UCLA c/o 2016 Applicants (2012-2013)

Share Your Experiences, Read About Other Experiences. Please keep posts organized by school and expected year of graduation.
User avatar
06102016
Posts: 13466
Joined: Tue Oct 25, 2011 1:29 pm

Re: UCLA c/o 2016 Applicants (2012-2013)

Postby 06102016 » Mon Feb 04, 2013 2:33 pm

..

User avatar
intlsplitr
Posts: 169
Joined: Sun Dec 16, 2012 9:00 pm

Re: UCLA c/o 2016 Applicants (2012-2013)

Postby intlsplitr » Mon Feb 04, 2013 2:35 pm

In via email! Submitted on 1/9. I'm really surprised by the quick turnaround.

User avatar
alwayssunnyinfl
Posts: 4100
Joined: Tue Mar 13, 2012 9:34 pm

Re: UCLA c/o 2016 Applicants (2012-2013)

Postby alwayssunnyinfl » Mon Feb 04, 2013 2:35 pm

slack_academic wrote:
alwayssunnyinfl wrote:
slack_academic wrote:
alwayssunnyinfl wrote:I keep forgetting that I applied here five months ago.

I remember every day that I was waitlisted here... :cry:

eta: mainly because people in Los Angeles always ask, "What about UCLA?" when they find out I got into USC. ugh


Based on what I see on LST, USC>UCLA. Don't feel bad.

I know. It's weird, though. USC has a reputation as being a bastion of the incompetent rich, so people always ask. Plus, UCLA's in sexy-ass Westwood and USC is not. siiiggghhhh

I guess I'll have to channel this all into my long-overdue LOCI.

Yeah. Luckily, lay-reputation has nothing to do with the quality of the law school.

User avatar
06102016
Posts: 13466
Joined: Tue Oct 25, 2011 1:29 pm

Re: UCLA c/o 2016 Applicants (2012-2013)

Postby 06102016 » Mon Feb 04, 2013 2:36 pm

..

User avatar
teachmehowtoraji
Posts: 198
Joined: Mon Nov 05, 2012 6:25 pm

Re: UCLA c/o 2016 Applicants (2012-2013)

Postby teachmehowtoraji » Mon Feb 04, 2013 9:26 pm

Dinged today, not shocking in even the least bit

maxiguess
Posts: 164
Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 12:04 am

Re: UCLA c/o 2016 Applicants (2012-2013)

Postby maxiguess » Mon Feb 04, 2013 9:59 pm

alwayssunnyinfl wrote:Yeah. Luckily, lay-reputation has nothing to do with the quality of the law school.


The bias among hiring attorneys in LA that I have spoken to (maybe 25-30) does seem to favor UCLA.

BigZuck
Posts: 10852
Joined: Tue Sep 04, 2012 9:53 am

Re: UCLA c/o 2016 Applicants (2012-2013)

Postby BigZuck » Mon Feb 04, 2013 11:29 pm

maxiguess wrote:
alwayssunnyinfl wrote:Yeah. Luckily, lay-reputation has nothing to do with the quality of the law school.


The bias among hiring attorneys in LA that I have spoken to (maybe 25-30) does seem to favor UCLA.


This does not jive with numbers and statistics.

Eta: I guess in pure numbers terms UCLA grads might get hired more but statistically speaking the chance of big law as a USC grad is greater based on LST.
Last edited by BigZuck on Mon Feb 04, 2013 11:31 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
alwayssunnyinfl
Posts: 4100
Joined: Tue Mar 13, 2012 9:34 pm

Re: UCLA c/o 2016 Applicants (2012-2013)

Postby alwayssunnyinfl » Mon Feb 04, 2013 11:31 pm

BigZuck wrote:
maxiguess wrote:
alwayssunnyinfl wrote:Yeah. Luckily, lay-reputation has nothing to do with the quality of the law school.


The bias among hiring attorneys in LA that I have spoken to (maybe 25-30) does seem to favor UCLA.


This does not jive with numbers and statistics.

Exactly what I was going to say.

