Top Law Schools

Pretty confused here! I have 20k / yr guaranteed at USC and 35k for the first year at Davis. They reevaluate funding every year, but the amount will likely be similar each year. Davis amount includes a named scholarship and need based grant.
I'm taking the patent bar & would like to do IP, ideally big firm/ in house. Slight preference to working in Northern California, although LA is fine. COL is also lower at Davis so the total COA is approximately 65,000 or 125,000. And no I don't want to retake; I'm a splitter and not getting any younger.
Thanks for the advice!

usc over davis all day, everyday.

employment prospects are not all that close.

Yah this poll was pretty easy...

Davis seems like a super awesome campus to be on but you can't say no to the Trojans.

Unless you have a large amount of loans already, I think USC is worth the 60k premium. I think USC at total COA of 125k is just about my maximum for the school though...

Actually, let me share a little bit of knowledge from the VP/General Counsel at the tech firm I work at in SF. He basically told me that once you are in a top school, then grades matter much more than a particular school. In that, someone with a 3.0 GPA from UC Davis and someone with the same GPA from USC have an equal chance of getting hired, whereas with a 3.5 GPA from University of San Francisco vs 3.0 from UC Davis, UC Davis would probably win. Another thing to consider is that the San Francisco market is very inclusive, not to say that there are not a ton of USC grads here or that recruiters don't consider USC to be a great school, but it's just a good idea to be present to network in the hub of technology/innovation which you say you want to break into. Also, if you want to work in IP and ESPECIALLY In House (which sounds awesome), then you definitely want to be in SF/Peninsula. In no other area are in house positions as available, and he predicts that tech companies will grow their in house departments even more in the coming years.

I'm sure I'm forgetting other drops of knowledge that he gave me, but my choice is between Northwestern and UC Davis, and he emphatically suggested UC Davis to save money if I want to be committed to the technology field and SF. So there you go. Let me know if you need clarification or have any questions.

elizcbeth wrote:Actually, let me share a little bit of knowledge from the VP/General Counsel at the tech firm I work at in SF. He basically told me that once you are in a top school, then grades matter much more than a particular school. In that, someone with a 3.0 GPA from UC Davis and someone with the same GPA from USC have an equal chance of getting hired, whereas with a 3.5 GPA from University of San Francisco vs 3.0 from UC Davis, UC Davis would probably win. Another thing to consider is that the San Francisco market is very inclusive, not to say that there are not a ton of USC grads here or that recruiters don't consider USC to be a great school, but it's just a good idea to be present to network in the hub of technology/innovation which you say you want to break into. Also, if you want to work in IP and ESPECIALLY In House (which sounds awesome), then you definitely want to be in SF/Peninsula. In no other area are in house positions as available, and he predicts that tech companies will grow their in house departments even more in the coming years.

I'm sure I'm forgetting other drops of knowledge that he gave me, but my choice is between Northwestern and UC Davis, and he emphatically suggested UC Davis to save money if I want to be committed to the technology field and SF. So there you go. Let me know if you need clarification or have any questions.

True, but Davis isn't really a "top school..." the person who talked to you probably went to law school at a different time. If GPAs are equal, Northwestern is going to give you a drastically better chance of employment than Davis will (unless you are at the very top or bottom of the class). USC is not quite as drastic, but still substantially better.

If you want to work in Silicon Valley, go to Davis.

Well, his opinion of top CA school was "UC system and Stanford". I'm going to include USC even though he never mentioned it. Also, he is the guy who hires all of the in house positions at my company, and in the end, what matters is getting hired. Therefore, if he says graduates from UC Davis with high GPAs have a good chance of getting hired, then I would think more carefully about the money instead of the ranking, especially outside of the top 14.

