Just accepted to Chicago off the waitlist... now what??? Forum

[Doorkeeper]

I am bumping this because after discussing and negotiating with each school, UCLA increased my scholarship to 120k. Chicago is offering me 15k total (5k per year). I'm just wondering if this would change anybody's opinions. I think I know where I am leaning at this point. But if anybody has any additional insight I'd appreciate it.

At UCLA you will have to make sure you are top third to have a chance at biglaw.

At Chicago you are pretty close to biglaw secure so long as you don't royally bomb.

Is the difference worth 100k to you?

The thing is, I am not one of those biglaw or bust people. My parents are helping me out a little bit (about 20k total over the 3 years) with living expenses. At UCLA I don't think my debt amount would be so much that I would HAVE to get biglaw to pay it off. Whereas at Chicago, with that massive amount of debt, I would have to become a slave to the biglaw lifestyle, which is not something I'm sure I would want. Also, 100k isn't just a drop in the bucket.. at least not to me. I am pretty debt averse.

Not saying I'm 100 percent decided on UCLA at this point (though I do have to pay the deposit today). But these are things I need to think about.

With 140k paid, UCLA would still be around 100k, plus interest, for you (I'm not sure what COA is for UCLA). Other posters correct me if I'm wrong, but that might still require something well-paying to pay back in a timely manner. What do you want to do coming out of law school? Is it private practice, or PI work? If PI work, how is UCLA's LRAP, if it has one?

[Nelson]

The thing is, I am not one of those biglaw or bust people. My parents are helping me out a little bit (about 20k total over the 3 years) with living expenses. At UCLA I don't think my debt amount would be so much that I would HAVE to get biglaw to pay it off. Whereas at Chicago, with that massive amount of debt, I would have to become a slave to the biglaw lifestyle, which is not something I'm sure I would want. Also, 100k isn't just a drop in the bucket.. at least not to me. I am pretty debt averse.

Not saying I'm 100 percent decided on UCLA at this point (though I do have to pay the deposit today). But these are things I need to think about.

The fact that there was a current UChi student in this thread telling you not to pay sticker should be a sign for you then.

[hellothisisme]

I am bumping this because after discussing and negotiating with each school, UCLA increased my scholarship to 120k. Chicago is offering me 15k total (5k per year). I'm just wondering if this would change anybody's opinions. I think I know where I am leaning at this point. But if anybody has any additional insight I'd appreciate it.

At UCLA you will have to make sure you are top third to have a chance at biglaw.

At Chicago you are pretty close to biglaw secure so long as you don't royally bomb.

Is the difference worth 100k to you?

The thing is, I am not one of those biglaw or bust people. My parents are helping me out a little bit (about 20k total over the 3 years) with living expenses. At UCLA I don't think my debt amount would be so much that I would HAVE to get biglaw to pay it off. Whereas at Chicago, with that massive amount of debt, I would have to become a slave to the biglaw lifestyle, which is not something I'm sure I would want. Also, 100k isn't just a drop in the bucket.. at least not to me. I am pretty debt averse.

Not saying I'm 100 percent decided on UCLA at this point (though I do have to pay the deposit today). But these are things I need to think about.

With 140k paid, UCLA would still be around 100k, plus interest, for you (I'm not sure what COA is for UCLA). Other posters correct me if I'm wrong, but that might still require something well-paying to pay back in a timely manner. What do you want to do coming out of law school? Is it private practice, or PI work? If PI work, how is UCLA's LRAP, if it has one?

Total COA at UCLA (accounting for the first-year out-of-state tuition but in-state for 2L and 3L since nearly everybody is able to get residency by then) is about 205k. So, MY total COA, not accounting for tuition hikes and interest, would be 65k... Unless I'm missing something obvious?

65k is really not bad for UCLA, I think. And as for what I want to do, I'm not entirely sure at this point. I think I want to go into private practice, but I would also like the opportunity to do something else if I want. UCLA is pretty good for PI students and their LRAP is good. I know this is vague and maybe I should be more decided in my goals at this point but I think a lot of people end up changing their mind anyway.

