Top Law Schools

Otunga wrote:

Winston1984 wrote:Well hopefully you will get accepted to Stanford, and you won't even need our advice!

He said he hated the prospect of going into a lot of debt. I'm guessing he'd still have to deliberate about it, but not sure.

Admission to Stanford would definitely shake things up! I'd be a lot more comfortable with debt for Stanford than for Berkley or UCLA.

rpupkin wrote:You've mentioned that you want to be in California, but you didn't mention if you have a preference for where you want to live in Cali. If you know that you want to live long-term in SoCal, then I'd go with UCI or UCLA. But if you want the option of working anywhere in Cali, then I'd go to Berkeley. It's MUCH easier to get a job in SoCal our out of UCB than in it is to get a job in NorCal our of UCLA. (Not sure yet about UCI, but I'd imagine its reach would be even more limited.)

This is a great point. I'm pretty indifferent actually. I have more ties to SoCal but I love NorCal too. My wife prefers NorCal but I think she would be fine with either. It's not a dominant factor in my decision.

You kind of need to figure out what you want to do before you jump in.

Based on what's on the table now, UCLA is out IMO. At half tuition, that's 150k in debt if you can live on 20k a year. You need biglaw to pay that off, and Berkley gives you such a better chance at biglaw that I'd take Berkley instead if I were you. If you could negotiate them to three quarters, it might be worthwhile (But that's still over 100k).

UCI is a gamble because there's no solid data for it. Even at a full ride, cost of living is really expensive. If you didn't have to follow for COL, this wouldn't be terrible.

Berkley at sticker means you'll probably work as a lawyer, but you'll have to gun for biglaw to pay the debt.

I'd probably take Berkley in your shoes...

This is a tough call but especially if you're married with a child I don't think 200k in debt makes sense. What would your total debt be for UCLA?

I voted retake and then attend Harvard. Best of all worlds IMO.

If I were you I would attempt to get a bigger scholarship at UCLA.

I think taking UCI is the right choice here granted there are no stips. UCLA half is still too much given the cost of living and same with Berkeley.

I think unless you get 25% off at Berkeley, take UCI given your family situation.

worldtraveler wrote:If I were you I would attempt to get a bigger scholarship at UCLA.

Yeah, I think it's the only way for him to 'have his cake and eat it too'. If it turns out he works in a small law firm one summer and hates it while attending Irvine, he's in a shitty spot at that point.

Surprised no one has said these two words: matching scholarships.

Im at an airport bar on my phone so this won't be an exhaustive response, but unless there's been a sea change in Cal's finaid policy in the past 8 months, they operate on a matching scholarship basis for merit aid. This means you have to apply to Michigan, Duke, Cornell, GULC, and UVA immediately. You should get all 5. Take your strongest offer (I'd suggest Michigan), and apply for a matching scholarship before Feb 15, if possible. The UCLA offer will not suffice. You could get $25K/yr from Berkeley if you play your cards right with the others, making this convo obsolete.

Best of luck, pm me for more details on scholly negotiation later.

Yes you should def aim for matching scholly, though not all merit aid is allocated this way. OP - you will soon (if not already) have the option of writing an essay for Berkeley scholarships via the admitted student website. Do that. You can use that essay to make a case for need-based aid as well.

Taking on debt is a personal decision, and sticker is definitely steep and scary. But remember that your career interests may evolve in your time in law school. For example, you think you don't want Big Law now, but you may want it later (leaving aside the fact that a lot of debt makes Big Law more attractive). Or you may realize you want a Fed or State gov position, or a PI gig, all of which are very competitive. I've certainly seen my goals evolve with exposure to classes, attorneys, summer jobs etc.

I would take UCI and never look back. Fo Free! (not counting COL)

Berk at sticker? This aint 2006. Thats a lotttttttt of money after 3 years of school plus interest.

With your stats you can get scholarships in the T14 that will get you back to California. I'm surprised only one person has said anything about that.

I don't know what your bidding strategy was, but you should have applied broadly to better negotiate scholarships with different schools.

jbagelboy wrote:Surprised no one has said these two words: matching scholarships.

Im at an airport bar on my phone so this won't be an exhaustive response, but unless there's been a sea change in Cal's finaid policy in the past 8 months, they operate on a matching scholarship basis for merit aid. This means you have to apply to Michigan, Duke, Cornell, GULC, and UVA immediately. You should get all 5. Take your strongest offer (I'd suggest Michigan), and apply for a matching scholarship before Feb 15, if possible. The UCLA offer will not suffice. You could get $25K/yr from Berkeley if you play your cards right with the others, making this convo obsolete.

