Columbia vs Berkeley

(Rankings, Profiles, Tuition, Student Life, . . . )
User avatar
BiglawAssociate
Posts: 355
Joined: Thu Mar 12, 2015 12:05 am

Re: Columbia vs Berkeley

Postby BiglawAssociate » Thu Mar 26, 2015 12:14 am

rpupkin wrote:
BiglawAssociate wrote:
XxSpyKEx wrote:But I agree with your re: your bigger point of going to UVA or Michigan for free. Berkley is a peer school to UVA and Michigan, so I don't really understand why anyone would pay $105k to attend Berkley when they could go to UVA or Michigan for free, especially in a situation like this one where the OP doesn't even have any ties to CA.


To answer your question, I'm pretty sure a person who has no sense of money or finances would pay 105k to go to Berkeley over full rides at UVA/Michigan. To work what? A shitty biglaw job in California. Biglaw is shit no matter where you are.

Maybe. But is California biglaw a little less shitty than NYC big law?

I'm not asking rhetorically. I've never worked in NYC. For years, I assumed that the associates-are-worked-to-death-in-NYC thing was basically a flame—associates more or less work the same everywhere. But I've heard enough NYC horror stories of late to make me question whether there's some truth to the stereotype.


Among the larger markets (NYC, DC, Chicago, California, Texas, ATL, etc.) it's more to do with the firm and your department than the region. I'm in NYC biglaw but my friend in DC biglaw has billed more than me every year. And then there are people at my firm billing 2600+ hours a year and we're not a Cravath...

For example, Quinn is a California firm, but it's a notorious sweatshop that I think has minimum billables of 2400. And keep in mind a lot of people bill 70% of what they actually work so if you're legitimately billing 2400-2500 hours a year, you probably have no life outside of work. It's not uncommon to have shit thrown on your desk at 5pm to do overnight (in my experience most things in biglaw are ASAP, so even if you've been at work all day, you better stay until 3 am to finish it). And by then you're tired but they still expect 100% work product. Say you pull a week of 16 hour days - senior associate looks at your "stupid mistakes" and then promptly calls you asking "why did you do that? You need to be more careful."

Biglaw is fucking terrible because the work expectation is 100% at all times yet they work you to death so you're consistently working 12 to 16 hour days....so you're sleep deprived but you still need to do be extremely meticulous and detail oriented. And a lot of the time, depending on the partner, you have to work around their schedule. So say like you were at work for 18 hours the previous day. Partner wants to meet at 9:30 but you're heading in at 10. Partner will get fucking pissed and give you a lecture about how associates should be available at all times (even though the partner leaves by 5 everyday). So basically you're pulling like 20 hour days since you have to work but also wait around for other people and be "available." It fucking blows.

So yeah, biglaw is shit pretty much everywhere.
Last edited by BiglawAssociate on Thu Mar 26, 2015 12:22 am, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
jbagelboy
Posts: 9639
Joined: Thu Nov 29, 2012 7:57 pm

Re: Columbia vs Berkeley

Postby jbagelboy » Thu Mar 26, 2015 12:21 am

BiglawAssociate wrote:
rpupkin wrote:
BiglawAssociate wrote:
XxSpyKEx wrote:But I agree with your re: your bigger point of going to UVA or Michigan for free. Berkley is a peer school to UVA and Michigan, so I don't really understand why anyone would pay $105k to attend Berkley when they could go to UVA or Michigan for free, especially in a situation like this one where the OP doesn't even have any ties to CA.


To answer your question, I'm pretty sure a person who has no sense of money or finances would pay 105k to go to Berkeley over full rides at UVA/Michigan. To work what? A shitty biglaw job in California. Biglaw is shit no matter where you are.

Maybe. But is California biglaw a little less shitty than NYC big law?

I'm not asking rhetorically. I've never worked in NYC. For years, I assumed that the associates-are-worked-to-death-in-NYC thing was basically a flame—associates more or less work the same everywhere. But I've heard enough NYC horror stories of late to make me question whether there's some truth to the stereotype.


Among the larger markets (NYC, DC, Chicago, California, Texas, ATL, etc.) it's more to do with the firm and your department than the region. I'm in NYC biglaw but my friend in DC biglaw has billed more than me every year. And then there are people at my firm billing 2600+ hours a year and we're not a Cravath...

