Is Berkeley worth $50K more than UCLA? Forum

[jbagelboy]

Well obviously it's more complicated than just the first year salary, but it was meant to be a simplified way at quantifying the difference. Keep in mind that most people only make it 2-3 years in biglaw, so LOL at the responses that said the differences between the two schools is "in the millions" over the course of a career. As if, you go to Berkeley you'll make biglaw partner, but if you go to UCLA you won't pass the bar.

There may be some modest advantage in getting your first job, if at all, by going to a school that is T10 vs. T20. But beyond that, the difference in lifetime earnings will come down to how you perform as an attorney, not whether you went to Cal or UCLA. That difference isnt worth $50k, after-tax, in your pocket today.

In terms of exit options, after your first couple of years practicing (i.e. when most people leave biglaw), where you went to law school becomes increasingly less important. Certainly the difference between Cal and UCLA will likely not even come up in a hiring decision for a lateral move.

So, yeah maybe I simplified the math. But some of the replies grossly exaggerate the difference in value--assuming there is even a difference to begin with.

Re-read my post explaining what an effective financial EV computation would look like and stop straw-manning. All of these points are incorporated.

[16to19]

Lol @ old schwartzy. Give the man credit. The fact that this is a real thread is impressive.

OP, i figure i'll throw you a bone, although it's your career/money to light on fire or not: the people in this thread recommending you take berkeley are by and large attorneys who did well at this process. the people recommending ucla are by and large idiots 0Ls.

p.s. i would've killed to get boalt at that COA. congratulations! also, for what it's worth, old schwartzy over at ucla tried to get me with a full ride. turned him down for a good scholarship to a t14 and it worked out great.

[ModelPenalChoade]

Not even close. First, you attribute whether somebody stays in a job to where they go to law school. That's not defensible.

The only relevant consideration is whether or not there is any advantage in getting your first job. Beyond that, whether you go to Cal or UCLA makes no difference. So a 5-10% difference in biglaw placement between the two school is worth millions in your mind? LOL, good thing you're a law student and not on Wall Street.

Well obviously it's more complicated than just the first year salary, but it was meant to be a simplified way at quantifying the difference. Keep in mind that most people only make it 2-3 years in biglaw, so LOL at the responses that said the differences between the two schools is "in the millions" over the course of a career. As if, you go to Berkeley you'll make biglaw partner, but if you go to UCLA you won't pass the bar.

There may be some modest advantage in getting your first job, if at all, by going to a school that is T10 vs. T20. But beyond that, the difference in lifetime earnings will come down to how you perform as an attorney, not whether you went to Cal or UCLA. That difference isnt worth $50k, after-tax, in your pocket today.

In terms of exit options, after your first couple of years practicing (i.e. when most people leave biglaw), where you went to law school becomes increasingly less important. Certainly the difference between Cal and UCLA will likely not even come up in a hiring decision for a lateral move.

So, yeah maybe I simplified the math. But some of the replies grossly exaggerate the difference in value--assuming there is even a difference to begin with.

Re-read my post explaining what an effective financial EV computation would look like and stop straw-manning. All of these points are incorporated.

[cron1834]

Not even close. First, you attribute whether somebody stays in a job to where they go to law school. That's not defensible.

The only relevant consideration is whether or not there is any advantage in getting your first job. Beyond that, whether you go to Cal or UCLA makes no difference. So a 5-10% difference in biglaw placement between the two school is worth millions in your mind? LOL, good thing you're a law student and not on Wall Street.

Well obviously it's more complicated than just the first year salary, but it was meant to be a simplified way at quantifying the difference. Keep in mind that most people only make it 2-3 years in biglaw, so LOL at the responses that said the differences between the two schools is "in the millions" over the course of a career. As if, you go to Berkeley you'll make biglaw partner, but if you go to UCLA you won't pass the bar.

There may be some modest advantage in getting your first job, if at all, by going to a school that is T10 vs. T20. But beyond that, the difference in lifetime earnings will come down to how you perform as an attorney, not whether you went to Cal or UCLA. That difference isnt worth $50k, after-tax, in your pocket today.

In terms of exit options, after your first couple of years practicing (i.e. when most people leave biglaw), where you went to law school becomes increasingly less important. Certainly the difference between Cal and UCLA will likely not even come up in a hiring decision for a lateral move.

So, yeah maybe I simplified the math. But some of the replies grossly exaggerate the difference in value--assuming there is even a difference to begin with.

Re-read my post explaining what an effective financial EV computation would look like and stop straw-manning. All of these points are incorporated.

This is the dumbest post I've seen this week.