Top Law Schools

Valera wrote: I will definitely touch base with the Financial Aid office about matching scholarships (though I'm not sure if Santa Clara is considered in the same realm as Hastings as far as matching goes...). I find out soon if I get to interview for a Fellowship at Santa Clara = full ride. So that's an interesting twist.

I went to UCLA undergrad, do not like LA. Four years there was enough. I'm a NorCal gal through and through. More importantly though, I want to go into something related to science or tech after. From what I understand UCLA's IP program is more tied in to copyright/media blah blah Hollywood. I'm not really sure what that means though.

But really, LA was just not for me and without any scholarship I am hard pressed to spend three more years there.

I grew up in Cupertino, so know the Bay Area well. I don't mind Santa Clara, though I think I prefer living closer to the city.

You guys gave me great things to think about and I appreciate it!

Hastings '12 grad here.

Go to UCLA. I'm going to wager 60% of the Hastings class of '12 is unemployed 9 months out (i.e., right now). I have friends who graduated coif who are jobless.

Also, don't pick a school because of its course selection. Do you have a science background/degree? If so, you may be able to get IP. If not, you will not get IP.

Agree with hiima3L. No way I'd pick Hastings over UCLA unless it was Hastings free vs. UCLA sticker. And we all know that ain't happening.

I wouldn't say the unemployment figure is quite as bleak as 60%. A lot of people are working part time or multiple part time jobs. But I would estimate that at least 60% of c/o 2012 are unhappy with their outcomes thus far.

Sad reality is that Hastings isn't placing much better than T2s like USF and Santa Clara. Much of that is an extremely competitive SF Bay Area job market.

Mick Haller wrote:Agree with hiima3L. No way I'd pick Hastings over UCLA unless it was Hastings free vs. UCLA sticker. And we all know that ain't happening.

I wouldn't say the unemployment figure is quite as bleak as 60%. A lot of people are working part time or multiple part time jobs. But I would estimate that at least 60% of c/o 2012 are unhappy with their outcomes thus far.

Sad reality is that Hastings isn't placing much better than T2s like USF and Santa Clara. Much of that is an extremely competitive SF Bay Area job market.

It is that bleak; 26% employed at graduation: http://grad-schools.usnews.rankingsandr ... ings-03015

If Hastings is not placing much better than USF or SCU and I am adamant on staying in the Bay Area would I be better off taking money from either of the lower school? Also USF is now a TTTT.
Oh I should add that I am super duper (only) interested in crim and joining the DA's Office (or maybe possibly PD), which makes Hastings all the more attractive. Is that a misguided sentiment?

onionskin wrote:It is that bleak; 26% employed at graduation: http://grad-schools.usnews.rankingsandr ... ings-03015

If Hastings is not placing much better than USF or SCU and I am adamant on staying in the Bay Area would I be better off taking money from either of the lower school? Also USF is now a TTTT.
Oh I should add that I am super duper (only) interested in crim and joining the DA's Office (or maybe possibly PD), which makes Hastings all the more attractive. Is that a misguided sentiment?

That employment statistic is misleading. Employment at graduation is not important. Employment 9-months after graduation is a better metric. Hastings stands at 45% (still terrible, but not as bad) -- http://www.lstscorereports.com/?school=hastings.

USF has an employment rate of 33% and SCU 41%. USF is a terrible choice with anything short of a near full ride. Santa Clara is a much better choice. If they give you a significant amount of money you should seriously consider their offer. Hastings will not offer significant financial aid.

The PD's hiring procedure is brutal. Even if you get hired, a HUGE IF, they have a 1-year class of attorneys. It's similar to the way accounting firms work. They only hire the best attorneys in a group. This all depends on how many job openings exist. Some years no openings exist and everyone gets fired. Even in a typical year almost all new hires are not offered full time employment. So if 10 people get hired, only 1-3 are offered permanent jobs. Most PD's spend one year in SF, get fired, and then take a job in a less competitive nearby county. I learned this during my screener PD interview during OCI. It was a little disconcerting.