Golden Bear 11
Posts: 169
Joined: Fri Feb 03, 2012 1:21 am

Re: UCLA c/o 2016 Applicants (2012-2013)

Postby Golden Bear 11 » Mon Feb 04, 2013 11:48 pm

in 2010, UCLA (35%) v. USC (28.7%) NLJ 250
in 2011, USC (32.8%) v. UCLA (22.6%) NLJ 250

fwiw, there are definitely more public interest and government- focused students at UCLA than at USC

also, UCLA at least provides school funding for their job seeking graduates. USC, I believe, does not.

BigZuck
Posts: 10852
Joined: Tue Sep 04, 2012 9:53 am

Re: UCLA c/o 2016 Applicants (2012-2013)

Postby BigZuck » Tue Feb 05, 2013 12:02 am

Golden Bear 11 wrote:in 2010, UCLA (35%) v. USC (28.7%) NLJ 250
in 2011, USC (32.8%) v. UCLA (22.6%) NLJ 250

fwiw, there are definitely more public interest and government- focused students at UCLA than at USC

also, UCLA at least provides school funding for their job seeking graduates. USC, I believe, does not.


I thought 2010 and 2005 were the only recent years that UCLA beat out USC for big law percentage? Anyway it's been argued to death around here, no use beating a dead horse. Sorry I said anything.

maxiguess
Posts: 164
Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 12:04 am

Re: UCLA c/o 2016 Applicants (2012-2013)

Postby maxiguess » Tue Feb 05, 2013 1:34 am

I'm talking about the hiring culture in LA firms in general as the partners I've discussed them with see it. But hey, I guess if you've read the latest statistics your world view is complete. Maybe round out with a little wikipedia to be sure.

User avatar
dproduct
Posts: 4087
Joined: Tue Dec 27, 2011 8:58 pm

Re: UCLA c/o 2016 Applicants (2012-2013)

Postby dproduct » Tue Feb 05, 2013 1:38 am

maxiguess wrote:I'm talking about the hiring culture in LA firms in general. But hey, I guess if you've read the latest statistics your world view is complete. Maybe round out with a little wikipedia to be sure.


While I don't doubt the validity of your information, since it's anecdotal you have to understand that most people are going to base their decision off of a large pool of objective data rather than your experience.

User avatar
alwayssunnyinfl
Posts: 4100
Joined: Tue Mar 13, 2012 9:34 pm

Re: UCLA c/o 2016 Applicants (2012-2013)

Postby alwayssunnyinfl » Tue Feb 05, 2013 1:43 am

dproduct wrote:
maxiguess wrote:I'm talking about the hiring culture in LA firms in general. But hey, I guess if you've read the latest statistics your world view is complete. Maybe round out with a little wikipedia to be sure.


While I don't doubt the validity of your information, since it's anecdotal you have to understand that most people are going to base their decision off of a large pool of objective data rather than your experience.

They're both similar enough that money + school culture should really be all you care about. Don't be so sensitive you guys, I was just trying to make slack_academic feel better about getting to one of these two nearly identical law schools in SoCal.

maxiguess
Posts: 164
Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 12:04 am

Re: UCLA c/o 2016 Applicants (2012-2013)

Postby maxiguess » Tue Feb 05, 2013 1:47 am

dproduct wrote:
maxiguess wrote:I'm talking about the hiring culture in LA firms in general. But hey, I guess if you've read the latest statistics your world view is complete. Maybe round out with a little wikipedia to be sure.


While I don't doubt the validity of your information, since it's anecdotal you have to understand that most people are going to base their decision off of a large pool of objective data rather than your experience.


You kind of missed the point, but yeah. I understand why people like statistics, especially when they don't understand their limitations. Charm of Competence and all

User avatar
06102016
Posts: 13466
Joined: Tue Oct 25, 2011 1:29 pm

Re: UCLA c/o 2016 Applicants (2012-2013)

Postby 06102016 » Tue Feb 05, 2013 3:23 am

..

