UCI ($35k/yr) vs. UCLA ($8k/yr) Forum

[fallingwater]

First you all are amazing. Thank you for taking the time to dissect my case.

Re: Finishing PhD and then apply to law school:
In short, one does not simply finish a PhD much less apply to law school (again) after. Sure, it could be done, but I don't think I wanna do. While I won't go into too much detail since I've already given away a lot of self-identifying info, in my field of study I won't exactly be sitting around doing data analysis all day.

HR--I started the PhD because I was extremely passionate and talented in the discipline. I also miraculously got into a fully funded program, which is extremely rare at my age in my field. There are other opportunities besides academia, but they are are few and you have to be really creative about it. The pay is pretty poor, and while money isn't my only goal in life it is important.

Fortunately, I have this burgeoning passion for learning/doing corporate law, transactional work, mergers and acquisitions, and IP. Roughly speaking, I eventually want to facilitate the functioning of the high-tech start-up financing sector.

Staying in academia is hard to justify because 1) I don't want to be writing grants (begging for research money) for the rest of my life and 2) I don't want to be an adjunct professor who ends up making the same amount as a grad student.

I'm leaning towards what twenty said—all in on UCLA, biglaw or bust. I know some attorneys end up teaching after they establish themselves at a biglaw firm for a fews years, so that is still a potential option if I change my mind in my 30s and even want to go back and do the phd. I also recently found out that I have a family member who works in a big, national law firm.

[HRomanus]

You're older than I am and almost done with a PhD, so I'm assuming you're pretty grounded. BUT going all-in at UCLA because you're passionate about a future in law seems unwise considering only a few years ago you were passionate about a future in your academic field. Your career goals in law are the ideal UCLA outcome. Legal employment field sucks; don't think it is too dissimilar from academia in drudgery or low wages. But unlike your PhD track, you'll be taking on incredible debt for a low chance at a favorable outcome. I'd be very careful before giving up the blessings you've earned in the academic field for a giant risk at UCLA.

Nothing you've posted supports going to law school, especially at these two institutions at this COA. If you're set on law school, the best suggestion is to finish your PhD and retake to go to a better law school. I can't see that you lose anything by waiting and you will gain so much.

[NYSprague]

First you all are amazing. Thank you for taking the time to dissect my case.

Re: Finishing PhD and then apply to law school:
In short, one does not simply finish a PhD much less apply to law school (again) after. Sure, it could be done, but I don't think I wanna do. While I won't go into too much detail since I've already given away a lot of self-identifying info, in my field of study I won't exactly be sitting around doing data analysis all day.

HR--I started the PhD because I was extremely passionate and talented in the discipline. I also miraculously got into a fully funded program, which is extremely rare at my age in my field. There are other opportunities besides academia, but they are are few and you have to be really creative about it. The pay is pretty poor, and while money isn't my only goal in life it is important.

Fortunately, I have this burgeoning passion for learning/doing corporate law, transactional work, mergers and acquisitions, and IP. Roughly speaking, I eventually want to facilitate the functioning of the high-tech start-up financing sector.

Staying in academia is hard to justify because 1) I don't want to be writing grants (begging for research money) for the rest of my life and 2) I don't want to be an adjunct professor who ends up making the same amount as a grad student.

I'm leaning towards what twenty said—all in on UCLA, biglaw or bust. I know some attorneys end up teaching after they establish themselves at a biglaw firm for a fews years, so that is still a potential option if I change my mind in my 30s and even want to go back and do the phd. I also recently found out that I have a family member who works in a big, national law firm.

Defer. You need to learn more about law. You don't understand. I don't have time to explain it all now.

[fallingwater]

First you all are amazing. Thank you for taking the time to dissect my case.

Re: Finishing PhD and then apply to law school:
In short, one does not simply finish a PhD much less apply to law school (again) after. Sure, it could be done, but I don't think I wanna do. While I won't go into too much detail since I've already given away a lot of self-identifying info, in my field of study I won't exactly be sitting around doing data analysis all day.

HR--I started the PhD because I was extremely passionate and talented in the discipline. I also miraculously got into a fully funded program, which is extremely rare at my age in my field. There are other opportunities besides academia, but they are are few and you have to be really creative about it. The pay is pretty poor, and while money isn't my only goal in life it is important.

Fortunately, I have this burgeoning passion for learning/doing corporate law, transactional work, mergers and acquisitions, and IP. Roughly speaking, I eventually want to facilitate the functioning of the high-tech start-up financing sector.

Staying in academia is hard to justify because 1) I don't want to be writing grants (begging for research money) for the rest of my life and 2) I don't want to be an adjunct professor who ends up making the same amount as a grad student.

I'm leaning towards what twenty said—all in on UCLA, biglaw or bust. I know some attorneys end up teaching after they establish themselves at a biglaw firm for a fews years, so that is still a potential option if I change my mind in my 30s and even want to go back and do the phd. I also recently found out that I have a family member who works in a big, national law firm.