I assume it's the same with the DA.

onionskin wrote:

Mick Haller wrote:Agree with hiima3L. No way I'd pick Hastings over UCLA unless it was Hastings free vs. UCLA sticker. And we all know that ain't happening.

I wouldn't say the unemployment figure is quite as bleak as 60%. A lot of people are working part time or multiple part time jobs. But I would estimate that at least 60% of c/o 2012 are unhappy with their outcomes thus far.

Sad reality is that Hastings isn't placing much better than T2s like USF and Santa Clara. Much of that is an extremely competitive SF Bay Area job market.

It is that bleak; 26% employed at graduation: http://grad-schools.usnews.rankingsandr ... ings-03015

If Hastings is not placing much better than USF or SCU and I am adamant on staying in the Bay Area would I be better off taking money from either of the lower school? Also USF is now a TTTT.
Oh I should add that I am super duper (only) interested in crim and joining the DA's Office (or maybe possibly PD), which makes Hastings all the more attractive. Is that a misguided sentiment?

Go wherever you get the most guaranteed $. There is no appreciable prestige bump, and PD/DAs couldn't care less about your diploma so long as you're committed to the cause and good at it.

Also, you are much more likely to do better at lesser ranked schools. (I'm basing this mostly on my friends who transferred from GGU to UCH.)

Doesn't necessarily have to be SF, happy with Alameda, Contra Costa, Marin or San Mateo unless they're bad places to start out or even more competitive than SF.

Would it be too late to get $$ if I apply to GGU now? USF is offering $31k (3.2+) and I am very much tempted by an academically weaker student body but I am still waiting on a decision from SCU.

hiima3L wrote:Go wherever you get the most guaranteed $. There is no appreciable prestige bump, and PD/DAs couldn't care less about your diploma so long as you're committed to the cause and good at it.

Also, you are much more likely to do better at lesser ranked schools. (I'm basing this mostly on my friends who transferred from GGU to UCH.)

This seems like really bad advice. Hastings might not be the best school, but would you really suggest going to GGU ever? They have an 18% employment rate, and sent exactly 1 student to an NLJ 250 firm last year. (sources: http://www.lstscorereports.com/?school=goldengate and http://www.law.com/jsp/nlj/PubArticleNL ... aw_Schools )

I've also argued this up-thread, but Hastings really does have a valuable brand in the SF Bay Area, and continues to place significant numbers in those big law offices.

For the class of 2011, 45 placed in big law offices, and the early numbers from 2012 suggest that the number is either the same or higher (44 placements to the NLJ 250, but that doesn't include firms on the smaller-end of biglaw that still pay market, like Farella Braun, so the real number is probably 45+).

This constant stream of 45 students per year into big law offices in SF and SV simply cannot be compared to other schools that are similarly ranked. Everyone in SF/SV big law has heard of UC Hastings, and most of them have a favorable impression of the school. All of the local biglaw offices have UC Hastings students in their classes of new associates. This can't be compared to a school like GGU that places maybe 1 student per year into big law.

Does Hastings have the best employment outcomes? Clearly not. But the problem is NOT that employers don't take Hastings students or that there is no "prestige" associated with Hastings. Biglaw literally takes 45 Hastings students every year (compare that to ~17 at UC Davis).

The problem is that Hastings classes have been way too big. That's finally changing, and it will be interesting to see what happens when it does. Hastings will likely never have the employment numbers of Boalt or Stanford, but that's not the same as saying it has the employment outcomes of GGU.

OneMoreLawHopeful wrote:

hiima3L wrote:Go wherever you get the most guaranteed $. There is no appreciable prestige bump, and PD/DAs couldn't care less about your diploma so long as you're committed to the cause and good at it.

Also, you are much more likely to do better at lesser ranked schools. (I'm basing this mostly on my friends who transferred from GGU to UCH.)

