UC Hastings v.s. Santa Clara?

(Rankings, Profiles, Tuition, Student Life, . . . )
BigZuck
Posts: 10872
Joined: Tue Sep 04, 2012 9:53 am

Re: UC Hastings v.s. Santa Clara?

Postby BigZuck » Wed Oct 16, 2013 6:04 pm

What's more tasty: a turd burger or a poop sandwhich?

OP: don't let this recent discussion lead you astray. Both schools are festering TTT's

User avatar
vicpin5190
Posts: 743
Joined: Sun Aug 25, 2013 8:12 pm

Re: UC Hastings v.s. Santa Clara?

Postby vicpin5190 » Wed Oct 16, 2013 6:29 pm

BigZuck wrote:What's more tasty: a turd burger or a poop sandwhich?

OP: don't let this recent discussion lead you astray. Both schools are festering TTT's



Turdburgers are great if you got the right seasonings :twisted:

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

Re: UC Hastings v.s. Santa Clara?

Postby Moonlight » Wed Oct 16, 2013 11:14 pm

Content Deleted
Last edited by Moonlight on Tue Jun 30, 2015 10:07 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
20160810
Posts: 19648
Joined: Fri May 02, 2008 1:18 pm

Re: UC Hastings v.s. Santa Clara?

Postby 20160810 » Sat Nov 02, 2013 2:58 pm

OneMoreLawHopeful wrote:
SBL wrote: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.

13 vs 11 percent? FUCKING GAME CHANGER.

I actually work at a law firm and have interviewed law students and gone to hiring committee meetings. We use the same rank cutoffs for D and H. So does everyone.

User avatar
iamgeorgebush
Posts: 851
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 3:57 pm

Re: UC Hastings v.s. Santa Clara?

Postby iamgeorgebush » Fri Nov 08, 2013 1:21 am

OP: self-study and retake. Wait till next cycle to apply if needed. Gun for Boalt. Trust us, you don't want to take on $150k+ worth of debt only to end up at a school where only 46% of grads end up with full-time, long-term legal jobs if you can avoid it. That's not to say that you shouldn't attend Hastings if that's your only option, but you should try harder to get a better LSAT score.

Ti Malice
Posts: 1955
Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2012 2:55 am

Re: UC Hastings v.s. Santa Clara?

Postby Ti Malice » Fri Nov 08, 2013 4:27 am

iamgeorgebush wrote:OP: self-study and retake. Wait till next cycle to apply if needed. Gun for Boalt. Trust us, you don't want to take on $150k+ worth of debt only to end up at a school where only 46% of grads end up with full-time, long-term legal jobs if you can avoid it.


Not going to read through this entire thread to check, but if OP is debt-financing the entire cost of attendance, he/she is looking at almost $300K of debt at the start of repayment, not $150K.

That's not to say that you shouldn't attend Hastings if that's your only option, but you should try harder to get a better LSAT score.


Oh, that's definitely to say that OP should not attend Hastings, regardless of whether it's the only law school he/she can attend. Law school is not the only option.

User avatar
iamgeorgebush
Posts: 851
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 3:57 pm

Re: UC Hastings v.s. Santa Clara?

Postby iamgeorgebush » Fri Nov 08, 2013 10:10 am

Ti Malice wrote:Oh, that's definitely to say that OP should not attend Hastings, regardless of whether it's the only law school he/she can attend. Law school is not the only option.

Tell that to the scores of people who went to Hastings and are happy in their careers. You've definitely got to be really motivated to succeed at Hastings, but to say that no one should ever attend it is just stupid advice.

You also don't know what the OP's other options are right now. Maybe OP is unemployed. Maybe OP is flipping burgers. Maybe OP is an English major. Whatever OP may be doing right now, I'm willing to bet (s)he is not leaving a cushy job at Goldman.

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

Re: UC Hastings v.s. Santa Clara?

Postby hiima3L » Fri Nov 08, 2013 11:53 am

iamgeorgebush wrote:
Ti Malice wrote:Oh, that's definitely to say that OP should not attend Hastings, regardless of whether it's the only law school he/she can attend. Law school is not the only option.

Tell that to the scores of people who went to Hastings and are happy in their careers. You've definitely got to be really motivated to succeed at Hastings, but to say that no one should ever attend it is just stupid advice.