The fact that there was a current UChi student in this thread telling you not to pay sticker should be a sign for you then.

Well I got 15k, but yeah, that's essentially nothing.

[lawlapalooza]

I'm sure people will jump on me for asking this, but given that the OP has received one of the largest scholarships UCLA offers, wouldn't it not be as hard for the OP to be higher up in the class than it would be for others? They're giving you a scholarship like that because you have good numbers and they believe you will do well in law school. Yes I do know that law school grading is unpredictable and you can never COUNT on being top third or whatever, but I don't believe (as most of TLS seems to) that everyone's likelihood of being top in the class is equal.

[Dany]

I'm sure people will jump on me for asking this, but given that the OP has received one of the largest scholarships UCLA offers, wouldn't it not be as hard for the OP to be higher up in the class than it would be for others? They're giving you a scholarship like that because you have good numbers and they believe you will do well in law school. Yes I do know that law school grading is unpredictable and you can never COUNT on being top third or whatever, but I don't believe (as most of TLS seems to) that everyone's likelihood of being top in the class is equal.

No.

[lawlapalooza]

I'm sure people will jump on me for asking this, but given that the OP has received one of the largest scholarships UCLA offers, wouldn't it not be as hard for the OP to be higher up in the class than it would be for others? They're giving you a scholarship like that because you have good numbers and they believe you will do well in law school. Yes I do know that law school grading is unpredictable and you can never COUNT on being top third or whatever, but I don't believe (as most of TLS seems to) that everyone's likelihood of being top in the class is equal.

No.

Care to elaborate?

[anon2015]

I'm sure people will jump on me for asking this, but given that the OP has received one of the largest scholarships UCLA offers, wouldn't it not be as hard for the OP to be higher up in the class than it would be for others? They're giving you a scholarship like that because you have good numbers and they believe you will do well in law school. Yes I do know that law school grading is unpredictable and you can never COUNT on being top third or whatever, but I don't believe (as most of TLS seems to) that everyone's likelihood of being top in the class is equal.

No.

Care to elaborate?

Everyone attending has basically straight A's. The difference in GPA's could be a professor or two not really liking you and giving you an A-, or missing one assignment in your freshmen year. The LSAT scores are all within a small band. The difference is not enough that a retake couldn't equal the top 25% and bottom 25% out. The threshold of difference isn't in potential to do better. They are offering money simply for your numbers for their damn US News ranking, not your ability to do better than the rest.

Once your in class it's a whole 'nother ball game. There's a lot more to be said for drive, focus, maturity, and random luck once you're in class competing for a class rank.

[thelawyler]

I am bumping this because after discussing and negotiating with each school, UCLA increased my scholarship to 120k. Chicago is offering me 15k total (5k per year). I'm just wondering if this would change anybody's opinions. I think I know where I am leaning at this point. But if anybody has any additional insight I'd appreciate it.

At UCLA you will have to make sure you are top third to have a chance at biglaw.

At Chicago you are pretty close to biglaw secure so long as you don't royally bomb.

Is the difference worth 100k to you?

The thing is, I am not one of those biglaw or bust people. My parents are helping me out a little bit (about 20k total over the 3 years) with living expenses. At UCLA I don't think my debt amount would be so much that I would HAVE to get biglaw to pay it off. Whereas at Chicago, with that massive amount of debt, I would have to become a slave to the biglaw lifestyle, which is not something I'm sure I would want. Also, 100k isn't just a drop in the bucket.. at least not to me. I am pretty debt averse.

Not saying I'm 100 percent decided on UCLA at this point (though I do have to pay the deposit today). But these are things I need to think about.

Hmmm I voted Chicago because I think its worth sticker, but with this info, that's basically a 140k scholarship. With that much, I might edge toward UCLA.