Top Law Schools

***TO CLARIFY***
THE COA figures in the poll take into account transportation, food, books, and room and then added 10k or so for miscellaneous expenditures. Not perfect but should give a good estimate and a debt ceiling.
***

The COA does not factor in interest on the loans. I can commute from home to UCI for 0 COL all three years. I cannot commute to USC. UCI has lower tuition and I have a higher scholarship there. I'm not too interested in biglaw, but I am somewhat interested in clerking. Estimated class size for USC is 150-160 this year, and UCI is 90-100, according to both admissions departments. These factors seem to favor UCI, but as nearly everyone would agree, it is new and it is risky, and the alumni base is non-existent.

I have a 20k inheritance coming to me in 1 year, and another 40k in 6 years, which I plan to toss at law school loans. With UCI, I would likely be able to pay off my loans (all Stafford) in 2 or 3 years thanks in part to the first part of the inheritance, and keep the 40k once I have access to it. With USC, maybe 10 years at a higher monthly payment, and the 40k would also have to be thrown at loans.

Am I crazy? I know there are a lot of cautionary flags surrounding Irvine, but the COA is remarkably different and Irvine seems in line with my current goals. Last important point, I want to practice in Orange County.

You'd be nuts not to do UCI, especially since you save an extra 45k by commuting from home.

UCI is definitely the right call. Why are you interested in clerking?

transferror wrote:UCI is definitely the right call. Why are you interested in clerking?

From talking to a number of people who have clerked (in district and especially appellate courts), they have all said that it is incredibly helpful to see the legal process from the inside and from start to finish. Also, each one of the them has mentioned how markedly their writing and research skills improve by clerking. To top it off, it's a very nice resume booster.

Having said that, I will have to get better exposed to law during my 1L to see if the benefits of clerking tie in well enough with where I eventually want to end up (wherever that may be).

I could not interpret the COA of attendance at each from that jumble of words.

What is the total cost of attendance for you at each? Please use the Georgetown law calculator, plug all relevant info in, and tell me what it says.

BigZuck wrote:I could not interpret the COA of attendance at each from that jumble of words.

What is the total cost of attendance for you at each? Please use the Georgetown law calculator, plug all relevant info in, and tell me what it says.

Not to come off as a dick, but OP put what they believe to be the COA in the poll.

rstahl wrote:

transferror wrote:UCI is definitely the right call. Why are you interested in clerking?

From talking to a number of people who have clerked (in district and especially appellate courts), they have all said that it is incredibly helpful to see the legal process from the inside and from start to finish. Also, each one of the them has mentioned how markedly their writing and research skills improve by clerking. To top it off, it's a very nice resume booster.

Having said that, I will have to get better exposed to law during my 1L to see if the benefits of clerking tie in well enough with where I eventually want to end up (wherever that may be).

Sure, but the type of clerkship you aim for as a résumé booster will change depending on your field. For instance, you would want to clerk with a Fed Judge for the US COA or in a competitive District if you're interested in biglaw. For AUSA work, District Court in the target market is golden. For DA/PD work, you would probably want a state trial judge who does mostly/all criminal work. Not all clerkships are created equal and some are far more useful than others depending on the work you want to do.

transferror wrote:

rstahl wrote:

transferror wrote:UCI is definitely the right call. Why are you interested in clerking?

From talking to a number of people who have clerked (in district and especially appellate courts), they have all said that it is incredibly helpful to see the legal process from the inside and from start to finish. Also, each one of the them has mentioned how markedly their writing and research skills improve by clerking. To top it off, it's a very nice resume booster.

Having said that, I will have to get better exposed to law during my 1L to see if the benefits of clerking tie in well enough with where I eventually want to end up (wherever that may be).

Sure, but the type of clerkship you aim for as a résumé booster will change depending on your field. For instance, you would want to clerk with a Fed Judge for the US COA or in a competitive District if you're interested in biglaw. For AUSA work, District Court in the target market is golden. For DA/PD work, you would probably want a state trial judge who does mostly/all criminal work. Not all clerkships are created equal and some are far more useful than others depending on the work you want to do.

That's kind of what the last paragraph of my reply to you was going for. I didn't really mean to imply the clerkships were interchangeable regardless of aspirations. Thanks for the specifics though. That's actually pretty helpful.

Is the 45k CoA including 0 costs living at home?

So your parents aren't going to make you pay for food at all? You will never eat out? Transportation expenses? There are still costs besides room in Cost of Attendance.

As a personal opinion, I think there are also many burdens to living at home vs. having your own place that may not show up in a financial spreadsheet but should at least be considered. Depending on how far away from UCI you live.

muskies970 wrote:Is the 45k CoA including 0 costs living at home?

Yes. It also includes transportation and food.

muskies970 wrote:As a personal opinion, I think there are also many burdens to living at home vs. having your own place that may not show up in a financial spreadsheet but should at least be considered. Depending on how far away from UCI you live.