This seems like really bad advice. Hastings might not be the best school, but would you really suggest going to GGU ever? They have an 18% employment rate, and sent exactly 1 student to an NLJ 250 firm last year. (sources: http://www.lstscorereports.com/?school=goldengate and http://www.law.com/jsp/nlj/PubArticleNL ... aw_Schools )

I've also argued this up-thread, but Hastings really does have a valuable brand in the SF Bay Area, and continues to place significant numbers in those big law offices.

For the class of 2011, 45 placed in big law offices, and the early numbers from 2012 suggest that the number is either the same or higher (44 placements to the NLJ 250, but that doesn't include firms on the smaller-end of biglaw that still pay market, like Farella Braun, so the real number is probably 45+).

This constant stream of 45 students per year into big law offices in SF and SV simply cannot be compared to other schools that are similarly ranked. Everyone in SF/SV big law has heard of UC Hastings, and most of them have a favorable impression of the school. All of the local biglaw offices have UC Hastings students in their classes of new associates. This can't be compared to a school like GGU that places maybe 1 student per year into big law.

Does Hastings have the best employment outcomes? Clearly not. But the problem is NOT that employers don't take Hastings students or that there is no "prestige" associated with Hastings. Biglaw literally takes 45 Hastings students every year (compare that to ~17 at UC Davis).

The problem is that Hastings classes have been way too big. That's finally changing, and it will be interesting to see what happens when it does. Hastings will likely never have the employment numbers of Boalt or Stanford, but that's not the same as saying it has the employment outcomes of GGU.

The poster I quoted wants to do only crim law (PD/DA). My advice was intended for that situation, not in general, but I can see how you misunderstood it. I agree that if your goal is to end up in private practice, especially biglaw, then GGU is a horrible decision across the board.

But 45 UCH students is only ~10% of each class. That's a 1-in-10 chance to having a job that can make going $100k+ in debt make sense. I think that's insanely risky.

OneMoreLawHopeful wrote:

hiima3L wrote:Go wherever you get the most guaranteed $. There is no appreciable prestige bump, and PD/DAs couldn't care less about your diploma so long as you're committed to the cause and good at it.

Also, you are much more likely to do better at lesser ranked schools. (I'm basing this mostly on my friends who transferred from GGU to UCH.)

This seems like really bad advice. Hastings might not be the best school, but would you really suggest going to GGU ever? They have an 18% employment rate, and sent exactly 1 student to an NLJ 250 firm last year. (sources: http://www.lstscorereports.com/?school=goldengate and http://www.law.com/jsp/nlj/PubArticleNL ... aw_Schools )

You're absolutely right about GGU. IMO, the same can be said of USF. I think the line has to be drawn with Santa Clara (for poster). Anything below that and the employment numbers go beyond ridiculous.

The class of 2016 is starting to get their aid awards. It's not good (http://www.top-law-schools.com/forums/v ... 7&t=198662).

How is Hastings supposed to attract the best talent if it doesn't give any merit aid to people with great #'s? I don't see why a person with a 170/3.5 would be willing to go there for $50-60k per year

kapital98 wrote: I don't see why a person with a 170/3.5 would be willing to go there for $50-60k per year

I don't see why anyone would go to UCH for $50k/yr. That is a horrible decision.

kapital98 wrote:
How is Hastings supposed to attract the best talent if it doesn't give any merit aid to people with great #'s?

Talent being defined through LSAT/GPA?

I am considering UCH. I am dismayed, to say the least, by the lack of financial assistance they seem to be offering. I haven't read a post of anyone receiving much more money than I did, but that really doesn't say much...

Still, like I said, I am considering UCH. I went to the reception/mixer and I attended a recent ASD, and these experiences have made me want to buy into what they were selling. I understand the poor numbers, but I also understand that those stats are reflective of too many students in a highly competitive market. On the other side, there are still many students graduating attaining solid employment, right? If you do well, you will end up on the positive side of the spectrum, right? There are good reasons for attending Hastings, right?
Even if the $$$ scenario sucks, it can still be worth it...right?

