USC(90k), UCLA(50k) or UVA(sticker) Forum

[Dmini7]

.

[Monochromatic Oeuvre]

Can you retake?

[Dmini7]

Can you retake?

I definitely could which is why I am open to retakes, but it will definitely take time to influence my parents to be okay with it since they will be financing a majority of the education. I only took the LSAT once.

Also if it matters I am still on reserve at Columbia and Cornell(although I really have no interest in NY so I don't know if I could see myself attending if I were to somehow get off the reserve)

[MrHairyLegs]

Without a doubt, uva


Reasoning: see lst

[dr123]

retake is tcr

[boblawlob]

Is UVA worth 65k more than UCLA? Yes

Are you crazy for picking UCLA? Not necessarily, because LA is your target market.

Are you crazy for not retaking the LSAT after only 1 try? Probably, depends on where you were PTing. If you are ~167 on PTs with hardcore study, then this is probably it. If you were hitting the 170s consistently, then retake is probably the way to go.

Personally, I'd go with UVA. I rather be a slave in NYC to biglaw than jobless for a while in LA. Plus you have some nice help from the family and so that should ease any debt concerns at UVA. Going to UVA could also add some nice firm diversity in the SoCal region if you were to go back.

There is no right answer on UVA vs. UCLA and TLS can't give you the magical answer. With regards to a retake, see what I wrote above. It's almost criminal to not retake the LSAT after only 1 take, but your low GPA does limit your possibilities a little bit (in terms of how high you can go) and I'm not sure if the AA status can make that up. If you do get a 170, definitely $$$$ to the lower T14s (think Northwestern) and probably an acceptance to UPenn ($$?). HYS though seems out (but I'd still go for it because it's still possible).

[John_rizzy_rawls]

USC and UCLA are virtual equals, so going with whoever gives you more money is TCR between those two choices.

[Dmini7]

Thanks for the responses guys. I was averaging around a 167 (164-169) with very few outliers at 171. I found very valuable information with your answers and explanations.

[bruin91]

Thanks for the responses guys. I was averaging around a 167 (164-169) with very few outliers at 171. I found very valuable information with your answers and explanations.

.

[BigZuck]

I wouldn't do any at those costs (aka retake, you silly billy) but if the parents are nutty rich then I would go to UVA.

If they aren't nutty rich I wouldn't go to law school. I would get a job.

[BruCam]

If your parents can support u then the obvious choice is retake. Ur an AA Urm, u should be trying for that 168+ and going for Berk or Stanford if CA is what you want.

[Big Dog]

Retake of course.

But absent that, URM who wants SoCal...a local school is the no-brainer. While UVa is obviously the "better" school, there is no guarantee that it will place better in Socal than the local schools. And for $80k more? Waste of money IMO.

Whether UCLA is worth $12k more than 'SC is a personal decision. I attended both accepted students days and like LA's much better, and just based on that, I'd pay $12k more for UCLA.

[PRgradBYU]

If your parents can support u then the obvious choice is retake. Ur an AA Urm, u should be trying for that 168+ and going for Berk or Stanford if CA is what you want.

+1, although those GPA whores at Berk might hesitate to accept a 3.25.

[jbagelboy]

Given NYC is so low on your list of preferences, I voted USC.

You say you are interested in practicing law in VA, but there isn't some huge legal market in that state; sure some UVA students do state clerkships and work locally, but those with biglaw aspirations go to DC or NYC; since NYC is generally easier to get (Although not "easy" in an absolute sense), you should assume that if you get biglaw, it will be in New York. Ergo, don't go to UVA if you hate hate new york and want biglaw.

I chose USC over UCLA simply because its cheaper, although UCLA is in a better part of town. Honestly you should just choose based on personal preference at that point; while UCLA will have a better educational experience, the trojan network is more worth the money IMO.

[Dmini7]

If your parents can support u then the obvious choice is retake. Ur an AA Urm, u should be trying for that 168+ and going for Berk or Stanford if CA is what you want.

+1, although those GPA whores at Berk might hesitate to accept a 3.25.

I didn't even bother applying to Berk because of my GPA. I figured UCLA would actually reject me due to my GPA. In fact I was surprised UCLA even accepted me since they are a state school.

Given NYC is so low on your list of preferences, I voted USC.

You say you are interested in practicing law in VA, but there isn't some huge legal market in that state; sure some UVA students do state clerkships and work locally, but those with biglaw aspirations go to DC or NYC; since NYC is generally easier to get (Although not "easy" in an absolute sense), you should assume that if you get biglaw, it will be in New York. Ergo, don't go to UVA if you hate hate new york and want biglaw.

I chose USC over UCLA simply because its cheaper, although UCLA is in a better part of town. Honestly you should just choose based on personal preference at that point; while UCLA will have a better educational experience, the trojan network is more worth the money IMO.

