Top Law Schools

Thanks all for the input.

If you are set on coming to work in SF, then Hastings wins by a mile. UCLA/USC grads don't place well in SF . . . definitely not any better than Hastings grads. Just be ready to hustle and network like crazy!

If you refer to the above poster's reply and also view this:

http://www.lstscorereports.com/?school=ucla

The choice is incredibly easy. UCLA is infinitely more prestigious than Hastings and will increase your chances of becoming a lawyer by a third. If you want a job, and a degree that that people in CA respect, you should take UCLA. It is well worth the extra 50k in COA.

I think you would be crazy to choose Hastings.

EDIT: To reflect the view that UCLA is the better option more intensely.

How did you calculate the UCLA COA? A 60k scholly seems to me it should be roughly 180k...

Micdiddy wrote:How did you calculate the UCLA COA? A 60k scholly seems to me it should be roughly 180k...

In-state tuition of approx $47k/year and estimated COL of $15k/year since I'd move back in with the SO over summers.

You're in an interesting predicament where retaking wouldn't be terribly beneficial for you (unless you scored 176+), given your GPA. UCLA is a wiser choice, albeit a risky one... that's a lot of debt. I'm only endorsing it because of its relatively high employment score.

Fussell wrote:If you refer to the above poster's reply and also view this:

http://www.lstscorereports.com/?school=ucla

The choice is incredibly easy. UCLA is infinitely more prestigious than Hastings and will increase your chances of becoming a lawyer by a third. If you want a job, and a degree that that people in CA respect, you should take UCLA. It is well worth the extra 50k in COA.

I think you would be crazy to choose Hastings.

EDIT: To reflect the view that UCLA is the better option more intensely.

I am very aware of LST, job stats, TSL, etc. And I wouldn't say that UCLA is infinitely more prestigious than Hastings in SF specifically, though maybe everywhere else. I think it may come down to whether I definitely want to stay in SF after graduating or if I want to pay $50k to have options to go elsewhere. Seems like UCLA would at least open up the rest of the West Coast, and maybe the East Coast to a lesser degree? The East Coast numbers are pretty small though so I wonder if it's people returning home or if those firms actually hire at UCLA OCI.

PRgradBYU wrote:You're in an interesting predicament where retaking wouldn't be terribly beneficial for you (unless you scored 176+), given your GPA. UCLA is a wiser choice, albeit a risky one... that's a lot of debt. I'm only endorsing it because of its relatively high employment score.

I've taken it 3 times so I can't retake anyways. However, my 3rd time was in February of this cycle so many of my apps were held and some went out past deadlines. That's why I'd consider reapplying but I'm not confident I'd get a better enough outcome to justify the opportunity cost of making a higher salary sooner.

UCLA will easily be better for you in every market, even NorCal.

Please take UCLA.

bruin91 wrote:UCLA will easily be better for you in every market, even NorCal.

Please take UCLA.

Agreed -- Hastings employment is just too bad. 45% underemployment. yikes. Doesnt matter where you are in California; with these choices, you have to go to UCLA.

Not to mention, you'll have a much better QoL in bel air on a beautiful campus in a fun neighborhood in the intellectually stimulating environment of a top CA university than at hastings, which is in a shitty part of town, disconnected from a university setting

jbagelboy wrote:

bruin91 wrote:UCLA will easily be better for you in every market, even NorCal.

Please take UCLA.

Agreed -- Hastings employment is just too bad. 45% underemployment. yikes. Doesnt matter where you are in California; with these choices, you have to go to UCLA.

Not to mention, you'll have a much better QoL in bel air on a beautiful campus in a fun neighborhood in the intellectually stimulating environment of a top CA university than at hastings, which is in a shitty part of town, disconnected from a university setting

I know the 45% is scary at Hastings but I'm also pretty confident that I could make at/above median there or if I have to, do the niche area of law that I've worked in as a paralegal in for two years. Also I'd continue living with my SO in Pacific Heights, which is IMO the nicest neighborhood in SF. My sweet set up here is hard to give up.. I do agree with everyone that UCLA is a better school but I just wish I could at least bring my debt to 100k or less.

Sounds like you want to go to Hastings. However, if you want to be a lawyer after you graduate, the correct choice here is UCLA.

Also, it's hard to predict how you'll do in law school.

jump_man wrote:If you are set on coming to work in SF, then Hastings wins by a mile. UCLA/USC grads don't place well in SF . . . definitely not any better than Hastings grads. Just be ready to hustle and network like crazy!

Assuming you have bay area ties, USC/UCLA place just as well or better than Hastings in SF. That market is competitive as fuck though so I wouldn't bank on it no matter where you go.

chimp wrote:

jump_man wrote:If you are set on coming to work in SF, then Hastings wins by a mile. UCLA/USC grads don't place well in SF . . . definitely not any better than Hastings grads. Just be ready to hustle and network like crazy!

Assuming you have bay area ties, USC/UCLA place just as well or better than Hastings in SF. That market is competitive as fuck though so I wouldn't bank on it no matter where you go.