That does sound like a pretty worthless cop-out, can anyone confirm??

Also, don't know if this has been mentioned, but the people at ASD literally said "150k of law school debt is good debt." That is to say, 150k of undischarged-even-if-you-die debt is good debt for what is ostensibly an investment that turns into a job.

That is complete, unmitigated bullshit, and I don't care if a admissions officer sees this or not. We are *not* buying into your scam.

apollo2015 wrote:

kapital98 wrote:
How is Hastings supposed to attract the best talent if it doesn't give any merit aid to people with great #'s?

Talent being defined through LSAT/GPA?

Yes. I can see if you might disagree with this assessment but I would argue LSAT/GPA has a small, but statistically significant, correlation with talent. Talent could be further defined as "job competence" or even more generally "the ability to find a job".

I don't see how it would be rational for people to choose Hastings over a comparable school when Hastings is going to cost 5x as much.

hiima3L wrote:The poster I quoted wants to do only crim law (PD/DA). My advice was intended for that situation, not in general, but I can see how you misunderstood it. I agree that if your goal is to end up in private practice, especially biglaw, then GGU is a horrible decision across the board.

Okay, I guess I misunderstood. From my standpoint there's little distinction between the two because, in either case, if it "doesn't work out" you're looking at the other options available to you. So, at GGU if the PD/DA thing doesn't work out, you're facing an 18% employment rate, and a 0.5% biglaw rate, wheres the respective scores were 46% and 13.3% at UC Hastings last year. From a standpoint of "How screwed are you if things don't work out?" it seems like UC Hastings is the better choice even for PD/DA.

well.let's.see wrote:I am considering UCH. I am dismayed, to say the least, by the lack of financial assistance they seem to be offering. I haven't read a post of anyone receiving much more money than I did, but that really doesn't say much...

Still, like I said, I am considering UCH. I went to the reception/mixer and I attended a recent ASD, and these experiences have made me want to buy into what they were selling. I understand the poor numbers, but I also understand that those stats are reflective of too many students in a highly competitive market. On the other side, there are still many students graduating attaining solid employment, right? If you do well, you will end up on the positive side of the spectrum, right? There are good reasons for attending Hastings, right?

I'd like to respond to this. I think you raise a really good point, and it makes me really torn about ever recommending my school to others.

The big problem with Hastings is that it's a large school (though that has changed some, we don't know the impact yet), and it provides many of the best and worst outcomes.

Law School transparency, when analyzing the recent graduate employment data, emphasized two separate categories: first, several schools had legal employment rates (full-time-long-term-bar-passage-required) rates less than 50% (there were 66 schools in this category). Second, several schools had a biglaw employment rate larger than 10% (there were 51 schools in this category).

Hastings was seemingly alone in being a member of BOTH categories. On the one hand, an overall legal employment rate of 46% is terrible. But on the other hand, a biglaw employment rate of 13.3% is literally above the national average of 12.2%. A lot of students do have very bad employment outcomes, but a lot of students also have positive employment outcomes (a number that is literally above the national average).

Obviously, if you can go to Stanford or somewhere, go there, but compared to all other non-t14 schools, Hastings has a relatively favorable biglaw placement rate.

So, unfortunately, both narratives are true. Many Hastings students get solid employment, and many end up unemployed.

As for finances...I too was only offered $10k at first (That was the "basic grant" that most got my 1L year). But this went up by $3k during my first year (the financial aid office has a habit of increasing grants between first and second semester...don't know why). By the start of this year (I'm a 2L), my grant was up to $20k, and again I got several thousand more thrown at me at the end of fall semester. I can't explain this either, as my financial situation didn't change considerably (I went straight through from undergrad, so I had no job before 1L year...). The point is, for at least some of us, the amount of money initially offered by Hastings is not at all indicative of what your final costs will look like. Unfortunately, the financial aid office is so opaque that it's hard to know who will experience this...

