UChicago/Berkeley/UCLA? Forum

[Tiago Splitter]

Is the 100k the same money your dad would be spending or something else?

Also there's no reason to think 100k will equal 115k in three years

It's the same money my father would be spending. He's guaranteed 2 years expenses (I understand 2 years cost > 100k; he was planning on making up the difference out of his own pocket.)

5k is about 5% interest a year, which is pretty reasonable for a conservative portfolio unless we have another financial meltdown.

Agree to disagree on the second part, but it doesn't make much difference either way.

UCLA definitely comes back into play now. Ideally you'd get some money from Berkeley to make this easier

[kpormir]

Edited to include relevant information.

That is one convoluted OP. You really should just estimate the total COA (e.g., $120K, $90K, whatever) for each option based on your wacky circumstances. Then you can cut down the OP to about half of its current length.

You're right, I'll do that.

That's better. Still, something doesn't seem right to me. Your estimates appear to assume that you will have no living expenses at UCLA, thus enabling you to pocket the full $100K from your father. But is that right? Even with a full tuition scholarship, won't you still have to pay for rent and books and food? It seems like that would cut your UCLA "plus" money down into the $20K - $30K range.

In all likelihood I'd be living at home, as I'm about a 30-40 away from campus with moderate traffic (hah.). If I did choose to move to LA, then yes, you'd be right again. I did factor in about 15k misc. expenses, however I believe that this is offset by asset appreciation over the course of 3 years.

[kpormir]

Is the 100k the same money your dad would be spending or something else?

Also there's no reason to think 100k will equal 115k in three years

It's the same money my father would be spending. He's guaranteed 2 years expenses (I understand 2 years cost > 100k; he was planning on making up the difference out of his own pocket.)

5k is about 5% interest a year, which is pretty reasonable for a conservative portfolio unless we have another financial meltdown.

Agree to disagree on the second part, but it doesn't make much difference either way.

UCLA definitely comes back into play now. Ideally you'd get some money from Berkeley to make this easier

I agree, Berkeley is definitely my first choice if I can get a moderate scholarship. I was hoping I'd get something considering my scores, but it's been a few months and no word so far. Currently trying to think of the best way to go about asking.

[slurpy]

I agree, Berkeley is definitely my first choice if I can get a moderate scholarship. I was hoping I'd get something considering my scores, but it's been a few months and no word so far. Currently trying to think of the best way to go about asking.

Berkeley hasn't given out any scholarships yet. Last year, the first one was reported on TLS on March 20. So you might still get something from them.

[twenty]

If these numbers were permanent, UCLA by a mile. Starting a law career with 100k in the bank and a free JD from UCLA is fucking TCR.

You'll probably get a small to midsize scholarship from Berkeley, though, and that makes it tougher.

[kpormir]

I agree, Berkeley is definitely my first choice if I can get a moderate scholarship. I was hoping I'd get something considering my scores, but it's been a few months and no word so far. Currently trying to think of the best way to go about asking.

Berkeley hasn't given out any scholarships yet. Last year, the first one was reported on TLS on March 20. So you might still get something from them.

If that's true, that's great news. Would really love Berkeley with zero or close to zero debt.

[kpormir]

If these numbers were permanent, UCLA by a mile. Starting a law career with 100k in the bank and a free JD from UCLA is fucking TCR.

You'll probably get a small to midsize scholarship from Berkeley, though, and that makes it tougher.

If anything, I think it would make it a lot easier. I'm okay with not having money in the bank, I'm less okay with having large amounts of debt. A midsize scholarship from Berkeley would probably cement my choice. Assuming the numbers are as they are, and understanding that my two goals with law school are to 1) have as little debt as possible, and 2) have as many options upon graduation as possible, what's your reasoning behind UCLA over Berkeley/Chicago? Is 100k really that beneficial if it cuts my potential employment outcomes by half?

[twenty]

"Having options" kind of works both ways, yes, your school will absolutely play into what kinds of jobs you can get, but your debt dictates what kinds of jobs you take. Graduating from Berkeley with 80k in debt is a fantastic place to be in, and more power to you. That said, the 180k difference is roughly three years of take-home salary from biglaw. There's a lot to be said for a DIY-career approach to law where you have the freedom to not feel like you must take X job because hey, that's why you went to law school.

The only noticeable biglaw career difference will be if you happen to end up in the 40th percentile - 60th percentile range. Anything above or below that is non-unique; above that you'll be better at UCLA because you'll have gotten biglaw under the best conditions possible, and below that, you aren't getting biglaw from either Berkeley or UCLA, so having no debt and 100k in the black is a really great way to start building up legal experience.

But also, I'm a law student, and I think the people you should really be paying attention to are the recent graduates on this forum that are working in biglaw and have student loan debt. Granted, yours will almost certainly be less than theirs, but that might better answer your question if leaving 180k on the table is worth it for the increased chance of getting a big firm.

[Shaggier1]

Chicago will probably be able to open more doors than Berk.