Best of luck, pm me for more details on scholly negotiation later.

Came in here to say this, though Berkeley doesn't match UVA:

Columbia University
Cornell University
Duke University
Harvard University
New York University
Stanford University
University of Chicago
University of Michigan
University of Pennsylvania
Yale University

I am in no way a similar situation, but UCI's new data is concerning to me. I would go with UCLA, especially if you could negotiate for more.

scoobers wrote:

jbagelboy wrote:Surprised no one has said these two words: matching scholarships.

Im at an airport bar on my phone so this won't be an exhaustive response, but unless there's been a sea change in Cal's finaid policy in the past 8 months, they operate on a matching scholarship basis for merit aid. This means you have to apply to Michigan, Duke, Cornell, GULC, and UVA immediately. You should get all 5. Take your strongest offer (I'd suggest Michigan), and apply for a matching scholarship before Feb 15, if possible. The UCLA offer will not suffice. You could get $25K/yr from Berkeley if you play your cards right with the others, making this convo obsolete.

Best of luck, pm me for more details on scholly negotiation later.

Came in here to say this, though Berkeley doesn't match UVA:

Columbia University
Cornell University
Duke University
Harvard University
New York University
Stanford University
University of Chicago
University of Michigan
University of Pennsylvania
Yale University

I am in no way a similar situation, but UCI's new data is concerning to me. I would go with UCLA, especially if you could negotiate for more.

Hmm, interesting. This list is more restricted than in past years. Last year , Northwestern was the only T14 Cal did not consider a "peer:" now Georgetown and UVA have also lost peer status (probably all that ridiculous $$ UVa was throwing around last year couldn't be taken seriously).

jbagelboy wrote:Surprised no one has said these two words: matching scholarships.

Im at an airport bar on my phone so this won't be an exhaustive response, but unless there's been a sea change in Cal's finaid policy in the past 8 months, they operate on a matching scholarship basis for merit aid. This means you have to apply to Michigan, Duke, Cornell, GULC, and UVA immediately. You should get all 5. Take your strongest offer (I'd suggest Michigan), and apply for a matching scholarship before Feb 15, if possible. The UCLA offer will not suffice. You could get $25K/yr from Berkeley if you play your cards right with the others, making this convo obsolete.

Best of luck, pm me for more details on scholly negotiation later.

I'm in at Duke and haven't applied to the others but if this matching scholarship bizness is really going to help I think It'd definitely be worth it.

Guys, I'm still really leaning toward UC Irvine. A lot of you have voted for Berkeley but I've yet to hear a compelling argument of why I should choose Berkeley or even UCLA over Irvine. Yes, Berkeley has national placement going for it (which isn't a factor for me anyway), and yes, it has better biglaw placement, but I'm still kind of waiting to hear that x-factor of what makes it $150K better than UCI for a guy like me (or maybe $100K if I really play my cards right).

I guess part of my thinking is that I can be in the top portion of my class at Irvine and still have a lot (if not most) of the benefits I would get with a Berkeley JD without having to pay $3,000 a month in student loans while supporting a family. Granted, one can't always plan to be in the top of their class, but I think I have a very solid chance of being there and I certainly have the drive. The UCI faculty apparently has some insanely good connections (33% of their 2012 class in clerkships? Come on!)) and I feel like even though their class size has doubled, the top people in their new, larger classes will still be able to milk those connections and get some fantastic jobs in SoCal.

If I'm completely delusional in my reasoning, somebody please correct me! That's why I'm here

You probably won't be in the top of your class at UCI.

Just retake and get some money or a better school.

the_rural_juror wrote:Guys, I'm still really leaning toward UC Irvine. A lot of you have voted for Berkeley but I've yet to hear a compelling argument of why I should choose Berkeley or even UCLA over Irvine. Yes, Berkeley has national placement going for it (which isn't a factor for me anyway), and yes, it has better biglaw placement, but I'm still kind of waiting to hear that x-factor of what makes it $150K better than UCI for a guy like me (or maybe $100K if I really play my cards right).

I guess part of my thinking is that I can be in the top portion of my class at Irvine and still have a lot (if not most) of the benefits I would get with a Berkeley JD without having to pay $3,000 a month in student loans while supporting a family. Granted, one can't always plan to be in the top of their class, but I think I have a very solid chance of being there and I certainly have the drive. The UCI faculty apparently has some insanely good connections (33% of their 2012 class in clerkships? Come on!)) and I feel like even though their class size has doubled, the top people in their new, larger classes will still be able to milk those connections and get some fantastic jobs in SoCal.

