UT vs UCLA Forum

[columbo]

That's much better, thanks. And there's no need to call others "random idiots." I've recently interviewed in CA and TX, and I got the impression that ties were far more important to the TX people. This makes sense, too, because there are obvious draws to markets like LA and SF - they're widely perceived as being high cost of living, high quality of life places. Houston and Dallas don't have that appeal, so you have to do a bit more convincing to show that you're not a flight risk. Moving to Texas for law school helps you make the case, and you might get less returns in that respect by going to UCLA.

[rondemarino]

That's much better, thanks. And there's no need to call others "random idiots."

I included myself in that group, so I was assuming it be viewed as part jest.

Feel free to change random idiots to "people who haven't yet had to line up a job for after graduation."

[rondemarino]

That's much better, thanks. And there's no need to call others "random idiots." I've recently interviewed in CA and TX, and I got the impression that ties were far more important to the TX people. This makes sense, too, because there are obvious draws to markets like LA and SF - they're widely perceived as being high cost of living, high quality of life places. Houston and Dallas don't have that appeal, so you have to do a bit more convincing to show that you're not a flight risk. Moving to Texas for law school helps you make the case, and you might get less returns in that respect by going to UCLA.

That I can agree with 100%, although I really know nothing about Texas employment. This is a lot different from "You don't really need ties...."

[im_blue]

I actually don't think the full t-14 are "National." I took UCLA over a low level t-14 for LA. While the t-6 might have an advantage in LA, I don't think any of the t-7 through t-14 would have an advantage over UCLA, or even USC, here. I assume the same is true for UT in Texas. Someone said that they couldn't believe how regional the non-t-14 were. I think that the regional nature of schools begins to play a part after the t-6.

Actually Michigan does a good deal better in Cali than USC and UCLA----I believe Penn and UVA do better too.

Agreed. My elite firm placement analysis suggests that CCN do significantly better than UCLA/USC in SoCal, while MVP/D do slightly better and NCG are on par. In contrast, in NorCal every T14 does significantly better than UCLA, which in turn is significantly better than USC.

[rondemarino]

I actually don't think the full t-14 are "National." I took UCLA over a low level t-14 for LA. While the t-6 might have an advantage in LA, I don't think any of the t-7 through t-14 would have an advantage over UCLA, or even USC, here. I assume the same is true for UT in Texas. Someone said that they couldn't believe how regional the non-t-14 were. I think that the regional nature of schools begins to play a part after the t-6.

Actually Michigan does a good deal better in Cali than USC and UCLA----I believe Penn and UVA do better too.

Agreed. My elite firm placement analysis suggests that CCN do significantly better than UCLA/USC in SoCal, while MVP/D do slightly better and NCG are on par. In contrast, in NorCal every T14 does significantly better than UCLA, which in turn is significantly better than USC.

Sure about C & D for NorCal? OCI schedules aren't everything, but UCLA is on every California employer's list. Cornell and Duke are not. I'd love to see the analysis you're talking about.

[im_blue]

I actually don't think the full t-14 are "National." I took UCLA over a low level t-14 for LA. While the t-6 might have an advantage in LA, I don't think any of the t-7 through t-14 would have an advantage over UCLA, or even USC, here. I assume the same is true for UT in Texas. Someone said that they couldn't believe how regional the non-t-14 were. I think that the regional nature of schools begins to play a part after the t-6.

Actually Michigan does a good deal better in Cali than USC and UCLA----I believe Penn and UVA do better too.

Agreed. My elite firm placement analysis suggests that CCN do significantly better than UCLA/USC in SoCal, while MVP/D do slightly better and NCG are on par. In contrast, in NorCal every T14 does significantly better than UCLA, which in turn is significantly better than USC.

Sure about C & D for NorCal? OCI schedules aren't everything, but UCLA is on every California employer's list. Cornell and Duke are not. I'd love to see the analysis you're talking about.

I basically took the top Vault firms in CA, counted the number of associates they have from each law school working in CA (SoCal or NorCal) offices, and divided that by the average number of graduates each law school sends to CA annually. The result roughly measures the relative placement of each law school's CA-bound graduates in elite CA firms. Of course, the usual self-selection bias holds (out-of-state grads may not come to CA unless they have an elite firm job, while UCLA/USC grads may want to stay in CA regardless of the job they get).

