UCLA vs. UW Forum

[20160810]

If you get into UCLA, you're probably in the running for some $ at UW. If that's the case, plus in-state tuition, I'd probably go to UW.

[jacko]

If you get into UCLA, you're probably in the running for some $ at UW. If that's the case, plus in-state tuition, I'd probably go to UW.

The only problem with this idea is that UW doesn't give merit aid. Most of their scholarships are based on things like diversity.

[chadwick218]

I see Cornell and perhaps Northwestern drop off the T14 in the future, making way for UCLA and Texas, whom I strongly believe are already better school than some of the T14s.

Seriously? This is crazy talk! NU is #4 overall in terms of biglaw placement and has aruably positioned itself ahead of both Duke and Virginia in recent years. UT / UCLA does place very well at the top of the class, but both are very large schools and many people go without prestigious jobs!

[chadwick218]

Also, if you are deadset on working in Seattle, then go to UW over UCLA, especially if you are a resident of Washington. if you are unsure or have no ties to Seattle, then go to UCLA (quality of life aside).

[amputatedbrain]

I'm pretty sure I want to live in the Pacific NW . . . it's home for me, and where my family is. I've also heard everywhere I turn that the Seattle legal market is small and tanking right now because of the general economy and that between SU, UW, and T14 grads that settle down here, there's just way more lawyers than jobs (although I'm sure that's true to some extent in most cities right now). My worry is that if I go to UW and have a hard time finding a job in Seattle, my options are pretty limited, whereas with UCLA my job prospects are slightly lowered in Seattle, but if I do end up having to look in another state (probably on the West Coast), I'll be in a much better position. Sound about right?

[chadwick218]

...

[amputatedbrain]

Sorry, guess those questions were pretty much answered all already . . . it was late

[WeaponX]

why would Northwestern drop? their ranking has gone from 16 in 1987 to 10 in 2009. On the other hand Michigan has gone from 3 to 9.

Not to hijack, but just as a shameless Michigan plug, I have to debunk this thinking because I see it on here a lot.

Michigan didn't go "from 3 to 9". Michigan was ranked 3 in 1987 when US News used an entirely different scoring system. They stopped that system, took a year or two off from ranking law schools, and began again a few years later. Since then, under that system, Michigan has always been ranked between 7 and 9.

I point this out just because people try to use this "3 to 9" idea to show that Michigan has declined in quality/prospects, whereas in reality, it has maintained its strong position between 7 and 9 and was never one of the top 3 law schools in the country. It is my guess that under the 1987 system, Michigan would still be ranked in that 3 to 4 range.

Edit: As a tie in back to OP's question, I do agree that UW in Seattle would be better to attend other schools, including both UCLA and Michigan, especially considering the higher likelihood of a scholarship.

Just to be clear, UW doesn't offer merit scholarships. Their reasoning is that the education you'll get by attending is already such a bargain that it will offset the offers you get elsewhere. Conversely, you'll have to factor in higher cost of living in Seattle.

[jcl2]

why would Northwestern drop? their ranking has gone from 16 in 1987 to 10 in 2009. On the other hand Michigan has gone from 3 to 9.

Not to hijack, but just as a shameless Michigan plug, I have to debunk this thinking because I see it on here a lot.

Michigan didn't go "from 3 to 9". Michigan was ranked 3 in 1987 when US News used an entirely different scoring system. They stopped that system, took a year or two off from ranking law schools, and began again a few years later. Since then, under that system, Michigan has always been ranked between 7 and 9.

I point this out just because people try to use this "3 to 9" idea to show that Michigan has declined in quality/prospects, whereas in reality, it has maintained its strong position between 7 and 9 and was never one of the top 3 law schools in the country. It is my guess that under the 1987 system, Michigan would still be ranked in that 3 to 4 range.

Edit: As a tie in back to OP's question, I do agree that UW in Seattle would be better to attend other schools, including both UCLA and Michigan, especially considering the higher likelihood of a scholarship.