User avatar
06102016
Posts: 13466
Joined: Tue Oct 25, 2011 1:29 pm

Re: UCLA c/o 2016 Applicants (2012-2013)

Postby 06102016 » Tue Feb 05, 2013 3:26 am

..

shntn
Posts: 5319
Joined: Sun Jun 10, 2012 1:45 pm

Re: UCLA c/o 2016 Applicants (2012-2013)

Postby shntn » Tue Feb 05, 2013 10:02 am

slack_academic wrote:
maxiguess wrote:The bias among hiring attorneys in LA that I have spoken to (maybe 25-30) does seem to favor UCLA.

And yeah, this is sort of the vibe I've gotten, although I've heard from some that it just depends on the firm/individuals involved. It could also be a function of where these attorneys are in L.A.

It all depends on the individual firm and whether the hiring partners have a strong preference for applicants from their alma maters. The California schools in particular are known for pretty fiercely tight alumni networks, so I'd imagine some LA firms lean more Bruin while others lean more Trojan. Overall it's probably a wash or close to it.

ETA: so basically I agree with Sunny. Cost and fit should do more to distinguish the two than overall pretty similar job prospects, especially since the latter is somewhat variable from year to year anyway.

BigZuck
Posts: 10852
Joined: Tue Sep 04, 2012 9:53 am

Re: UCLA c/o 2016 Applicants (2012-2013)

Postby BigZuck » Tue Feb 05, 2013 10:16 am

maxiguess wrote:
dproduct wrote:
maxiguess wrote:I'm talking about the hiring culture in LA firms in general. But hey, I guess if you've read the latest statistics your world view is complete. Maybe round out with a little wikipedia to be sure.


While I don't doubt the validity of your information, since it's anecdotal you have to understand that most people are going to base their decision off of a large pool of objective data rather than your experience.


You kind of missed the point, but yeah. I understand why people like statistics, especially when they don't understand their limitations. Charm of Competence and all


I missed the point as well, maybe you can spell it out for us dumbs. Btw considering dproduct and I can't grasp the bare essence of what you are saying I'm not sure that speaks too highly of the caliber of a UCLA education.

maxiguess
Posts: 164
Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 12:04 am

Re: UCLA c/o 2016 Applicants (2012-2013)

Postby maxiguess » Tue Feb 05, 2013 12:51 pm

BigZuck wrote:
maxiguess wrote:
dproduct wrote:
considering dproduct and I can't grasp the bare essence of what you are saying I'm not sure that speaks too highly of the caliber of a UCLA education.


Good logic.

shntn
Posts: 5319
Joined: Sun Jun 10, 2012 1:45 pm

Re: UCLA c/o 2016 Applicants (2012-2013)

Postby shntn » Tue Feb 05, 2013 12:55 pm

maxiguess wrote:Good logic.

Now, now. Let the East Coasters bicker incessantly. It isn't a very California thing to do.

akasabian
Posts: 113
Joined: Sat Jan 15, 2011 8:11 pm

Re: UCLA c/o 2016 Applicants (2012-2013)

Postby akasabian » Tue Feb 05, 2013 1:02 pm

Back to the subject of getting into UCLA....
Any clue when we'll be getting decisions? This no status-checker thing makes me antsy.

BigZuck
Posts: 10852
Joined: Tue Sep 04, 2012 9:53 am

Re: UCLA c/o 2016 Applicants (2012-2013)

Postby BigZuck » Tue Feb 05, 2013 1:05 pm

maxiguess wrote:
BigZuck wrote:
maxiguess wrote:
dproduct wrote:
considering dproduct and I can't grasp the bare essence of what you are saying I'm not sure that speaks too highly of the caliber of a UCLA education.


Good logic.


You made a point that we both missed and I asked you to clarify. Are you going to do that or not? Because I'm starting to suspect that you don't actually have a point and are just trying to be adversarial for no reason. Or you actually believe that your one anecdote should trump numbers and statistics and that is just not enough for strangers on the internet to go off of.

Eta: stop acting like an East Coaster.

