I have a different view on a lot of the past several comments. I'm not calling anyone a liar, but the same people can view the same situation differently.
Moonlight wrote: the tax law program? Whether its worth it
Resident Cost: $226,846
I have no idea how LST calculates the "Resident Cost" except to say that it's just not right. I'm sitting on ~$125k of law school debt right now, as a second semester 3L (i.e. with no more borrowing ahead of me), and I had zero savings going into law school. I'll acknowledge getting a good amount of financial aid in grants...but the thing is that the "average" student does as well. According to UCH's 509 report (mandated by the ABA), the "median" grant was over $15k last year, and 80% of students received a grant. (source: http://www.uchastings.edu/about/consume ... 9_2013.pdf
). I suspect LST isn't taking this into account. I also suspect that LST assumes you will not make money over the summer (not true for most people), and thus overestimates borrowing to begin with. LST does a lot of good work, but on this number, there's no way.
a male human wrote:
Moonlight wrote:Do you think USC has same pull as Hastings in Nor Cal? I want to be here in Nor Cal ultimately.
USC likely does since it's top 20 or so IIRC. But I see mostly a lot of regional schools (Stanford, Boalt, Hastings, SCU, GGU) in firm profiles. I do see some UCLA but not much USC actually.
I'm not sure about this at all. I know people that were shut out of SF/SV at UCLA, and based on my own experience at OCI/interviewing with firms, there are VERY few USC hires at most SF/SV offices. USC definitely has better employment prospects, but if you're set on SF/SV (like I was), then I would argue it's a closer call. But don't take my word for it, look at the NorCal offices of the V100 firms yourself, and you'll quickly see what I'm talking about.
lisavj wrote:Some don't get SF firm jobs. Some do. SF is a small market, so they take a few SLS a few Berkeley, and a UCH or two (max, seriously, I know two people from UCH going to biglaw in SF next year) and then they are full. If you're OK with Palo Alto, then you are better off, but still you have to be top 20%.
I know you mean well, but this sounds almost misleading to me. Do you have to be top 20% at UCH to get biglaw in SF/SV? Yes. But LST shows that ~60 kids from Hastings went into biglaw last year, not "two people." Maybe I'm misunderstanding your point here, but it sounds like you're suggesting no one from Hastings gets SF biglaw based upon people you know personally. It's clearly easier to get biglaw from Berkeley/Stanford, but in terms of SF biglaw, Hastings is probably better represented than at least some of the T14 (seriously, how many UVA kids do you see in SF biglaw?).
If you want to be in NorCal, Hastings can give you a shot at that, but if you just want a job, USC is clearly better.
Moonlight wrote:So what do you think of the new rank? And also what do you think of the reported 30% employed at graduation? I'm seriously considering Hastings, although I think USC may take me so would love your thoughts on that as well. Thanks
I'm not thrilled with the ratings drop, though I'm somewhat relieved as I thought it would be much steeper. I'm reasonably certain the ratings will recover because the drop was caused by a preposterously large class size in 2012 (it's smaller now), and there's reason to believe that the class of 2013 did better employment-wise than 2012 did (based on the NLJ's early numbers, as cited by Dean Wu in the above link).
As for the 30% employed at graduation, I'd be really careful with that because it's not an ABA statistic, so there's no guarantee of uniformity across schools. In general there are good jobs that will get you employment at graduation (biglaw/article III clerkships), questionable jobs that will give you employment at graduation (state/non-article III clerkships), and good jobs that will not make an offer of employment pre-graduation (many prosecutor and PD offices). Without a breakdown, and without knowing what "employed at graduation" means, it's hard to see it as useful (Does it count people that are employed at Starbucks while studying for the bar? What about people working internships at prosecutor's offices that are known to lead to post-bar employment, do they count as employed?).
As for USC, if you read the rest of this post, you can probably guess my opinion: if you care about being in NorCal, it's a close call, but if you just want a job, then go for USC. I personally know people who went to UCLA thinking they could get employed in NorCal, and it worked out for exactly none of them. This isn't to say that it never happens, but you'd basically have to be in the top 10% of your class, and if you're top 10% at Hastings you can usually work in NorCal anyway, so it's hard for me to see it as anything other than a wash. Again, though, if you're just focused on being a lawyer, go to USC.
deebanger wrote:didnt you transfer out of Hastings? Why did you transfer? if nothing changed, oh wait you realised that hastings had poor employment prospects and got the fuck out of there when you had the chance to.
Hey deebanger, I'm still waiting on you to answer my question: what law school are you currently attending?