Poll: Loyola Law ($$) or UC Davis Forum

[ucsd2011]

I am deciding on a few law schools that I have been admitted to. I got into Loyola Law, UC Hastings and UC Davis. But I'm only deciding between UC Davis and Loyola. Loyola gave me $87K scholarship. What are your guys' thoughts on the choice?

[jesss]

hello fellow ucsd grad! i am in a verrry similar situation and voted for lls because it has fairly strong pull in the la/socal area. davis is ranked higher though and i'd say that if you have any interest in practicing in nor cal, i'd pick davis. the money at lls is pretty nice though:)

[ucsd2011]

Yea I'm actually leaning toward Loyola. I know that Davis is higher in the new rankings, but I do not think that rankings tell the entire story. Plus, loyola was 71 two years ago and they are 54th now. They are definitely under the impression themselves that they need to step it up for rankings sake. But Loyola is still an extremely reputable name in Los Angeles. I also got into Hastings, but if I wanted to stay up north I would definitely just go to Davis b/c it is higher ranked. I'm still up in the air between Davis and Loyola. I definitely am going to visit the campus for Admit day on the 15th. Hopefully that will help persuade me further.

If anyone else could give their two cents on this subject, that would be greatly appreciated. Thanks in advanced.

[samfii]

Is the Loyola scholarship attached with the top 1/3rd stip?

[ucsd2011]

Is the Loyola scholarship attached with the top 1/3rd stip?

there is a stipulation but I emailed the admissions committee to ask if they can change that stip. I know some friends at LLS who were able to do it. I just don't want to go to Davis b/c of the rankings. I feel that if I decide because of that, I will not enjoy my time and my grades will suffer.

Also, i feel like people pass over the notions that Davis grads have to compete against Boalt, Stanford, and Hastings while LLS students compete against UCLA and USC. Regardless, either school will present students with similar opportunities as long as the student gets the grades...

[Hannibal]

I vote UC Davis if you can't change the stip.

[POSERmyLOVE]

I would choose UC Davis just because of the ranking and because its alot cheaper!

I've heard a few cases where you can actually go to the dean of admissions and make him/her an offer. So you would go to the Dean at Davis and to let him/her that you got accepted to Loyola with a great scholarship and you would definitely accept Davis if you were able to recieve a just as good scholarship. Get it?


good luck!

[bk1]

Both these choices are meh in my mind. If you can't get the Loyola stip removed then you are more likely to lose it than keep it (which is an awful deal).

I think, because both these options are meh, to choose based on whether you have a preference for NorCal or SoCal.

[ucsd2011]

Both these choices are meh in my mind. If you can't get the Loyola stip removed then you are more likely to lose it than keep it (which is an awful deal).

I think, because both these options are meh, to choose based on whether you have a preference for NorCal or SoCal.

Do you mind explaining why these choices are "meh" to you? I'm sorry if many of us haven't gotten the same scores as you to push you toward the T10 schools.

[Fark-o-vision]

Or take the money, understanding full well that if you are unable to keep the scholarship, dropping out is the best option. Not to be a downer on LLS, because I kind of like it, but if you are around median your job opportunities are going to be sketchy at best. Unless you have an "in" with the legal community that you feel comfortable relying on. Then go to Loyola, assuming two years there are cheaper than three years at Davis.

[bk1]

Do you mind explaining why these choices are "meh" to you? I'm sorry if many of us haven't gotten the same scores as you to push you toward the T10 schools.

It's not about being T10 or bust, it's just that the options for California kind of suck. The strong regional schools (UCD/UCH) for those without T14 (or UCLA/USC) numbers are very expensive and very stingy with money. And the gap to the next best schools is fairly large (Santa Clara/Pepperdine/Loyola). The problem is that these lower schools would be okay with large scholarships, which they do give, however requiring top third is ridiculous and makes them a bad deal (because you will most likely lose your scholarship).

They employment figures out of these schools are hard to justify taking them on at sticker price. I could see taking on somewhere around $100k worth of debt (which is manageable), but much more than that it just doesn't seem worth it. With Loyola's stipulation it is hard to look at the scholarship as anything more than a 1 year amount.

[ucsd2011]

Do you mind explaining why these choices are "meh" to you? I'm sorry if many of us haven't gotten the same scores as you to push you toward the T10 schools.

It's not about being T10 or bust, it's just that the options for California kind of suck. The strong regional schools (UCD/UCH) for those without T14 (or UCLA/USC) numbers are very expensive and very stingy with money. And the gap to the next best schools is fairly large (Santa Clara/Pepperdine/Loyola). The problem is that these lower schools would be okay with large scholarships, which they do give, however requiring top third is ridiculous and makes them a bad deal (because you will most likely lose your scholarship).