Defer. You need to learn more about law. You don't understand. I don't have time to explain it all now.

Lol that's what I'm afraid of—I'm extremely naive and don't even realize it. Anything you recommend reading to get an explanation of it?

[fallingwater]

This doesn't help much, but I forgot to add that I could potentially TA UG classes in my subject during 2L and 3L at UCLA (assuming the likely situation that I'm still there). This will shave $5k of tuition and probably give around $3-5K stipend. I have a lot experience doing this and balancing a million other things, so if I TA 2 or 3 times over the course of 2 and 3L that'll be around $20K total.

[03152016]

that's way too expensive for ucla
even with scholly, TA income/stipend, commuting, and in-state tuition, i bet you land well north of 130k debt
with three years of terrible commuting + having to work, competing against students without such encumbrances
for an under 40% chance at biglaw
where you'll be unable to enjoy the money bc of the debt payments

i wouldn't consider either a good outcome frankly
but uci seems like the less worse option

[fallingwater]

I appreciate everyone's advice, but I'm curious: has anyone in here graduated from a law school, started working and experienced paying back loans?

I'm sure there is a thread for this, but what would paying back $130-150k in, say, Fed students loans look like with a biglaw salary?

[twenty]

I'm sure there is a thread for this, but what would paying back $130-150k in, say, Fed students loans look like with a biglaw salary?

This is a very hot topic on TLS, and you might get more traction if you post if separately in the Ask a Student/Graduate forum.

[fallingwater]

Looks like I can get the cost of UCLA down to $110K at the highest with some new found help from family. It's still daunting, but what do people think?

[twenty]

When you say "at the highest" does that mean it could be lower than 110k?

I'd have gone with UCLA before, but I think this only helps your case. Gun hard, don't skip on studying whatsoever, and good luck.

[fallingwater]

When you say "at the highest" does that mean it could be lower than 110k?

I'd have gone with UCLA before, but I think this only helps your case. Gun hard, don't skip on studying whatsoever, and good luck.

Correct. I found out I might be able to get a few small departmental scholarships, not banking on it though.

Will do. Whatever I decide this will be my highest priority. I'm going to follow a combination of xeoh and scribe's advice plus whatever works best for me. Thanks!

[03152016]

do you have hard numbers

def no room/board cost at ucla?
transportation costs involved in the commute?
how much financial assistance from fam?

[TooOld4This]

This is going to be harsh, but I'd rather sting your ego and have you rethink a bad decision before it is too late.

Every one of your posts in this thread scream that going to law school now would be a terrible decision and you are setting yourself up for failure. Law school isn't a shortcut to anything, especially at six figures of debt. People do finish up PhDs and then go to law school. And the people who do that are the ones that actually achieve many of the goals you are setting for yourself. Those are the people who get good academic jobs these days.

As a transactional lawyer you aren't going to be facilitating anything. You will be on call 24/7/365 to drop anything you are doing to paper over the work of the business people. Actually, you will start by being on call 24/7/365 to come in to read reams of documents looking for reasons the deal might be a bad one (when you have no clue what to look for). Or you will be cutting and pasting from one document to another, praying that you don't miss an "and," "or," or comma that will end up costing your client millions of dollars in litigation.

This presupposes that you actually get a BigLaw job. Commuting 1.5 hours to UCLA will greatly reduce your chance. Those 3 hours will increase your stress (which will spike about 4 weeks into the year when the reality of the debt you have taken out hits and you start to fully grasp how much of your future is riding on 10 exams and a curve you don't control). You won't be able to have a social life with people at school and also won't be seeing your girlfriend (good luck on keeping the free housing for 3 years -- your commute won't only put a strain on law school, but on your relationship as well).

If you go to UCI, instead of having a 50% chance of getting a job that is on your list of goals, you will have probably a 20% chance. On the upside, it sounds like the debt won't be life-altering and you won't be put in a position of treating your girlfriend as a source of free housing. But the question is why go? The chance you get what you think you want is very low. And, reading your goals, the chance that you actually want what you think you want is even lower.

Your posts read as someone running away from their current life and having latched onto law school because it provides a well defined path -- but you do not seem to have any sense of where the path really leads - either in what jobs are really available or in understanding what those jobs really do day in and day out.

Sit out this year. Read some of the posts here about debt and what junior associates actually do. Read the vale of tears thread about what it is like to find a job if you miss the on ramp to BigLaw after only one year of law school. Then think about whether you want to make the sacrifices you are contemplating.

[cron1834]

OP, I have a unique commonality with you. I'm going to send you a PM. I wouldn't take either of these options.

[2014applicant]

I'm not arguing for one school over another, but I'm of the understanding that a student that lands an A3 clerkship generally could have secured a big law position out of school should they have wanted to do so. Would this also be true for UCI?