You also don't know what the OP's other options are right now. Maybe OP is unemployed. Maybe OP is flipping burgers. Maybe OP is an English major. Whatever OP may be doing right now, I'm willing to bet (s)he is not leaving a cushy job at Goldman.


I am a 2012 graduate of UCH and I think anyone attending it nowadays is making a horrible decision. I assure you I am well aware of the riskiness of attending UCH is now.

Is this stupid advice? Please explain to me how taking $120k-$180k in debt for a less than 50% chance at ANY job at graduation is a good decision.

BigZuck
Posts: 10872
Joined: Tue Sep 04, 2012 9:53 am

Re: UC Hastings v.s. Santa Clara?

Postby BigZuck » Fri Nov 08, 2013 12:02 pm

iamgeorgebush wrote:
Ti Malice wrote:Oh, that's definitely to say that OP should not attend Hastings, regardless of whether it's the only law school he/she can attend. Law school is not the only option.

Tell that to the scores of people who went to Hastings and are happy in their careers. You've definitely got to be really motivated to succeed at Hastings, but to say that no one should ever attend it is just stupid advice.

You also don't know what the OP's other options are right now. Maybe OP is unemployed. Maybe OP is flipping burgers. Maybe OP is an English major. Whatever OP may be doing right now, I'm willing to bet (s)he is not leaving a cushy job at Goldman.


Hastings is a dumpster fire bro. I'm sure the education is good and the prestige is just fine but its employment stats are TTT and its crazy expensive. I would take 100% chance at unemployment and 0 debt versus 250K of debt and a 15% chance of paying it off.

Stop saying stuff that could potentially ruin someone's life. It's not nice.

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

Re: UC Hastings v.s. Santa Clara?

Postby hephaestus » Fri Nov 08, 2013 12:24 pm

iamgeorgebush wrote:
Ti Malice wrote:Oh, that's definitely to say that OP should not attend Hastings, regardless of whether it's the only law school he/she can attend. Law school is not the only option.

Tell that to the scores of people who went to Hastings and are happy in their careers. You've definitely got to be really motivated to succeed at Hastings, but to say that no one should ever attend it is just stupid advice.

You also don't know what the OP's other options are right now. Maybe OP is unemployed. Maybe OP is flipping burgers. Maybe OP is an English major. Whatever OP may be doing right now, I'm willing to bet (s)he is not leaving a cushy job at Goldman.

That doesn't mean OP should rack up 200k of debt for awful employment statistics. Not going to law school is always an option.

californiauser
Posts: 1184
Joined: Sun Jul 01, 2012 1:10 am

Re: UC Hastings v.s. Santa Clara?

Postby californiauser » Fri Nov 08, 2013 12:48 pm

iamgeorgebush wrote:
Ti Malice wrote:Oh, that's definitely to say that OP should not attend Hastings, regardless of whether it's the only law school he/she can attend. Law school is not the only option.

Tell that to the scores of people who went to Hastings and are happy in their careers. You've definitely got to be really motivated to succeed at Hastings, but to say that no one should ever attend it is just stupid advice.

You also don't know what the OP's other options are right now. Maybe OP is unemployed. Maybe OP is flipping burgers. Maybe OP is an English major. Whatever OP may be doing right now, I'm willing to bet (s)he is not leaving a cushy job at Goldman.


You're right. If OP is indepently wealthy and wants to go to Hastings just for fun, feel free. Any other scenario, OP should not attend HasTTTings.

User avatar
iamgeorgebush
Posts: 851
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 3:57 pm

Re: UC Hastings v.s. Santa Clara?

Postby iamgeorgebush » Fri Nov 08, 2013 5:14 pm

hiima3L wrote:
iamgeorgebush wrote:
Ti Malice wrote:Oh, that's definitely to say that OP should not attend Hastings, regardless of whether it's the only law school he/she can attend. Law school is not the only option.

Tell that to the scores of people who went to Hastings and are happy in their careers. You've definitely got to be really motivated to succeed at Hastings, but to say that no one should ever attend it is just stupid advice.

You also don't know what the OP's other options are right now. Maybe OP is unemployed. Maybe OP is flipping burgers. Maybe OP is an English major. Whatever OP may be doing right now, I'm willing to bet (s)he is not leaving a cushy job at Goldman.