With that said, I'm still undecided between Northwestern and UC Davis, but I think that UC Davis is a good bet over USC when a significant amount of money can be saved.

chasgoose wrote:

elizcbeth wrote:Actually, let me share a little bit of knowledge from the VP/General Counsel at the tech firm I work at in SF. He basically told me that once you are in a top school, then grades matter much more than a particular school. In that, someone with a 3.0 GPA from UC Davis and someone with the same GPA from USC have an equal chance of getting hired, whereas with a 3.5 GPA from University of San Francisco vs 3.0 from UC Davis, UC Davis would probably win. Another thing to consider is that the San Francisco market is very inclusive, not to say that there are not a ton of USC grads here or that recruiters don't consider USC to be a great school, but it's just a good idea to be present to network in the hub of technology/innovation which you say you want to break into. Also, if you want to work in IP and ESPECIALLY In House (which sounds awesome), then you definitely want to be in SF/Peninsula. In no other area are in house positions as available, and he predicts that tech companies will grow their in house departments even more in the coming years.

I'm sure I'm forgetting other drops of knowledge that he gave me, but my choice is between Northwestern and UC Davis, and he emphatically suggested UC Davis to save money if I want to be committed to the technology field and SF. So there you go. Let me know if you need clarification or have any questions.

True, but Davis isn't really a "top school..." the person who talked to you probably went to law school at a different time. If GPAs are equal, Northwestern is going to give you a drastically better chance of employment than Davis will (unless you are at the very top or bottom of the class). USC is not quite as drastic, but still substantially better.

Thanks guys. I do have quite a bit of debt already, which is why I am wary of crossing the 6 figure mark.
I also wonder how useful it would be to stay in the general area where all the cool tech jobs are, vs the prestige of USC. Looks like USC is winning by a landslide..

hyffe wrote:Thanks guys. I do have quite a bit of debt already, which is why I am wary of crossing the 6 figure mark.
I also wonder how useful it would be to stay in the general area where all the cool tech jobs are, vs the prestige of USC. Looks like USC is winning by a landslide..

Davis isn't in the Bay Area

elizcbeth wrote:Well, his opinion of top CA school was "UC system and Stanford". I'm going to include USC even though he never mentioned it. Also, he is the guy who hires all of the in house positions at my company, and in the end, what matters is getting hired. Therefore, if he says graduates from UC Davis with high GPAs have a good chance of getting hired, then I would think more carefully about the money instead of the ranking, especially outside of the top 14.

With that said, I'm still undecided between Northwestern and UC Davis, but I think that UC Davis is a good bet over USC when a significant amount of money can be saved.

chasgoose wrote:

elizcbeth wrote:Actually, let me share a little bit of knowledge from the VP/General Counsel at the tech firm I work at in SF. He basically told me that once you are in a top school, then grades matter much more than a particular school. In that, someone with a 3.0 GPA from UC Davis and someone with the same GPA from USC have an equal chance of getting hired, whereas with a 3.5 GPA from University of San Francisco vs 3.0 from UC Davis, UC Davis would probably win. Another thing to consider is that the San Francisco market is very inclusive, not to say that there are not a ton of USC grads here or that recruiters don't consider USC to be a great school, but it's just a good idea to be present to network in the hub of technology/innovation which you say you want to break into. Also, if you want to work in IP and ESPECIALLY In House (which sounds awesome), then you definitely want to be in SF/Peninsula. In no other area are in house positions as available, and he predicts that tech companies will grow their in house departments even more in the coming years.

I'm sure I'm forgetting other drops of knowledge that he gave me, but my choice is between Northwestern and UC Davis, and he emphatically suggested UC Davis to save money if I want to be committed to the technology field and SF. So there you go. Let me know if you need clarification or have any questions.

True, but Davis isn't really a "top school..." the person who talked to you probably went to law school at a different time. If GPAs are equal, Northwestern is going to give you a drastically better chance of employment than Davis will (unless you are at the very top or bottom of the class). USC is not quite as drastic, but still substantially better.

Unless he is guaranteeing you a job, I would take that with a grain of salt because most employers don't feel the same way. You only have to look at Davis's employment statistics to figure that out. Furthermore, he hires in-house attorneys who rarely come straight out of law school. By the time you go looking for an in-house job, the gradations between the law schools matter less and they care more about where you previously worked and whether or not you were good there. If you don't get a decent job right out of law school, you aren't going to be in the running for a lot of the in-house jobs later in your career. USC/Northwestern are a lot better at securing that ever-so-important first job.