On what, if anything, do you base this statement?


I went to Berkeley and it opened every door I wanted in SF and LA. I see no reason someone with a U-Chi degree would have had an advantage over me (assuming similar grades). In fact, (again assuming same grades) I think they would have been at a disadvantage.

[SLS_AMG]

Chicago will probably be able to open more doors than Berk.

On what, if anything, do you base this statement?


I went to Berkeley and it opened every door I wanted in SF and LA. I see no reason someone with a U-Chi degree would have had an advantage over me (assuming similar grades). In fact, (again assuming same grades) I think they would have been at a disadvantage.

+1

Chicago is undoubtedly better than Berkeley for Chicago and probably even a bit better for NYC or DC. But to argue that it's stronger for those wanting CA biglaw is laughable.

[Mack.Hambleton]

My father has graciously offered to pay for the first two years of whatever school I attend, with the prerequisite that I attend school this coming year. I've already tried to reason with him that it would be better if I retake the LSAT and tried for bigger scholarships/better schools, but he's not budging and it's his money, so I don't want to press it further.

so ur dad doesnt care that you could easily get T14 full rides if you retook, saving him 100k??

[bearsfan23]

My father has graciously offered to pay for the first two years of whatever school I attend, with the prerequisite that I attend school this coming year. I've already tried to reason with him that it would be better if I retake the LSAT and tried for bigger scholarships/better schools, but he's not budging and it's his money, so I don't want to press it further.

so ur dad doesnt care that you could easily get T14 full rides if you retook, saving him 100k??

You seriously don't understand that some people have wealthy parents and $100k is not a big deal.

I didn't take my parents' $ but $100k would have been nothing for them, and if OP's dad is cool with it then why the hell not

[Mack.Hambleton]

My father has graciously offered to pay for the first two years of whatever school I attend, with the prerequisite that I attend school this coming year. I've already tried to reason with him that it would be better if I retake the LSAT and tried for bigger scholarships/better schools, but he's not budging and it's his money, so I don't want to press it further.

so ur dad doesnt care that you could easily get T14 full rides if you retook, saving him 100k??

You seriously don't understand that some people have wealthy parents and $100k is not a big deal.

I didn't take my parents' $ but $100k would have been nothing for them, and if OP's dad is cool with it then why the hell not

lol cool bro. if your parents make 100k in a single year total you're already rich (~80th percentile for household income in the US), so having an extra 100k on hand seems ridiculously wealthy

[WhiskeynCoke]

-The schools you are considering

UChicago, Berkeley, and UCLA.

-The total Cost of Attendance (COA) of each. COA = cost of tuition + fees + books + cost of living (COL) + accumulated interest - scholarships.

UChicago: $80,697
Berkeley: $75,857.50
UCLA: +$100,000. (~100k into my pocket.)

-How you will be financing your COA, i.e. loans, family, or savings

My father has graciously offered to pay for the first two years of whatever school I attend, with the prerequisite that I attend school this coming year. I've already tried to reason with him that it would be better if I retake the LSAT and tried for bigger scholarships/better schools, but he's not budging and it's his money, so I don't want to press it further. Anything out of my education fund (roughly 100k) that isn't used is mine to use as I will after graduation.

I own a functioning car if I decide to go to UCLA. I can sell it for ~6k if I decide to go to Berkeley or UChicago. I have about 35k in savings.

-Where you are from and where you want to work, and other places where you have significant ties (if any)

From Orange County, want to work in Irvine/LA or SF. Berkeley is my alma mater and I did research for the law school, so I have significant ties there. Very few ties in Chicago and other than family/friends, not many in LA either.

-Your general career goals

BigLaw to get out of whatever debt I have -> In-house/PI. Making a lot of money is not a huge deal for me so I don't mind the 60k/year salary as long as I'm free from debt. At the same time, I would like the ability to make 165k+, should I change my mind.

-Your LSAT/GPA numbers

3.98, 168.

-How many times you have taken the LSAT

Once.

Those COA numbers are complete BS dude, you're way too low. You say you're estimating Berk at sticker, but tuition ALONE (without interest/books) is about $160k for three years. $160k - $100k from Dad = $60k (your share of tuition). Do you really think you can get by for 3 years in the most expensive area of the country on $16k? You need to add at least $60k to that number for COL and interest. 2L SA $ will help a bit though.

Also, if your goal is SF biglaw --> in-house, B is the winner here as others have suggested. You can still probably get back to SF from Chicago but you'll get more access to SF firms at B's OCI. Plus, U Chicago has pretty much the opposite cultural reputation as B, would you really want to spend your next 3 years there?

UCLA isn't a bad option for free but your biglaw chances drop significantly, especially when it comes to SF.

[kpormir]

"Having options" kind of works both ways, yes, your school will absolutely play into what kinds of jobs you can get, but your debt dictates what kinds of jobs you take. Graduating from Berkeley with 80k in debt is a fantastic place to be in, and more power to you. That said, the 180k difference is roughly three years of take-home salary from biglaw. There's a lot to be said for a DIY-career approach to law where you have the freedom to not feel like you must take X job because hey, that's why you went to law school.