Just to be clear, UW doesn't offer merit scholarships. Their reasoning is that the education you'll get by attending is already such a bargain that it will offset the offers you get elsewhere. Conversely, you'll have to factor in higher cost of living in Seattle.

Yeah, even without in-state tuition UW will be only a little more than half the cost of UCLA, so that is comparable to a pretty good scholarship. Also, cost of living in Seattle is less than LA, not Ann Arbor though.

[jacko]

why would Northwestern drop? their ranking has gone from 16 in 1987 to 10 in 2009. On the other hand Michigan has gone from 3 to 9.

Not to hijack, but just as a shameless Michigan plug, I have to debunk this thinking because I see it on here a lot.

Michigan didn't go "from 3 to 9". Michigan was ranked 3 in 1987 when US News used an entirely different scoring system. They stopped that system, took a year or two off from ranking law schools, and began again a few years later. Since then, under that system, Michigan has always been ranked between 7 and 9.

I point this out just because people try to use this "3 to 9" idea to show that Michigan has declined in quality/prospects, whereas in reality, it has maintained its strong position between 7 and 9 and was never one of the top 3 law schools in the country. It is my guess that under the 1987 system, Michigan would still be ranked in that 3 to 4 range.

Edit: As a tie in back to OP's question, I do agree that UW in Seattle would be better to attend other schools, including both UCLA and Michigan, especially considering the higher likelihood of a scholarship.

Just to be clear, UW doesn't offer merit scholarships. Their reasoning is that the education you'll get by attending is already such a bargain that it will offset the offers you get elsewhere. Conversely, you'll have to factor in higher cost of living in Seattle.

What an arrogant assumption.

[jcl2]

why would Northwestern drop? their ranking has gone from 16 in 1987 to 10 in 2009. On the other hand Michigan has gone from 3 to 9.

Not to hijack, but just as a shameless Michigan plug, I have to debunk this thinking because I see it on here a lot.

Michigan didn't go "from 3 to 9". Michigan was ranked 3 in 1987 when US News used an entirely different scoring system. They stopped that system, took a year or two off from ranking law schools, and began again a few years later. Since then, under that system, Michigan has always been ranked between 7 and 9.

I point this out just because people try to use this "3 to 9" idea to show that Michigan has declined in quality/prospects, whereas in reality, it has maintained its strong position between 7 and 9 and was never one of the top 3 law schools in the country. It is my guess that under the 1987 system, Michigan would still be ranked in that 3 to 4 range.

Edit: As a tie in back to OP's question, I do agree that UW in Seattle would be better to attend other schools, including both UCLA and Michigan, especially considering the higher likelihood of a scholarship.

Just to be clear, UW doesn't offer merit scholarships. Their reasoning is that the education you'll get by attending is already such a bargain that it will offset the offers you get elsewhere. Conversely, you'll have to factor in higher cost of living in Seattle.

What an arrogant assumption.

WeaponX may have worded that poorly, but obviously the idea is not that the education is superior to what you would receive elsewhere, rather that it is less expensive. Like most public schools once did, UW sets tuition relatively low for all students, rather than having high tuition for some students and big scholarships for others. They do offer some merit scholarships though.

[buddyblack]

WeaponX may have worded that poorly, but obviously the idea is not that the education is superior to what you would receive elsewhere, rather that it is less expensive. Like most public schools once did, UW sets tuition relatively low for all students, rather than having high tuition for some students and big scholarships for others. They do offer some merit scholarships though.

I'm only aware of the Gates PSL program, are there others?

[WeaponX]

WeaponX may have worded that poorly, but obviously the idea is not that the education is superior to what you would receive elsewhere, rather that it is less expensive. Like most public schools once did, UW sets tuition relatively low for all students, rather than having high tuition for some students and big scholarships for others. They do offer some merit scholarships though.

I'm only aware of the Gates PSL program, are there others?