The statistics for UCI for classes of 2012 and 2013, per LST, were as follows (in raw numbers):

Class of 2012 (56 students):
Large Firm - 13 students
A3 Clerkship - 16 students

Class of 2013 (84 students):
Large Firm - 13 students
A3 Clerkship - 15 students

If the Class of 2017 is to be about 95 students, and the raw numbers from the Class of 2013 stay the same, 28/95 = 29.5% for these employment outcomes.

[Hutz_and_Goodman]

UCI or retake
Even without rent UCLA is not worth that amount of $

[Grunt2Grad]

I commuted from UCLA to Long Beach area (about half the distance of your proposed commute) and on a good day it took me 1.5 hrs to drive home. Please do not underestimate that commute, it is truly miserable to do 4-5 days/ week.

[timbs4339]

OP: When I read your posts I feel like Charlie Brown. AUGHHHH!

"Fortunately, I have this burgeoning passion for learning/doing corporate law, transactional work, mergers and acquisitions, and IP. Roughly speaking, I eventually want to facilitate the functioning of the high-tech start-up financing sector."

I ran this sentence by a friend who works in the finance practice of a biglaw firm. His first reaction was "ROFLMAO!" His second was "WTF?"

I think you need to do a lot more research on what biglaw is all about and what the careers are for people who do not get biglaw. It does not sound like you really want to be a lawyer, what it sounds like is that you want to be part of a cool hip scene in the law. There are schools where you can have those dreams and not wind up utterly screwed at the end of three years, but your current schools are not those schools. You should probably take a year off and retake.

Right now, legal academia is a pipe dream even for someone who goes HYS > fed circuit. They just aren't hiring. Applications are in an absolute crater. Maybe 5 years from now things will be different, but I wouldn't bet on it.

I'm not arguing for one school over another, but I'm of the understanding that a student that lands an A3 clerkship generally could have secured a big law position out of school should they have wanted to do so. Would this also be true for UCI?

The statistics for UCI for classes of 2012 and 2013, per LST, were as follows (in raw numbers):

Class of 2012 (56 students):
Large Firm - 13 students
A3 Clerkship - 16 students

Class of 2013 (84 students):
Large Firm - 13 students
A3 Clerkship - 15 students

If the Class of 2017 is to be about 95 students, and the raw numbers from the Class of 2013 stay the same, 28/95 = 29.5% for these employment outcomes.

Has the class size for UCI been confirmed yet? It's going to be impossible to support that type of law school on a class size of 95 people for much longer.

[timbs4339]

I appreciate everyone's advice, but I'm curious: has anyone in here graduated from a law school, started working and experienced paying back loans?

I'm sure there is a thread for this, but what would paying back $130-150k in, say, Fed students loans look like with a biglaw salary?

Yes. It sucks. I live in a high COL area and when taxes/loans are factored in I pay about 75% of my income to the government. I make about half what a biglaw associate makes, but I also had a substantial scholarship that kept my debt to 110K.

I can tell you that you need to start factoring in the possibility that you wind up making about 60K and have to pay that amount back.

[loomy78]

scooped

[MikeJD]

OP: When I read your posts I feel like Charlie Brown. AUGHHHH!

"Fortunately, I have this burgeoning passion for learning/doing corporate law, transactional work, mergers and acquisitions, and IP. Roughly speaking, I eventually want to facilitate the functioning of the high-tech start-up financing sector."

I ran this sentence by a friend who works in the finance practice of a biglaw firm. His first reaction was "ROFLMAO!" His second was "WTF?"

I think you need to do a lot more research on what biglaw is all about and what the careers are for people who do not get biglaw. It does not sound like you really want to be a lawyer, what it sounds like is that you want to be part of a cool hip scene in the law. There are schools where you can have those dreams and not wind up utterly screwed at the end of three years, but your current schools are not those schools. You should probably take a year off and retake.

Right now, legal academia is a pipe dream even for someone who goes HYS > fed circuit. They just aren't hiring. Applications are in an absolute crater. Maybe 5 years from now things will be different, but I wouldn't bet on it.

I'm not arguing for one school over another, but I'm of the understanding that a student that lands an A3 clerkship generally could have secured a big law position out of school should they have wanted to do so. Would this also be true for UCI?

The statistics for UCI for classes of 2012 and 2013, per LST, were as follows (in raw numbers):

Class of 2012 (56 students):
Large Firm - 13 students
A3 Clerkship - 16 students

Class of 2013 (84 students):
Large Firm - 13 students
A3 Clerkship - 15 students

If the Class of 2017 is to be about 95 students, and the raw numbers from the Class of 2013 stay the same, 28/95 = 29.5% for these employment outcomes.

Has the class size for UCI been confirmed yet? It's going to be impossible to support that type of law school on a class size of 95 people for much longer.

They are aiming for 90-100 to get the highest GPA/LSAT possible for US news rankings.