UCLA vs Georgetown vs Northwestern (maybe) Forum

[lebronjames]

Options:
UCLA ($7.5k/yr aid)
Georgetown (sticker)
Northwestern (currently held)
Santa Clara (30k/yr; not really considering)
UC Davis (11k/yr; not really considering)

About me:
-Live in San Francisco Bay Area
-Want to ultimately work in Big Law in SF
-Strong interest in Patent Law
-B.S. Mechanical Eng, M.S. Engineering Mgmt
-169/3.2

Personally, I'd prefer UCLA. I have great friends down there, and it's closer to the SF market.
I'd definitely enjoy the lifestyle in LA over DC and potentially Chicago.

If I did get into Northwestern though, I'd have to seriously consider NU.

So, thoughts on where I should attend? Try not to be swayed by my own thoughts on the matter.

Thanks for the two cents.

[ManoftheHour]

You should change the title to "The Decision." What happened to the U? Or Florida? Shouldn't you be taking your talents to South Beach?

[BigZuck]

Doubtful you will get SF big law out of any of these schools and all are too expensive to attend.

This is a tough one. I wouldn't feel all that comfortable with my chances at SF big law unless I went to HYSB but your GPA has sunk you with all those schools. If you really want to be a lawyer and work in big law I think you need to make your peace with working somewhere else, namely New York.

Of your choices I think the only somewhat defensible one is Northwestern (if you get in). I really don't know how much a retake would help you in terms of getting money but I would think a 170+ would help at Northwestern and UVA, if you score higher maybe you could snag NYU?

I think you need to maybe adjust your geographical and/or career preferences to make this all work.

[Micdiddy]

I don't think any of these options are really worth it at all. NU at sticker is the closest to not being objectively bad, and depending on your opportunity costs may be worth it, but even that is a huge, huge risk and you'd have to be at least okay with Chicago Big Law to take it.
As it stands, you should be planning to retake (prob in October at this point) and reapplying next year. I know a number of people with just a bit better LSAT score than you, but the same or worse GPA, that got $ at NU.
Re-evaluate your situation if NU takes you, and maybe you can negotiate for some money to make it more palatable, but if NU doesn't take I would just not go to law school, period (this year for sure, possibly ever depending on next cycle).

Oh, and I hate your screen name

[ManoftheHour]

Go to the U. With your LSAT, you should get $$$ at the U.

[BigZuck]

I don't think any of these options are really worth it at all. NU at sticker is the closest to not being objectively bad, and depending on your opportunity costs may be worth it, but even that is a huge, huge risk and you'd have to be at least okay with Chicago Big Law to take it.
As it stands, you should be planning to retake (prob in October at this point) and reapplying next year. I know a number of people with just a but better LSAT score than you, but the same or worse GPA, that got $ at NU.
Re-evaluate your situation if NU takes you, and maybe you can negotiate for some money to make it more palatable, but if NU doesn't take I would just not go to law school, period (this year for sure, possibly ever depending on next cycle).

Oh, and I hate your screen name

Do you think Chicago big law is any more likely than CA big law out of NU? Everything I have read is that top 1/3ish or so is what you need for both so Chicago big law wouldn't be much of a safety net for the OP. Although I'm sure you have done more research about this at NU then I have so I will defer to you.

[Micdiddy]

I don't think any of these options are really worth it at all. NU at sticker is the closest to not being objectively bad, and depending on your opportunity costs may be worth it, but even that is a huge, huge risk and you'd have to be at least okay with Chicago Big Law to take it.
As it stands, you should be planning to retake (prob in October at this point) and reapplying next year. I know a number of people with just a but better LSAT score than you, but the same or worse GPA, that got $ at NU.
Re-evaluate your situation if NU takes you, and maybe you can negotiate for some money to make it more palatable, but if NU doesn't take I would just not go to law school, period (this year for sure, possibly ever depending on next cycle).

Oh, and I hate your screen name

Do you think Chicago big law is any more likely than CA big law out of NU? Everything I have read is that top 1/3ish or so is what you need for both so Chicago big law wouldn't be much of a safety net for the OP. Although I'm sure you have done more research about this at NU then I have so I will defer to you.

NU places ~50% of grads into Big Law, and Chicago is by far its biggest market, so I would be very, very shocked if you need top 1/3 to get Chi Big Law (because then where are the other 20% going? New York? Sf?).
In general, NU is considered a Chi Big Law powerhouse comparable to UChi (though UChi clearly excels in other areas, and has an edge in this one as well).