For example, Quinn is a California firm, but it's a notorious sweatshop that I think has minimum billables of 2400. And keep in mind a lot of people bill 70% of what they actually work so if you're legitimately billing 2400-2500 hours a year, you probably have no life outside of work.

So yeah, biglaw is shit pretty much everywhere.


Ppl bill under 2400 at QE, you just don't get an extra bonus. I think minimum for market bonus is 2100.

User avatar
BiglawAssociate
Posts: 355
Joined: Thu Mar 12, 2015 12:05 am

Re: Columbia vs Berkeley

Postby BiglawAssociate » Thu Mar 26, 2015 12:23 am

^A partner at my firm told me the average billed at Quinn is 2400? He might not have known though. But even partners at my firm call Quinn a sweatshop.

My friend at Skadden (in comparison) billed only 2100 a year, and then left after no more than 2 years....

Also keep in mind many office jobs outside of law people are legitimately working like 4 hours a day if that. In law, you are legitimately working pretty much all day if you're billing, and far beyond the average 8 hour day.

This is why, UNLESS YOU LOVE WORKING AND HAVE NO LIFE OUTSIDE OF WORK, and are okay with doing BORING, DETAIL ORIENTED BULLSHIT ALL DAY, you should not go to law school.

Even my public interest friends work like 9 to 10 hour days for crap pay (although their work is probably more interesting). But it's CRAP pay compared to the average office job.

User avatar
BiglawAssociate
Posts: 355
Joined: Thu Mar 12, 2015 12:05 am

Re: Columbia vs Berkeley

Postby BiglawAssociate » Thu Mar 26, 2015 12:28 am

Also biglaw makes people look old and fat (not me fortunately) but it ruins your health and makes you look old and fat earlier than you should.

You only have one youth, people. Don't ruin it through working your life away.

User avatar
XxSpyKEx
Posts: 1741
Joined: Wed Dec 27, 2006 5:48 am

Re: Columbia vs Berkeley

Postby XxSpyKEx » Thu Mar 26, 2015 12:41 am

BiglawAssociate wrote:^A partner at my firm told me the average billed at Quinn is 2400? He might not have known though. But even partners at my firm call Quinn a sweatshop.

My friend at Skadden (in comparison) billed only 2100 a year, and then left after no more than 2 years....

Also keep in mind many office jobs outside of law people are legitimately working like 4 hours a day if that. In law, you are legitimately working pretty much all day if you're billing, and far beyond the average 8 hour day.

This is why, UNLESS YOU LOVE WORKING AND HAVE NO LIFE OUTSIDE OF WORK, and are okay with doing BORING, DETAIL ORIENTED BULLSHIT ALL DAY, you should not go to law school.

Even my public interest friends work like 9 to 10 hour days for crap pay (although their work is probably more interesting). But it's CRAP pay compared to the average office job.


I dunno, my friends at federal government agencies who aren't doing litigation seem to have a pretty alright jobs, imo. Work like 3 days a week from home and/or get every Friday off, told not to every work more than 9-5:30 p.m. (because if they do more with less money, they won't get larger appropriations the next year), 20 days off a year, and $120k+ with a few years of experience. Although, I think federal government is probably one of the very few legit legal job out there if you want a chill 9-5 type office job (the state and local governments usually pay pretty shitty).

BiglawAssociate wrote:Also biglaw makes people look old and fat (not me fortunately) but it ruins your health and makes you look old and fat earlier than you should.

You only have one youth, people. Don't ruin it through working your life away.


Image

:lol:

User avatar
BiglawAssociate
Posts: 355
Joined: Thu Mar 12, 2015 12:05 am

Re: Columbia vs Berkeley

Postby BiglawAssociate » Thu Mar 26, 2015 12:44 am

XxSpyKEx wrote:
BiglawAssociate wrote:^A partner at my firm told me the average billed at Quinn is 2400? He might not have known though. But even partners at my firm call Quinn a sweatshop.

My friend at Skadden (in comparison) billed only 2100 a year, and then left after no more than 2 years....

Also keep in mind many office jobs outside of law people are legitimately working like 4 hours a day if that. In law, you are legitimately working pretty much all day if you're billing, and far beyond the average 8 hour day.

