Top Law Schools

I'm a ca native been here my whole life. UC educated for ug yet no connections with ppl who are lawyers. I'm going to UVA .... Will I ever return to home soil should I b so inclined?

gaucholaw wrote:I'm a ca native been here my whole life. UC educated for ug yet no connections with ppl who are lawyers. I'm going to UVA .... Will I ever return to home soil should I b so inclined?

As a Davis UG who wants to work in Sac post law school, but is likely leaving Cali for a t10 (my gpa precludes me from Boalt and Stanford), I am very interested in the answer to this question as well.
I know there must be job openings in Cali, but seeing that almost all the Big Lawl mentioned is in NY or Chi or whatever, and all the gov jobs are east coast, is trying to stick to Cali post school shooting oneself in the foot?

gaucholaw wrote:I'm a ca native been here my whole life. UC educated for ug yet no connections with ppl who are lawyers. I'm going to UVA .... Will I ever return to home soil should I b so inclined?

by the way I find the username "gaucholaw" ironic seeing that UCSB has no law school. How I wish they did so I could study at Freebirds all night.

Micdiddy wrote:

gaucholaw wrote:I'm a ca native been here my whole life. UC educated for ug yet no connections with ppl who are lawyers. I'm going to UVA .... Will I ever return to home soil should I b so inclined?

As a Davis UG who wants to work in Sac post law school, but is likely leaving Cali for a t10 (my gpa precludes me from Boalt and Stanford), I am very interested in the answer to this question as well.
I know there must be job openings in Cali, but seeing that almost all the Big Lawl mentioned is in NY or Chi or whatever, and all the gov jobs are east coast, is trying to stick to Cali post school shooting oneself in the foot?

Neither of you will be able to answer this question (esp re biglaw) without grades. While it is possible to get back to CA, and there is a decent chance of it, it is unlikely (less than 50%). You can definitely get back, but if your grades are mediocre or poor, focusing on CA will hurt your overall odds at biglaw when you are in a precarious position about getting biglaw at all.

bk187 wrote:

Micdiddy wrote:

gaucholaw wrote:I'm a ca native been here my whole life. UC educated for ug yet no connections with ppl who are lawyers. I'm going to UVA .... Will I ever return to home soil should I b so inclined?

As a Davis UG who wants to work in Sac post law school, but is likely leaving Cali for a t10 (my gpa precludes me from Boalt and Stanford), I am very interested in the answer to this question as well.
I know there must be job openings in Cali, but seeing that almost all the Big Lawl mentioned is in NY or Chi or whatever, and all the gov jobs are east coast, is trying to stick to Cali post school shooting oneself in the foot?

Neither of you will be able to answer this question (esp re biglaw) without grades. While it is possible to get back to CA, and there is a decent chance of it, it is unlikely (less than 50%). You can definitely get back, but if your grades are mediocre or poor, focusing on CA will hurt your overall odds at biglaw when you are in a precarious position about getting biglaw at all.

I'm not married to going into big law, I'm just not strictly opposed to it as some are either. Honestly, I'd rather hit up some boutique firms in Sac, ideally, then big law in San Fran. But assuming I'll have debt to pay, etc.
Yeah, I know this question isn't really one that can be comprehensively answered, but seeing that I am applying to all T10 and then U.C. Davis, knowing the chances that I will return to a good job in Cali if I leave, may help me decide if I should leave for a WAY better school or just stay here and crazy gun to graduate like top 10% of my class at Davis and 100% have a Cali job (if I can find a job at all).

Micdiddy wrote:I'm not married to going into big law, I'm just not strictly opposed to it as some are either. Honestly, I'd rather hit up some boutique firms in Sac, ideally, then big law in San Fran. But assuming I'll have debt to pay, etc.
Yeah, I know this question isn't really one that can be comprehensively answered, but seeing that I am applying to all T10 and then U.C. Davis, knowing the chances that I will return to a good job in Cali if I leave, may help me decide if I should leave for a WAY better school or just stay here and crazy gun to graduate like top 10% of my class at Davis and 100% have a Cali job (if I can find a job at all).

(As you already know) going to a lower ranked school gunning for top 10% is a bad idea, especially when you factor in that almost 50% of UCD's class doesn't even get a full time legal job.

Also not sure what a boutique firm in Sac is, but it likely doesn't do the kind of work that SF or SV firms do and there also likely aren't many high paying positions in Sac.

bk187 wrote:

Micdiddy wrote:I'm not married to going into big law, I'm just not strictly opposed to it as some are either. Honestly, I'd rather hit up some boutique firms in Sac, ideally, then big law in San Fran. But assuming I'll have debt to pay, etc.
Yeah, I know this question isn't really one that can be comprehensively answered, but seeing that I am applying to all T10 and then U.C. Davis, knowing the chances that I will return to a good job in Cali if I leave, may help me decide if I should leave for a WAY better school or just stay here and crazy gun to graduate like top 10% of my class at Davis and 100% have a Cali job (if I can find a job at all).