Getting SF Big Law is what I want from NU as well OP, and I have heard it is doable and anecdotally I have had current students tell me everyone they know who wanted it got it (though, they may know only the most brilliant students, or ones who didn't get it may not disclose that they wanted it, etc.)

[y2zipper]

Cali is off the table with a 3.2, school-wise. You can't pay 100K plus for UCLA, Berk and Stanford won't consider you.

2 points probably makes a world of difference, so I'd say plan on retaking and riding out that Northwestern hold. If you get in, I wouldn't fault you for biting the bullet for NU at sticker because I'd probably make that choice in your shoes.

[Myself]

.

[lebronjames]

I posted this because I wanted to see what the general reaction would be.
Based on the general feel of TLS, it was along the lines of what I expected.

Im not sure where a lot of you have gotten your information, but im starting to wonder if a lot of the information is just reinforced from groupthink.

Im posting this for those in the future who might come across this thread. If you are pursuing IP, particularly patent prosecution, I highly recommend you do so if you have options similar to this. Ive talked to associates at Latham & Watkins and Mofo, and they all have mentioned the scarcity of patent prosecuters. Mofo in SF came up empty at the last Berkeley OCI. So, yes you should be realistic in your employment chances, but do consider actual anecdotes from current working associates.

I know a lot of ppl on TLS are well meaning, but for those of you considering options, please talk to actual associates instead of relying on anonymous TLS'ers.

[BigZuck]

Doubtful you will get SF big law out of any of these schools and all are too expensive to attend.

[jarofsoup]

If you are really considering these options, I would consider GULC or UCLA. Does not help much. But if you are into patent work there are some great opportunities in DC, i.e., the patent office.

UCLA is a great school in CA, and NU will bring you back. There are a lot of uneducated people on this site,i.e., those who are not currently in law school.

But I wish I got in UCLA, GULC, or NU. But I would recommend GULC and NU just b/c they have natural reach and that really helps in this market.

[R1chardParker]

I don't think any of these options are really worth it at all. NU at sticker is the closest to not being objectively bad, and depending on your opportunity costs may be worth it, but even that is a huge, huge risk and you'd have to be at least okay with Chicago Big Law to take it.
As it stands, you should be planning to retake (prob in October at this point) and reapplying next year. I know a number of people with just a but better LSAT score than you, but the same or worse GPA, that got $ at NU.
Re-evaluate your situation if NU takes you, and maybe you can negotiate for some money to make it more palatable, but if NU doesn't take I would just not go to law school, period (this year for sure, possibly ever depending on next cycle).

Oh, and I hate your screen name

Do you think Chicago big law is any more likely than CA big law out of NU? Everything I have read is that top 1/3ish or so is what you need for both so Chicago big law wouldn't be much of a safety net for the OP. Although I'm sure you have done more research about this at NU then I have so I will defer to you.

Although more Northwestern students go to Chicago Big law than any other market, it is not because Chicago is the easiest market to get into for NU students. New York firms generally have lower callback median GPAs than Chicago at NU's OCI, even with the same firm between the two cities. WIth that said, I haven't paid much attention to California firms- I think they are somewhere between NY and Chi for gpa expectations, though. I haven't gone through OCI yet at NU, but I have seen the OCI data from 2009-2011, so take my perspective with a grain of salt.

[dr123]

OP is IP secure. UCLA might not be a terrible option.

[jbagelboy]

Doubtful you will get SF big law out of any of these schools and all are too expensive to attend.

This is a tough one. I wouldn't feel all that comfortable with my chances at SF big law unless I went to HYSB but your GPA has sunk you with all those schools. If you really want to be a lawyer and work in big law I think you need to make your peace with working somewhere else, namely New York.

Of your choices I think the only somewhat defensible one is Northwestern (if you get in). I really don't know how much a retake would help you in terms of getting money but I would think a 170+ would help at Northwestern and UVA, if you score higher maybe you could snag NYU?

I think you need to maybe adjust your geographical and/or career preferences to make this all work.

I largely agree with this, but Zuck your "HYSB" claim is restrictive and a gross exaggeration. Much of my research for choosing was focused on how well CLS/NYU grads did in silicon valley and the bay. The answer was median and above with ties to CA will get multiple offers from columbia. This is certified even at the height of the downturn by everyone. For OP, if they grt in to NU, its the only real option to have a decent chance at SF biglaw. You'll need top third grades and ties.

