Top Law Schools

-The schools you are considering

UChicago, Berkeley, and UCLA.

-The total Cost of Attendance (COA) of each. COA = cost of tuition + fees + books + cost of living (COL) + accumulated interest - scholarships.

UChicago: $80,697
Berkeley: $75,857.50
UCLA: +$100,000. (~100k into my pocket.)

-How you will be financing your COA, i.e. loans, family, or savings

My father has graciously offered to pay for the first two years of whatever school I attend, with the prerequisite that I attend school this coming year. I've already tried to reason with him that it would be better if I retake the LSAT and tried for bigger scholarships/better schools, but he's not budging and it's his money, so I don't want to press it further. Anything out of my education fund (roughly 100k) that isn't used is mine to use as I will after graduation.

I own a functioning car if I decide to go to UCLA. I can sell it for ~6k if I decide to go to Berkeley or UChicago. I have about 35k in savings.

-Where you are from and where you want to work, and other places where you have significant ties (if any)

From Orange County, want to work in Irvine/LA or SF. Berkeley is my alma mater and I did research for the law school, so I have significant ties there. Very few ties in Chicago and other than family/friends, not many in LA either.

-Your general career goals

BigLaw to get out of whatever debt I have -> In-house/PI. Making a lot of money is not a huge deal for me so I don't mind the 60k/year salary as long as I'm free from debt. At the same time, I would like the ability to make 165k+, should I change my mind.

-Your LSAT/GPA numbers

3.98, 168.

-How many times you have taken the LSAT

Once.

Since dad is paying, Chicago. Berkeley wouldn't be a bad decision either. But Chicago is TCR.

I'd say Berkeley: it's only two years being paid for him.

I say Berkeley, since you want to work in CA. Chicago is obviously an excellent option, too.

how'd you get a 3.98 from berk?

Since you're not paying for the first two years, either Chicago or Berkeley is fine. You mentioned wanting to work in SF. If that's a strong preference, I'd lean Berkeley because it's probably a little better for SF than UChi. As for SoCal, the two schools are probably about equal.

Helioze wrote:how'd you get a 3.98 from berk?

This

imKMart wrote:I'd say Berkeley: it's only two years being paid for him.

Why would paying sticker at Berkeley for one year be better than paying sticker at Chicago for one year?

Winston1984 wrote:

imKMart wrote:I'd say Berkeley: it's only two years being paid for him.

Why would paying sticker at Berkeley for one year be better than paying sticker at Chicago for one year?

I've been debating this very question in my head, and would love to hear more opinions on this.

Winston1984 wrote:

imKMart wrote:I'd say Berkeley: it's only two years being paid for him.

Why would paying sticker at Berkeley for one year be better than paying sticker at Chicago for one year?

Because tuition at Cal is cheaper than UC. But more importantly, Cal has better access to CA market than UC and OP wants to work in SoCal after graduation. When it comes to CA biglaw, at the very least, B is on par with CCN.

gilessanderson wrote:

Helioze wrote:how'd you get a 3.98 from berk?

This

Careful planning/researching, and diligence when it came to studying. (8+ hour days were a norm, rather than an exception.)

Winston1984 wrote:

imKMart wrote:I'd say Berkeley: it's only two years being paid for him.

Why would paying sticker at Berkeley for one year be better than paying sticker at Chicago for one year?

In-state tuition and wants to practice in CA.

gilessanderson wrote:

Helioze wrote:how'd you get a 3.98 from berk?

This

Pretty damn impressive. NutriSCi 10, Psych 2, Music 29 has to be on that transcript.

imKMart wrote:

Winston1984 wrote:

imKMart wrote:I'd say Berkeley: it's only two years being paid for him.

Why would paying sticker at Berkeley for one year be better than paying sticker at Chicago for one year?

In-state tuition and wants to practice in CA.

It's a difference of $6k. That's negligible. Maybe I'm wrong here, but I can't imagine having any trouble getting back to CA with a Chicago degree. Chicago will probably be able to open more doors than Berk.

SupCutie wrote:

gilessanderson wrote:

Helioze wrote:how'd you get a 3.98 from berk?

This

Pretty damn impressive. NutriSCi 10, Psych 2, Music 29 has to be on that transcript.

SupCutie wrote:

gilessanderson wrote:

Helioze wrote:how'd you get a 3.98 from berk?

This

Pretty damn impressive. NutriSCi 10, Psych 2, Music 29 has to be on that transcript.

Is nutritional science the go-to easy A class everywhere? It seems like that class attracts a lot of "live and let live" type professors for some reason.

Winston1984 wrote: It's a difference of $6k. That's negligible. Maybe I'm wrong here, but I can't imagine having any trouble getting back to CA with a Chicago degree. Chicago will probably be able to open more doors than Berk.

I agree with you that the cost isn't a factor. But name one door in CA that Chicago will open that Berk won't.

Edited to include relevant information.

LawBron James wrote:

SupCutie wrote:

gilessanderson wrote:

Helioze wrote:how'd you get a 3.98 from berk?

This

Pretty damn impressive. NutriSCi 10, Psych 2, Music 29 has to be on that transcript.

Is nutritional science the go-to easy A class everywhere? It seems like that class attracts a lot of "live and let live" type professors for some reason.

I wouldn't know, I didn't even know Nutritional Science was a class until just now. Isn't it basically the same as Health in high school?

kpormir wrote:Edited to include relevant information.

That is one convoluted OP. You really should just estimate the total COA (e.g., $120K, $90K, whatever) for each option based on your wacky circumstances. Then you can cut down the OP to about half of its current length.

rpupkin wrote:

kpormir wrote:Edited to include relevant information.

That is one convoluted OP. You really should just estimate the total COA (e.g., $120K, $90K, whatever) for each option based on your wacky circumstances. Then you can cut down the OP to about half of its current length.

You're right, I'll do that.

Is the 100k the same money your dad would be spending or something else?

Also there's no reason to think 100k will equal 115k in three years

SupCutie wrote:

gilessanderson wrote:

Helioze wrote:how'd you get a 3.98 from berk?

This

Pretty damn impressive. NutriSCi 10, Psych 2, Music 29 has to be on that transcript.

haha a couple of them are on mine too but no 3.98 for me. must be the 8+ hours/day studying, good for you OP.

Tiago Splitter wrote:Is the 100k the same money your dad would be spending or something else?

Also there's no reason to think 100k will equal 115k in three years

It's the same money my father would be spending. He's guaranteed 2 years expenses (I understand 2 years cost > 100k; he was planning on making up the difference out of his own pocket.)

5k is about 5% interest a year, which is pretty reasonable for a conservative portfolio unless we have another financial meltdown.

kpormir wrote:

rpupkin wrote:

kpormir wrote:Edited to include relevant information.

That is one convoluted OP. You really should just estimate the total COA (e.g., $120K, $90K, whatever) for each option based on your wacky circumstances. Then you can cut down the OP to about half of its current length.

You're right, I'll do that.

That's better. Still, something doesn't seem right to me. Your estimates appear to assume that you will have no living expenses at UCLA, thus enabling you to pocket the full $100K from your father. But is that right? Even with a full tuition scholarship, won't you still have to pay for rent and books and food? It seems like that would cut your UCLA "plus" money down into the $20K - $30K range.