BC ($$$) v. WUSTL ($$) Forum

[Elevate]

Boston College ($$$) v. WUSTL ($$)

Was originally set on going to WUSTL with $69,000 over three years. Boston College countered with $120,000 over three years.

I will be financing everything through loans.

I spent most of my life in Los Angeles and even went to USC as an undergrad. First choice market is in California (LA or SF), but I would love a few years in the New York area as well.

Like many, I want Big Law.

I took the LSAT twice. Will not disclose further numbers, but retaking is not an option.
I read a lot of things regarding employment statistics and OCI’s. I am aware it takes excellent grades and a lot of leg work to get to where I want to go. WUSTL is regional and struggles in the Chicago market. BC is places almost exclusively in the New England area.

ISSUES:
Which would have the most portability in California? Would BC’s scholarship make it a better choice than WUSTL?

[Trout et al]

You don't have any CA options?

[McAvoy]

Dude if you got BC to give you 120 what did USC give you? BC gave me only 60 and USC gave me 120.

If you want California, why wouldn't you stay in California?

Also, pry retake.

[Otunga]

I've been interested in Boston College as well, but I'm from the region and want to practice around the area. Don't go to BC intending to practice in California. Like you point out, the stats support mostly New England placement. NY biglaw is probably more plausible of a market to obtain than California, but I would say you need stellar grades to have a good chance at it - maybe more stellar than you would for Boston biglaw. But ask recent grads and current students more about the plausibility of getting a NY firm job.

That said, again, BC's a regional. Don't go to BC if you don't mainly want to practice in its region, even with a 120k scholarship. If USC or UCLA were to match that or get near it, they're a lot better for you.

If you're going to choose from BC and WUSTL, go with BC, because it's more affordable and at minimum, you seem receptive to New England, whereas it doesn't appear you're interested in the Midwest.

[staysha]

For that price difference I would take BC. I don't think WUSTL > BC for California enough to make it worth the cost difference, if it's better at all. FWIW, when I toured BC my guide had a medium size firm job lined up in CA. Quiet anecdotal, albiet.

[cron1834]

If you want California, go to California. Why would you go to school on the other side of the country, except for a national? Does not compute. If you have numbers for BC/WUSTL (165, maybe? 166?), you probably have them for USC. 168 gets you some money at UCLA, and a lot of money at USC. Do that instead.

[rad lulz]

Neither is portable to CA

Neither is good for big law

Retake

[Informative]

There are a handful of schools outside of the T14 that place well into BigLaw. BC is one of those schools. WUSTL does not do as well as BC, but it also places fairly well.

http://abovethelaw.com/careers/2014-law ... -rankings/

http://www.nationallawjournal.com/id=1202643450571

But taking geography into account, BC is going to place well in the northeast (Boston, NYC, Philly/DC) while WUSTL will do better in midwestern markets (St. Louis, Chicago, Detroit).

UCLA and USC are the peer schools of BC and WUSTL for the west coast. They would be better options if you want to work in Cali after graduation.

[banjo]

Retake if you want big law. Scoring a 170 is a JOKE compared to getting the grades you need for big law at those schools. You get a snack/pee break for god's sakes--people don't even use the bathroom on law school exams. Seriously--take it from someone who got a 176 and is suffering through exams now. LSAT is way easier and retaking is the right choice.

[mrs.miawallace]

Retake if you want big law. Scoring a 170 is a JOKE compared to getting the grades you need for big law at those schools. You get a snack/pee break for god's sakes--people don't even use the bathroom on law school exams. Seriously--take it from someone who got a 176 and is suffering through exams now. LSAT is way easier and retaking is the right choice.

THIS

[Hutz_and_Goodman]

OP: Did you apply to UCLA or USC? For your goals both of those would be much better options.

[brotherdarkness]

.

[Hutz_and_Goodman]

Retake if you want big law. Scoring a 170 is a JOKE compared to getting the grades you need for big law at those schools. You get a snack/pee break for god's sakes--people don't even use the bathroom on law school exams. Seriously--take it from someone who got a 176 and is suffering through exams now. LSAT is way easier and retaking is the right choice.

I understand and agree with the main point of your post, but people do use the bathroom during law school exams. Shitting yourself to avoid sacrificing the couple of minutes it would take to go to the bathroom is the stuff of gunner legends.

The top 10% of the class will be wearing diapers during law school exams and during the last few weeks of class for making outlines/cramming.

[metroidbum]

Did you not apply to UCLA or USC?

If not, reapply to those schools. Retake if necessary to see if you can put Boalt in play.

[killer133]

I love how they say they want "BIGLAW" but retake is not an option.

Dude, wake up! If you want biglaw out of those two schools, you need to be like top 25% for a decent chance. Look at LST for your sake.

Re-take and go to Berkeley or UCLA with substantial amount of money. Otherwise, you probably (more than 70% chance) wouldn't get biglaw after graduation

[DoveBodyWash]

Retake if you want big law. Scoring a 170 is a JOKE compared to getting the grades you need for big law at those schools. You get a snack/pee break for god's sakes--people don't even use the bathroom on law school exams. Seriously--take it from someone who got a 176 and is suffering through exams now. LSAT is way easier and retaking is the right choice.

LOL so true

WUSTL is crap for California. I dunno much about BC but i can't imagine it's any better.

if you don't have comparable California options then re-take and re-apply. If you only took LSAT twice then it means re-take is still on the table.

Or you could just abandon your goal of practicing in California, since that's what you'd probably end up doing eventually anyway if you went to either school

[middlemarch]

Retake for USC/UCLA seems to be the best bet, but personally I dislike when TLSers "fight the hypothetical" so to speak.

If you must attend BC or WashU this year, I'd vote for BC. It's cheaper, the employment options seem comparable, and if you do attain BigLaw in the regional school's backyard (recognizing it's difficult and would probably require you to be >top 15%), it's probably easier to lateral back to California from a great Boston firm (nationally high-end corporate at Ropes, nat. high-end litigation at WH, nat. high-end IP at Fish, etc.) than a decent St. Louis firm (Bryan Cave? what else?).

[DoveBodyWash]

than a decent St. Louis firm (Bryan Cave? what else?).

Doesn't matter because OP isn't gonna get an offer from a STL firm since he doesn't have ties anyway lol

But yeah i agree, if you have to pick one, i would go BC just because it's in a bigger market and it's cheaper