To OP, $90k gets close to where Davis might be worth taking over USC (especially if you are patent-bar eligible), but its still a big gamble that will require to take on a significant chunk of debt that will be harder to pay off from Davis than it will from USC. Furthermore, the fact that the Davis scholarship isn't guaranteed all three years should cause some concern, because you probably shouldn't go to Davis over USC for any less. The UC system isn't the most financially stable and there is the chance that a budget cut could lead to a cut to your scholarship. Also, are there GPA/rank stipulations attached to the Davis scholarship? If so, I wouldn't risk Davis since if you don't do well and lose your scholarship, you will have a very hard time getting a job AND you will be stuck paying more or close to what USC would have cost...

Borhas wrote:

hyffe wrote:Thanks guys. I do have quite a bit of debt already, which is why I am wary of crossing the 6 figure mark.
I also wonder how useful it would be to stay in the general area where all the cool tech jobs are, vs the prestige of USC. Looks like USC is winning by a landslide..

Davis isn't in the Bay Area

this.

Lasers wrote:

Borhas wrote:

hyffe wrote:Thanks guys. I do have quite a bit of debt already, which is why I am wary of crossing the 6 figure mark.
I also wonder how useful it would be to stay in the general area where all the cool tech jobs are, vs the prestige of USC. Looks like USC is winning by a landslide..

Davis isn't in the Bay Area

this.

Pretty close. I can drive from SF to Davis in about an hour, which is comparable to SF to SV or driving between any 2 places in LA county But yea, it's out there

chasgoose wrote:
Also, are there GPA/rank stipulations attached to the Davis scholarship? If so, I wouldn't risk Davis since if you don't do well and lose your scholarship, you will have a very hard time getting a job AND you will be stuck paying more or close to what USC would have cost...

Effectively, yes, since I'd have to reapply every year. It's mostly grants, for what it's worth. That is rather alarming.

Obvious choice is obvious.

Just wondering.. to everyone that says how great USC's employment is... is there any particular reason their published employment statistics do not reflect this, basically AT ALL.

Per LST, USC and UCD have almost the same employment rate, and both significantly behind UCLA. Does this have something to do with USC not publishing as much info, or are they just trying to cover up that they aren't placing too well overall or what? By placing welll overall I mean USC has solid biglaw numbers (for CA,) but at least according to the figures it seems once out of the BigLaw range their students are not placing very well.

SaintsTheMetal wrote:Just wondering.. to everyone that says how great USC's employment is... is there any particular reason their published employment statistics do not reflect this, basically AT ALL.

Per LST, USC and UCD have almost the same employment rate, and both significantly behind UCLA. Does this have something to do with USC not publishing as much info, or are they just trying to cover up that they aren't placing too well overall or what? By placing welll overall I mean USC has solid biglaw numbers (for CA,) but at least according to the figures it seems once out of the BigLaw range their students are not placing very well.

Honestly, it comes down to whether you want to practice in the Norcal or Socal market. (And Norcal rocks!)

I chose Davis ($20k/yr scholarship + $27k/yr renewable grant) over USC ($30k/yr scholarship). I'm completely happy with my choice, although I had a slightly greater financial incentive than you.

USC has the greater reach, but I'd argue both schools are comparable in northern California where you want to end up.

SaintsTheMetal wrote:Just wondering.. to everyone that says how great USC's employment is... is there any particular reason their published employment statistics do not reflect this, basically AT ALL.