(As you already know) going to a lower ranked school gunning for top 10% is a bad idea, especially when you factor in that almost 50% of UCD's class doesn't even get a full time legal job.

Also not sure what a boutique firm in Sac is, but it likely doesn't do the kind of work that SF or SV firms do and there also likely aren't many high paying positions in Sac.

You're right. I do already know this stuff. I'm grasping for excuses to stay here and kicking myself for not getting a 3.8+ so I could just go to Boalt and be happy all around.
Sigh. I've (almost) come to terms with leaving Cali but it's been a slow, grueling process convincing the wifey it's the right thing to do. Even when she "understands why" I still feel like she's not actually expecting we'll ever leave. I guess that's also why I want to be encouraged that returning to Cali post-grad is realistic, 'cause that's basically all I've been telling her we'll do (though I do think any 6 digit insta-income from any city will quickly make her ok with the situation, again, if I'm lucky/skilled enough to get something like that).

Thanks for the responses, and I looked at the link, but I think i'm missing something... so can someone just answer point blank what "ties" is = is it having a job connect to that region, or would being a local suffice?

gaucholaw wrote:Thanks for the responses, and I looked at the link, but I think i'm missing something... so can someone just answer point blank what "ties" is = is it having a job connect to that region, or would being a local suffice?

TL:DR-Ties=Growing up, family, SO's family. It is important for small/mid markets because firms don't want to hire you and have you transfer to a bigger market in a few years-I dont know much about CA market im assuming this would apply more to Sacramento than SF. It also helps with bringing in business. You don't have to have significant legal ties and you can do a lot of networking while you're in school. If you are totally committed to a region your should look at the strong regionals, unfortunately for Cal that would be Berkeley, and probably UCLA/USC or Stanford of course.

Just because you go to a school out of state dosen't mean you cant network in the state you want to work in. Just find some UVA alumni working in CA and reach out to them. If you go back for summers and do internships that helps too. I think this advice is more for smaller insulare markets I dont know how insulare every CA market is but I do know it is flooded with law schools and lawyers.

Just hustle like hell get top grades thats more important than ties anyway.

.

skri65 wrote:Do any/all of these count as ties?

1. Would living in a city for two years before attending law school in said city count as "ties?"

2. Being from a the region of a city count as "ties?" (IE From CT count as ties to Boston?).

3. Fiance's family living in the area of a city count as ties?

IMO

1. Yes, especially with work experience
2. Probably
3. Not as strong unless your family is there/you lived there

Another reason ties may be important is in the interview. Most of the time if you make it to an interview you have the qualifications and its a matter of fit/personality so being able to bs about a local sports team or mention I enjoy doing X local activity gives the interviewer something to connect with you about

The "best" ties are the ties that bind. You want the interviewer to feel like you have a real reason to stay when the going gets tough. What about the area will give you serious pause before considering a job search elsewhere?

Close family, yours or SO's; demonstrated network of friends (lived in the area and can talk about having a community there); or demonstrated commitment to a practice niche that is rather unique to a city are ways of showing ties.

Living in CT is not a tie to Boston, though it can be used to give a reason why you want to live in Boston. SO's family can be, if you spin it right. Living in an area prior to law school also can be, especially if you are able to talk about the social networks you've developed an what brought you to the area to begin with.

bk187 wrote:(As you already know) going to a lower ranked school gunning for top 10% is a bad idea, especially when you factor in that almost 50% of UCD's class doesn't even get a full time legal job.

Just to reiterate - gunning for top 1/3 is a bad idea too.

dingbat wrote:

bk187 wrote:(As you already know) going to a lower ranked school gunning for top 10% is a bad idea, especially when you factor in that almost 50% of UCD's class doesn't even get a full time legal job.

Just to reiterate - gunning for top 1/3 is a bad idea too.

Actually, can someone extrapolate why gunning for top 1/3 or something like that is such a bad idea? I mean, when I say gunning I don't mean anything immoral, like Paper Chase shit, but I mean seriously working my ass off academically night and day. Is it just because it's incredibly, incredibly hard to get top 1/3 I shouldn't get my hopes up? Like lots of people have tried and failed and I should not count on it, kind of thing? Or is it more like a taboo, don't openly gun and be happy with what you get, kind of thing?

I think the general idea is that you have so little control over grades, you shouldn't make any plans based on a particular grade outcome. It's not that there's anything wrong with working hard, gunning for, and hoping for good grades - TONS of people here do that. But you can't gun for a particular rank in the sense of saying, "I'll go to school X, and I'll be in the top 10%/top third, and then I'll do x, y, and z [transfer/be on LR/get a biglaw SA/etc]." Because everyone else in your class is gunning for top 10%/third, too. So when you're deciding where to go, you have to consider whether it would be worth it if you end up at the bottom of the class, and not count on any particular grade outcome.