OneMoreLawHopeful wrote:
As for finances...I too was only offered $10k at first (That was the "basic grant" that most got my 1L year). But this went up by $3k during my first year (the financial aid office has a habit of increasing grants between first and second semester...don't know why). By the start of this year (I'm a 2L), my grant was up to $20k, and again I got several thousand more thrown at me at the end of fall semester. I can't explain this either, as my financial situation didn't change considerably (I went straight through from undergrad, so I had no job before 1L year...). The point is, for at least some of us, the amount of money initially offered by Hastings is not at all indicative of what your final costs will look like. Unfortunately, the financial aid office is so opaque that it's hard to know who will experience this...

Wow - I would love to hear if other students had experienced this. I just sent an email regarding negotiating my offer - we'll see if that pays out.

I'm pretty set on attending Hastings, I did all my pros/cons list and Hastings really came out on top. UCLA wasn't able to give me any scholarship so it makes sense cost-wise... I think. I'm not a fan of going into a lot of debt but I guess it is what it is. If I am going into so much debt at least I will do it living in an awesome city like San Francisco and not in traffic hell.

Thanks for all of your answers to these questions! Sorry if I missed an answer to this question earlier but where do you think is the best place to live in or near the city? I will be moving with my boyfriend so have a roommate (suhweet!) but would like to generally have an idea of where to narrow my search for housing.

Also - what academic extracurriculars are available to 1Ls? I saw some discussion regarding doing extra activities in the first semester because the second gets harder, is that accurate?

Valera wrote:Thanks for all of your answers to these questions! Sorry if I missed an answer to this question earlier but where do you think is the best place to live in or near the city? I will be moving with my boyfriend so have a roommate (suhweet!) but would like to generally have an idea of where to narrow my search for housing.

Also - what academic extracurriculars are available to 1Ls? I saw some discussion regarding doing extra activities in the first semester because the second gets harder, is that accurate?

I can't help you with the first Q for "outside the city" - I've lived within the city my whole time at Hastings, sorry.

As for inside the city, consider Western Addition, or the Inner Sunset. The rents are cheaper and you still have access to amenities. The Mission is great in terms of amenities, but the rent is out of control...

As for the second Q, most extracirriculars are open to 1Ls. The few that aren't open are: journals, Moot Court, Mock Trial. All of those are going to look at your first year performance before letting you in (looking at how you do in Moot Court Class on the part of the teams, and looking at your overall GPA for journals).

It's true that 2nd semester is "harder" 1L year, but that's simply because they force you to take more classes. First semester you take 14 credits, second semester you take 16; so you're just plain busier.

Nonetheless, I don't think the difference between the two semesters is SO intense as to require you to plan for the second semester in advance. Even if the time commitment does get intense, most extracirriculars are worth the time.

My 1L year I joined the ADR team, and I think it was one of the best decisions I ever made. I met most of my friends that way, the school paid for me to travel to a competition elsewhere in the country, and I learned a valuable skill set. The time commitment could be intense at times: preparing for a competition can easily involve 40 hours of practice (20 practices x 2 hours a practice), to say nothing of missing class when you travel to the competition. But, in terms of social opportunities, travel, networking, etc. I think it was totally worth it.

OneMoreLawHopeful wrote:

hiima3L wrote:The poster I quoted wants to do only crim law (PD/DA). My advice was intended for that situation, not in general, but I can see how you misunderstood it. I agree that if your goal is to end up in private practice, especially biglaw, then GGU is a horrible decision across the board.

Okay, I guess I misunderstood. From my standpoint there's little distinction between the two because, in either case, if it "doesn't work out" you're looking at the other options available to you. So, at GGU if the PD/DA thing doesn't work out, you're facing an 18% employment rate, and a 0.5% biglaw rate, wheres the respective scores were 46% and 13.3% at UC Hastings last year. From a standpoint of "How screwed are you if things don't work out?" it seems like UC Hastings is the better choice even for PD/DA.