LA firms: Irell, Latham, Gibson Dunn, O'Melveny, Paul Hastings, Munger
LA "weighted scores": 1.45 Columbia, 1.26 Chicago, 1.00 NYU, 0.90 Penn, 0.85 Duke, 0.81 Michigan, 0.79 Virginia, 0.74 Georgetown, 0.74 Cornell, 0.71 USC, 0.61 UCLA, 0.45 Berkeley

SF firms: MoFo, Cooley, Orrick, Fenwick, Latham, Munger
SF "weighted scores": 2.10 Columbia, 1.81 Georgetown, 1.63 NYU, 1.52 Virginia, 1.35 Cornell, 1.32 Chicago, 1.30 Michigan, 1.27 Penn, 1.13 Berkeley, 0.61 Duke, 0.36 UCLA, 0.11 USC

[rondemarino]

I basically took the top 13 Vault firms in CA, counted the number of associates they have from each law school working in CA offices, and divided that by the average number of graduates each law school sends to CA annually. The result roughly measures the relative placement of each law school's graduates in elite CA firms.

My problem with this is that the only way for people at some lower T14s to make it to CA is through V50 firms. "Lesser" graduates from the California schools are counting against their V50 placement in CA, while the "lesser" graduates from D and C are probably stuck in NY and DC.

EDIT: I guess I see see you acknowledged what you call the "self selection bias" in text you appended to your earlier post. I think a good way for you to see if these numbers mean anything in comparison to CA schools, look at Berkeley's position and I'm sure you'll Stanford falling below a couple of lower T14s.

[los blancos]

So would you guys say the bottom line is that if I want to end up in CA I would still be in a better position to do so at Mich or Penn than UCLA/USC assuming similar class rank?

[im_blue]

So would you guys say the bottom line is that if I want to end up in CA I would still be in a better position to do so at Mich or Penn than UCLA/USC assuming similar class rank?

I think you would be at a slightly better (or at worst, equal) position at Mich/Penn compared to UCLA/USC, especially for NorCal.

[rondemarino]

So would you guys say the bottom line is that if I want to end up in CA I would still be in a better position to do so at Mich or Penn than UCLA/USC assuming similar class rank?

I think you would be at a slightly better (or at worst, equal) position at Mich/Penn compared to UCLA/USC, especially for NorCal.

Huh? For placement elite "national" firms, which is what your data is limited to, boilercat would appear to "be at a slightly better (or at worst, equal) position at Mich/Penn compared to UCLA/USC, especially for NorCal."

Considering 75-80% of UCLA/USC grads remain in CA, I don't see how UCLA/USC, in the absence of better data, isn't superior choice for CA employment. If boilercat can't get a gig through one of big national firms, like the ones you listed, s/he could b shut out of CA.

p.s: I'm not saying go to UCLA/USC. Your career options will be severely limited (stuck in CA) compared to going to Michigan or Penn.

[notme]

In my opinion, Michigan and Penn don't carry the same weight in CA (Northern or Southern) as they appear to have in other parts of the country. You would be better off at USC or UCLA. And with the contacts you would make here during school, it would be a significant advantage. Biglaw is not so prevalent in CA and a lot of the big money is with boutique firms. But I understand the dilemma, it took me time (but not much) to decide on UCLA over Cornell, and Cornell is not of the same caliber as Michigan or Penn.

[kurama20]

Huh? For placement elite "national" firms, which is what your data is limited to, boilercat would appear to "be at a slightly better (or at worst, equal) position at Mich/Penn compared to UCLA/USC, especially for NorCal."

Considering 75-80% of UCLA/USC grads remain in CA, I don't see how UCLA/USC, in the absence of better data, isn't superior choice for CA employment. If boilercat can't get a gig through one of big national firms, like the ones you listed, s/he could b shut out of CA.

p.s: I'm not saying go to UCLA/USC. Your career options will be severely limited (stuck in CA) compared to going to Michigan or Penn.

