UCLA (in-state) or Michigan? I want to practice/live in CA. Forum

[SHARK WEEK!]

Pro UCLA:
-In-state tuition, so cheaper
-I've already spent 10+ years in the Midwest
-Better weather
-Great for California
-Reputation is on the rise

Pro Michigan:
-Ranked higher
-More prestigious nationally
-Places better overall

[holydonkey]

Both are great choices. Go visit! If still undecided, UCLA because it's cheaper.

[Snoopy1216]

Both are great choices. Go visit! If still undecided, UCLA because it's cheaper.

and you want to live/practice in CA... It seems to me that UCLA would place much better in CA than Michigan. Right?

[soyable]

I'm also weighing these two schools against each other right now. Rankings aside, I prefer UCLA (the atmosphere, the programs offered, the cost), but I'm wondering if it's silly to pass up a school like Michigan, which has a name that will carry you far in the legal world. There's a lot of people on TLS claiming that UCLA will only serve you well in CA, but it seems like it's more an issue of where the grads want to be (70% instate, and Californians can be allergic to cold weather). They definitely have placed their grads at great firms in Chicago and NYC and they have had some pretty good clerkship placements as well.

But still, Michigan has an undeniably strong tradition as being a great law school and a degree from there is instantly recognizable as impressive. And Michigan grads go all over the country. Anyone else have any thought?

[td6624]

You answered your own question when you said you wanted to work in California. If you only think you want that, then there may still be a question. But if you're sure, it's not close, I don't think.

[waldodanto]

I struggled with the same issue a year ago. After attending both schools ASDs, I went with UCLA because I had a strong regional preference to be out here (all my family, friends, etc. live in CA and that's where I want to end up). I had no doubt Michigan could get me a job in California, but I didn't think the potential national prestige advantage that I might never end up using was worth 3 years in miserable Ann Arbor, plus about 60k+ more debt.
I have no regrets at this point, but obviously that's just one man's story.
FWIW, I know a lot of 1Ls who also chose UCLA over t14s, and nobody seems to be anything but happy with their picks. Might change when we go through OCI though

[Vincent Vega]

Though I love Michigan's law school it's tcr to choose UCLA here.

[voice of reason]

Both are great choices. Go visit! If still undecided, UCLA because it's cheaper.

With the CA fee increases, the cost of attending UCLA as a California resident will most likely be greater than the cost of Michigan as a nonresident. I believe in-state UCLA tuition will be mid-40s next year and upper 40s after that. And Westwood/LA is more expensive than Ann Arbor.

I would say go visit, and if still undecided, UCLA because it's where you want to practice.

[fortissimo]

Both are great choices. Go visit! If still undecided, UCLA because it's cheaper.

With the CA fee increases, the cost of attending UCLA as a California resident will most likely be greater than the cost of Michigan as a nonresident. I believe in-state UCLA tuition will be mid-40s next year and upper 40s after that. And Westwood/LA is more expensive than Ann Arbor.

I would say go visit, and if still undecided, UCLA because it's where you want to practice.

http://top-law-schools.com/forums/viewt ... =1&t=71528

tcr. I think UCLA will cost more for an in-stater than Michigan.

Which part of California do you want to work in? I think Michigan fares better than UCLA in SF among firms.

Despite having in-state tuition for UCLA, I decided on MVP over it. (To be perfectly honest though, I went into the cycle thinking I'd either go to a top 14 or retake the LSAT.)
1) UCLA's tuition is increasing to an insane rate.
2) I had no desire to live or work in LA and it seems the vast majority of its grads end up in LA.
3) Prestige in the legal community
I think the choice made a lot of sense for me because I am open to working in other markets and would ONLY consider working in SF if I were to work in California. I think I definitely made the right choice because, well, I hate Los Angeles the city, but also partly because I heard UCLA's OCI was a bloodbath.

[im_blue]

Both are great choices. Go visit! If still undecided, UCLA because it's cheaper.

With the CA fee increases, the cost of attending UCLA as a California resident will most likely be greater than the cost of Michigan as a nonresident. I believe in-state UCLA tuition will be mid-40s next year and upper 40s after that. And Westwood/LA is more expensive than Ann Arbor.

I would say go visit, and if still undecided, UCLA because it's where you want to practice.

http://top-law-schools.com/forums/viewt ... =1&t=71528

tcr. I think UCLA will cost more for an in-stater than Michigan.

Which part of California do you want to work in? I think Michigan fares better than UCLA in SF among firms.

Despite having in-state tuition for UCLA, I decided on MVP over it. (To be perfectly honest though, I went into the cycle thinking I'd either go to a top 14 or retake the LSAT.)
1) UCLA's tuition is increasing to an insane rate.
2) I had no desire to live or work in LA and it seems the vast majority of its grads end up in LA.
3) Prestige in the legal community
I think the choice made a lot of sense for me because I am open to working in other markets and would ONLY consider working in SF if I were to work in California. I think I definitely made the right choice because, well, I hate Los Angeles the city, but also partly because I heard UCLA's OCI was a bloodbath.

+1. Michigan is actually cheaper than UCLA even for CA residents, and Michigan outperforms UCLA in the SF market. Pick UCLA only if you're absolutely dead set on LA, and even then UCLA isn't a clear win. MVP destroyed UCLA at OCI this year.

[weee]

michigan's tuition is on the rise too so for next 3 years price of tuition is going to be close btwn these two. i am having the same dilemma too.

[fortissimo]

michigan's tuition is on the rise too so for next 3 years price of tuition is going to be close btwn these two. i am having the same dilemma too.

All law schools increase their rates each year, but the UCs are increasing at the absolute highest rate out of all the law schools because of the recent massive budget cuts.

[weee]

http://www.law.umich.edu/historyandtrad ... istory.pdf

Mich Out of state tuitions
2008-2009 $22155/semester
2009-2010 $23,005
2010-2011 23,630.31
2011-2012 (24200)
2012-2013 (24800)

just estimating based on last year's increase, since it was lower, so average tuition rate is going to be 48400

for UCLA, we are looking at "estimated" numbers of
41k
45k
49k
so average of 45k/yr maybe 46k

UCLA's tuition also includes health insurance, which is ~$1000/semester not included in the UMich tuition

so you've got average or 50k vs average of 45k maybe

Obviously this is if you're a cali resident to start.

If you're a mich resident to start, knock of 3k/yr and add 3.3k/yr the other way, leaving you at 47k Mich vs 48.3k UCLA

All I said is they are both going up and that they are going to be close in price, Mich is starting off higher and UCLA is catching up, but in the 3 year period where it matters to this year's applicants, raw tuition cost is not the main factor. Of course factor in COL and you are probably more truly equal only if you're the CA person.