I think this advice is sound and applies for those not interested (that is, committed) to the DA/PD path. If you're going into public interest/DA/PD, I still think keeping your debt load minimal is more important than relatively minor differences in employment. I don't think GGU v. UCH is that significant if you're looking at a big scholarship from GGU. But these debates are never-ending on this board, so meh.

But I just thought of something I hadn't considered: PICAP/PSLF. Hastings has a fantastic PSLF program, so assuming you are 100% committed to going DA/PD/public interest, it might make financial sense because from what I've heard Hastings gives 100% of those who qualify PSLF $.

Valera wrote:

OneMoreLawHopeful wrote:
As for finances...I too was only offered $10k at first (That was the "basic grant" that most got my 1L year). But this went up by $3k during my first year (the financial aid office has a habit of increasing grants between first and second semester...don't know why). By the start of this year (I'm a 2L), my grant was up to $20k, and again I got several thousand more thrown at me at the end of fall semester. I can't explain this either, as my financial situation didn't change considerably (I went straight through from undergrad, so I had no job before 1L year...). The point is, for at least some of us, the amount of money initially offered by Hastings is not at all indicative of what your final costs will look like. Unfortunately, the financial aid office is so opaque that it's hard to know who will experience this...

Wow - I would love to hear if other students had experienced this. I just sent an email regarding negotiating my offer - we'll see if that pays out.

At the beginning of 1L I qualified for the maximum need-based aid. During the spring semester they randomly told me the maximum cap was being raised by around $1,000 and I was eligible for the entire amount. Then shortly before 2L they sent me an email saying that the maximum cap was being raised again and, again, I was eligible for the full amount.

Keep in mind, tuition was also increasing significantly more than aid. They gave me an extra $2-3k in one hand and took an extra $5k with the other

Regarding PICAP: It's a great program. They don't cover 100%. It's more like 95% depending on your income. That's still pretty amazing in my book. It makes Hastings an excellent choice for PI people.

P.S. Valera, in a six months you can start giving advice to 0L's on this thread. It will never die!

OneMoreLawHopeful wrote:Law School transparency, when analyzing the recent graduate employment data, emphasized two separate categories: first, several schools had legal employment rates (full-time-long-term-bar-passage-required) rates less than 50% (there were 66 schools in this category). Second, several schools had a biglaw employment rate larger than 10% (there were 51 schools in this category).

Hastings was seemingly alone in being a member of BOTH categories. On the one hand, an overall legal employment rate of 46% is terrible. But on the other hand, a biglaw employment rate of 13.3% is literally above the national average of 12.2%. A lot of students do have very bad employment outcomes, but a lot of students also have positive employment outcomes (a number that is literally above the national average).

Obviously, if you can go to Stanford or somewhere, go there, but compared to all other non-t14 schools, Hastings has a relatively favorable biglaw placement rate.

So, unfortunately, both narratives are true. Many Hastings students get solid employment, and many end up unemployed.

your stats are correct, but your conclusion isn't really accurate. 13.3% biglaw placement does not equal "many;" that's roughly 55 students out of a hypothetical class of 400 (i know class sizes will be smaller for future classes so we'll have to wait to see how that changes anything). beating the national average in biglaw placement doesn't really mean much considering the national average is only roughly 12%. the accurate conclusion is most at hastings end up unemployed, and only the top students will get solid employment.

when i made the decision to attend, there weren't as many stats available to us and the numbers were less transparent. if was just entering law school now, i would have retaken the LSAT, especially considering i was basically paying sticker.

Lasers wrote:

OneMoreLawHopeful wrote:Law School transparency, when analyzing the recent graduate employment data, emphasized two separate categories: first, several schools had legal employment rates (full-time-long-term-bar-passage-required) rates less than 50% (there were 66 schools in this category). Second, several schools had a biglaw employment rate larger than 10% (there were 51 schools in this category).