The only noticeable biglaw career difference will be if you happen to end up in the 40th percentile - 60th percentile range. Anything above or below that is non-unique; above that you'll be better at UCLA because you'll have gotten biglaw under the best conditions possible, and below that, you aren't getting biglaw from either Berkeley or UCLA, so having no debt and 100k in the black is a really great way to start building up legal experience.

But also, I'm a law student, and I think the people you should really be paying attention to are the recent graduates on this forum that are working in biglaw and have student loan debt. Granted, yours will almost certainly be less than theirs, but that might better answer your question if leaving 180k on the table is worth it for the increased chance of getting a big firm.

This was a very thoughtful answer, thank you.

[kpormir]

My father has graciously offered to pay for the first two years of whatever school I attend, with the prerequisite that I attend school this coming year. I've already tried to reason with him that it would be better if I retake the LSAT and tried for bigger scholarships/better schools, but he's not budging and it's his money, so I don't want to press it further.

so ur dad doesnt care that you could easily get T14 full rides if you retook, saving him 100k??

Of course he cares. He simply cares about other things more.

[kpormir]

-The schools you are considering

UChicago, Berkeley, and UCLA.

-The total Cost of Attendance (COA) of each. COA = cost of tuition + fees + books + cost of living (COL) + accumulated interest - scholarships.

UChicago: $80,697
Berkeley: $75,857.50
UCLA: +$100,000. (~100k into my pocket.)

-How you will be financing your COA, i.e. loans, family, or savings

My father has graciously offered to pay for the first two years of whatever school I attend, with the prerequisite that I attend school this coming year. I've already tried to reason with him that it would be better if I retake the LSAT and tried for bigger scholarships/better schools, but he's not budging and it's his money, so I don't want to press it further. Anything out of my education fund (roughly 100k) that isn't used is mine to use as I will after graduation.

I own a functioning car if I decide to go to UCLA. I can sell it for ~6k if I decide to go to Berkeley or UChicago. I have about 35k in savings.

-Where you are from and where you want to work, and other places where you have significant ties (if any)

From Orange County, want to work in Irvine/LA or SF. Berkeley is my alma mater and I did research for the law school, so I have significant ties there. Very few ties in Chicago and other than family/friends, not many in LA either.

-Your general career goals

BigLaw to get out of whatever debt I have -> In-house/PI. Making a lot of money is not a huge deal for me so I don't mind the 60k/year salary as long as I'm free from debt. At the same time, I would like the ability to make 165k+, should I change my mind.

-Your LSAT/GPA numbers

3.98, 168.

-How many times you have taken the LSAT

Once.

Those COA numbers are complete BS dude, you're way too low. You say you're estimating Berk at sticker, but tuition ALONE (without interest/books) is about $160k for three years. $160k - $100k from Dad = $60k (your share of tuition). Do you really think you can get by for 3 years in the most expensive area of the country on $16k? You need to add at least $60k to that number for COL and interest. 2L SA $ will help a bit though.

Also, if your goal is SF biglaw --> in-house, B is the winner here as others have suggested. You can still probably get back to SF from Chicago but you'll get more access to SF firms at B's OCI. Plus, U Chicago has pretty much the opposite cultural reputation as B, would you really want to spend your next 3 years there?

UCLA isn't a bad option for free but your biglaw chances drop significantly, especially when it comes to SF.

My father is covering two years, including tuition and living expenses. Therefore my costs would be tuition + living expenses for one year only. While COL may not be $16k, I can most definitely keep it under $18k, so I think my COA numbers are fairly accurate.

Thank you for your input, however. I didn't realize that Berkeley had that much more influence over Chicago for SF biglaw. What about for LA biglaw? Does that trend remain the same or does it equalize?

[BiglawAssociate]

My father has graciously offered to pay for the first two years of whatever school I attend, with the prerequisite that I attend school this coming year. I've already tried to reason with him that it would be better if I retake the LSAT and tried for bigger scholarships/better schools, but he's not budging and it's his money, so I don't want to press it further.

so ur dad doesnt care that you could easily get T14 full rides if you retook, saving him 100k??

You seriously don't understand that some people have wealthy parents and $100k is not a big deal.

I didn't take my parents' $ but $100k would have been nothing for them, and if OP's dad is cool with it then why the hell not

lol cool bro. if your parents make 100k in a single year total you're already rich (~80th percentile for household income in the US), so having an extra 100k on hand seems ridiculously wealthy

If you end up going to a T-14 you'd be surprised at how rich maybe half the students are. My spouse's family has over 10 million; friend's family has over 50 million. Only half the kids I was close with had any sort of loans, period.

As for this poll, I'd go to Chicago, partly because I wouldn't want to be at the same school for two degrees. Also you're going to have to do well at all of these schools to get California biglaw, so whatever.