Columbia or UCLA Forum

[cinefile 17]

.

[Grizz]

Columbia for better job prospects.

[waldodanto]

I go to UCLA and I think you should go to Columbia. Columbia has such a strong name, it will travel easily to LA, where I imagine a Columbia degree would let you stand out amongst the horde of UCLA grads in So cal. You might have to work a bit harder to secure a job in LA in entertainment, but law school is hard anyway and you'll be used to difficulty soon enough. Also... How did you not get money at UCLA?? I got money at UCLA and my best admission was Michigan... Did you apply very very late?

[cinefile 17]

.

[d34d9823]

I voted Columbia simply because people's life goals often change. Don't know you personally, but how realistic is it that after three years of maturing and schooling, you'll still have the same goals? I think the schools are pretty break even specifically for entertainment law in LA (Columbia for everything else obviously), so I'd take the one that gives you more options in the future.

[JOThompson]

If cost is the same, go to Columbia and never look back. This will position you for the best career possible. Congrats on your options. This is a good, but I think also easy, choice to have.

[imchuckbass58]

I voted Columbia for the following reasons:

In all likelihood you will not get into entertainment law straight out of school. It's not impossible, but from either school it is really rare. A more likely path is you go to a big firm with a large entertainment practice group (e.g., O'Melveny or Gibson Dunn), try to do as much work as possible in that practice group, then eventually get enough experience that you can transition to an entertainment boutique.

For this latter path, Columbia will serve you better. Most big firms care less about whether you were in the entertainment law society, or UCLA's great entertainment law program, and more about going to great school and blowing the doors off.

I agree that proximity, practitioner interaction, etc., would be important for getting a job with small boutiques, but most of these places don't hire straight out of LS when they can get associates with 3-4 years of big firm experience.

[dreamweaver87]

Personally, I think Columbia will give you much more options. However, UCLA is certainly a great choice for what you're looking to go into and, if you think you'll be happier there, that's a very important consideration. I have to say, though, you should definitely ask UCLA for some money and mention Columbia as another choice for you. I asked them for money and, while I did not get much, they did give me a little the first time I asked and a little more the second time I asked. Also, residency is is apparently pretty easy to get, so you could hav ein-state tuition for 2L and 3L.

[Grad09]

Personally, I think Columbia will give you much more options. However, UCLA is certainly a great choice for what you're looking to go into and, if you think you'll be happier there, that's a very important consideration. I have to say, though, you should definitely ask UCLA for some money and mention Columbia as another choice for you. I asked them for money and, while I did not get much, they did give me a little the first time I asked and a little more the second time I asked. Also, residency is is apparently pretty easy to get, so you could hav ein-state tuition for 2L and 3L.

I have to agree. Don't just go to a school and ignore the happiness factor. From friends' opinions, reading/research, and TLS, I think I would be miserable in Ithaca. Thus, I wouldn't even consider thinking the name "Cornell" unless I had a full scholarship, and even then its only a maybe. I doubt you will be miserable at Columbia.

Columbia is a TOUGH school to turn down, especially when you are going to pay sticker at UCLA. If you had money at UCLA, I would go there. Since you don't, go to Columbia.

PS I am really surprised you didn't get any money out of UCLA. If you didn't try to negotiate, shame on you. If you did, you are one of the most unlucky people I have ever met. (figuratively)