What are the odds Forum

[ub3r]

Do we agree that if it were Columbia at sticker or close to sticker, UCLA is the clear choice, right? Because that would be pretty similar to my situation, significant other and California employment desires included.

Apologies for the tangent.

[BigZuck]

A Butler is a great outcome and I get that its not easy to turn down. But, you want to be in LA long term, you have a full ride to UCLA, and a SO there that you want to keep.

Go to UCLA.

[UnicornHunter]

Finding a good job in NYC is actually pretty easy. They tend to pay better than LA too.

She's a college professor in a full-time faculty position, and those are not easy to come by anywhere.

edit: I do want to know if people think there is a legitimate advantage in LA from Columbia versus UCLA, however, because if there is one it might make the difference.

Stay UCLA. Unless deep down you want out.

[wons]

I mean, of course there's an advantage to recruiting to LA firms from CLS rather than UCLA. They go way deeper in the class from CLS. But that's not all that matters in life.

[rpupkin]

I mean, of course there's an advantage to recruiting to LA firms from CLS rather than UCLA. They go way deeper in the class from CLS. But that's not all that matters in life.

Careful here. Of course it varies from firm to firm, but I'd say than an LA firm that requires median grades from CLS would generally require about top 25% or top 33% grades from UCLA. Yeah, firms will go somewhat deeper in the class from CLS, but it's not like we're talking about the difference between HLS and Pepperdine.

[thebobs1987]

A Butler is a great outcome and I get that its not easy to turn down. But, you want to be in LA long term, you have a full ride to UCLA, and a SO there that you want to keep.

Go to UCLA.

This

[wons]

I mean, of course there's an advantage to recruiting to LA firms from CLS rather than UCLA. They go way deeper in the class from CLS. But that's not all that matters in life.

Careful here. Of course it varies from firm to firm, but I'd say than an LA firm that requires median grades from CLS would generally require about top 25% or top 33% grades from UCLA. Yeah, firms will go somewhat deeper in the class from CLS, but it's not like we're talking about the difference between HLS and Pepperdine.

Are you an aspirational 2L or a working attorney? The difference is more significant than that. More like median(ish) from CLS (read, top 60% or so) compared to top 25% to top 10% at UCLA. Difference is biggest at the most elite firms - it's hard enough to get those jobs from CLS.

UCLA isn't a elite school but if you kill it there you'll be fine. It's obviously easier to kill it there with a less competitive student body, but you need to know yourself to know if you're the sort of person who wont sink down toward the level of your peers. There's a lot of peer pressure not to be a ninja assassin in law school; you'll get folks talking behind your back about what a gunner you are, folks without jobs get defensive and chippy. And at UCLA, if you want the cherry LA jobs you'll need to be a ninja assassin. At CLS (or its peers), you have just enough margin for error that you can dial it back. That's very valuable for quality of life, IMO.

Now, that's not to say CLS is the right choice. Money and relationships count for lots, probably count more than what I outlined above. But a good decision making process doesn't rationalize away the pros on the other side of the equation; it acknowledges them and reaches a conclusion with full awareness of what you're giving up. In this case, OP would be giving up a distinct recruiting advantage and the freedom to not have to gun as hard to be a tippytop student.

[rpupkin]

Are you an aspirational 2L or a working attorney? The difference is more significant than that. More like median(ish) from CLS (read, top 60% or so) compared to top 25% to top 10% at UCLA. Difference is biggest at the most elite firms - it's hard enough to get those jobs from CLS.

I'm a working attorney. In 2012, I worked in big law in LA for one year before leaving to clerk. At my LA office, our grade cut-off was top 10% from UCLA and top 25% from CLS. At a LA office my friend worked at, their cut-offs were roughly what I described earlier: about top-third at UCLA and median at CLS.

Perhaps there is a firm out there that requires top 10% from UCLA and only median from CLS, but I'm not aware of it. There's definitely a difference, but I don't think it's as significant as you're suggesting.

[jbagelboy]

Are you an aspirational 2L or a working attorney? The difference is more significant than that. More like median(ish) from CLS (read, top 60% or so) compared to top 25% to top 10% at UCLA. Difference is biggest at the most elite firms - it's hard enough to get those jobs from CLS.