Edit: to clarify im talking about patent eligible candidates only

[BigZuck]

Doubtful you will get SF big law out of any of these schools and all are too expensive to attend.

This is a tough one. I wouldn't feel all that comfortable with my chances at SF big law unless I went to HYSB but your GPA has sunk you with all those schools. If you really want to be a lawyer and work in big law I think you need to make your peace with working somewhere else, namely New York.

Of your choices I think the only somewhat defensible one is Northwestern (if you get in). I really don't know how much a retake would help you in terms of getting money but I would think a 170+ would help at Northwestern and UVA, if you score higher maybe you could snag NYU?

I think you need to maybe adjust your geographical and/or career preferences to make this all work.

I largely agree with this, but Zuck your "HYSB" claim is restrictive and a gross exaggeration. Much of my research for choosing was focused on how well CLS/NYU grads did in silicon valley and the bay. The answer was median and above with ties to CA will get multiple offers from columbia. This is certified even at the height of the downturn by everyone. For OP, if they grt in to NU, its the only real option to have a decent chance at SF biglaw. You'll need top third grades and ties.

Edit: to clarify im talking about patent eligible candidates only

Fair enough. When I was pondering all this (before Dr. Dre convinced me that CA is a dying state not worth my time or effort to try and get back to just so that I could sit in traffic all day and spend all my money on state income tax) I was not considering CCN that highly because I am a dumb and knew I wouldn't get in.

I was more thinking about the Berkeley bros on this site who frequently say that all T14s not named HYSB are pretty much considered the same in the eyes of Northern CA firms. Admittedly I was not considering their butt hurt factor which neccesitates deflating all non-HYS schools and inflating the all mighty B. Never again will I discount MVP(B) butthurt, that factor is very, very real.

OP, as long as we are swapping anecdotes: when I was considering USC I spoke to an alum working as an associate at a large firm in SF who graduated two years ago and he said you pretty much need to be in the top 15% to have any sort of shot at SF big law. I have no idea how much IP changes the calculus. But my point is please try not to be so condescending (even when you're alting like this), lots of people who responded to you have done a ton of research themselves and collected their own pile of anecdotes because they have similar interests/aspirations/options as you. Not everyone around here types just to hear their keyboards click.

[Myself]

.

[bruin91]

I'd take sticker at Northwestern if you're set on SF Big Law, it's probably your best shot. Second place goes to UCLA.

[Dr. Dre]

If your choices are only the schools you listed, forget about BigLaw in san francisco

[lebronjames]

Doubtful you will get SF big law out of any of these schools and all are too expensive to attend.

This is a tough one. I wouldn't feel all that comfortable with my chances at SF big law unless I went to HYSB but your GPA has sunk you with all those schools. If you really want to be a lawyer and work in big law I think you need to make your peace with working somewhere else, namely New York.

Of your choices I think the only somewhat defensible one is Northwestern (if you get in). I really don't know how much a retake would help you in terms of getting money but I would think a 170+ would help at Northwestern and UVA, if you score higher maybe you could snag NYU?

I think you need to maybe adjust your geographical and/or career preferences to make this all work.

I largely agree with this, but Zuck your "HYSB" claim is restrictive and a gross exaggeration. Much of my research for choosing was focused on how well CLS/NYU grads did in silicon valley and the bay. The answer was median and above with ties to CA will get multiple offers from columbia. This is certified even at the height of the downturn by everyone. For OP, if they grt in to NU, its the only real option to have a decent chance at SF biglaw. You'll need top third grades and ties.

Edit: to clarify im talking about patent eligible candidates only

Fair enough. When I was pondering all this (before Dr. Dre convinced me that CA is a dying state not worth my time or effort to try and get back to just so that I could sit in traffic all day and spend all my money on state income tax) I was not considering CCN that highly because I am a dumb and knew I wouldn't get in.

I was more thinking about the Berkeley bros on this site who frequently say that all T14s not named HYSB are pretty much considered the same in the eyes of Northern CA firms. Admittedly I was not considering their butt hurt factor which neccesitates deflating all non-HYS schools and inflating the all mighty B. Never again will I discount MVP(B) butthurt, that factor is very, very real.

OP, as long as we are swapping anecdotes: when I was considering USC I spoke to an alum working as an associate at a large firm in SF who graduated two years ago and he said you pretty much need to be in the top 15% to have any sort of shot at SF big law. I have no idea how much IP changes the calculus. But my point is please try not to be so condescending (even when you're alting like this), lots of people who responded to you have done a ton of research themselves and collected their own pile of anecdotes because they have similar interests/aspirations/options as you. Not everyone around here types just to hear their keyboards click.

