Top Law Schools

I was wondering if you all could help me weigh in on my decision for choosing a law school.

I'm a SoCal native, went to UCLA for undergrad, and intend on living and practicing in SoCal in the future. I'm interested in entertainment law, but of course it remains to be seen whether I'll actually pursue it once I take a class or two and get to know the industry a bit better.

I have already said yes to UCLA Law, but I was taken off the waitlist for USC recently, and have to choose between the two schools.

USC is giving me $15,000/ year for 3 years (No strings attached...no top 10% conditional stuff) and UCLA isn't giving me a dime. I have the ability to commute to USC (30 mins each way) from home and would have to otherwise rent at UCLA.

While I loved being at UCLA for undergrad and I recognize that its law school is slightly, though not significantly more prestigious in the SoCal area, I don't know if it justifies saving 45,000 over 3 years. Also, UCLA is in a beautiful area, but I already have a Bruin network from undergrad...would it be a better idea to try to get involved with the Trojan network as well?

Can anyone give me some comments about which way I should lean towards? I'd really appreciate it!

sunnydayes wrote:I was wondering if you all could help me weigh in on my decision for choosing a law school.

I'm a SoCal native, went to UCLA for undergrad, and intend on living and practicing in SoCal in the future. I'm interested in entertainment law, but of course it remains to be seen whether I'll actually pursue it once I take a class or two and get to know the industry a bit better.

I have already said yes to UCLA Law, but I was taken off the waitlist for USC recently, and have to choose between the two schools.

USC is giving me $15,000/ year for 3 years (No strings attached...no top 10% conditional stuff) and UCLA isn't giving me a dime. I have the ability to commute to USC (30 mins each way) from home and would have to otherwise rent at UCLA.

While I loved being at UCLA for undergrad and I recognize that its law school is slightly, though not significantly more prestigious in the SoCal area, I don't know if it justifies saving 45,000 over 3 years. Also, UCLA is in a beautiful area, but I already have a Bruin network from undergrad...would it be a better idea to try to get involved with the Trojan network as well?

Can anyone give me some comments about which way I should lean towards? I'd really appreciate it!

Go USC.

I am going to be transferring into UCLA in the fall from a different law school and I had to choose between USC and UCLA and it was not easy. Here is what I learned - they are both very lateral. In terms of ranking as you can see they are pretty much neck and neck. UCLA's name might carry you further nationally but regionally, they are both fantastic. Meaning if you wanted to move to NY or somewhere outside of CA to practice I might suggest UCLA but if the goal is to not only stay in CA but SoCal than either is fine. That being said, USC dominates LA with its very strong almost fraternal bond that is its alumni network.

USC is also a smaller sized law school which has many advantages. You will get to know the professors more and get more individualized learning. Granted I am sure the education value is the same or comparable. For me the deciding factor really came down to money. UCLA offered me money and USC did not. Law school is very expensive. Graduating in a rough economy under a pile of debt is scary, no question about it. If you can save a little bit of money with a scholarship, and even more money by living at home, the choice seems rather simple.

When it comes down to it, you really cant go wrong either way and you are in a very good position. That being said, money matters! Go for USC I would say.

How is this even a question? USC by a mile.

http://www.top-law-schools.com/forums/v ... 1&t=206299

You need to answer all those questions first. It's unclear what the price difference is here.

Anyway the correct answer is almost certainly "Neither, retake." UCLA at sticker (instate sticker?) and USC with a 45K discount are both non-starters, that's just way too much debt for a strong regional. This is of course assuming you don't have a rich benefactor paying for the whole venture, but again you didn't tell us all the info we needed.

For the poster who said UCLA is better nationally- even if that's true that doesn't mean it places well nationally at all. People should only go to these schools if they want to live and work in Southern CA long term.

.

BigZuck wrote:http://www.top-law-schools.com/forums/v ... 1&t=206299

You need to answer all those questions first. It's unclear what the price difference is here.

Anyway the correct answer is almost certainly "Neither, retake." UCLA at sticker (instate sticker?) and USC with a 45K discount are both non-starters, that's just way too much debt for a strong regional. This is of course assuming you don't have a rich benefactor paying for the whole venture, but again you didn't tell us all the info we needed.

For the poster who said UCLA is better nationally- even if that's true that doesn't mean it places well nationally at all. People should only go to these schools if they want to live and work in Southern CA long term.

USC's at a bigger discount than just 45k because the OP would stay at home.

Without knowing numbers, USC is the easy decision here. (Says the Trojan!)

jselson wrote:

BigZuck wrote:http://www.top-law-schools.com/forums/v ... 1&t=206299

You need to answer all those questions first. It's unclear what the price difference is here.