In my opinion, Michigan and Penn don't carry the same weight in CA (Northern or Southern) as they appear to have in other parts of the country. You would be better off at USC or UCLA. And with the contacts you would make here during school, it would be a significant advantage. Biglaw is not so prevalent in CA and a lot of the big money is with boutique firms. But I understand the dilemma, it took me time (but not much) to decide on UCLA over Cornell, and Cornell is not of the same caliber as Michigan or Penn.

What data have you guys been looking at? From everything I've ever seen Michigan is definitely better for working in Cali than UCLA and USC. You're definitely right about the Cornell thing and I think you are right about Penn as well. But Michigan's Cali placement is better than any school outside of HYS and CCN. One of the problems I've always had with UCLA and USC is that unlike Texas and Vandy they do not dominate, or even measure up to the mid level plus top 14 schools when it comes to their home region. In Texas UT is not going to get outplaced by any school short of HYS, same for Vandy in the south excluding UVA and Duke. But USC/UCLA get murdered by HYS and CCN, and they are beaten out by Michigan and maybe even UVA/Penn.

[rondemarino]

What data have you guys been looking at? From everything I've ever seen Michigan is definitely better for working in Cali than UCLA and USC. You're definitely right about the Cornell thing and I think you are right about Penn as well. But Michigan's Cali placement is better than any school outside of HYS and CCN. One of the problems I've always had with UCLA and USC is that unlike Texas and Vandy they do not dominate, or even measure up to the mid level plus top 14 schools when it comes to their home region. In Texas UT is not going to get outplaced by any school short of HYS, same for Vandy in the south excluding UVA and Duke. But USC/UCLA get murdered by HYS and CCN, and they are beaten out by Michigan and maybe even UVA/Penn.

re: bolded, you do realize that CA is a much more popular destination than Texas, right? Its hard to know if Texas is "outplacing" any schools or if no one wants to go there.

I'm getting my numbers NLJ_250 data. UCLA/USC grads end up in CA. Where the hell else are they going to get jobs? Unless you have grade cutoffs for CA firms hiring at Michigan, I think its hard to know how mobile the bottom half of Michigan is. For UCLA/USC, not being mobile isn't really a problem if CA is your market.

p.s: Before you start an epic war, just recognize the scope of the discussion here.

[kurama20]

What data have you guys been looking at? From everything I've ever seen Michigan is definitely better for working in Cali than UCLA and USC. You're definitely right about the Cornell thing and I think you are right about Penn as well. But Michigan's Cali placement is better than any school outside of HYS and CCN. One of the problems I've always had with UCLA and USC is that unlike Texas and Vandy they do not dominate, or even measure up to the mid level plus top 14 schools when it comes to their home region. In Texas UT is not going to get outplaced by any school short of HYS, same for Vandy in the south excluding UVA and Duke. But USC/UCLA get murdered by HYS and CCN, and they are beaten out by Michigan and maybe even UVA/Penn.

re: bolded, you do realize that CA is a much more popular destination than Texas, right? Its hard to know if Texas is "outplacing" any schools or if no one wants to go there.

I'm getting my numbers NLJ_250 data. UCLA/USC grads end up in CA. Where the hell else are they going to get jobs? Unless you have grade cutoffs for CA firms hiring at Michigan, I think its hard to know how mobile the bottom half of Michigan is. For UCLA/USC, not being mobile isn't really a problem if CA is your market.

p.s: Before you start an epic war, just recognize the scope of the discussion here.

You need to take into account the qualifications (eg grades) that the UCLA/USC students are having to pull off to get those jobs in comparison to the Michigan students. There was a thread on here a few months back from a UCLA student who said that many, if not most, of the big law firms in LA and definitely the Bay Area wanted a 3.7+ GPA for UCLA kids. I've heard that same type of thing from other posters when discussing the Cali market and UCLA/USC. On top of that when you do firm searches (which for some reason you call "stupid") at Cali firms you will often notice that the UCLA/USC grads are decked out with honors. I'm talking order of the coif, magna/summa cum laude, Law Review, moot court champion, and then on top of that a lot of them have HYSP MIT, and Cal Tech undergrads. When you look at the Michigan, NYU, UChi, CLS, and sometimes UVA grads they often have no honors at all or just something like cum laude. And again in NorCal it's even worse, a lot of the elite NorCal firms don't even have UCLA/USC grads.