Okay. Look. Not trying to be condescending, but the 'omg the world is falling' attitude of these forums is tiring. You mentioned that you need to be top 15% to have a CHANCE at SF big law. USC's 2012 big law stats are 30% of the graduating class ended up in biglaw. Granted, this encompasses all geographical areas of biglaw, but since most students end up in Cali, we can assume that the biglaw firms are split between the Bay Area and LA. Maybe it was unfair of me to post that I'm interested in SF. That might give you the impression that if for some reason, I didn't get SF biglaw, but got LA biglaw, I might say fuck it and go work PI in SF. Obviously that's not true. And neither is saying that you have to be top 15% at USC to just have a shot at SF biglaw. my 2 cents.

[BigZuck]

Doubtful you will get SF big law out of any of these schools and all are too expensive to attend.

This is a tough one. I wouldn't feel all that comfortable with my chances at SF big law unless I went to HYSB but your GPA has sunk you with all those schools. If you really want to be a lawyer and work in big law I think you need to make your peace with working somewhere else, namely New York.

Of your choices I think the only somewhat defensible one is Northwestern (if you get in). I really don't know how much a retake would help you in terms of getting money but I would think a 170+ would help at Northwestern and UVA, if you score higher maybe you could snag NYU?

I think you need to maybe adjust your geographical and/or career preferences to make this all work.

I largely agree with this, but Zuck your "HYSB" claim is restrictive and a gross exaggeration. Much of my research for choosing was focused on how well CLS/NYU grads did in silicon valley and the bay. The answer was median and above with ties to CA will get multiple offers from columbia. This is certified even at the height of the downturn by everyone. For OP, if they grt in to NU, its the only real option to have a decent chance at SF biglaw. You'll need top third grades and ties.

Edit: to clarify im talking about patent eligible candidates only

Fair enough. When I was pondering all this (before Dr. Dre convinced me that CA is a dying state not worth my time or effort to try and get back to just so that I could sit in traffic all day and spend all my money on state income tax) I was not considering CCN that highly because I am a dumb and knew I wouldn't get in.

I was more thinking about the Berkeley bros on this site who frequently say that all T14s not named HYSB are pretty much considered the same in the eyes of Northern CA firms. Admittedly I was not considering their butt hurt factor which neccesitates deflating all non-HYS schools and inflating the all mighty B. Never again will I discount MVP(B) butthurt, that factor is very, very real.

OP, as long as we are swapping anecdotes: when I was considering USC I spoke to an alum working as an associate at a large firm in SF who graduated two years ago and he said you pretty much need to be in the top 15% to have any sort of shot at SF big law. I have no idea how much IP changes the calculus. But my point is please try not to be so condescending (even when you're alting like this), lots of people who responded to you have done a ton of research themselves and collected their own pile of anecdotes because they have similar interests/aspirations/options as you. Not everyone around here types just to hear their keyboards click.

Okay. Look. Not trying to be condescending, but the 'omg the world is falling' attitude of these forums is tiring. You mentioned that you need to be top 15% to have a CHANCE at SF big law. USC's 2012 big law stats are 30% of the graduating class ended up in biglaw. Granted, this encompasses all geographical areas of biglaw, but since most students end up in Cali, we can assume that the biglaw firms are split between the Bay Area and LA. Maybe it was unfair of me to post that I'm interested in SF. That might give you the impression that if for some reason, I didn't get SF biglaw, but got LA biglaw, I might say fuck it and go work PI in SF. Obviously that's not true. And neither is saying that you have to be top 15% at USC to just have a shot at SF biglaw. my 2 cents.

I didn't say that, a recent USC grad did. I was just giving you another anecdote from someone on the ground floor because that seems to be valuable to you.

But big law split between Northern and Southern CA? We are talking about USC (and UCLA) here correct? And showing an interest in big law but then working in PI? I don't even know what a tort is so I will just step aside and let a numbered L correct you here.

Romo, Kronk, somebody. Help?