They employment figures out of these schools are hard to justify taking them on at sticker price. I could see taking on somewhere around $100k worth of debt (which is manageable), but much more than that it just doesn't seem worth it. With Loyola's stipulation it is hard to look at the scholarship as anything more than a 1 year amount.

Thanks for the insight. Davis gave me a preliminary scholarship that they estimate would be roughly 60K. I do not know if they have a stipulation or anything yet. I'll have to wait until April 1 when they provide me with my official financial award.

By the way, UCH has been losing considerable reputation. In fact, there new dean set up an ad hoc committee in order to change their reputation. And the rankings between Hastings and Loyola is minimal (roughly 10 spots, but at this level being in top 30/40/50 are all somewhat the same. I am currently on the waitlist for UCLA, but I always hear that waitlist's are just an extended rejection, so I'm not getting my hopes too high for this.

I feel like Loyola would offer me some good resources, especially given that they have roughly 16,000 living alumni. Yes the stipulation is retarded, but being in the top 3rd is manageable if I really work hard enough and continue a good work ethic. UC Davis does have the rankings, but I am unsure if they necessarily have the reputation that Hastings has given that it is a relatively newer school. Furthermore, I do not know if Davis has a similar reputation comparable to Loyola.

[arhmcpo]

Do you mind explaining why these choices are "meh" to you? I'm sorry if many of us haven't gotten the same scores as you to push you toward the T10 schools.

It's not about being T10 or bust, it's just that the options for California kind of suck. The strong regional schools (UCD/UCH) for those without T14 (or UCLA/USC) numbers are very expensive and very stingy with money. And the gap to the next best schools is fairly large (Santa Clara/Pepperdine/Loyola). The problem is that these lower schools would be okay with large scholarships, which they do give, however requiring top third is ridiculous and makes them a bad deal (because you will most likely lose your scholarship).

They employment figures out of these schools are hard to justify taking them on at sticker price. I could see taking on somewhere around $100k worth of debt (which is manageable), but much more than that it just doesn't seem worth it. With Loyola's stipulation it is hard to look at the scholarship as anything more than a 1 year amount.

While you are correct that wise applicants should analyze law school desirability on the basis of losing the scholarship; your constant assertions (in various threads) that scholarship recipients will most likely lose their scholarships is fallacious. You're wrongly assuming that if you have a 1/3rd chance of keeping it than you have a 2/3rd chance of losing it but this ignores the reality that scholarship recipients are such because they are predicted to be the most successful in their law school class; law students are not created equal. While lsat and gpa predictions are far from full-proof, they are not arbitrary either, which is what you imply when you say they basically have a 2/3rds chance of losing their scholarship. While I agree with your message, an important one: to beware the scholarship stipulation, its also seriously misleading to tell applicants they have a 2/3rd chance of losing it.

[20160810]

$87K means you're still going to be borrowing almost $100K for Loyola, and that could become far more if you don't make top third, which is possible. Honestly in this instance, I think it makes far, far, far more sense to go to Davis. Top third at Davis still leaves you in the running for some firms, top third at Loyola would leave you financially boned and without many great employment prospects. Unless you have a VERY compelling reason to need to be in LA for 3 years, I'll see you next fall.

[trudat15]

I feel like Loyola would offer me some good resources, especially given that they have roughly 16,000 living alumni. Yes the stipulation is retarded, but being in the top 3rd is manageable if I really work hard enough and continue a good work ethic. UC Davis does have the rankings, but I am unsure if they necessarily have the reputation that Hastings has given that it is a relatively newer school. Furthermore, I do not know if Davis has a similar reputation comparable to Loyola.

While you are correct that wise applicants should analyze law school desirability on the basis of losing the scholarship; your constant assertions (in various threads) that scholarship recipients will most likely lose their scholarships is fallacious. You're wrongly assuming that if you have a 1/3rd chance of keeping it than you have a 2/3rd chance of losing it but this ignores the reality that scholarship recipients are such because they are predicted to be the most successful in their law school class; law students are not created equal. While lsat and gpa predictions are far from full-proof, they are not arbitrary either, which is what you imply when you say they basically have a 2/3rds chance of losing their scholarship. While I agree with your message, an important one: to beware the scholarship stipulation, its also seriously misleading to tell applicants they have a 2/3rd chance of losing it.

I'm a worthless 0L, so take this for what it's worth (probably nothing), but I think too many ppl go in thinking - I'll just work hard and stay in the top 1/3. A more realistic starting point for anyone going into any law school (this includes high LSAT or GPA folk) - I'll work hard and be at median.

[20160810]

I feel like Loyola would offer me some good resources, especially given that they have roughly 16,000 living alumni. Yes the stipulation is retarded, but being in the top 3rd is manageable if I really work hard enough and continue a good work ethic. UC Davis does have the rankings, but I am unsure if they necessarily have the reputation that Hastings has given that it is a relatively newer school. Furthermore, I do not know if Davis has a similar reputation comparable to Loyola.