No, as I posted earlier there are NO merit scholarships offered at UW. The Gates PSL program is not a merit scholarship, it is what its name suggests, a public service law scholarship meaning you must commit X amount of time after law school and make below $X a year in order to have your law school tuition tab written off.

Also, I don't see how UW's assumption about not awarding merit scholarships is arrogant. If you go to Michigan for let's say $45,000 a year with a $15,000 merit scholarship, UW doesn't look so bad $14,000 in state or $20,000 out of state. Just my two cents.

[articulably suspect]

There is no way Cornell would drop out of the t-14.

They have great job placement all over the country, a nice size endowment, fantastic reputation, and they will aways have law school applicants who want an ivy brand on their resume.

edit: I actually see UCLA having trouble down the line, if the school keeps getting more and more expensive.

I agree with this. All of the CA schools except for Berkeley are going to have a tough time competing when their tuition is much higher than comparably ranked public schools and similar or slightly higher than similarly ranked private schools that offer more scholarship money.
Oh, and UCLA moving up or down a few spot has no bearing on OP's question IMO. UW would still be the better choice for someone who wants to end up in Seattle or the NW.

I think Davis and Hastings will feel it the most, assuing their tuitions will eventually surpase the regional T2s. It is crazy though, out of state tuition at many public schools is cheaper than in state at the UCs.

[jcl2]

WeaponX may have worded that poorly, but obviously the idea is not that the education is superior to what you would receive elsewhere, rather that it is less expensive. Like most public schools once did, UW sets tuition relatively low for all students, rather than having high tuition for some students and big scholarships for others. They do offer some merit scholarships though.

I'm only aware of the Gates PSL program, are there others?

No, as I posted earlier there are NO merit scholarships offered at UW. The Gates PSL program is not a merit scholarship, it is what its name suggests, a public service law scholarship meaning you must commit X amount of time after law school and make below $X a year in order to have your law school tuition tab written off.

Also, I don't see how UW's assumption about not awarding merit scholarships is arrogant. If you go to Michigan for let's say $45,000 a year with a $15,000 merit scholarship, UW doesn't look so bad $14,000 in state or $20,000 out of state. Just my two cents.

I think we are just in disagreement about what a merit scholarship is. No, UW does not have a general scholarship fund where scholarships are offered to applicants with high LSAT/GPA numbers, but they do have specific scholarship funds which offer scholarships to students on the basis of a variety of factors including need, merit, and diversity, depending on the specific scholarship. The Gates scholarship is awarded on the basis of merit, though you are right that recipients have to agree to work in a public service position for five years. I'm not sure that there is a salary limitation though and public service is a pretty broad term that includes all government work as well as public interest/non-profit work, it just means you can't work for a firm or for-profit business.

That aside, your main point is spot on. UW is a good deal because tuition is relatively low for all students, even out of state, and they have very good need based aid, including substantial tuition waivers for students with low EFC on the FAFSA and tuition waivers for out of state students that bring costs down to in-state level for the second and third years.

[jacko]

I was hoping to jump on this thread within the context of applying ED to a school like UVA vs. UW. I really like the idea of living in Seattle/Portland, but also the idea for working for the government in D.C. sounds okay too.

So my issues are:

1. Quality of Life ( PNW) vs. Possibly more interesting work ( living in D.C.)
2. Being limited Regionally for a bargain price ( UW) vs. Being able to work anywhere with a hefty price tag

Thoughts?

[ArchRoark]

UW doesn't look so bad $14,000 in state or $20,000 out of state. Just my two cents.

tuition looks more like 24,000 instate and 37,000 out of state.

http://www.law.washington.edu/admissions/Finance/

[MrKappus]

UCLA is more prestigious for the rest of the country I'd bet.

Extremely subtle UW trolling...

[20160810]

UCLA is more prestigious for the rest of the country I'd bet.

Extremely subtle UW trolling...

lol

[The White Flame]

A good body of mine was able to go from UCLA to a firm in Seattle with grades slightly above median. I would chose UCLA because you have more backup oppertunities such as LA, the OC, SD, SF, and PHX.