Top Law Schools

Hi All,

I've read several forums discussing this decision, but like many others I thought it would be more helpful to have a personal post because every situation is different, and I'd like your opinion on my specific situation.

I've luckily been accepted to both UCLA and Georgetown, (waitlisted at Cornell and Duke). I've lived in Los Angeles practically my whole life and attended UCLA for undergrad. I visited Georgetown and did not like the atmosphere of the city, but I loved the surrounding cities I visited and especially loved the campus. I know that Georgetown has a much more impressive name and the experience of living in D.C. would be remarkable while I'm young because I won't ever have that chance again. I'm not particularly interested in becoming involved in political/government work but I think being right by all of the action would be very exciting. I am having a very difficult time letting go of what seems to be an experience of a lifetime.

However, from what I've heard, I would have a much easier time finding a job in Los Angeles (which I know for a fact is where I want to be) by attending UCLA. In addition, the rankings, although they have become farther apart, don't seem to be a huge factor. I know that if I attend UCLA, I will be more comfortable, and possibly even do better in school as a result of the comfort. I will have my family as a support system, and won't have to worry about additional living expenses in addition to costs of flying back home to visit.

As far as scholarships go, they have basically offered me the same amount, which would make Georgetown more expensive. Any sort of advice is appreciated, thank you for your time!!

.

Go where you want bro. UCLA.

Bee: At the Georgetown open house they said that the cost of attendance is around $30,00 and UCLA's is $20,000 but that includes rent that I would not be paying if I live in LA.

What exactly do you mean by stats?

Grazzhoppa: I like your mentality!

.

veryfunny wrote:Hi All,

I've read several forums discussing this decision, but like many others I thought it would be more helpful to have a personal post because every situation is different, and I'd like your opinion on my specific situation.

I've luckily been accepted to both UCLA and Georgetown, (waitlisted at Cornell and Duke). I've lived in Los Angeles practically my whole life and attended UCLA for undergrad. I visited Georgetown and did not like the atmosphere of the city, but I loved the surrounding cities I visited and especially loved the campus. I know that Georgetown has a much more impressive name and the experience of living in D.C. would be remarkable while I'm young because I won't ever have that chance again. I'm not particularly interested in becoming involved in political/government work but I think being right by all of the action would be very exciting. I am having a very difficult time letting go of what seems to be an experience of a lifetime.

However, from what I've heard, I would have a much easier time finding a job in Los Angeles (which I know for a fact is where I want to be) by attending UCLA. In addition, the rankings, although they have become farther apart, don't seem to be a huge factor. I know that if I attend UCLA, I will be more comfortable, and possibly even do better in school as a result of the comfort. I will have my family as a support system, and won't have to worry about additional living expenses in addition to costs of flying back home to visit.

As far as scholarships go, they have basically offered me the same amount, which would make Georgetown more expensive. Any sort of advice is appreciated, thank you for your time!!

I really don't see how this is a debate. Same cost and much better known in your market so even if you strike out with biglaw you'll have the network to find other options.

I voted UCLA

But you have a 3.94/164. RETAKE

Golden Bear 11 wrote:I voted UCLA

But you have a 3.94/164. RETAKE

I rarely say this, but yeah, unless you've maxed out your practice test range/hired a private tutor/prepped like hell for over a year and can't get above a 164...like literally if you haven't done any one of those things, you need to retake. I know waiting sucks, but UCLA and GTown are shite options, I hate to break it to you, and with that GPA and a little higher LSAT, you could be literally be minting tens of thousands of dollars for yourself. You really should retake (and if applicable prep 20x as hard) next time around.

If you don't believe me, I had a slightly lower LSAC GPA and a few points higher LSAT than you, and Dean Schwartz was shoving cash down my throat. With a little negotiation I got a full ride offer which I leveraged for a half ride at a better school - with your GPA and a little LSAT bump, you should laugh at a UCLA offer that doesn't include a full ride and a stipend. Or even better retake, get a 170+, go to a T6, profit.

.

99% retake
1% UCLA

Did I read correctly that you will pay $0 for COL at LA? If so, Georgetown is not even in this equation. Retake>>>>>>>>>UCLA

Uggghh I hate myself for this. Retake.

bruinfan10 wrote:

Golden Bear 11 wrote:I voted UCLA

But you have a 3.94/164. RETAKE

I rarely say this, but yeah, unless you've maxed out your practice test range/hired a private tutor/prepped like hell for over a year and can't get above a 164...like literally if you haven't done ALL of those things, you need to retake.

Edit: the bolded and underlined is the primary takeaway

Thank you all for your responses! I really appreciate it since this has been really difficult for me.

I thought about retaking the LSAT when I initially received my score, but honestly, I DO think that a 164 is my ceiling. My LSAT teacher did not even think I could break 160 at the rate I was going lol.

I guess most of you are voting for UCLA, now the battle of asking for more money...

veryfunny wrote:Thank you all for your responses! I really appreciate it since this has been really difficult for me.

I thought about retaking the LSAT when I initially received my score, but honestly, I DO think that a 164 is my ceiling. My LSAT teacher did not even think I could break 160 at the rate I was going lol.

I guess most of you are voting for UCLA, now the battle of asking for more money...

Don't listen to some fuckwad LSAT tutor. Retake.

I will hate you if you waste that GPA. You're already showing your potential with your 164. How long did you honestly study? Did you take every single preptest? I don't care if it takes you another 12 months of studying, it would be worth it for a few more points. I would kill for your GPA.

I didn't want to retake my 164 either, and I have a way worse GPA, but I am sure glad I listened and busted my ass for a retake. I promise you its worth it.

.

This isn't even a question: retake

Also why do people feel the need to say stuff like "I never do this" or "Oh God, it kills me to say this, but..." Telling someone to retake shouldn't be painful. You're trying to help save someone's financial future, that's a good thing.

veryfunny wrote:I thought about retaking the LSAT when I initially received my score, but honestly, I DO think that a 164 is my ceiling. My LSAT teacher did not even think I could break 160 at the rate I was going lol.

As an LSAT tutor, no good LSAT tutor would ever tell you 160 is your ceiling. Go find someone worthwhile or self-study.

Retake then go to UCLA on full scholarship