While you are correct that wise applicants should analyze law school desirability on the basis of losing the scholarship; your constant assertions (in various threads) that scholarship recipients will most likely lose their scholarships is fallacious. You're wrongly assuming that if you have a 1/3rd chance of keeping it than you have a 2/3rd chance of losing it but this ignores the reality that scholarship recipients are such because they are predicted to be the most successful in their law school class; law students are not created equal. While lsat and gpa predictions are far from full-proof, they are not arbitrary either, which is what you imply when you say they basically have a 2/3rds chance of losing their scholarship. While I agree with your message, an important one: to beware the scholarship stipulation, its also seriously misleading to tell applicants they have a 2/3rd chance of losing it.

I'm a worthless 0L, so take this for what it's worth (probably nothing), but I think too many ppl go in thinking - I'll just work hard and stay in the top 1/3. A more realistic starting point for anyone going into any law school (this includes high LSAT or GPA folk) - I'll work hard and be at median.

You might be a 0L, but you're far from worthless. Plan on finishing 1L in the middle.

[total_loss]

Also, i feel like people pass over the notions that Davis grads have to compete against Boalt, Stanford, and Hastings while LLS students compete against UCLA and USC. Regardless, either school will present students with similar opportunities as long as the student gets the grades...

Perhaps you meant, "while the LLS class of 2014 will compete against UCLA, USC, Pepperdine, UCI, the T13, and to a much lesser extent, Chapman." Davis also competes with the T13 plus Santa Clara, McGeorge, and USF in addition to Boalt, Stanford, and Hastings. Regardless, you're somewhat correct. Neither school presents students with job opportunities unless the student makes very good grades.

[20160810]

Also, i feel like people pass over the notions that Davis grads have to compete against Boalt, Stanford, and Hastings while LLS students compete against UCLA and USC. Regardless, either school will present students with similar opportunities as long as the student gets the grades...

Perhaps you meant, "while the LLS class of 2014 will compete against UCLA, USC, Pepperdine, UCI, the T13, and to a much lesser extent, Chapman." Davis also competes with the T13 plus Santa Clara, McGeorge, and USF in addition to Boalt, Stanford, and Hastings. Regardless, you're somewhat correct. Neither school presents students with job opportunities unless the student makes very good grades.

This argument is fatuous on both counts. Students from top schools all over the country compete for jobs in the SF and LA markets. It's easier to get a job in LA with the same grades from Davis than from Loyola, I can pretty much guarantee it. The only isolated market advantage is Davis's access to Sacramento, and that's a small market.

[ucsd2011]

Also, i feel like people pass over the notions that Davis grads have to compete against Boalt, Stanford, and Hastings while LLS students compete against UCLA and USC. Regardless, either school will present students with similar opportunities as long as the student gets the grades...

Perhaps you meant, "while the LLS class of 2014 will compete against UCLA, USC, Pepperdine, UCI, the T13, and to a much lesser extent, Chapman." Davis also competes with the T13 plus Santa Clara, McGeorge, and USF in addition to Boalt, Stanford, and Hastings. Regardless, you're somewhat correct. Neither school presents students with job opportunities unless the student makes very good grades.

This argument is fatuous on both counts. Students from top schools all over the country compete for jobs in the SF and LA markets. It's easier to get a job in LA with the same grades from Davis than from Loyola, I can pretty much guarantee it. The only isolated market advantage is Davis's access to Sacramento, and that's a small market.

It seems you are extremely biased for Davis. You are quoted as saying: "Top third at Davis still leaves you in the running for some firms, top third at Loyola would leave you financially boned and without many great employment prospects." and you then discuss how the same grades in Davis will give you the same opportunities as grades in Loyola. Do you have any factual evidence to support your claim? I mean, yes, Davis is a prestigious law school, but to say it is as reputable in LA as Loyola is seems somewhat fallacious. Remember, Loyola is a larger school with a longer history which equates to LARGER alumni, specifically in LA. If you could please give me evidence to support to notion that Davis kids can have the same opportunities, I would love to stand corrected. I'm not arguing that you are wrong, I just seem somewhat doubtful.

Also, to say that a top third student would be left without many great employment prospects is also extremely false. I know a few students who are top third at Loyola and they have the SAME jobs as students who are top third at Boalt. In particular, I know a student who is a 3L at Loyola and has a job with a BigLaw firm. This student is making bank, and has the same exact associate job as my friend who is at Boalt and a friend who is at Stanford that are both within the top third of their respective schools. So to say that getting the grades at Loyola does not mean you have opportunities just seems like an exaggeration of someone who is completely naive of the reputation of loyola and bases his entire decision on rankings. But yes, this is a small % of the overall competition between Boalt and Loyola. Of course a student at Boalt has greater opportunities, but if you get grades at Loyola you still have a chance. And also, remember, you need the grades at Davis too.