I am a 2012 graduate of UCH and I think anyone attending it nowadays is making a horrible decision. I assure you I am well aware of the riskiness of attending UCH is now.

Is this stupid advice? Please explain to me how taking $120k-$180k in debt for a less than 50% chance at ANY job at graduation is a good decision.

Let me be clear, I am not suggesting that OP *should* attend Hastings. I'm just saying that there are circumstances under which it would not be a terrible decision. Why do I say this?

1. Just because only 50% of students get jobs does not mean that the odds for any given UCH student getting a job upon graduation are 50%. For someone motivated enough to do really well, those odds are bound to be much higher. For someone without any motivation, the odds are bound to be much lower. As we all know, a lot of people who go to law school don't really want to become lawyers and don't really realize how important it is to do well in their 1Ls. The people who DO really want to become lawyers and are willing to work their asses off (and realize how to work smart) have a leg up on the rest.

2. For those highly motivated people without good alternative options (e.g., unemployed or employed in a shitty non-career track job, like Starbucks barista), Hastings could be a second chance at a real career. The fact that 15% of UCH grads end up in either BigLaw or clerkships is testament to the fact that some people do alright. Considering PAYE and its 10-year public service loan forgiveness, it's probably not that bad for the 9.5% who end up in public service, either (assuming LST stats are accurate). That's a quarter of the class altogether. Can you assume you'll be part of that quarter? No. Is it a gamble? Sure. But depending on a) what your other options are and b) how much you really want to practice law, the gamble might be worth it.

Again, I'm not saying, "Fuck it, go to Hastings!" Not at all. It's a bad decision for most people. But for those with sufficient motivation, it might be at least worthy of consideration, weighed with other options.

BigZuck
Posts: 10872
Joined: Tue Sep 04, 2012 9:53 am

Re: UC Hastings v.s. Santa Clara?

Postby BigZuck » Fri Nov 08, 2013 5:50 pm

iamgeorgebush wrote:
hiima3L wrote:
iamgeorgebush wrote:
Ti Malice wrote:Oh, that's definitely to say that OP should not attend Hastings, regardless of whether it's the only law school he/she can attend. Law school is not the only option.

Tell that to the scores of people who went to Hastings and are happy in their careers. You've definitely got to be really motivated to succeed at Hastings, but to say that no one should ever attend it is just stupid advice.

You also don't know what the OP's other options are right now. Maybe OP is unemployed. Maybe OP is flipping burgers. Maybe OP is an English major. Whatever OP may be doing right now, I'm willing to bet (s)he is not leaving a cushy job at Goldman.


I am a 2012 graduate of UCH and I think anyone attending it nowadays is making a horrible decision. I assure you I am well aware of the riskiness of attending UCH is now.

Is this stupid advice? Please explain to me how taking $120k-$180k in debt for a less than 50% chance at ANY job at graduation is a good decision.

Let me be clear, I am not suggesting that OP *should* attend Hastings. I'm just saying that there are circumstances under which it would not be a terrible decision. Why do I say this?

1. Just because only 50% of students get jobs does not mean that the odds for any given UCH student getting a job upon graduation are 50%. For someone motivated enough to do really well, those odds are bound to be much higher. For someone without any motivation, the odds are bound to be much lower. As we all know, a lot of people who go to law school don't really want to become lawyers and don't really realize how important it is to do well in their 1Ls. The people who DO really want to become lawyers and are willing to work their asses off (and realize how to work smart) have a leg up on the rest.

2. For those highly motivated people without good alternative options (e.g., unemployed or employed in a shitty non-career track job, like Starbucks barista), Hastings could be a second chance at a real career. The fact that 15% of UCH grads end up in either BigLaw or clerkships is testament to the fact that some people do alright. Considering PAYE and its 10-year public service loan forgiveness, it's probably not that bad for the 9.5% who end up in public service, either (assuming LST stats are accurate). That's a quarter of the class altogether. Can you assume you'll be part of that quarter? No. Is it a gamble? Sure. But depending on a) what your other options are and b) how much you really want to practice law, the gamble might be worth it.

Again, I'm not saying, "Fuck it, go to Hastings!" Not at all. It's a bad decision for most people. But for those with sufficient motivation, it might be at least worthy of consideration, weighed with other options.