Thank you guys for all your advice again. I do value USC's network a lot, but I sort of got the feeling you were just another number there. Although UCLA is a larger class size, I found them to be much more personal to me. So, as it stands now I think I will choose UCLA. I will continue to think about a retake and value all the advice everyone offered.

[jbagelboy]

If your parents can support u then the obvious choice is retake. Ur an AA Urm, u should be trying for that 168+ and going for Berk or Stanford if CA is what you want.

+1, although those GPA whores at Berk might hesitate to accept a 3.25.

I didn't even bother applying to Berk because of my GPA. I figured UCLA would actually reject me due to my GPA. In fact I was surprised UCLA even accepted me since they are a state school.

Given NYC is so low on your list of preferences, I voted USC.

You say you are interested in practicing law in VA, but there isn't some huge legal market in that state; sure some UVA students do state clerkships and work locally, but those with biglaw aspirations go to DC or NYC; since NYC is generally easier to get (Although not "easy" in an absolute sense), you should assume that if you get biglaw, it will be in New York. Ergo, don't go to UVA if you hate hate new york and want biglaw.

I chose USC over UCLA simply because its cheaper, although UCLA is in a better part of town. Honestly you should just choose based on personal preference at that point; while UCLA will have a better educational experience, the trojan network is more worth the money IMO.

Thank you guys for all your advice again. I do value USC's network a lot, but I sort of got the feeling you were just another number there. Although UCLA is a larger class size, I found them to be much more personal to me. So, as it stands now I think I will choose UCLA. I will continue to think about a retake and value all the advice everyone offered.

Yea that's fine. As I said, take your pick.

[Big Dog]

I do value USC's network a lot, but I sort of got the feeling you were just another number there. Although UCLA is a larger class size, I found them to be much more personal to me.

That was my exact same reaction, and I was well over both medians at 'SC. (Was surprised they didn't do as much courting as Dean Schwartz.)

[bruin91]

I do value USC's network a lot, but I sort of got the feeling you were just another number there. Although UCLA is a larger class size, I found them to be much more personal to me.

That was my exact same reaction, and I was well over both medians at 'SC. (Was surprised they didn't do as much courting as Dean Schwartz.)

Dean Schwartz is the man.

[Legen..waitforit]

FWIW....I have a couple of very intelligent UCLA 2L friends--soon to be 3L--(accepted with a good amount of $$$) who wanted SoCal biglaw.
A handful of them had the chance of attending Michigan or Cornell (I think) @ sticker. ALL of the latter regret their decision to matriculate to UCLA, no exaggeration. Their reasoning? Not sure...

[jbagelboy]

FWIW....I have a couple of very intelligent UCLA 2L friends--soon to be 3L--(accepted with a good amount of $$$) who wanted SoCal biglaw.
A handful of them had the chance of attending Michigan or Cornell (I think) @ sticker. ALL of the latter regret their decision to matriculate to UCLA, no exaggeration. Their reasoning? Not sure...

UCLA has many excessively intelligent and absurdly underemployed 3Ls/grads.

its a thing

[071816]

I do value USC's network a lot, but I sort of got the feeling you were just another number there. Although UCLA is a larger class size, I found them to be much more personal to me.

That was my exact same reaction, and I was well over both medians at 'SC. (Was surprised they didn't do as much courting as Dean Schwartz.)

Dean Schwartz is the man.

Who gives a fuck about the admissions people "courting" you. This shouldn't factor into anybody's decision AT ALL.

[Legen..waitforit]

FWIW....I have a couple of very intelligent UCLA 2L friends--soon to be 3L--(accepted with a good amount of $$$) who wanted SoCal biglaw.
A handful of them had the chance of attending Michigan or Cornell (I think) @ sticker. ALL of the latter regret their decision to matriculate to UCLA, no exaggeration. Their reasoning? Not sure...

UCLA has many excessively intelligent and absurdly underemployed 3Ls/grads.

True, and by "intelligent" I meant "above median"

[Lasers]

I do value USC's network a lot, but I sort of got the feeling you were just another number there. Although UCLA is a larger class size, I found them to be much more personal to me.

That was my exact same reaction, and I was well over both medians at 'SC. (Was surprised they didn't do as much courting as Dean Schwartz.)

Dean Schwartz is the man.

Who gives a fuck about the admissions people "courting" you. This shouldn't factor into anybody's decision AT ALL.

[Doorkeeper]

I would not go to USC or UCLA if I wanted CA biglaw because they only place 30-34% into biglaw. I would retake/reapply for T14 schools with a scholarship.

[Lasers]

I would not go to USC or UCLA if I wanted CA biglaw because they only place 30-34% into biglaw. I would retake/reapply for T14 schools with a scholarship.

you have to remember that besides a handful of schools, i don't think any school places well in CA biglaw.