But once again, I love to be critiqued and left corrected. So if you can give me evidence that the same GPA from Davis and Loyola would get the SAME exact position the SAME number of times, if not more, I would love to know this and it will definitely help me choose Davis. But until then...the discussion continues.

[bk1]

While you are correct that wise applicants should analyze law school desirability on the basis of losing the scholarship; your constant assertions (in various threads) that scholarship recipients will most likely lose their scholarships is fallacious. You're wrongly assuming that if you have a 1/3rd chance of keeping it than you have a 2/3rd chance of losing it but this ignores the reality that scholarship recipients are such because they are predicted to be the most successful in their law school class; law students are not created equal. While lsat and gpa predictions are far from full-proof, they are not arbitrary either, which is what you imply when you say they basically have a 2/3rds chance of losing their scholarship. While I agree with your message, an important one: to beware the scholarship stipulation, its also seriously misleading to tell applicants they have a 2/3rd chance of losing it.

When LSAT and GPA only account for about 20% of your 1L grades, it is pretty damn close to the truth. While yes, if you get a scholarship with top 1/3 stips you probably have a more than 33% chance of keeping it, the reality is that the difference is marginal because what makes up the vast majority of your 1L grades is not LSAT/GPA. It might not be exactly true that they have a 2/3 chance of losing it, but it is as close to the truth as one can get. When the stipulation requires you be above median, it is foolhardy to assume you have a larger chance of keeping it than you do losing it.

[Stupendous_Man]

Also, i feel like people pass over the notions that Davis grads have to compete against Boalt, Stanford, and Hastings while LLS students compete against UCLA and USC. Regardless, either school will present students with similar opportunities as long as the student gets the grades...

Perhaps you meant, "while the LLS class of 2014 will compete against UCLA, USC, Pepperdine, UCI, the T13, and to a much lesser extent, Chapman." Davis also competes with the T13 plus Santa Clara, McGeorge, and USF in addition to Boalt, Stanford, and Hastings. Regardless, you're somewhat correct. Neither school presents students with job opportunities unless the student makes very good grades.

This argument is fatuous on both counts. Students from top schools all over the country compete for jobs in the SF and LA markets. It's easier to get a job in LA with the same grades from Davis than from Loyola, I can pretty much guarantee it. The only isolated market advantage is Davis's access to Sacramento, and that's a small market.

Grading is too random in law school to count on much. With a large class and a strict curve, getting into the top 1/3 is harder than you might think. What you'll find after your first semester is that the people you thought weren't going to do well did, and most of the people you were worried about didn't do that well. It's hard to determine who will be good at law school exams and who won't be based on their LSAT and GPA.

I'd also like to unequivocally disagree that the same GPA from Davis is going to have a better time finding jobs in LA than Loyola. A lot of getting jobs is just putting yourself out there and meeting people, and the market you are networking in is going to be the school you're attending. For biglaw jobs, grades are more of an emphasis, but even then you need to have a demonstrable connection to the area beyond "I think I'd like to live in LA". For these reasons, Loyola has the advantage in LA for most students, simply because Davis isn't a big national name (like Stanford or Boalt) and Loyola is IN LA. And on top of all that, you have to be able to get an interview, which is hard to do from a remote location to begin with.

If Davis gives you $60k, I'd say that totally rules out the financial considerations, and the only considerations left are location, and general "feel" when you visit both schools. It's a personal decision, and personally I'd choose Davis because as a 0L I wasn't very tied to one area (although now I love LA and will never leave) and prestige is important to me. I think Davis will do somewhat better in its relative general market than Loyola, and miles better in Sac Town than Loyola can do in LA, but what good does that do you if you don't want to be in NorCal, which it sounds like you don't?

[Del Fin]

Wow people are going really crazy in depth on this thing... haha i guess thats a good thing.

I just wanted to say real quick that I went to UC Davis for undergrad and loved living there... its a great college town and I personally think it would be a great place to go to law school. I also think you would be able to come from UCD and compete on the same level as Loyola students for jobs in socal. I don't think either school has that great of a career service center, so either way getting a job in LA will rely primarily on your personal efforts/connections. It just comes down to the money and personal preference... How positive are you that you can maintain your scholly? Can you see yourself living in Davis?... It's quite a change from the beautiful warm socal lifestyle. If Davis gives you that 60k, then Davis FTW.

However, I will say that the caliber of females in norcal is significantly weaker than socal (I'm from Orange County)...make sure to take that into consideration... unless you are female/interested in men.

Feel free to PM me if you want to know anything about living in Davis.

[Danteshek]

I can answer any questions about Loyola (2L).

Take the money.

[83947368]

.

[071816]