BigZuck
Posts: 10852
Joined: Tue Sep 04, 2012 9:53 am

Re: UCLA c/o 2016 Applicants (2012-2013)

Postby BigZuck » Tue Feb 05, 2013 1:07 pm

akasabian wrote:Back to the subject of getting into UCLA....
Any clue when we'll be getting decisions? This no status-checker thing makes me antsy.


Could take a week, could take months. They are kind of goofy that way.

maxiguess
Posts: 164
Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 12:04 am

Re: UCLA c/o 2016 Applicants (2012-2013)

Postby maxiguess » Tue Feb 05, 2013 1:31 pm

BigZuck wrote:
You made a point that we both missed and I asked you to clarify. Are you going to do that or not? Because I'm starting to suspect that you don't actually have a point and are just trying to be adversarial for no reason. Or you actually believe that your one anecdote should trump numbers and statistics and that is just not enough for strangers on the internet to go off of.

Eta: stop acting like an East Coaster.


I made a comment about the hiring opinions of attorneys in LA who I have spoken to and work with, and you immediately claimed that statistics prove otherwise. Even if it were true that a higher percentage of the USC class was employed within 8 months every single year, which clearly isn't the case, that *still* would not render null the possibility of a bias towards UCLA grads among hiring attorneys in Los Angeles, due to the individual factors of each student's successes and failures that are not represented by the statistics.
It's nice to be aware of statistics but personal experiences/anecdotes should be considered as well. In this case, I was offering the opinions of a couple dozen hiring partners, who represented not just their views but their perception of the hiring practices in the city generally. You can take it or leave it, but to dismiss it due to statistics, and tell everyone else to do the same, is shallow-minded.

Lol@ the East Coaster comment. I'm a huge LA booster but I was born in Manhattan, so I concede there may still be a bit of adversarial New Yorker left in me.

BigZuck
Posts: 10852
Joined: Tue Sep 04, 2012 9:53 am

Re: UCLA c/o 2016 Applicants (2012-2013)

Postby BigZuck » Tue Feb 05, 2013 1:52 pm

maxiguess wrote:
BigZuck wrote:
You made a point that we both missed and I asked you to clarify. Are you going to do that or not? Because I'm starting to suspect that you don't actually have a point and are just trying to be adversarial for no reason. Or you actually believe that your one anecdote should trump numbers and statistics and that is just not enough for strangers on the internet to go off of.

Eta: stop acting like an East Coaster.


I made a comment about the hiring opinions of attorneys in LA who I have spoken to and work with, and you immediately claimed that statistics prove otherwise. Even if it were true that a higher percentage of the USC class was employed within 8 months every single year, which clearly isn't the case, that *still* would not render null the possibility of a bias towards UCLA grads among hiring attorneys in Los Angeles, due to the individual factors of each student's successes and failures that are not represented by the statistics.
It's nice to be aware of statistics but personal experiences/anecdotes should be considered as well. In this case, I was offering the opinions of a couple dozen hiring partners, who represented not just their views but their perception of the hiring practices in the city generally. You can take it or leave it, but to dismiss it due to statistics, and tell everyone else to do the same, is shallow-minded.

Lol@ the East Coaster comment. I'm a huge LA booster but I was born in Manhattan, so I concede there may still be a bit of adversarial New Yorker left in me.


So hiring partners prefer UCLA grads but they don't actually end up hiring them in as high a percentage as USC grads. Gotcha.

Look, I could care less if they preferred that I went to UCLA, if going to USC means I have a higher percentage chance of actually getting hired then I'm going to go to USC, all other things being equal.

Also, consider this hypo: there are 1000 hiring partners in LA. 30 of them prefer UCLA. 970 of them prefer USC. You only talk to the 30 who prefer UCLA kids and never the 970 who prefer USC kids and formulate your opinion on that. See what is potentially problematic there?

Anyway agreed that there are two camps fiercely loyal to their side. Each side's anecdotes will cancel each other out. All I have to go off of after that is how the two groups as a whole fare. That's the best we can do.




Return to “Law School Acceptances, Denials, and Waitlists”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: BruiseWillis, dietcoke1, headrangerwoody, tsporl, Yahoo [Bot] and 15 guests