What law school do you go to?

And why do you think hard work always positively correlates with grades?

User avatar
iamgeorgebush
Posts: 851
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 3:57 pm

Re: UC Hastings v.s. Santa Clara?

Postby iamgeorgebush » Fri Nov 08, 2013 6:11 pm

BigZuck wrote:What law school do you go to?

And why do you think hard work always positively correlates with grades?

1. Ad hominem. I have not claimed any sort of experience-dependent special knowledge. My arguments stand on their own.

2. Are you claiming there is not a correlation between hard work and good grades? If you can provide compelling evidence of this, I will concede this point to you. (Nb, however, that I also posited "realize how to work smart" as a necessary condition.)

BigZuck
Posts: 10872
Joined: Tue Sep 04, 2012 9:53 am

Re: UC Hastings v.s. Santa Clara?

Postby BigZuck » Fri Nov 08, 2013 6:30 pm

iamgeorgebush wrote:
BigZuck wrote:What law school do you go to?

And why do you think hard work always positively correlates with grades?

1. Ad hominem. I have not claimed any sort of experience-dependent special knowledge. My arguments stand on their own.

2. Are you claiming there is not a correlation between hard work and good grades? If you can provide compelling evidence of this, I will concede this point to you. (Nb, however, that I also posited "realize how to work smart" as a necessary condition.)


You sound fun

Look breh, you claim working smartly hard should be enough to get good grades and differentiate between students. That implies that you know how this all works.

What you're not acknowledging is that by and large law schools are grouping people with very similar levels of intelligence and work ethics and subjecting them to a curve which many find to be almost arbitrary. Even if there was a strong correlation between work ethic and grades in law school (and I'm not sure that there is) how would someone possibly have the self-awareness to competently assess where they would fall on the intelligence and work ethic spectrum before actually attending law school and sizing up their competition?

I think your boomerish bootstraps argument is very quaint and pleasant, I really do, but I think it's also totally ignorant of what law school is really like.

BigZuck
Posts: 10872
Joined: Tue Sep 04, 2012 9:53 am

Re: UC Hastings v.s. Santa Clara?

Postby BigZuck » Fri Nov 08, 2013 6:36 pm

I should add that Hastings has always had the reputation of being fairly competitive and full of hard workers. Think about it: that school is teeming with Cal grads who are ready to claw for what little good jobs are available to them in the Bay Area. Not only that but Hastings has a good reputation in the Bay Area and probably is pretty attractive to smart kids who couldn't quite get in to Cal or Stanford Law and are (willfully?) ignorant of the bad job prospects or think they will be special snowflakes themselves. You really think a substantial portion of that class is just going to lay down and let the OP outwork them?

californiauser
Posts: 1184
Joined: Sun Jul 01, 2012 1:10 am

Re: UC Hastings v.s. Santa Clara?

Postby californiauser » Fri Nov 08, 2013 6:40 pm

iamgeorgebush wrote:Let me be clear, I am not suggesting that OP *should* attend Hastings. I'm just saying that there are circumstances under which it would not be a terrible decision. Why do I say this?

1. Just because only 50% of students get jobs does not mean that the odds for any given UCH student getting a job upon graduation are 50%. For someone motivated enough to do really well, those odds are bound to be much higher. For someone without any motivation, the odds are bound to be much lower. As we all know, a lot of people who go to law school don't really want to become lawyers and don't really realize how important it is to do well in their 1Ls. The people who DO really want to become lawyers and are willing to work their asses off (and realize how to work smart) have a leg up on the rest.

2. For those highly motivated people without good alternative options (e.g., unemployed or employed in a shitty non-career track job, like Starbucks barista), Hastings could be a second chance at a real career. The fact that 15% of UCH grads end up in either BigLaw or clerkships is testament to the fact that some people do alright. Considering PAYE and its 10-year public service loan forgiveness, it's probably not that bad for the 9.5% who end up in public service, either (assuming LST stats are accurate). That's a quarter of the class altogether. Can you assume you'll be part of that quarter? No. Is it a gamble? Sure. But depending on a) what your other options are and b) how much you really want to practice law, the gamble might be worth it.

Again, I'm not saying, "Fuck it, go to Hastings!" Not at all. It's a bad decision for most people. But for those with sufficient motivation, it might be at least worthy of consideration, weighed with other options.