If I'm completely delusional in my reasoning, somebody please correct me! That's why I'm here

This is terrible logic. Everyone going to law school has drive.

the_rural_juror wrote:Guys, I'm still really leaning toward UC Irvine. A lot of you have voted for Berkeley but I've yet to hear a compelling argument of why I should choose Berkeley or even UCLA over Irvine. Yes, Berkeley has national placement going for it (which isn't a factor for me anyway), and yes, it has better biglaw placement, but I'm still kind of waiting to hear that x-factor of what makes it $150K better than UCI for a guy like me (or maybe $100K if I really play my cards right).

I guess part of my thinking is that I can be in the top portion of my class at Irvine and still have a lot (if not most) of the benefits I would get with a Berkeley JD without having to pay $3,000 a month in student loans while supporting a family. Granted, one can't always plan to be in the top of their class, but I think I have a very solid chance of being there and I certainly have the drive. The UCI faculty apparently has some insanely good connections (33% of their 2012 class in clerkships? Come on!)) and I feel like even though their class size has doubled, the top people in their new, larger classes will still be able to milk those connections and get some fantastic jobs in SoCal.

If I'm completely delusional in my reasoning, somebody please correct me! That's why I'm here

Not sure why you didnt take my advice and apply for matchings a week ago. Either way, UCI is not a safe bet for anyone.

worldtraveler wrote:This is terrible logic. Everyone going to law school has drive.

Not denying that, but surely the fact that I'm coming into UC Irvine at the top x percentile of my class at least gives me a somewhat better chance of being somewhere in the top x percent during the course of law school right? Of course there are people that start in the bottom and end at the top and vice versa, but I feel like "gambling" on being somewhere in the top 50% of my class at Irvine is not a huge stretch whereas banking on getting biglaw (or even deciding that I like biglaw at all) while attending Berkeley is more of a gamble.

jbagelboy wrote:

the_rural_juror wrote:Guys, I'm still really leaning toward UC Irvine. A lot of you have voted for Berkeley but I've yet to hear a compelling argument of why I should choose Berkeley or even UCLA over Irvine. Yes, Berkeley has national placement going for it (which isn't a factor for me anyway), and yes, it has better biglaw placement, but I'm still kind of waiting to hear that x-factor of what makes it $150K better than UCI for a guy like me (or maybe $100K if I really play my cards right).

I guess part of my thinking is that I can be in the top portion of my class at Irvine and still have a lot (if not most) of the benefits I would get with a Berkeley JD without having to pay $3,000 a month in student loans while supporting a family. Granted, one can't always plan to be in the top of their class, but I think I have a very solid chance of being there and I certainly have the drive. The UCI faculty apparently has some insanely good connections (33% of their 2012 class in clerkships? Come on!)) and I feel like even though their class size has doubled, the top people in their new, larger classes will still be able to milk those connections and get some fantastic jobs in SoCal.

If I'm completely delusional in my reasoning, somebody please correct me! That's why I'm here

Not sure why you didnt take my advice and apply for matchings a week ago. Either way, UCI is not a safe bet for anyone.

Haven't had internet for a week. And is any law school a safe bet? I think that's kind of the whole crux of the discussion here. What's safer? A free(ish), decent law school or a higher-ranked, insanely expensive law school?

the_rural_juror wrote:What's safer? A free(ish), decent law school or a higher-ranked, insanely expensive law school?

For the majority of today's law students, including you, it's neither option. Retake the LSAT and go to a better school with a scholarship.

First, let me say that I don't think it would be a crazy decision to go to UCI with a full ride. I can see arguments for any of your three options. Your reasoning, however, isn't entirely sound. Read on....

the_rural_juror wrote:Guys, I'm still really leaning toward UC Irvine. A lot of you have voted for Berkeley but I've yet to hear a compelling argument of why I should choose Berkeley or even UCLA over Irvine. Yes, Berkeley has national placement going for it (which isn't a factor for me anyway), and yes, it has better biglaw placement, but I'm still kind of waiting to hear that x-factor of what makes it $150K better than UCI for a guy like me (or maybe $100K if I really play my cards right).

The argument for going to B is that it gives you the best chance for a job that will make going to law school a worthwhile investment. As others on TLS have explained countless times, salary distribution for starting attorneys is bimodal. It's not like folks graduating at median from T14 schools are getting $160K salaries, while folks graduating at median from T30 schools are getting $130K salaries. It's more like the difference between $160K and $50k. Berkeley significantly reduces the risk that you end up in the latter category. Is that reduction of risk worth sticker at Berkeley? Perhaps not. But I wouldn't assume that it's an easy question.