[irishman86]

What data have you guys been looking at? From everything I've ever seen Michigan is definitely better for working in Cali than UCLA and USC. You're definitely right about the Cornell thing and I think you are right about Penn as well. But Michigan's Cali placement is better than any school outside of HYS and CCN. One of the problems I've always had with UCLA and USC is that unlike Texas and Vandy they do not dominate, or even measure up to the mid level plus top 14 schools when it comes to their home region. In Texas UT is not going to get outplaced by any school short of HYS, same for Vandy in the south excluding UVA and Duke. But USC/UCLA get murdered by HYS and CCN, and they are beaten out by Michigan and maybe even UVA/Penn.

re: bolded, you do realize that CA is a much more popular destination than Texas, right? Its hard to know if Texas is "outplacing" any schools or if no one wants to go there.

I'm getting my numbers NLJ_250 data. UCLA/USC grads end up in CA. Where the hell else are they going to get jobs? Unless you have grade cutoffs for CA firms hiring at Michigan, I think its hard to know how mobile the bottom half of Michigan is. For UCLA/USC, not being mobile isn't really a problem if CA is your market.

p.s: Before you start an epic war, just recognize the scope of the discussion here.

You need to take into account the qualifications (eg grades) that the UCLA/USC students are having to pull off to get those jobs in comparison to the Michigan students. There was a thread on here a few months back from a UCLA student who said that many, if not most, of the big law firms in LA and definitely the Bay Area wanted a 3.7+ GPA for UCLA kids. I've heard that same type of thing from other posters when discussing the Cali market and UCLA/USC. On top of that when you do firm searches (which for some reason you call "stupid") at Cali firms you will often notice that the UCLA/USC grads are decked out with honors. I'm talking order of the coif, magna/summa cum laude, Law Review, moot court champion, and then on top of that a lot of them have HYSP MIT, and Cal Tech undergrads. When you look at the Michigan, NYU, UChi, CLS, and sometimes UVA grads they often have no honors at all or just something like cum laude. And again in NorCal it's even worse, a lot of the elite NorCal firms don't even have UCLA/USC grads.

I have heard this too. Someone on here even said that firms in Northern California have dug deeper into schools like Penn/Duke than Boalt simply because their grads are rarer commodities. Firms like to diversify their employees.

[rondemarino]

You need to take into account the qualifications (eg grades) that the UCLA/USC students are having to pull off to get those jobs in comparison to the Michigan students. There was a thread on here a few months back from a UCLA student who said that many, if not most, of the big law firms in LA and definitely the Bay Area wanted a 3.7+ GPA for UCLA kids. I've heard that same type of thing from other posters when discussing the Cali market and UCLA/USC. On top of that when you do firm searches (which for some reason you call "stupid") at Cali firms you will often notice that the UCLA/USC grads are decked out with honors. I'm talking order of the coif, magna/summa cum laude, Law Review, moot court champion, and then on top of that a lot of them have HYSP MIT, and Cal Tech undergrads. When you look at the Michigan, NYU, UChi, CLS, and sometimes UVA grads they often have no honors at all or just something like cum laude. And again in NorCal it's even worse, a lot of the elite NorCal firms don't even have UCLA/USC grads.

I know that to a degree this isn't true in LA. I was a patent agent at V100 in LA a little while back and am familiar with the credentials of our new associates, as well as those at a few other firms in the area. With the exception of HYS and CC (surprisingly NYU not a favorite), diversity of law school could have been the only reason some lower T14 grads might have had the bar set a little lower for them and I'm not even sure this is true.

You could be right about NorCal. I have no experience or real knowledge about the market there. Can you give me a list of NorCal offices that you looked at? MoFo, Keker, SullCrom? Anecdotal information beats no information.

[SHARK WEEK!]

you do realize that CA is a much more popular destination than Texas, right? Its hard to know if Texas is "outplacing" any schools or if no one wants to go there.

