Berkeley ($45k/total) vs. Columbia Forum

[cotiger]

I got $75k from Mich. The hiring partners went to several different schools, but seemed to be consistent in thinking that CLS would be able to provide the best opportunity to any incoming law student. They mentioned that it would not be impossible, or even too difficult perhaps, to be wildly successful in biglaw at Mich or Berk but that CLS would set me up with the best opportunity to work in top biglaw firms. Still waiting to hear from other top lawyers in the field. Also, regarding costs, the partners I spoke to said I should not take school costs too much into consideration if considering a career in biglaw and private practice.

Please stop listening to these boomers.

[BigZuck]

I got $75k from Mich. The hiring partners went to several different schools, but seemed to be consistent in thinking that CLS would be able to provide the best opportunity to any incoming law student. They mentioned that it would not be impossible, or even too difficult perhaps, to be wildly successful in biglaw at Mich or Berk but that CLS would set me up with the best opportunity to work in top biglaw firms. Still waiting to hear from other top lawyers in the field. Also, regarding costs, the partners I spoke to said I should not take school costs too much into consideration if considering a career in biglaw and private practice.

Top big law firms, schmop big law firms. Leave the prestige whoring to those prestige whores over there on the worst coast. Enjoy Cal for 3 more years bro, hit up Blondies for me. Maybe La Burrita while you're at it.

[lecsa]

.

[thisishoping]

Thanks for the perspective lacsa! I think I'll get a better perspective after I visit the schools and get a feel for ther vibe.

[rpupkin]

He's still taking out $250k+ -- that's just stupid. His exit options (salary wise) are also a lot worse on the West Coast.

Say more.

[BigZuck]

I got $75k from Mich. The hiring partners went to several different schools, but seemed to be consistent in thinking that CLS would be able to provide the best opportunity to any incoming law student. They mentioned that it would not be impossible, or even too difficult perhaps, to be wildly successful in biglaw at Mich or Berk but that CLS would set me up with the best opportunity to work in top biglaw firms. Still waiting to hear from other top lawyers in the field. Also, regarding costs, the partners I spoke to said I should not take school costs too much into consideration if considering a career in biglaw and private practice.

Top big law firms, schmop big law firms. Leave the prestige whoring to those prestige whores over there on the worst coast. Enjoy Cal for 3 more years bro, hit up Blondies for me. Maybe La Burrita while you're at it.

He's still taking out $250k+ -- that's just stupid. His exit options (salary wise) are also a lot worse on the West Coast.

If you think I'm a fan of BIG DEBT then you haven't been paying attention.

I am, however, realistic about the fact that Berk gonna Berk and most people aren't going to be convinced to not go to law school when they have the opportunity to go to Columbia.

[lecsa]

.

[indo]

I went to Cal undergrad and loved it, but have heard that it does not look very good to employers to see that you have attended the same LS as UG. Also, I'm planning on going into Biglaw for a few years out of LS (and then likely transitioning into general counsel or something else), and I know Columbia is a top Biglaw school. Ultimately I want to return to California after law school, so Berkeley may be a stronger candidate in that sense. Any perspectives?

This is myth. check links they graduated from same undergraduate and law school.

--LinkRemoved--

http://www.linkedin.com/pub/mary-kogut/ ... =pub-pbmap

[lecsa]

.

[indo]

I went to Cal undergrad and loved it, but have heard that it does not look very good to employers to see that you have attended the same LS as UG. Also, I'm planning on going into Biglaw for a few years out of LS (and then likely transitioning into general counsel or something else), and I know Columbia is a top Biglaw school. Ultimately I want to return to California after law school, so Berkeley may be a stronger candidate in that sense. Any perspectives?

This is myth. check links he graduated from Berkeley undergraduate and law school.

--LinkRemoved--

What is this? Who cares about a rando at "Gunderson Dettmer"

I guess you need to learn more

[J-e-L-L-o]

I got $75k from Mich. The hiring partners went to several different schools, but seemed to be consistent in thinking that CLS would be able to provide the best opportunity to any incoming law student. They mentioned that it would not be impossible, or even too difficult perhaps, to be wildly successful in biglaw at Mich or Berk but that CLS would set me up with the best opportunity to work in top biglaw firms. Still waiting to hear from other top lawyers in the field. Also, regarding costs, the partners I spoke to said I should not take school costs too much into consideration if considering a career in biglaw and private practice.

Ask these boomer what they paid when they went to law school.

[lecsa]

.

[rpupkin]

Great post. Although I agree with most of what you wrote, I have a couple of thoughts:

The first factor is the limited number, and type, of in house jobs on the West Coast. There isn't as much work available. If you are in capital markets or some random finance group, there are much fewer in house jobs at big banks. If you do M&A work you will most likely have to look on the East Coast.

I think that's right. If your career goals involve working in capital markets and M&A work, you're going to have a lot more opportunities in New York. And CLS does a better job than Boalt in placing students into elite M&A work. Students from Boalt can and do get those jobs in NYC, but I think there's little question that CLS is the right choice if M&A work in NYC is your goal. (If my dream was M&A work at an elite firm in NYC, I would spend an extra $60K to attend CLS.)

A lot of biglaw in California is litigation-focused, where the exit options are much worse. If you get stuck in litigation (which is more likely in a California office of a biglaw firm) you'll have a much harder time getting an in house job in the first place.