Hastings was seemingly alone in being a member of BOTH categories. On the one hand, an overall legal employment rate of 46% is terrible. But on the other hand, a biglaw employment rate of 13.3% is literally above the national average of 12.2%. A lot of students do have very bad employment outcomes, but a lot of students also have positive employment outcomes (a number that is literally above the national average).

Obviously, if you can go to Stanford or somewhere, go there, but compared to all other non-t14 schools, Hastings has a relatively favorable biglaw placement rate.

So, unfortunately, both narratives are true. Many Hastings students get solid employment, and many end up unemployed.

your stats are correct, but your conclusion isn't really accurate. 13.3% biglaw placement does not equal "many;" that's roughly 55 students out of a hypothetical class of 400 (i know class sizes will be smaller for future classes so we'll have to wait to see how that changes anything). beating the national average in biglaw placement doesn't really mean much considering the national average is only roughly 12%. the accurate conclusion is most at hastings end up unemployed, and only the top students will get solid employment.

when i made the decision to attend, there weren't as many stats available to us and the numbers were less transparent. if was just entering law school now, i would have retaken the LSAT, especially considering i was basically paying sticker.

Listen to this man.

onionskin wrote:If Hastings is not placing much better than USF or SCU and I am adamant on staying in the Bay Area would I be better off taking money from either of the lower school? Also USF is now a TTTT.
Oh I should add that I am super duper (only) interested in crim and joining the DA's Office (or maybe possibly PD), which makes Hastings all the more attractive. Is that a misguided sentiment?

Since Hastings is playing hard to get, I need to make back-up plans. Given what I said above, I think I forgot to mention I also only want to do crim in the Bay Area, would I be better off at USF for the local connections, or USD for the higher prospects (and rank)? Both are offering the same amount of $$ but I think USD has a lower/easier stip.

onionskin wrote:

onionskin wrote:If Hastings is not placing much better than USF or SCU and I am adamant on staying in the Bay Area would I be better off taking money from either of the lower school? Also USF is now a TTTT.
Oh I should add that I am super duper (only) interested in crim and joining the DA's Office (or maybe possibly PD), which makes Hastings all the more attractive. Is that a misguided sentiment?

Since Hastings is playing hard to get, I need to make back-up plans. Given what I said above, I think I forgot to mention I also only want to do crim in the Bay Area, would I be better off at USF for the local connections, or USD for the higher prospects (and rank)? Both are offering the same amount of $$ but I think USD has a lower/easier stip.

No offense, but this sounds like a terrible strategy. Most people that go into criminal law start working for a DA/PD's office. For good reason. The offices provide excellent training and prevent the avalanche of malpractice suits a new attorney can get into. Most criminal defense firms are small and do not have the human resources to train an attorney like a DA/PD's office. Also, if you work at a DA/PD's office, you are eligible for loan forgiveness.

Getting a DA/PD job in the Bay Area is incredibly difficult because everyone wants to work there. Even if you get a job, they hire first year classes and then fire almost everyone after the year is over. Most people who start in the Bay Area are forced to find a similar job well outside of the Bay Area.

Now, you could always start working for a small criminal defense firm in the Bay Area. However, both of these schools have terrible employment data so it's hard to say that will work out. Assuming you do find a job, you will have to keep debt incredibly low because there is no loan forgiveness for small defense firm work.

I would choose USD over USF because USD has an employment rate of 47% while USF has a 21% employment rate (http://www.lawschooltransparency.com/). The locality of USF will not help much. Their campus is well outside of the legal district and they don't have much of a reputation (just look at the employment data). Either way it's going to be incredibly difficult to work criminal law in San Francisco. It will be much easier to find a job if you don't mind living in a surrounding county outside of the Bay Area.

Can taking the risk--exorbitant debt, market trouble, SF competition, living and dying on being top 10-15%, and all other variables--of attending Hastings be reasonably justified?

My aim/trajectory/hope would be graduate Hastings, take advantage of its "location, location, location," get a PI job (don't know what, exactly) in SF, settle in SF, have my debt forgiven in 10 years, and you see where the story goes...