I live half an hour away.

CoffeeIsLife wrote:

BigZuck wrote:I could not interpret the COA of attendance at each from that jumble of words.

What is the total cost of attendance for you at each? Please use the Georgetown law calculator, plug all relevant info in, and tell me what it says.

Not to come off as a dick, but OP put what they believe to be the COA in the poll.

You're right! My B, I never look at polls and especially not for that information. Thanks bro.

That's too expensive for USC, so I guess UCI?

You should call USC for more money.

MikeJD wrote:You should call USC for more money.

Both USC and UCI have already upped my scholarship 5k/year (already factored into COA in the poll). It might be possible to get another 5k/year from USC, which I was planning on trying to do in the next day or so, but say its 1:3 against getting another increase.

rstahl wrote:

MikeJD wrote:You should call USC for more money.

Both USC and UCI have already upped my scholarship 5k/year (already factored into COA in the poll). It might be possible to get another 5k/year from USC, which I was planning on trying to do in the next day or so, but say its 1:3 against getting another increase.

I know people who have been bumped to full scholarship with median numbers(or a little higher) at USC.

MikeJD wrote:

rstahl wrote:

MikeJD wrote:You should call USC for more money.

Both USC and UCI have already upped my scholarship 5k/year (already factored into COA in the poll). It might be possible to get another 5k/year from USC, which I was planning on trying to do in the next day or so, but say its 1:3 against getting another increase.

I know people who have been bumped to full scholarship with median numbers(or a little higher) at USC.

Hmmm. Lawschoolnumbers leads me to believe the maximum scholarship amount is pretty predictable. I'm 75th LSAT and between 25-50th GPA. I feel like a full or close to full scholly would be tough to negotiate given that I'm not above BOTH medians.

UCI is 64.3/33.4 and USC is 63.9/33.7 where the first number is the employment score and the second number is biglaw+federal clerkship. The numbers suggest that these are peer schools in terms of outcomes. It makes no difference what their rankings are because no one cares and practicing attorneys will not really care that much. Given the difference in $ for essentially the same chance at a good outcome, UCI is the clear winner.

Estimated class size for USC is 150-160 this year, and UCI is 90-100, according to both admissions departments.

I call BS on the 90-100 figure, according to LST for UCI class sizes for entering classes of 2012 and 2013 were 119 and 126 respectively. That is up from 89 for 2011. There is no reason to believe that UCI would suddenly cut their class size considering that their classe size has been increasing for 4 years.

Hutz_and_Goodman wrote:UCI is 64.3/33.4 and USC is 63.9/33.7 where the first number is the employment score and the second number is biglaw+federal clerkship. The numbers suggest that these are peer schools in terms of outcomes. It makes no difference what their rankings are because no one cares and practicing attorneys will not really care that much. Given the difference in $ for essentially the same chance at a good outcome, UCI is the clear winner.

the 33.4% is based on the entering class of 2010 or class of 2013, which had only 83 students. A more realistic percentage would be using the number 28/120 (conservative estimated class size for class of 2017) = 21.9%. This is assuming the same number of students keep getting biglaw and clerkships as the first two classes at UCI and assuming UCI doesnt further increase their class size like before.

That said I still don't think USC is 100K more than UCI, but its a closer decision than it seems.

splittinghairs wrote:

Estimated class size for USC is 150-160 this year, and UCI is 90-100, according to both admissions departments.

I call BS on the 90-100 figure, according to LST for UCI class sizes for entering classes of 2012 and 2013 were 119 and 126 respectively. That is up from 89 for 2011. There is no reason to believe that UCI would suddenly cut their class size considering that their classe size has been increasing for 4 years.

Hutz_and_Goodman wrote:UCI is 64.3/33.4 and USC is 63.9/33.7 where the first number is the employment score and the second number is biglaw+federal clerkship. The numbers suggest that these are peer schools in terms of outcomes. It makes no difference what their rankings are because no one cares and practicing attorneys will not really care that much. Given the difference in $ for essentially the same chance at a good outcome, UCI is the clear winner.

the 33.4% is based on the entering class of 2010 or class of 2013, which had only 83 students. A more realistic percentage would be using the number 28/120 (conservative estimated class size for class of 2017) = 21.9%. This is assuming the same number of students keep getting biglaw and clerkships as the first two classes at UCI and assuming UCI doesnt further increase their class size like before.

That said I still don't think USC is 100K more than UCI, but its a closer decision than it seems.

They HAVE to cut class size to about 100 maintain a half decent LSAT median. At 126 which was their class of 2016 size they had a 164, I doubt they keep the 164 so they have to shrink. It's important because they assume they will get more apps if they are ranked higher. On the other hand though hastings has 4,000 and they are ranked in the 50s.

MikeJD wrote:

splittinghairs wrote:

Estimated class size for USC is 150-160 this year, and UCI is 90-100, according to both admissions departments.