I'd argue that a good chunk of that 50% are engineers/CS majors (IP), people with good work experience, attractive women, URMs, and people with connections. If you aren't in any of these groups, your chances of obtaining employment are drastically worse than 50%.

User avatar
Tiago Splitter
Posts: 15508
Joined: Tue Jun 28, 2011 1:20 am

Re: UC Hastings v.s. Santa Clara?

Postby Tiago Splitter » Fri Nov 08, 2013 6:49 pm

There's a poster around here who just graduated from Hastings in the top 15% of his class and spent his 3L year having to scratch and claw his way to a 75k insurance defense gig. I doubt motivation was his issue.

User avatar
iamgeorgebush
Posts: 851
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 3:57 pm

Re: UC Hastings v.s. Santa Clara?

Postby iamgeorgebush » Fri Nov 08, 2013 7:00 pm

californiauser wrote:I'd argue that a good chunk of that 50% are engineers/CS majors (IP), people with good work experience, attractive women, URMs, and people with connections. If you aren't in any of these groups, your chances of obtaining employment are drastically worse than 50%.

BigZuck wrote:I should add that Hastings has always had the reputation of being fairly competitive and full of hard workers. Think about it: that school is teeming with Cal grads who are ready to claw for what little good jobs are available to them in the Bay Area.

Ok, these are fair points.

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

Re: UC Hastings v.s. Santa Clara?

Postby hiima3L » Sat Nov 09, 2013 8:56 am

californiauser wrote:
iamgeorgebush wrote:Let me be clear, I am not suggesting that OP *should* attend Hastings. I'm just saying that there are circumstances under which it would not be a terrible decision. Why do I say this?

1. Just because only 50% of students get jobs does not mean that the odds for any given UCH student getting a job upon graduation are 50%. For someone motivated enough to do really well, those odds are bound to be much higher. For someone without any motivation, the odds are bound to be much lower. As we all know, a lot of people who go to law school don't really want to become lawyers and don't really realize how important it is to do well in their 1Ls. The people who DO really want to become lawyers and are willing to work their asses off (and realize how to work smart) have a leg up on the rest.

2. For those highly motivated people without good alternative options (e.g., unemployed or employed in a shitty non-career track job, like Starbucks barista), Hastings could be a second chance at a real career. The fact that 15% of UCH grads end up in either BigLaw or clerkships is testament to the fact that some people do alright. Considering PAYE and its 10-year public service loan forgiveness, it's probably not that bad for the 9.5% who end up in public service, either (assuming LST stats are accurate). That's a quarter of the class altogether. Can you assume you'll be part of that quarter? No. Is it a gamble? Sure. But depending on a) what your other options are and b) how much you really want to practice law, the gamble might be worth it.

Again, I'm not saying, "Fuck it, go to Hastings!" Not at all. It's a bad decision for most people. But for those with sufficient motivation, it might be at least worthy of consideration, weighed with other options.


I'd argue that a good chunk of that 50% are engineers/CS majors (IP), people with good work experience, attractive women, URMs, and people with connections. If you aren't in any of these groups, your chances of obtaining employment are drastically worse than 50%.


A huge amount are EECS types. In fact, thinking of my friends who are in biglaw from my class, more than half are EECS and the rest are people who graduated top 5-10%, or top 15-20% and are URMs. Mind you, very few people got biglaw, so it's not exactly hard to keep track of them.

It is ludicrous to argue "Oh, just work hard and you'll do fine!" Everyone works extremely hard 1L year. Of course, some work harder/smarter than others, and people vary in their innate intelligence.

I really don't know under what circumstances it would be a good idea to go to UCH anymore. It's arguably not even worth it if you go for free because the market is just that bad. I really question whether anyone who would give this advice has had to look for a legal job recently.

User avatar
Mick Haller
Posts: 1258
Joined: Mon Mar 28, 2011 3:24 pm

Re: UC Hastings v.s. Santa Clara?

Postby Mick Haller » Tue Nov 12, 2013 3:13 am

Tiago Splitter wrote:There's a poster around here who just graduated from Hastings in the top 15% of his class and spent his 3L year having to scratch and claw his way to a 75k insurance defense gig. I doubt motivation was his issue.