Per LST, USC and UCD have almost the same employment rate, and both significantly behind UCLA. Does this have something to do with USC not publishing as much info, or are they just trying to cover up that they aren't placing too well overall or what? By placing welll overall I mean USC has solid biglaw numbers (for CA,) but at least according to the figures it seems once out of the BigLaw range their students are not placing very well.

i think the biggest thing is that the biglaw numbers are seriously not even close between usc and davis. so essentially, even if the overall numbers (which are obviously potentially very misleading) show they may have similar employment rates, the quality of the jobs are not close.

also, there's a strong feeling that davis hasn't been exactly forthright with their employment data, so there's that as well.

calilaw wrote:I chose Davis ($20k/yr scholarship + $27k/yr renewable grant) over USC ($30k/yr scholarship). I'm completely happy with my choice, although I had a slightly greater financial incentive than you.

USC has the greater reach, but I'd argue both schools are comparable in northern California where you want to end up.

while i agree they may be equal in norcal, in socal usc would have a very clear and obvious advantage. i don't see why you wouldn't take that advantage while still being on even footing in norcal (unless the extra cost will really have a negative impact on OP).

Skyblaze wrote:

SaintsTheMetal wrote:Just wondering.. to everyone that says how great USC's employment is... is there any particular reason their published employment statistics do not reflect this, basically AT ALL.

Per LST, USC and UCD have almost the same employment rate, and both significantly behind UCLA. Does this have something to do with USC not publishing as much info, or are they just trying to cover up that they aren't placing too well overall or what? By placing welll overall I mean USC has solid biglaw numbers (for CA,) but at least according to the figures it seems once out of the BigLaw range their students are not placing very well.

Honestly, it comes down to whether you want to practice in the Norcal or Socal market. (And Norcal rocks!)

san francisco rocks. the rest of norcal...not so much.

Lasers wrote:

Skyblaze wrote:

SaintsTheMetal wrote:Just wondering.. to everyone that says how great USC's employment is... is there any particular reason their published employment statistics do not reflect this, basically AT ALL.

Per LST, USC and UCD have almost the same employment rate, and both significantly behind UCLA. Does this have something to do with USC not publishing as much info, or are they just trying to cover up that they aren't placing too well overall or what? By placing welll overall I mean USC has solid biglaw numbers (for CA,) but at least according to the figures it seems once out of the BigLaw range their students are not placing very well.

Honestly, it comes down to whether you want to practice in the Norcal or Socal market. (And Norcal rocks!)

san francisco rocks. the rest of norcal...not so much.

nah, there's more cool stuff in norcal, like sonoma, tahoe and yosemite. I'd go with USC, even though I think socal sucks.

ilovesf wrote:

Lasers wrote:

Skyblaze wrote:

SaintsTheMetal wrote:Just wondering.. to everyone that says how great USC's employment is... is there any particular reason their published employment statistics do not reflect this, basically AT ALL.

Per LST, USC and UCD have almost the same employment rate, and both significantly behind UCLA. Does this have something to do with USC not publishing as much info, or are they just trying to cover up that they aren't placing too well overall or what? By placing welll overall I mean USC has solid biglaw numbers (for CA,) but at least according to the figures it seems once out of the BigLaw range their students are not placing very well.

Honestly, it comes down to whether you want to practice in the Norcal or Socal market. (And Norcal rocks!)

san francisco rocks. the rest of norcal...not so much.

nah, there's more cool stuff in norcal, like sonoma, tahoe and yosemite. I'd go with USC, even though I think socal sucks.

well i meant to like live/work. like those areas are undoubtedly awesome, but you (probably) wouldn't live in sonoma/tahoe/yosemite areas permanently. i think besides sf, i'd rather end up in oc/la/sd than any other norcal city. don't even get me started on sacramento...oh lawd.

Lasers wrote:

ilovesf wrote:

Lasers wrote: san francisco rocks. the rest of norcal...not so much.

nah, there's more cool stuff in norcal, like sonoma, tahoe and yosemite. I'd go with USC, even though I think socal sucks.

well i meant to like live/work. like those areas are undoubtedly awesome, but you (probably) wouldn't live in sonoma/tahoe/yosemite areas permanently. i think besides sf, i'd rather end up in oc/la/sd than any other norcal city. don't even get me started on sacramento...oh lawd.

Ah ok, gotchya. I'd rather move out of CA than live in socal. That's just my strong aversion to socal though.