And, although you don't want to leave California, Berkeley gives you greater geographic flexibility within the state. What if your wife really wants to live in SF in three years? Good luck getting a job up there out of UCI. (I'm sure it's possible, but it would be hard.) At Berkeley, meanwhile, you can easily work in NorCal or SoCal. Again, that flexibility may not be worth sticker price to you, but it is worth taking into account.

I guess part of my thinking is that I can be in the top portion of my class at Irvine and still have a lot (if not most) of the benefits I would get with a Berkeley JD without having to pay $3,000 a month in student loans while supporting a family. Granted, one can't always plan to be in the top of their class, but I think I have a very solid chance of being there and I certainly have the drive.

Sorry if this sounds blunt, but this is a horrible reason to pick UCI over UCLA or UCB. Almost everyone goes to law school with the "drive" to be at the top of their class. Almost everyone thinks they're going to work extra hard and succeed. At the end of the first semester, half of those people are below median. This is about as likely to happen to you at UCI as it is at UCLA or Berkeley.

The UCI faculty apparently has some insanely good connections (33% of their 2012 class in clerkships? Come on!)) and I feel like even though their class size has doubled, the top people in their new, larger classes will still be able to milk those connections and get some fantastic jobs in SoCal.

In my opinion, folks are a little rough on UCI on TLS. I think it's going to be a solid regional school. However, you're going too far in the other direction. The class of 2012 is not representative of what UCI will deliver moving forward. As I'm sure you know, the school offered full rides to the *entire* class. The full rides, along with the small class size, allowed UCI to select a strong group of students. As the class size grows and the scholly money dips, they're not going to be able to sustain that level of quality. Indeed, their GPA/LSAT levels are already declining.

They also promised (and delivered) special treatment to that first class of students, with Dean Chemerinsky (and a couple of other connected profs) going out of his way to get clerkships for a lot of the students in that class. Chemerinsky isn't going to sustain that level of hustle and commitment forever. And even if he did, he couldn't keep up the placement rates in light of UCI's increasing class sizes and declining student quality.

At the end of the day, UCI is going to be like a SoCal version of UC Davis: a very good law school that (1) places students at the very top of its class into clerkships, (2) sees about 10% - 20% of its students getting big law or close to it, and (3) struggles a bit in the shadow of Berkeley and Stanford (not to mention the students from all the other top schools that want to live and work in Cali). Because of UCI's exceptionally strong faculty (they have great academic quality), I expect they'll end up ranked above UCD when they get ranked next year. (UCI should have a great peer assessment score.) But that's probably not going to translate to job placement in SoCal biglaw.

Like I said at the beginning, I don't think that UCI at with a full ride is a bad choice at all. But if you're going to go there, don't attend thinking that a world of elite opportunities will be at your fingertips.

the_rural_juror wrote:

worldtraveler wrote:This is terrible logic. Everyone going to law school has drive.

Not denying that, but surely the fact that I'm coming into UC Irvine at the top x percentile of my class at least gives me a somewhat better chance of being somewhere in the top x percent during the course of law school right? Of course there are people that start in the bottom and end at the top and vice versa, but I feel like "gambling" on being somewhere in the top 50% of my class at Irvine is not a huge stretch whereas banking on getting biglaw (or even deciding that I like biglaw at all) while attending Berkeley is more of a gamble.

There is not "bottom" and "top" of an incoming class. Law school exams are unlike anything you've experienced in undergrad or grad school and it is very difficult to predict how you will do. People on TLS don't agree on pretty much anything, but every actual law student or grad on here agrees that this is a terrible idea. That should tell you something.

If you are comfortable with the job prospects coming out of UCI, then it might be a good choice. But don't enter with any ill-conceived pretentions about how you will place in the class.

rpupkin wrote:First, let me say that I don't think it would be a crazy decision to go to UCI with a full ride. I can see arguments for any of your three options. Your reasoning, however, isn't entirely sound. Read on....

the_rural_juror wrote:Guys, I'm still really leaning toward UC Irvine. A lot of you have voted for Berkeley but I've yet to hear a compelling argument of why I should choose Berkeley or even UCLA over Irvine. Yes, Berkeley has national placement going for it (which isn't a factor for me anyway), and yes, it has better biglaw placement, but I'm still kind of waiting to hear that x-factor of what makes it $150K better than UCI for a guy like me (or maybe $100K if I really play my cards right).