This is honestly the first time I've ever heard anyone talk about UCLA/USC as having comparable placement to Hastings, even in SF. I would have thought UCLA would have blown Hastings out of the water in absolutely every single category under any set of circumstances.

LittleTree wrote:

chimp wrote:

jump_man wrote:If you are set on coming to work in SF, then Hastings wins by a mile. UCLA/USC grads don't place well in SF . . . definitely not any better than Hastings grads. Just be ready to hustle and network like crazy!

Assuming you have bay area ties, USC/UCLA place just as well or better than Hastings in SF. That market is competitive as fuck though so I wouldn't bank on it no matter where you go.

This is honestly the first time I've ever heard anyone talk about UCLA/USC as having comparable placement to Hastings, even in SF. I would have thought UCLA would have blown Hastings out of the water in absolutely every single category under any set of circumstances.

Yea I think I gave Hastings a bit too much credit. In the current market, UCLA/USC outplaces Hastings across the board.

andy261 wrote:I'm also pretty confident that I could make at/above median there

Lolno. You can't predict how you'll perform before entering.

Hastings is not worth that much debt. UCLA arguably isn't either, but it's definitely the better choice between the two.

chimp wrote:

LittleTree wrote:

chimp wrote:

jump_man wrote:If you are set on coming to work in SF, then Hastings wins by a mile. UCLA/USC grads don't place well in SF . . . definitely not any better than Hastings grads. Just be ready to hustle and network like crazy!

Assuming you have bay area ties, USC/UCLA place just as well or better than Hastings in SF. That market is competitive as fuck though so I wouldn't bank on it no matter where you go.

This is honestly the first time I've ever heard anyone talk about UCLA/USC as having comparable placement to Hastings, even in SF. I would have thought UCLA would have blown Hastings out of the water in absolutely every single category under any set of circumstances.

Yea I think I gave Hastings a bit too much credit. In the current market, UCLA/USC outplaces Hastings across the board.

TITCR. It just is, if you're looking at biglaw. A lot of biglaw firms in the Bay Area haven't been to Hastings in a few years. You'll find their alums on the website, but not any fresh blood. UCLA if you want firmlife (and I know you have great WE etc from having met you ) Hope you're well.

UCLA is the obvious choice here, albeit on the pricey side.

a 50/50 shot at practicing law is not worth 3 years of your life, let alone 75k.

UCLA or reapply early.

.

odds are you wont get to work in SF either way

I wouldn't target SF unless you are in the T14

too competitive

Sticker in the lower t-14 is better than UCLA at that price IMO. I'd sit out and blanket the t-14 early next cycle. If you get those types of acceptances, you can negotiate and then take a big offer to UCLA and negotiate them down to a price that makes sense. Re-taking a 170 may
not help you. The drop-off in applicants may mean that schools want your LSAT more.

Waiting another year sucks, but you distance yourself from the sub-3 GPA and hopefully have a substantial job now you can use to save a little money and stuff. California is a tough market for every field, especially lawyers. I won't tell you not to try, but I'd want a better financial option in your shoes.

Thank you everyone for the input, I appreciate the different perspectives. I am leaning towards UCLA now but hopefully I'll be able to negotiate a little more money, which would make me much more comfortable pulling the trigger.

However, to clarify, I do think my chances at Hastings would be better than 50/50 because of my UG and legal WE. I have been working as a paralegal in SF in a very specialized area of law, and it would be fairly straightforward for me to return to that field after graduating if I wanted (it wouldn't be my first choice, but I wouldn't mind doing it if I had to). Also, if I wasn't able to secure other summer associateships, I would be able to return as a paid law clerk to my current office in SF or at the very least, another location of my firm (it is common for former paralegal-turned-law students to come back for summer work). I would prefer SF long-term, but it wouldn't be a big deal to me if my first job was in Seattle, NY, or I suppose even SoCal.

That is why I consider Hastings a viable option. I wouldn't consider it a waste of 75k to attend given my circumstances (free COL, guaranteed summer work, and slight leg up on job prospects), and an extra 50k is not anything to take lightly. That 50k would mean an extra two years to be indebted during what are arguably the best years of my life. Also, I am still considering reapplying but I would not pay sticker at a lower T-14, except maybe Northwestern's 2 year AJD. Plus I don't think I'd get money even if I got in to a T-14 because of my GPA, although who knows this cycle has been wacky so next cycle could get even wackier. Does anyone here even realize how debilitating 200k+ in debt really is? No offense to anyone else who has made or will make that choice, but it's not for me.

You're seriously underestimating your debt out of UCLA. In-state tuition last year was $47.5K, which means it's likely to average more than $50K over the next three years. Let's say it's $50K, which means you'll pay $90K over three years after subtracting $60K. It's going to be extremely difficult for you to spend less than $15K per nine months of attendance while going to law school in Westwood. With interest, this bumps your debt total at repayment to $160K.