Top Law Schools

What is UCLA's reputation in NY like? Can anyone speak to how easy/hard it would be to come back to NY from LA?

Very very hard, but not as hard as DC or SF.

Harder then say, Vandy? Or Texas?

fingersxd wrote:Harder then say, Vandy? Or Texas?

I'm guessing that Vandy carries to NYC much easier than UCLA does, but that's just a hunch.

Helmholtz wrote:

fingersxd wrote:Harder then say, Vandy? Or Texas?

I'm guessing that Vandy carries to NYC much easier than UCLA does, but that's just a hunch.

Easier? Probably. Much easier? probably not.

Vandy places better than UCLA for NY. If you got into UCLA I'm assuming you could also get accepted to Cornell.

dpk711 wrote:Vandy places better than UCLA for NY. If you got into UCLA I'm assuming you could also get accepted to Cornell.

This is a credited response. Why UCLA?

I was trying to figure out the answer to this as well, and everyone I asked seemed to think UCLA's poor placement in NY was a product of self-selection. No idea if that's true or not, but I guess it would make sense.

dpk711 wrote:Vandy places better than UCLA for NY. If you got into UCLA I'm assuming you could also get accepted to Cornell.

So much of it is self selection, there's no real way to analyze this seeing as only a handful of applicants pick UCLA with the intention of working in NYC.

It still isn't a great idea though. No networking ability, none-few OCI for NYC firms, traveling expenses for interviews, etc.

finger, i thought you advocated staying in NYC if you want to work in NYC. why are you discussing going to UCLA? what school in NYC are you looking at?

PS: if we both go to UCLA we should get lunch. wouldn't hurt to have an NYC UCLA friend.

watsonnyc wrote:finger, i thought you advocated staying in NYC if you want to work in NYC. why are you discussing going to UCLA? what school in NYC are you looking at?

PS: if we both go to UCLA we should get lunch. wouldn't hurt to have an NYC UCLA friend.

I would prefer to work in NYC, but NYC school is not an option. Its really Vandy & UCLA at this point, and my SO is originally from LA and wants to go back (otherwise I don't think I would go to UCLA). Does a willingness to work in LA and then try to lateral over make this option easier?

Also, I do wonder how much is self-selection. Obviously the OCI numbers for NYC aren't quite as good as Vandy's, but I wonder if they are "good enough"?

0L here

I'd imagine that it's probably tough to start a career in LA then move to NY after the fact. The only situation that I can picture that working is where you work biglaw then get in-house at a company headquartered in NYC.

Then again, I know almost nothing.

Z3RO wrote:0L here

I'd imagine that it's probably tough to start a career in LA then move to NY after the fact. The only situation that I can picture that working is where you work biglaw then get in-house at a company headquartered in NYC.

Then again, I know almost nothing.

What about lateral transfers from one firm branch to another? I thought that was happening more so now.

I think a lot of the 'it's super tough' thing going around is just echoing what's been said elsewhere on these boards and doesn't reflect the real-world situation. If you look at UCLA's employment data for the last 6 years there are a LOT of NYC firms represented. Other than the obvious geographic disadvantage, there's no reason you shouldn't be able to get back there if you make it your priority and work at it. You're not going to have a path laid out for you, but I can't imagine that you'll be as disadvantaged as everyone seems to think.

As for the lateral transfers thing, I'm also curious but haven't been able to get any info on how easy it is.

Why on earth would you do this? It shows strange judgment. I wanted to work in NYC, so I went to law school in Los Angeles! Everything else equal, they'll hire someone from Fordham.

MrAnon wrote:Why on earth would you do this? It shows strange judgment. I wanted to work in NYC, so I went to law school in Los Angeles! Everything else equal, they'll hire someone from Fordham.

A) if you read my previous posts you will note that LA is a target in part b/c of an SO.
B) Ucla is a better school and firms want diversity of associates, so all else equal, I actually think ucla would have an edge over Fordham.

MrAnon wrote:Why on earth would you do this? It shows strange judgment. I wanted to work in NYC, so I went to law school in Los Angeles! Everything else equal, they'll hire someone from Fordham.

This is absolutely false. Firms aren't going to question somebody's judgment because they went to school at UCLA and are now looking for work in NY. Situations change; sometimes ppl need to relocate. Furthermore, not everyone lives and dies by the TLS mantra that you work where you go to school. The average law school applicant might not understand the implications of school location when selecting a school and might think that going to a very good law school (one that is MUCH better than Fordham) would be the smart move. I agree.

OP, go to UCLA. Bottom line is that it's a very good school and firms know this. Just be prepared to face *logistical* difficulties in obtaining an NYC job, but I do not think you are going to be otherwise disadvantaged apart from money/time spent taking the red-eye back and forth b/w NY and LA.

How a school places in NYC doesn't really mean much. Schools like Vanderbilt and Fordham "place" more people in New York mainly because students at those schools are looking for jobs in New York. Most UCLA students are not looking for jobs in New York City.

....

MrAnon wrote:Why on earth would you do this? It shows strange judgment. I wanted to work in NYC, so I went to law school in Los Angeles! Everything else equal, they'll hire someone from Fordham.

I'd like to see some empirical evidence for this...