UCLA vs. USC Forum

[tracy77]

I saw some rumor from another forum that someone considers USC much better than UCLA. (not mention scholarship and seems it's not the money problem). S/he didn't explain why s/he thinks so and I don't quite understand why USC is much better than UCLA? Wondering if anyone here who has the same opinion could give some explanation?

Thanks!

[nebula666]

USC places 10% more into biglaw and only .1% less in Fed Clerkships. USC has 5% less in public service and 14% less in school-funded jobs. It also has a lower under-employment score than UCLA. There are also 100 less students at USC. USC tends to give out more scholarship money. USC places less students in CA and more in New York but less in DC.

UCLA is ~$30k cheaper for a resident and has the higher medians - 168/3.78 vs. 167 / 3.77. UCLA is in a much nicer area of LA than is USC. UCLA has 10% less unemployed and 10% more in JD required jobs. It's still viewed as more prestigious than USC.

It's really a preference choice between the two because they are such peers.

[zman]

I saw some rumor from another forum that someone considers USC much better than UCLA. (not mention scholarship and seems it's not the money problem). S/he didn't explain why s/he thinks so and I don't quite understand why USC is much better than UCLA? Wondering if anyone here who has the same opinion could give some explanation?

Thanks!

well UCLA is the top school in southern california, her/his opinion is in the minority. problem with UCLA is that law firms appear to be only hiring about 30-35(only 22% for class of 2011,2012 results will come out in about two months) of their class and they have a HUGE class meaning that large chunks won't touch big law. IF you are really good and if think you can graduate in top 30% go to UCLA but if not you might want to go USC because there is a little less competition and it will be easier to graduate in top 30%.

I dont know about UCLA being 30k cheaper, they have been raising tutions faster than USC so that will probably be even. UCLA spends a ton to keep their high GPA and LSAT scores and gives out more to elite applicants. They give out a bunch of full rides but like I said they have a HUGE class and many won't get anything. I think USC only gives out 1 full(rothman) and they give out 120,000 over 3 years to a few people, some will get 105,000 over three years and others 90,000,75,000,60,000 and less over all 3 years.

Equal money and if you are really good(above their median and plus 3.85 gpa) go to UCLA.

Consider USC only under the following. if they give you more money(obviously the best reason) and if you are not confident you will graduate top 30% in a more competitive environment at UCLA. Most big law firms at LA only look at about the top 30-35% at both schools.. they won't touch you otherwise.

[Dmini7]

I saw some rumor from another forum that someone considers USC much better than UCLA. (not mention scholarship and seems it's not the money problem). S/he didn't explain why s/he thinks so and I don't quite understand why USC is much better than UCLA? Wondering if anyone here who has the same opinion could give some explanation?

Thanks!

well UCLA is the top school in southern california, her/his opinion is in the minority. problem with UCLA is that law firms appear to be only hiring about 30-35(only 22% for class of 2011,2012 results will come out in about two months) of their class and they have a HUGE class meaning that large chunks won't touch big law. IF you are really good and if think you can graduate in top 30% go to UCLA but if not you might want to go USC because there is a little less competition and it will be easier to graduate in top 30%.

I dont know about UCLA being 30k cheaper, they have been raising tutions faster than USC so that will probably be even. UCLA spends a ton to keep their high GPA and LSAT scores and gives out more to elite applicants. They give out a bunch of full rides but like I said they have a HUGE class and many won't get anything. I think USC only gives out 1 full(rothman) and they give out 120,000 over 3 years to a few people, some will get 105,000 over three years and others 90,000,75,000,60,000 and less over all 3 years.

Equal money and if you are really good(above their median and plus 3.85 gpa) go to UCLA.

Consider USC only under the following. if they give you more money(obviously the best reason) and if you are not confident you will graduate top 30% in a more competitive environment at UCLA. Most big law firms at LA only look at about the top 30-35% at both schools.. they won't touch you otherwise.

I did not see it mentioned in here, but I would like to add that I believe UCLA has a much stronger focus on PI, which may skew there biglaw numbers.

[Big Dog]

UCLA is ~$30k cheaper for a resident

No way, tuition and fees are UCLA are about $5k less than that of USC. (COL should be comparable.) $5k times 3 years....