That's true but it's less true than it was ten or even five years ago. More SV tech companies are increasing their numbers of in-house litigation counsel. Although these jobs are generally unavailable to grads, we're seeing companies start to hire more mid-level associate laterals. There are exit options for lit associates in Northern California.

The only upside to working on the West Coast is the IP work if you are patent-bar eligible (I don't mean soft IP like copyright or trademark). There is more, and better, IP work. However, I don't think this is an option for 99% of law students.

I disagree that you have to be patent-bar eligible to do interesting IP work on the West Coast. One of the advantages of going to SLS or Boalt is that, if you're interested, you can get into patent litigation without a tech background. And--if litigation isn't your thing--you can get into tech transactional work (Fenwick, Cooley, Wilson) without a tech background.

If you're interested in IP law or transactional work with tech companies on the West Coast, I really do think that Boalt is a better choice than CLS. Sure, you can get those jobs out of CLS (just like you can get NYC M&A jobs out of Boalt), but I think Boalt's network and tech programs give you at least a slight advantage.

OP: I know it's difficult to weigh these considerations when you haven't even started law school yet, but I suggest thinking hard about where you want to work and what type of law you want to practice. Still, don't stress too hard if you're just not sure. It's not like you're choosing between CLS and Hastings, or between Boalt and Fordham. If you figure out after a year of law school that you want to do transactional work in NYC, you're probably going to be just fine at Boalt. And if you figure out after a year of law school that you want to do some form of tech law in California, you're probably going to be just fine at CLS. You'll have plenty of options coming from either school.

[lecsa]

.

[rpupkin]

From what I can tell about IP work though, your law school matters a lot less in terms of getting a job, so if I were interested in IP I'd probably go to the cheapest school available.

To the extent that's true, it mostly applies to patent prosecution. (And even in prosecution, law school still matters.) Although there's variation, IP litigation practices are about as prestige-conscious as general litigation practices. The big IP lit players in the Bay Area--Quinn, MoFo, Gibson, Latham, Wilmer--all want to see good grades from a top school. And while the tech transactional groups are perhaps a little less grade selective, they still like to hire SLS and Boalt grads.

[lecsa]

.

[rpupkin]

It matters less, and I wouldn't go to a third tier, but if I were picking between random T-14 with $ and Boalt at sticker, I'd go to the T-14 with $.

Depends on the "random T14" and how much money. If your goal was to do IP work in the Bay Area and you chose Cornell with $15k/yr over Boalt, you've made a strange choice.

Fwiw, the person I know lateraling didn't go to a T-14.

Sure. I know mid-levels who went to schools like Hastings and Loyola and who now have excellent exit options. But they did well in law school and got good firm jobs. For obvious reasons, you can't go to one of those schools counting on such a positive outcome.

[SLS_AMG]

I heard from several hiring partners at biglaw firms who said columbia is the no brainer on this one, so I'm very surprised to hear that tls thinks berk is the choice here. The hiring partners said since law is such a prestige-based path that columbia is undoubtedly going to open more doors. They also said that going to the same LS as UG is not viewed well.

Calling bullshit on this one. I don't think anyone would be stupid enough to ask "several big law hiring partners" all of these questions as a 0L. And if they were, they won't be hired by those firms.

[SLS_AMG]

I heard from several hiring partners at biglaw firms who said columbia is the no brainer on this one, so I'm very surprised to hear that tls thinks berk is the choice here. The hiring partners said since law is such a prestige-based path that columbia is undoubtedly going to open more doors. They also said that going to the same LS as UG is not viewed well.

I basically faced your situation several years ago. I talked to two partners at big law firms, but they said the opposite of what the several partners all told you. And one of the two partners was a CLS alum.

They both said the same thing: If you want to work in California, go to Boalt. If you want to work in New York, go to Columbia.

Also, I'm a little skeptical of this statement: "They also said that going to the same LS as UG is not viewed well." Really? Several hiring partners said that?

I never know really how to interpret what you say and all your firm anecdata, because while some of your information seems reasonable and valuable, you've been known to hardcore troll on here in the past.

As another person who made the Cal v CLS choice, I'll give an alternative to the above:
There will be more Boalt attorneys in CA, but that doesn't necessarily mean the degree is more valued there. I think in SF/SV, Berkeley will have the most pronounced dominance. But even in some of the top shops, like MoFo SF or Skadden SV, summer classes show a lot more strength for CLS/HLS than the geography would suggest. In LA and especially OC, large firms will be just as if not more desirous of a Columbia/Harvard/Chicago student with strong ties than a Boalt student at the same grade level (the SoCal office I'll be at this summer has more Harvard and Columbia kids than Berkeley or Stanford, of course class size is some of this but it's telling nonetheless). And of course as you noted, in New York it's not even comparable.

Anyway, I still voted Berkeley here so I'm not even really disagreeing with you. Hiring is just not as simple as Berkeley for CA, CLS for NY.

Except it really is that simple. Don't compare Columbia to Harvard. It's certainly conceivable to think Harvard kids with ties are as desirous and perhaps on some occasions more so than Boalt kids. The same can not be said about Columbia. Berkeley and Stanford are absolutely seen as better schools in California than all non YH schools. Regional biases absolutely exist, and to think otherwise is just wrong. I'm sure NU is similarly stronger in Chicago than NYU, for example.