Anyway the correct answer is almost certainly "Neither, retake." UCLA at sticker (instate sticker?) and USC with a 45K discount are both non-starters, that's just way too much debt for a strong regional. This is of course assuming you don't have a rich benefactor paying for the whole venture, but again you didn't tell us all the info we needed.

For the poster who said UCLA is better nationally- even if that's true that doesn't mean it places well nationally at all. People should only go to these schools if they want to live and work in Southern CA long term.

USC's at a bigger discount than just 45k because the OP would stay at home.

Without knowing numbers, USC is the easy decision here. (Says the Trojan!)

"I have the ability to commute to USC (30 mins each way) from home and would have to otherwise rent at UCLA."

yeah that's pretty significant.

BigZuck wrote:http://www.top-law-schools.com/forums/v ... 1&t=206299

You need to answer all those questions first. It's unclear what the price difference is here.

This, although the answer is most likely going to be RETAKE.

zman wrote:

jselson wrote:

BigZuck wrote:http://www.top-law-schools.com/forums/v ... 1&t=206299

You need to answer all those questions first. It's unclear what the price difference is here.

Anyway the correct answer is almost certainly "Neither, retake." UCLA at sticker (instate sticker?) and USC with a 45K discount are both non-starters, that's just way too much debt for a strong regional. This is of course assuming you don't have a rich benefactor paying for the whole venture, but again you didn't tell us all the info we needed.

For the poster who said UCLA is better nationally- even if that's true that doesn't mean it places well nationally at all. People should only go to these schools if they want to live and work in Southern CA long term.

USC's at a bigger discount than just 45k because the OP would stay at home.

Without knowing numbers, USC is the easy decision here. (Says the Trojan!)

"I have the ability to commute to USC (30 mins each way) from home and would have to otherwise rent at UCLA."

yeah that's pretty significant.

My B bros, missed that for some reason. That might make USC worth it maybe, but still need to see how much debt the OP will be in at graduation.

Even if its like 105K off sticker price I'm not sure USC is worth that. That's kind of skirting the edge IMO.

UCLA definitely isn't worth it in comparison.

What's going on here, is the OP a 160/3.9 type? UCLA has been pretty generous this cycle.

USC/UCLA are literally the same in terms of its employment statistics for Southern California. UCLA has a slight edge nationally, though that doesn't even apply here since you said you have the desire to work in Southern California. Moreover, to my understanding, USC has a stronger entertainment program out of the two. I think you already know the answer here, you just want the reassurance.

Two people have said it so far. What is the source that people are using that points to the fact that UCLA has better placement nationally?

BigZuck wrote:Two people have said it so far. What is the source that people are using that points to the fact that UCLA has better placement nationally?

UCLA: http://www.lstscorereports.com/?school= ... b=location

USC: http://www.lstscorereports.com/?school= ... b=location

And UCLA has the better general scholarly reputation. But for a SoCal student, the difference is nigh negligible.

e: And looking historically, USC also seems to perform slightly worse in a downturn. And the slight - SLIGHT - national difference holds up over time.

UCLA does pump up its employment numbers by hiring more than 10% of theirs grads themselves. but yeah UCLA has the better rep but it does not translate into better job outcomes.

zman wrote:UCLA does pump up its employment numbers by hiring more than 10% of theirs grads themselves. but yeah UCLA has the better rep but it does not translate into better job outcomes.

Ah, forgot about that. Disregard the "slump" stuff. But national reach is SLIGHTLY better, in the sense that 101 grains of salt is more than 100.

That's so slight as to be insignificant IMO. Going to either for anything other than a job in Southern CA would be a really bad move I think.

What's a "better general scholarly reputation?"

BigZuck wrote:That's so slight as to be insignificant IMO. Going to either for anything other than a job in Southern CA would be a really bad move I think.

What's a "better general scholarly reputation?"

http://www.leiterrankings.com/new/2012_ ... pact.shtml

and

http://taxprof.typepad.com/taxprof_blog ... ogle-.html

That's the last thing one should base his/her decision on. That study proves nothing.

He/she could call and ask USC and UCLA for more money, a lot of people are getting more than zero at UCLA and 15 a year at USC.

Negotiate. If it doesn't pan out then drop UCLA for USC. If you think there is a reason to pay 100K more for UCLA, just because of the price difference, then you are acting irrationally.

timbs4339 wrote:Negotiate. If it doesn't pan out then drop UCLA for USC. If you think there is a reason to pay 100K more for UCLA, just because of the price difference, then you are acting irrationally.

As a lifetime Bruin, this. USC all the way here.

By the way, scholarly reputation is somewhat important, especially if you're looking to get published/get a fellowship and/or build connections with 9th Circuit Judges. UCLA Profs have more force in that area than USC.

I'm waiting for someone to say that academia is highly unlikely from both. To which I obviously agree. But, I still think scholarly reputation is important.