This is why, UNLESS YOU LOVE WORKING AND HAVE NO LIFE OUTSIDE OF WORK, and are okay with doing BORING, DETAIL ORIENTED BULLSHIT ALL DAY, you should not go to law school.

Even my public interest friends work like 9 to 10 hour days for crap pay (although their work is probably more interesting). But it's CRAP pay compared to the average office job.


I dunno, my friends at federal government agencies who aren't doing litigation seem to have a pretty alright job, imo. Work like 3 days a week from home and/or get every Friday off, told not to every work more than 9-5:30 p.m. (because if they do more with less money, they won't get larger appropriations the next year), 20 days off a year, and $120k+ with a few years of experience. Although, I think federal government is probably one of the very few legit legal job out there if you want a chill 9-5 type office job (the state and local governments usually pay pretty shitty).


My friends in fed gov definitely work the least out of all of us (including the public interest folks). But it's mainly all litigation - type work. Even if you aren't doing trials, you're likely writing briefs or opinions, and that ain't my cup of tea. But yeah, fed gov is probably the chillest (and also super hard to get now).

State and local govs pay public interest salaries - barely sustainable in a big city.

XxSpyKEx wrote:
BiglawAssociate wrote:Also biglaw makes people look old and fat (not me fortunately) but it ruins your health and makes you look old and fat earlier than you should.

You only have one youth, people. Don't ruin it through working your life away.


Image

:lol:


Just glad I didn't gain 150 pounds (unlike some people I work with)....the cow goes moo

User avatar
BruceWayne
Posts: 2032
Joined: Sat Aug 14, 2010 9:36 pm

Re: Columbia vs Berkeley

Postby BruceWayne » Fri Mar 27, 2015 4:41 pm

BiglawAssociate wrote:
XxSpyKEx wrote:But I agree with your re: your bigger point of going to UVA or Michigan for free. Berkley is a peer school to UVA and Michigan, so I don't really understand why anyone would pay $105k to attend Berkley when they could go to UVA or Michigan for free, especially in a situation like this one where the OP doesn't even have any ties to CA.


To answer your question, I'm pretty sure a person who has no sense of money or finances would pay 105k to go to Berkeley over full rides at UVA/Michigan. To work what? A shitty biglaw job in California. Biglaw is shit no matter where you are. You won't even have enough free time to enjoy California because you will be spending most of your time at work or working from home.

This isn't even a serious question to me. I'd go for the $$$$$$$$$.



I was just researching mortgage stuff and thinking about my current finances (things like car note, car insurance, student loan payments, etc.) and this is so incredibly true. Honestly, I hate saying this but you'd basically have to be a fool, or 22, to choose to go to Boalt with loans over ANY top 14 for free with a stipend. Let alone two with the same reputation/placement ability.

User avatar
BiglawAssociate
Posts: 355
Joined: Thu Mar 12, 2015 12:05 am

Re: Columbia vs Berkeley

Postby BiglawAssociate » Fri Mar 27, 2015 10:58 pm

BruceWayne wrote:
BiglawAssociate wrote:
XxSpyKEx wrote:But I agree with your re: your bigger point of going to UVA or Michigan for free. Berkley is a peer school to UVA and Michigan, so I don't really understand why anyone would pay $105k to attend Berkley when they could go to UVA or Michigan for free, especially in a situation like this one where the OP doesn't even have any ties to CA.


To answer your question, I'm pretty sure a person who has no sense of money or finances would pay 105k to go to Berkeley over full rides at UVA/Michigan. To work what? A shitty biglaw job in California. Biglaw is shit no matter where you are. You won't even have enough free time to enjoy California because you will be spending most of your time at work or working from home.

This isn't even a serious question to me. I'd go for the $$$$$$$$$.



I was just researching mortgage stuff and thinking about my current finances (things like car note, car insurance, student loan payments, etc.) and this is so incredibly true. Honestly, I hate saying this but you'd basically have to be a fool, or 22, to choose to go to Boalt with loans over ANY top 14 for free with a stipend. Let alone two with the same reputation/placement ability.


Seriously - It took me like 3 years to get back to net worth ZERO. Of misery, working all the time, dealing with bullshit. These youngsters just have no idea how hard it is to make money. It's easy signing your life away for a few years, but so hard to pay it back.




Return to “Choosing a Law School”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: dmc1275 and 7 guests