The argument for going to B is that it gives you the best chance for a job that will make going to law school a worthwhile investment. As others on TLS have explained countless times, salary distribution for starting attorneys is bimodal. It's not like folks graduating at median from T14 schools are getting $160K salaries, while folks graduating at median from T30 schools are getting $130K salaries. It's more like the difference between $160K and $50k. Berkeley significantly reduces the risk that you end up in the latter category. Is that reduction of risk worth sticker at Berkeley? Perhaps not. But I wouldn't assume that it's an easy question.

And, although you don't want to leave California, Berkeley gives you greater geographic flexibility within the state. What if your wife really wants to live in SF in three years? Good luck getting a job up there out of UCI. (I'm sure it's possible, but it would be hard.) At Berkeley, meanwhile, you can easily work in NorCal or SoCal. Again, that flexibility may not be worth sticker price to you, but it is worth taking into account.

I guess part of my thinking is that I can be in the top portion of my class at Irvine and still have a lot (if not most) of the benefits I would get with a Berkeley JD without having to pay $3,000 a month in student loans while supporting a family. Granted, one can't always plan to be in the top of their class, but I think I have a very solid chance of being there and I certainly have the drive.

Sorry if this sounds blunt, but this is a horrible reason to pick UCI over UCLA or UCB. Almost everyone goes to law school with the "drive" to be at the top of their class. Almost everyone thinks they're going to work extra hard and succeed. At the end of the first semester, half of those people are below median. This is about as likely to happen to you at UCI as it is at UCLA or Berkeley.

The UCI faculty apparently has some insanely good connections (33% of their 2012 class in clerkships? Come on!)) and I feel like even though their class size has doubled, the top people in their new, larger classes will still be able to milk those connections and get some fantastic jobs in SoCal.

In my opinion, folks are a little rough on UCI on TLS. I think it's going to be a solid regional school. However, you're going too far in the other direction. The class of 2012 is not representative of what UCI will deliver moving forward. As I'm sure you know, the school offered full rides to the *entire* class. The full rides, along with the small class size, allowed UCI to select a strong group of students. As the class size grows and the scholly money dips, they're not going to be able to sustain that level of quality. Indeed, their GPA/LSAT levels are already declining.

They also promised (and delivered) special treatment to that first class of students, with Dean Chemerinsky (and a couple of other connected profs) going out of his way to get clerkships for a lot of the students in that class. Chemerinsky isn't going to sustain that level of hustle and commitment forever. And even if he did, he couldn't keep up the placement rates in light of UCI's increasing class sizes and declining student quality.

At the end of the day, UCI is going to be like a SoCal version of UC Davis: a very good law school that (1) places students at the very top of its class into clerkship, (2) sees about 10% - 20% of its students getting big law or close to it, and (3) struggles a bit in the shadow of Berkeley and Stanford (not to mention the students from all the other top schools that want to live and work in Cali). Now, because of UCI's exceptionally strong faculty (they have great academic quality), I expect they'll end up ranked above UCD when they get ranked next year. (UCI should have a great peer assessment score.) But that's probably not going to translate to job placement in SoCal biglaw.

Like I said at the beginning, I don't think that UCI at sticker is a bad choice at all. But if you're going to go there, don't attend thinking that a world of elite opportunities will be at your fingertips.

This is the best, most straightforward response I've heard yet. Thanks!

Yes, I'm aware of UCI's declining numbers and the huge difference between their 2012 class and their entering classes. And I definitely don't see them being a Stanford or a Berkeley (or even a UCLA) That's number one on my list of concerns about them. I do think, however, that just because they started with a bang doesn't mean they're going to say "Well, we did it guys!" and then not continue to invest heavily in their students to get the school off the ground. I think that they will continue that tradition of pulling strings and making connections, just with a smaller portion of the student body. I think you all are right in that my biggest gamble is that I will end up in that portion of the student body.

There's two tremendously big problems with that reasoning.

1) The stats you're referencing are from UCI's first class, which was not only considerably smaller than the classes that exist now, the favors the faculty have called in are not going to be as present in subsequent classes. By the time you graduate, UCI will have placement power on par with the rest of California's T1 schools.

2) There is almost zero correlation to how a school ranks comparative to how academically competitive it is. Okay, you might do better at Chapman than you would at Berkeley, but it is definitely not reasonable to expect you'll just happen to find yourself in the top x% of the class by working hard. If anything, though, this is an argument for UCI -- if you completely blow it and you end up unemployed, you're in a much better place than if you blew it from UCB.

I would still pick UCI. I think at this point in life, with a family and whatnot, you really have no business taking out sticker-cost loans, and UCI for free is a really solid choice regardless.

edit> ate dinner and came back to post, turns out I was thoroughly ninja'd. If that's even a fair word to use here.