+310

[los blancos]

Considering 75-80% of UCLA/USC grads remain in CA, I don't see how UCLA/USC, in the absence of better data, isn't superior choice for CA employment.

Careful, you could confuse path of least resistance with road most traveled.

(Not saying you're wrong or that you're even doing that)


As for me, my goal, above all else (other than a baller clerkship), is a six-figure job in CA (SD>LA>SF, but I love all three). But I'd rather get paid well outside of CA and try to lateral in than end up with a low-paying job in CA. That's why, especially ITE where people with median grades at UCLA/USC seem to get hit hard, I will probably favor MVPDN. That said, $$$ could persuade me otherwise.

(I just hope I can get into Berk so this argument is moot)

[DoubleChecks]

What data have you guys been looking at? From everything I've ever seen Michigan is definitely better for working in Cali than UCLA and USC. You're definitely right about the Cornell thing and I think you are right about Penn as well. But Michigan's Cali placement is better than any school outside of HYS and CCN. One of the problems I've always had with UCLA and USC is that unlike Texas and Vandy they do not dominate, or even measure up to the mid level plus top 14 schools when it comes to their home region. In Texas UT is not going to get outplaced by any school short of HYS, same for Vandy in the south excluding UVA and Duke. But USC/UCLA get murdered by HYS and CCN, and they are beaten out by Michigan and maybe even UVA/Penn.

re: bolded, you do realize that CA is a much more popular destination than Texas, right? Its hard to know if Texas is "outplacing" any schools or if no one wants to go there.

jumping in randomly -- are we talking about outplacing? or just a school dominating a region? the fact that not as many ppl want to go to TX means it is harder for USC/UCLA grads in comparison to dominate their region (by comparison) since more out of staters will be fighting for the same jobs. sure this doesnt mean UT is stronger in TX, but it could mean UT = greater chance at TX biglaw than UCLA/USC's chance at biglaw within CA.

[los blancos]

but it could mean UT = greater chance at TX biglaw than UCLA/USC's chance at biglaw within CA.

I think that's basically what it means. Which is why UT is such a great value if you can get some scholarship money and want to live in TX.

I wouldn't mind living in TX. But I prefer CA, FL, and maybe Atlanta.

[SHARK WEEK!]

Considering 75-80% of UCLA/USC grads remain in CA, I don't see how UCLA/USC, in the absence of better data, isn't superior choice for CA employment.

Careful, you could confuse path of least resistance with road most traveled.

(Not saying you're wrong or that you're even doing that)


As for me, my goal, above all else (other than a baller clerkship), is a six-figure job in CA (SD>LA>SF, but I love all three). But I'd rather get paid well outside of CA and try to lateral in than end up with a low-paying job in CA. That's why, especially ITE where people with median grades at UCLA/USC seem to get hit hard, I will probably favor MVPDN. That said, $$$ could persuade me otherwise.

(I just hope I can get into Berk so this argument is moot)

I too am highly interested in establishing myself in San Diego. Do you know of the placement stats of UCLA/USC in SD? Are there many Biglaw firms down there? San Diego would be incredible.

[tallboone]

This simple link really could and should end all of these debates. Ready for it?
http://www.calvin.edu/admin/csr/student ... w/data.htm

[SHARK WEEK!]

This simple link really could and should end all of these debates. Ready for it?
http://www.calvin.edu/admin/csr/student ... w/data.htm

Great chart. I like your avatar. But: "Collected February 23, 2005" Sorry, this is not the end-all-be all chart that I was hoping for. UCLA's employment numbers continue to rise relative to its peers, I think even in 2008 their placement had improved.

[los blancos]

This simple link really could and should end all of these debates. Ready for it?
http://www.calvin.edu/admin/csr/student ... w/data.htm

Great chart. I like your avatar. But: "Collected February 23, 2005" Sorry, this is not the end-all-be all chart that I was hoping for. UCLA's employment numbers continue to rise relative to its peers, I think even in 2008 their placement had improved.

Also, the chart doesn't address the issue of path of least resistance vs road most traveled.