

Re: UC Hastings v.s. Santa Clara?

Postby hephaestus » Tue Oct 08, 2013 11:23 pm

I self-studied. Use the tools on this site, and it can be just as structured as a class.

User avatar
Nova
Posts: 9116
Joined: Sun Apr 15, 2012 8:55 pm

Re: UC Hastings v.s. Santa Clara?

Postby Nova » Tue Oct 08, 2013 11:27 pm

Moonlight wrote:$150? What LSAT class did you take?

http://www.top-law-schools.com/forums/v ... 6&t=195603

Moonlight
Posts: 753
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 2:19 am

Re: UC Hastings v.s. Santa Clara?

Postby Moonlight » Tue Oct 08, 2013 11:41 pm

Content Deleted
Last edited by Moonlight on Tue Jun 30, 2015 10:00 pm, edited 1 time in total.

BigZuck
Posts: 10865
Joined: Tue Sep 04, 2012 9:53 am

Re: UC Hastings v.s. Santa Clara?

Postby BigZuck » Wed Oct 09, 2013 12:06 am

Moonlight wrote:
BigZuck wrote:
Moonlight wrote: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.

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

Re: UC Hastings v.s. Santa Clara?

Postby romothesavior » Wed Oct 09, 2013 12:10 am

Moonlight wrote: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?

No, it's not "funny how much emphasis is on retake." Job prospects are dismal, particularly at these schools. It is so, so, so much easier to just retake the LSAT and improve your score than it is to be in the top 10% of your class. People emphasize retaking because there is solid employment data out there, and it makes it clear that what school you go to makes a HUGE difference. With your GPA, you would be incredibly foolish not to retake.

And yes, a lot of people wind up happy with their law schools outside the T14. I'm one of them. But outside the T14, you better have a ton of scholarship money, and it should ideally be in a region where there are jobs, and a region where you have ties. Not all non T14s are the same.

User avatar
Magical Trevor
Posts: 147
Joined: Tue Mar 12, 2013 11:10 pm

Re: UC Hastings v.s. Santa Clara?

Postby Magical Trevor » Wed Oct 09, 2013 12:27 am

Seriously, I bought the PowerScore bibles and read them, then did no more than 5 practice tests in the 3 weeks leading up to my test and I got a 167. I ate paint chips as a kid.

There is no good reason not to break 165.

hiima3L
Posts: 837
Joined: Sun Mar 25, 2012 10:26 pm

Re: UC Hastings v.s. Santa Clara?

Postby hiima3L » Wed Oct 09, 2013 11:38 am

romothesavior wrote:
Moonlight wrote: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?

No, it's not "funny how much emphasis is on retake." Job prospects are dismal, particularly at these schools. It is so, so, so much easier to just retake the LSAT and improve your score than it is to be in the top 10% of your class. People emphasize retaking because there is solid employment data out there, and it makes it clear that what school you go to makes a HUGE difference. With your GPA, you would be incredibly foolish not to retake.


This.

OP, do you want me to put you in touch with some of my friends from UCH c/o 2012 who still haven't found full-time, bar-passage-required jobs 18 months after graduation? And/or the friends who feel like their lives are financially ruined because they have $1,500/mo loan repayments that won't go away for a decade or more, and their jobs pay so little that they don't know if they'll ever be able to stop living like a college student or with their parents? And LOL at living in SF with that kind of debt.

This is not flame or hyperbole. Some of my best friends from UCH, whose financial situations I know are very dire, fall into these categories.

Look, I know it seems like this site is full of sheep repeating T14 or bust, and I thought it was overblown. Until OCI rolled around and almost no one got jobs. Half of my class didn't have ANY JOB at graduation. And without a biglaw job, you are simply not going to be able to make loan repayments and live a decent life on your own (i.e., without financial help from other sources). This is not exaggeration. Oh, and for dozens who were lucky enough to get a job, many of them are working like a slave to make $45-60k. Do you know how expensive SF is?

Please, OP, PM me and let me help you avoid making a horrible, life-altering decision.

tbesancon
Posts: 31
Joined: Sun Oct 06, 2013 7:16 pm

Re: UC Hastings v.s. Santa Clara?

Postby tbesancon » Wed Oct 09, 2013 5:37 pm

BigZuck wrote:
Moonlight wrote:
BigZuck wrote:
Moonlight wrote: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.



Texas is my numero uno choice :) glad to hear you like it, BigZuck!

tbesancon
Posts: 31
Joined: Sun Oct 06, 2013 7:16 pm

Re: UC Hastings v.s. Santa Clara?

Postby tbesancon » Wed Oct 09, 2013 5:41 pm

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.

User avatar
ManoftheHour
Posts: 3402
Joined: Tue Jan 22, 2013 6:03 pm

Re: UC Hastings v.s. Santa Clara?

Postby ManoftheHour » Wed Oct 09, 2013 5:42 pm

tbesancon wrote: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.

californiauser
Posts: 1183
Joined: Sun Jul 01, 2012 1:10 am

Re: UC Hastings v.s. Santa Clara?

Postby californiauser » Wed Oct 09, 2013 5:44 pm

tbesancon wrote: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.

User avatar
jordan15
Posts: 145
Joined: Sun Sep 15, 2013 12:06 am

Re: UC Hastings v.s. Santa Clara?

Postby jordan15 » Wed Oct 09, 2013 7:19 pm

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.

tbesancon
Posts: 31
Joined: Sun Oct 06, 2013 7:16 pm

Re: UC Hastings v.s. Santa Clara?

Postby tbesancon » Wed Oct 09, 2013 7:33 pm

ManoftheHour wrote:
tbesancon wrote: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.




Return to “Choosing a Law School”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: carlos_danger, Chipotle85, grades??, LeNut, stego, TheDapperDruid and 9 guests