I'm a working attorney. In 2012, I worked in big law in LA for one year before leaving to clerk. At my LA office, our grade cut-off was top 10% from UCLA and top 25% from CLS. At a LA office my friend worked at, their cut-offs were roughly what I described earlier: about top-third at UCLA and median at CLS.

Perhaps there is a firm out there that requires top 10% from UCLA and only median from CLS, but I'm not aware of it. There's definitely a difference, but I don't think it's as significant as you're suggesting.

I doubt theres any firm with a median to top 10% strict splits, that doesn't really make sense, but when you say "median" with ties from CLS that's pretty flexible since the bulk of the class falls around median as far as firms are concerned. From a grades perspective -- assuming the student meets the requisite personality and california background -- this means a very large swathe of students can access some firm in LA/OC (doesn't mean you won't strike out in CA if you can't show for other reasons why you want to be there). Firms like Sheppard Mullin, Orrick, Milbank, White & Case, ect. have ~3.2 "cutoffs," which captures everyone median and above but effectively means top 2/3 of the class, depending on the year. Somewhere like O'Melveny that says "3.3" will take median, which as wons suggested will be more like 60% of students than 50% given how concentrated people are around a B+ average. I don't know the cutoffs for these firms from UCLA but I'd imagine its around top 1/3. Which means a pretty sizable divergence.

Maybe those firms are taking some median students from UCLA too. That's not what the data suggests but its possible.

[wons]

Are you an aspirational 2L or a working attorney? The difference is more significant than that. More like median(ish) from CLS (read, top 60% or so) compared to top 25% to top 10% at UCLA. Difference is biggest at the most elite firms - it's hard enough to get those jobs from CLS.

I'm a working attorney. In 2012, I worked in big law in LA for one year before leaving to clerk. At my LA office, our grade cut-off was top 10% from UCLA and top 25% from CLS. At a LA office my friend worked at, their cut-offs were roughly what I described earlier: about top-third at UCLA and median at CLS.

Perhaps there is a firm out there that requires top 10% from UCLA and only median from CLS, but I'm not aware of it. There's definitely a difference, but I don't think it's as significant as you're suggesting.

Ah, this makes more sense then. The firm you know goes approximately twice as deep in the class from a T6 school compared to UCLA, the hearsay firm gap is much closer.

Lesson: there's a reason hearsay is generally not credible.

[rpupkin]

Are you an aspirational 2L or a working attorney? The difference is more significant than that. More like median(ish) from CLS (read, top 60% or so) compared to top 25% to top 10% at UCLA. Difference is biggest at the most elite firms - it's hard enough to get those jobs from CLS.

I'm a working attorney. In 2012, I worked in big law in LA for one year before leaving to clerk. At my LA office, our grade cut-off was top 10% from UCLA and top 25% from CLS. At a LA office my friend worked at, their cut-offs were roughly what I described earlier: about top-third at UCLA and median at CLS.

Perhaps there is a firm out there that requires top 10% from UCLA and only median from CLS, but I'm not aware of it. There's definitely a difference, but I don't think it's as significant as you're suggesting.

I doubt theres any firm with a median to top 10% strict splits, that doesn't really make sense, but when you say "median" with ties from CLS that's pretty flexible since the bulk of the class falls around median as far as firms are concerned. From a grades perspective -- assuming the student meets the requisite personality and california background -- this means a very large swathe of students can access some firm in LA/OC (doesn't mean you won't strike out in CA if you can't show for other reasons why you want to be there). Firms like Sheppard Mullin, Orrick, Milbank, White & Case, ect. have ~3.2 "cutoffs," which captures everyone median and above but effectively means top 2/3 of the class, depending on the year. Somewhere like O'Melveny that says "3.3" will take median, which as wons suggested will be more like 60% of students than 50% given how concentrated people are around a B+ average. I don't know the cutoffs for these firms from UCLA but I'd imagine its around top 1/3. Which means a pretty sizable divergence.

That all sounds about right to me. As I keep saying, there's a significant difference between UCLA and CLS, and I think that one definitely compromises big law chances somewhat by attending UCLA instead of CLS. I was just pushing back a bit against the "way deeper into the class at CLS" notion.