I call BS on the 90-100 figure, according to LST for UCI class sizes for entering classes of 2012 and 2013 were 119 and 126 respectively. That is up from 89 for 2011. There is no reason to believe that UCI would suddenly cut their class size considering that their classe size has been increasing for 4 years.

Hutz_and_Goodman wrote:UCI is 64.3/33.4 and USC is 63.9/33.7 where the first number is the employment score and the second number is biglaw+federal clerkship. The numbers suggest that these are peer schools in terms of outcomes. It makes no difference what their rankings are because no one cares and practicing attorneys will not really care that much. Given the difference in $ for essentially the same chance at a good outcome, UCI is the clear winner.

the 33.4% is based on the entering class of 2010 or class of 2013, which had only 83 students. A more realistic percentage would be using the number 28/120 (conservative estimated class size for class of 2017) = 21.9%. This is assuming the same number of students keep getting biglaw and clerkships as the first two classes at UCI and assuming UCI doesnt further increase their class size like before.

That said I still don't think USC is 100K more than UCI, but its a closer decision than it seems.

They HAVE to cut class size to about 100 maintain a half decent LSAT median. At 126 which was their class of 2016 size they had a 164, I doubt they keep the 164 so they have to shrink. It's important because they assume they will get more apps if they are ranked higher. On the other hand though hastings has 4,000 and they are ranked in the 50s.

They also "have" to increase class size in order to bring in more revenue. The point is you just never know. 90-100 is a really low number for a law school to be sustainable in bringing in revenue given the amount they've thrown into building a new law school.

splittinghairs wrote:

MikeJD wrote:

splittinghairs wrote:

Estimated class size for USC is 150-160 this year, and UCI is 90-100, according to both admissions departments.

I call BS on the 90-100 figure, according to LST for UCI class sizes for entering classes of 2012 and 2013 were 119 and 126 respectively. That is up from 89 for 2011. There is no reason to believe that UCI would suddenly cut their class size considering that their classe size has been increasing for 4 years.

Hutz_and_Goodman wrote:UCI is 64.3/33.4 and USC is 63.9/33.7 where the first number is the employment score and the second number is biglaw+federal clerkship. The numbers suggest that these are peer schools in terms of outcomes. It makes no difference what their rankings are because no one cares and practicing attorneys will not really care that much. Given the difference in $ for essentially the same chance at a good outcome, UCI is the clear winner.

the 33.4% is based on the entering class of 2010 or class of 2013, which had only 83 students. A more realistic percentage would be using the number 28/120 (conservative estimated class size for class of 2017) = 21.9%. This is assuming the same number of students keep getting biglaw and clerkships as the first two classes at UCI and assuming UCI doesnt further increase their class size like before.

That said I still don't think USC is 100K more than UCI, but its a closer decision than it seems.

They HAVE to cut class size to about 100 maintain a half decent LSAT median. At 126 which was their class of 2016 size they had a 164, I doubt they keep the 164 so they have to shrink. It's important because they assume they will get more apps if they are ranked higher. On the other hand though hastings has 4,000 and they are ranked in the 50s.

They also "have" to increase class size in order to bring in more revenue. The point is you just never know. 90-100 is a really low number for a law school to be sustainable in bringing in revenue given the amount they've thrown into building a new law school.

Yes and they plan to but not this class.

rstahl wrote:

transferror wrote:UCI is definitely the right call. Why are you interested in clerking?

From talking to a number of people who have clerked (in district and especially appellate courts), they have all said that it is incredibly helpful to see the legal process from the inside and from start to finish. Also, each one of the them has mentioned how markedly their writing and research skills improve by clerking. To top it off, it's a very nice resume booster.

Having said that, I will have to get better exposed to law during my 1L to see if the benefits of clerking tie in well enough with where I eventually want to end up (wherever that may be).

If you have the grades to clerk, you don't need to clerk in order to get the "resume boost." Your grades will be much more of a boost for your throughout your career than your clerkship. Clerking is useful as a career transition for people trying to switch firms or move into a competitive government position, but it's definitely not something that every biglaw associate (or even biglaw litigation associate) is trying to do.

splittinghairs wrote: There is no reason to believe that UCI would suddenly cut their class size considering that their classe size has been increasing for 4 years.

It's their first ranking year. They are counting on a small class resulting in high medians so that they have a cascade effect of increased apps in the coming years. My guess is their class size goes from 100 this year to 135 or so the next year.

rstahl wrote:

splittinghairs wrote: There is no reason to believe that UCI would suddenly cut their class size considering that their classe size has been increasing for 4 years.

It's their first ranking year. They are counting on a small class resulting in high medians so that they have a cascade effect of increased apps in the coming years. My guess is their class size goes from 100 this year to 135 or so the next year.

I agree. Or they might play the transfer game as a way to get revenue from more students without sacrificing their incoming stats.

Everyone does that now.