In a more competitive environment at UCLA

In what respect?

[kwais]

I saw some rumor from another forum that someone considers USC much better than UCLA. (not mention scholarship and seems it's not the money problem). S/he didn't explain why s/he thinks so and I don't quite understand why USC is much better than UCLA? Wondering if anyone here who has the same opinion could give some explanation?

Thanks!

well UCLA is the top school in southern california, her/his opinion is in the minority. problem with UCLA is that law firms appear to be only hiring about 30-35(only 22% for class of 2011,2012 results will come out in about two months) of their class and they have a HUGE class meaning that large chunks won't touch big law. IF you are really good and if think you can graduate in top 30% go to UCLA but if not you might want to go USC because there is a little less competition and it will be easier to graduate in top 30%.

I dont know about UCLA being 30k cheaper, they have been raising tutions faster than USC so that will probably be even. UCLA spends a ton to keep their high GPA and LSAT scores and gives out more to elite applicants. They give out a bunch of full rides but like I said they have a HUGE class and many won't get anything. I think USC only gives out 1 full(rothman) and they give out 120,000 over 3 years to a few people, some will get 105,000 over three years and others 90,000,75,000,60,000 and less over all 3 years.

Equal money and if you are really good(above their median and plus 3.85 gpa) go to UCLA.

Consider USC only under the following. if they give you more money(obviously the best reason) and if you are not confident you will graduate top 30% in a more competitive environment at UCLA. Most big law firms at LA only look at about the top 30-35% at both schools.. they won't touch you otherwise.

OP, disregard the large majority of this post. Especially anything that has to do with choosing a school based on where you think you graduate in the class. This person has no idea what they are talking about.

[zman]

I saw some rumor from another forum that someone considers USC much better than UCLA. (not mention scholarship and seems it's not the money problem). S/he didn't explain why s/he thinks so and I don't quite understand why USC is much better than UCLA? Wondering if anyone here who has the same opinion could give some explanation?

Thanks!

well UCLA is the top school in southern california, her/his opinion is in the minority. problem with UCLA is that law firms appear to be only hiring about 30-35(only 22% for class of 2011,2012 results will come out in about two months) of their class and they have a HUGE class meaning that large chunks won't touch big law. IF you are really good and if think you can graduate in top 30% go to UCLA but if not you might want to go USC because there is a little less competition and it will be easier to graduate in top 30%.

I dont know about UCLA being 30k cheaper, they have been raising tutions faster than USC so that will probably be even. UCLA spends a ton to keep their high GPA and LSAT scores and gives out more to elite applicants. They give out a bunch of full rides but like I said they have a HUGE class and many won't get anything. I think USC only gives out 1 full(rothman) and they give out 120,000 over 3 years to a few people, some will get 105,000 over three years and others 90,000,75,000,60,000 and less over all 3 years.

Equal money and if you are really good(above their median and plus 3.85 gpa) go to UCLA.

Consider USC only under the following. if they give you more money(obviously the best reason) and if you are not confident you will graduate top 30% in a more competitive environment at UCLA. Most big law firms at LA only look at about the top 30-35% at both schools.. they won't touch you otherwise.

OP, disregard the large majority of this post. Especially anything that has to do with choosing a school based on where you think you graduate in the class. This person has no idea what they are talking about.

nonsense. graduating close to the top of the class is important unless you are at Yale,Stanford or harvard.

[kwais]

nonsense. graduating close to the top of the class is important unless you are at Yale,Stanford or harvard.

No one is disputing that. It's the idea that one can have ANY accurate prediction as to where they will fall in the class at either school, let alone believing that it will be materially different between the two. These schools have essentially the same student body and the same level of "competition"

[dingbat]

USC places 10% more into biglaw and only .1% less in Fed Clerkships. USC has 5% less in public service and 14% less in school-funded jobs.

Placement statistics fluctuate year by year. Yes, for class of 2011 USC placed significantly more into biglaw than UCLA, but that's a one-off. For most of the past decade the difference has been fairly minimal. compare this data from 2010

It's really a preference choice between the two because they are such peers.

This is the correct response