[jbagelboy]

Okay. Look. Not trying to be condescending, but the 'omg the world is falling' attitude of these forums is tiring. You mentioned that you need to be top 15% to have a CHANCE at SF big law. USC's 2012 big law stats are 30% of the graduating class ended up in biglaw. Granted, this encompasses all geographical areas of biglaw, but since most students end up in Cali, we can assume that the biglaw firms are split between the Bay Area and LA. Maybe it was unfair of me to post that I'm interested in SF. That might give you the impression that if for some reason, I didn't get SF biglaw, but got LA biglaw, I might say fuck it and go work PI in SF. Obviously that's not true. And neither is saying that you have to be top 15% at USC to just have a shot at SF biglaw. my 2 cents.

I didn't say that, a recent USC grad did. I was just giving you another anecdote from someone on the ground floor because that seems to be valuable to you.

But big law split between Northern and Southern CA? We are talking about USC (and UCLA) here correct? And showing an interest in big law but then working in PI? I don't even know what a tort is so I will just step aside and let a numbered L correct you here.

Romo, Kronk, somebody. Help?

Lol. SOS calling out the big guns

[BigZuck]

Okay. Look. Not trying to be condescending, but the 'omg the world is falling' attitude of these forums is tiring. You mentioned that you need to be top 15% to have a CHANCE at SF big law. USC's 2012 big law stats are 30% of the graduating class ended up in biglaw. Granted, this encompasses all geographical areas of biglaw, but since most students end up in Cali, we can assume that the biglaw firms are split between the Bay Area and LA. Maybe it was unfair of me to post that I'm interested in SF. That might give you the impression that if for some reason, I didn't get SF biglaw, but got LA biglaw, I might say fuck it and go work PI in SF. Obviously that's not true. And neither is saying that you have to be top 15% at USC to just have a shot at SF biglaw. my 2 cents.

I didn't say that, a recent USC grad did. I was just giving you another anecdote from someone on the ground floor because that seems to be valuable to you.

But big law split between Northern and Southern CA? We are talking about USC (and UCLA) here correct? And showing an interest in big law but then working in PI? I don't even know what a tort is so I will just step aside and let a numbered L correct you here.

Romo, Kronk, somebody. Help?

Lol. SOS calling out the big guns

I'm sure you could explain it to him just as well but if another stupid 0L says something in this thread he just might explode and destroy our beautiful little echo chamber.

[lebronjames]

Okay. Look. Not trying to be condescending, but the 'omg the world is falling' attitude of these forums is tiring. You mentioned that you need to be top 15% to have a CHANCE at SF big law. USC's 2012 big law stats are 30% of the graduating class ended up in biglaw. Granted, this encompasses all geographical areas of biglaw, but since most students end up in Cali, we can assume that the biglaw firms are split between the Bay Area and LA. Maybe it was unfair of me to post that I'm interested in SF. That might give you the impression that if for some reason, I didn't get SF biglaw, but got LA biglaw, I might say fuck it and go work PI in SF. Obviously that's not true. And neither is saying that you have to be top 15% at USC to just have a shot at SF biglaw. my 2 cents.

I didn't say that, a recent USC grad did. I was just giving you another anecdote from someone on the ground floor because that seems to be valuable to you.

But big law split between Northern and Southern CA? We are talking about USC (and UCLA) here correct? And showing an interest in big law but then working in PI? I don't even know what a tort is so I will just step aside and let a numbered L correct you here.

Romo, Kronk, somebody. Help?

Lol. SOS calling out the big guns

I'm sure you could explain it to him just as well but if another stupid 0L says something in this thread he just might explode and destroy our beautiful little echo chamber.

lol. I'm glad you've finally come around BigZuck. Too bad none of this is deterministic. I guess that's why I liked math so much. Anyway, apologies if I ruffled anyone's feathers. I do think there's a great reason to be pragmatic, especially with the weakened economy. I guess, in the end, I'm just not a fan of "HYS(CCN) or BUST"!

If you feel that way, cool. But I think it's more beneficial for me and anyone who lurks to explain why in words. And take people's actual situation into consideration. I think there's a healthy amount of people that see UCLA and look at it as if only the top 10% are getting biglaw.

[jbagelboy]

Lol. SOS calling out the big guns

I'm sure you could explain it to him just as well but if another stupid 0L says something in this thread he just might explode and destroy our beautiful little echo chamber.

lol. I'm glad you've finally come around BigZuck. Too bad none of this is deterministic. I guess that's why I liked math so much. Anyway, apologies if I ruffled anyone's feathers. I do think there's a great reason to be pragmatic, especially with the weakened economy. I guess, in the end, I'm just not a fan of "HYS(CCN) or BUST"!

I'm pretty sure he was being sarcastic. Maybe I'm way off base.

No, I'm right.