A. Nony Mouse wrote:I think the general idea is that you have so little control over grades, you shouldn't make any plans based on a particular grade outcome. It's not that there's anything wrong with working hard, gunning for, and hoping for good grades - TONS of people here do that. But you can't gun for a particular rank in the sense of saying, "I'll go to school X, and I'll be in the top 10%/top third, and then I'll do x, y, and z [transfer/be on LR/get a biglaw SA/etc]." Because everyone else in your class is gunning for top 10%/third, too. So when you're deciding where to go, you have to consider whether it would be worth it if you end up at the bottom of the class, and not count on any particular grade outcome.

I guess this is noob question, but is most of the grading subjective? Like the prof likes what you're saying so grades you better? Or is there a lot of like multiple-choice, one correct answer? 'Cause it seems to me if it was the latter there could at least be somewhat certainty that truly putting everything you got into it has at least a pretty darn good chance of success. Or am I just being naive?

Micdiddy wrote:

A. Nony Mouse wrote:I think the general idea is that you have so little control over grades, you shouldn't make any plans based on a particular grade outcome. It's not that there's anything wrong with working hard, gunning for, and hoping for good grades - TONS of people here do that. But you can't gun for a particular rank in the sense of saying, "I'll go to school X, and I'll be in the top 10%/top third, and then I'll do x, y, and z [transfer/be on LR/get a biglaw SA/etc]." Because everyone else in your class is gunning for top 10%/third, too. So when you're deciding where to go, you have to consider whether it would be worth it if you end up at the bottom of the class, and not count on any particular grade outcome.

I guess this is noob question, but is most of the grading subjective? Like the prof likes what you're saying so grades you better? Or is there a lot of like multiple-choice, one correct answer? 'Cause it seems to me if it was the latter there could at least be somewhat certainty that truly putting everything you got into it has at least a pretty darn good chance of success. Or am I just being naive?

Naive-Law school exams are not like anything you have done before there are a ton of threads on this site about succeeding on law school exams and whether or not they are subjective. The consensus is that the difference between A+ and A- is usually subjective but the difference between consistent A's and B+ is law school exam skills.

I strongly recommend you research law school exam skills and books like getting to maybe etc...

here are some solid links
http://top-law-schools.com/forums/viewt ... 2&t=123699
http://www.top-law-schools.com/forums/v ... 3&t=123092

Micdiddy wrote:

gaucholaw wrote:I'm a ca native been here my whole life. UC educated for ug yet no connections with ppl who are lawyers. I'm going to UVA .... Will I ever return to home soil should I b so inclined?

by the way I find the username "gaucholaw" ironic seeing that UCSB has no law school. How I wish they did so I could study at Freebirds all night.

Just commenting to shout out to Freebirds.

And yes, OP, you have ties to CA.

atcushman wrote:

Micdiddy wrote:

A. Nony Mouse wrote:I think the general idea is that you have so little control over grades, you shouldn't make any plans based on a particular grade outcome. It's not that there's anything wrong with working hard, gunning for, and hoping for good grades - TONS of people here do that. But you can't gun for a particular rank in the sense of saying, "I'll go to school X, and I'll be in the top 10%/top third, and then I'll do x, y, and z [transfer/be on LR/get a biglaw SA/etc]." Because everyone else in your class is gunning for top 10%/third, too. So when you're deciding where to go, you have to consider whether it would be worth it if you end up at the bottom of the class, and not count on any particular grade outcome.

I guess this is noob question, but is most of the grading subjective? Like the prof likes what you're saying so grades you better? Or is there a lot of like multiple-choice, one correct answer? 'Cause it seems to me if it was the latter there could at least be somewhat certainty that truly putting everything you got into it has at least a pretty darn good chance of success. Or am I just being naive?

Naive-Law school exams are not like anything you have done before there are a ton of threads on this site about succeeding on law school exams and whether or not they are subjective. The consensus is that the difference between A+ and A- is usually subjective but the difference between consistent A's and B+ is law school exam skills.

I strongly recommend you research law school exam skills and books like getting to maybe etc...

here are some solid links
http://top-law-schools.com/forums/viewt ... 2&t=123699
http://www.top-law-schools.com/forums/v ... 3&t=123092

Yep. There are some multiple choice exams in law school (the only ones I had were paired with essays, too, though), but it's not the rule. The thing with law school exams is that there are "right" answers and "wrong" answers, but there are many, many ways to reach either one.

The other thing is that law school exams are graded on a curve (unless sometimes when you're in a 2L/3L class at some of the very top-ranked schools). You aren't just graded against an objective answer, you're graded against all your classmates. Who are also arguably all gunning for top 10% and putting everything they have into it, too. If a hypothetical law school exam is graded on 100 points, and you score 95 points, but 75% of your class scores 95 points or better, you're not getting an A (it would probably be in the C range somewhere). And you can't control who's in a classroom with you, so you can't control where you end up.