That's me. I love my job. I am doing large scale construction defect cases.

But Hastings . . . Don't go. I only had about 70k in loans which is manageable on a 75k salary. My payments were initially $750 per month from $4300 monthly after tax. If you have to borrow more than me you are majorly screwed. Many of my buds are 100k+ In debt and struggling. One is making $160k but his $200k loan payments leave him with slightly more disposable income than me.

To second others above - Hastings is hard, curve is hard, all bets are off come grades time. Place is teeming with Cal, Stanford, assorted UC types who made 165-ish and refused to leave the Bay Area.

My advice is don't go. Price is high, odds are long.

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

Re: UC Hastings v.s. Santa Clara?

Postby hiima3L » Tue Nov 12, 2013 11:49 am

Mick Haller wrote:
Tiago Splitter wrote:There's a poster around here who just graduated from Hastings in the top 15% of his class and spent his 3L year having to scratch and claw his way to a 75k insurance defense gig. I doubt motivation was his issue.


That's me. I love my job. I am doing large scale construction defect cases.

But Hastings . . . Don't go. I only had about 70k in loans which is manageable on a 75k salary. My payments were initially $750 per month from $4300 monthly after tax. If you have to borrow more than me you are majorly screwed. Many of my buds are 100k+ In debt and struggling. One is making $160k but his $200k loan payments leave him with slightly more disposable income than me.

To second others above - Hastings is hard, curve is hard, all bets are off come grades time. Place is teeming with Cal, Stanford, assorted UC types who made 165-ish and refused to leave the Bay Area.

My advice is don't go. Price is high, odds are long.


As Mick knows, I concur 100%. I went into very minimal debt (especially compared to my peers), had a great time, did decently and landed a great job at the beginning of 3L, met a lot of great people, but I still cannot in good conscience suggest anyone go. There are just too many people who are now financially screwed and place is just plummeting in its standards and reputation due to its size being such an albatross in this economy.

The only good things about it that I can say are that our alumni base is gigantic (in California) and it still has a very good rep among those who are ~10 years out. I don't think either of those will help much to get you a job, but at least it makes networking a little easier.

User avatar
20160810
Posts: 19648
Joined: Fri May 02, 2008 1:18 pm

Re: UC Hastings v.s. Santa Clara?

Postby 20160810 » Tue Nov 12, 2013 12:43 pm

Mick Haller wrote:
Tiago Splitter wrote:There's a poster around here who just graduated from Hastings in the top 15% of his class and spent his 3L year having to scratch and claw his way to a 75k insurance defense gig. I doubt motivation was his issue.


That's me. I love my job. I am doing large scale construction defect cases.

But Hastings . . . Don't go. I only had about 70k in loans which is manageable on a 75k salary. My payments were initially $750 per month from $4300 monthly after tax. If you have to borrow more than me you are majorly screwed. Many of my buds are 100k+ In debt and struggling. One is making $160k but his $200k loan payments leave him with slightly more disposable income than me.

To second others above - Hastings is hard, curve is hard, all bets are off come grades time. Place is teeming with Cal, Stanford, assorted UC types who made 165-ish and refused to leave the Bay Area.

My advice is don't go. Price is high, odds are long.

Are you in the bay? If you're inland there are pretty good firms that pay around 75-85.

User avatar
Mick Haller
Posts: 1258
Joined: Mon Mar 28, 2011 3:24 pm

Re: UC Hastings v.s. Santa Clara?

Postby Mick Haller » Tue Nov 12, 2013 1:17 pm

I am in the Bay. I agree 80k would be a great salary in the valley. And there are a lot of good firms out there that I work with on a daily basis. 80k is still alright in the Bay, it's better than the average salary. I can't afford to live in SF but there are decent places to live in the east bay.

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

Re: UC Hastings v.s. Santa Clara?

Postby hiima3L » Tue Nov 12, 2013 5:46 pm

Mick Haller wrote:I am in the Bay. I agree 80k would be a great salary in the valley. And there are a lot of good firms out there that I work with on a daily basis. 80k is still alright in the Bay, it's better than the average salary. I can't afford to live in SF but there are decent places to live in the east bay.


SF is overrated anyway.

I think Berkeley/north Oakland/Lake Merritt are some of the best places in the Bay to live.




Return to “Choosing a Law School”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests