Top Law Schools

In both scenarios I would living with my girlfriend/family and will not be paying any rent. I have very little money saved up, so everything else will be paid for in loans.

The commute to UCI would be a walk down the street. The commute to LA would be... well... about an hour and half (there is a shuttle so I could study or sleep during the ride).

I am hoping for a big firm job in SoCal, but there is a VERY SLIGHT chance I might consider academia. I'm going to see if I can get a bit more $ from UCLA, but I highly doubt it will happen. If I make it into the top of my class I will consider transferring to the top 6, but would probably only leave if HYS was an option.

I took the LSAT three times so it is no longer an option.

I have to make this decision in the next few day. PLEASE HELP!

UCLA is out because of cost. UCI isn't a great option either though. You have to be okay with a small law job and academia won't happen from either. I probably wouldn't go, but UCI is a better option.

fallingwater wrote:In both scenarios I would living with my girlfriend/family and will not be paying any rent. I have very little money saved up, so everything else will be paid for in loans.

The commute to UCI would be a walk down the street. The commute to LA would be... well... about an hour and half (there is a shuttle so I could study or sleep during the ride).

I am hoping for a big firm job in SoCal, but there is a VERY SLIGHT chance I might consider academia. I'm going to see if I can get a bit more $ from UCLA, but I highly doubt it will happen. If I make it into the top of my class I will consider transferring to the top 6, but would probably only leave if HYS was an option.

I took the LSAT three times so it is no longer an option.

I have to make this decision in the next few day. PLEASE HELP!

If you really want to work for a bigfirm, then make that your goal. Start networking, hardcore, now. Do a tremendous amount of 0L prep. Choose UCLA, and transfer to HYSCCN if you can.

Only do that if its your life goal. And that is a weird life goal.

What is your cost of attending?

Is UCI accredited yet?

Your total COA goes down drastically when you're able to live somewhere for free. If you're okay with permanently forgoing biglaw, UCI for sure. UCLA has substantially better placement into biglaw, and you'd be able to attend for 150k or so.

While neither of these choices are good, UCLA may in fact be marginally better.

If you live in UHills or Gabrielino aptments there's no way you could commute to westwood. That's just fckin insane. Driving up the 405 every day there and back will seriously make you miserable and hate law school. You will not do well and that is not sustainable. You'll end up needing to get a place in LA and you'll run up hundreds of thousands of dollars in debt.

UCI has a remarkably shitty presence in OC firms, but maybe they are all in los Angeles, I don't know. Either way it's definitely not a strong choice for SoCal biglaw unless you have strong personal connections with OC offices. If you go to UCI law you will mostly likely be working for a local PI organization or small firm in the inland empire doing some sort of shitlaw. If you are a brilliant student and shine out then Dean Chem could squeeze you in with a central district judge or something and you'd find a firm position from there but without patent qualifications it's still a risk.

If you must choose here then do UCI, but I'm unconvinced. Maybe get a full time job if you can, sit out a year and retake.

twenty wrote:Your total COA goes down drastically when you're able to live somewhere for free. If you're okay with permanently forgoing biglaw, UCI for sure. UCLA has substantially better placement into biglaw, and you'd be able to attend for 150k or so.

While neither of these choices are good, UCLA may in fact be marginally better.

OP can't reasonably live there for free and attend ucla. I know you're in DC so Im trying to think of a helpful comparison; it would be like commuting from Ashland, VA or some northern Baltimore suburb to GW. No way.

I would imagine OP would take the Orange County line to Union and then a campus bus to UCLA. It's an hour and a half, but at least you're not driving an hour and a half.

edit> I've never done it, though, and jbagel that sounds like hell. But unless Google Maps is lying to me, there is a commuter rail that goes to Union Station, right? Considering xeoh85 did the 1.5 hour commute by car and ended up number 1 at UCLA, it's not like you're doomed from the start.

Yes, the commute would be insane, but like said there is a shuttle in Irvine that would take me to UCLA everyday. So I would not have to drive. I could just use that time to work, but ughhh it does seem really really rough. I'm not sure if the train is a good option either.

I should also mention that I'm a PhD student at UCI (social science type field). I decided to apply to law school because I don't want to work in my field academically and I've always had a strong passion for the law. The PhD is fully funded so if I stay at UCI I could finish it much more easily (PhD in about two more years). I'm not sure if finishing the program will help much though.

I've already begun a little networking in OC. Any advice on how best to do this?

And yes, xeoh85 gives me hope, but I'm assuming his debt situation wasn't as bad from the start.

Oh geez. If you're 1-2 years out on the PhD, just finish it and retake/reapply in a year or two. The options you have now are in the "not a great idea" zone, but 1) if you have any interest in finishing up the PhD, do it before law school, not after/during, and 2) it's not like you're pouring coffee at Starbucks right now.

Based on an 8% drop in LSAT takers this June, it's not like you'll never get this kind of an offer again. Sit it out and come back.

fallingwater wrote:I should also mention that I'm a PhD student at UCI (social science type field). I decided to apply to law school because I don't want to work in my field academically and I've always had a strong passion for the law. The PhD is fully funded so if I stay at UCI I could finish it much more easily (PhD in about two more years). I'm not sure if finishing the program will help much though.

Uh what? Are you planning on doing law school and completing your PhD concurrently? How would having a PhD and JD be worthwhile enough to justify the time/cost investment in both?

twenty wrote:Oh geez. If you're 1-2 years out on the PhD, just finish it and retake/reapply in a year or two. The options you have now are in the "not a great idea" zone, but 1) if you have any interest in finishing up the PhD, do it before law school, not after/during, and 2) it's not like you're pouring coffee at Starbucks right now.

Based on an 8% drop in LSAT takers this June, it's not like you'll never get this kind of an offer again. Sit it out and come back.

I agree. If your PhD is fully funded, finish your dissertation and retake.

Yeah, HR, the problem is:

1) OP finishes the PhD while in law school, graduating from law school first, and then graduating from the PhD a year or two later. This completely destroys his chance of getting biglaw.
2) [same] but graduates from the PhD first, and then law school. The school may insist that you not take 5 years to graduate from the law school, but even if they're cool with it, that is a hell of a long time doing both, and the only thing you do is ensure that you can't retake/reapply.
3) Do the PhD and law school at the same time. I don't even know if there are enough hours in the day for this.
4) Drop out of the PhD. If you've been in the PhD program for more than two years (because this would be the same amount of time to get the masters), you've wasted time.

twenty wrote:Yeah, HR, the problem is:

1) OP finishes the PhD while in law school, graduating from law school first, and then graduating from the PhD a year or two later. This completely destroys his chance of getting biglaw.
2) [same] but graduates from the PhD first, and then law school. The school may insist that you not take 5 years to graduate from the law school, but even if they're cool with it, that is a hell of a long time doing both, and the only thing you do is ensure that you can't retake/reapply.
3) Do the PhD and law school at the same time. I don't even know if there are enough hours in the day for this.
4) Drop out of the PhD. If you've been in the PhD program for more than two years (because this would be the same amount of time to get the masters), you've wasted time.

That's what my questions were getting at. I don't see substantial value in having both a (social sciences) PhD and JD.

I already got the free MA so my time spent in grad school was not a compete waste (and of course, I learned a lot in the process). After getting the MA (while in the PhD program), I decided to apply to law school. At UCI you can do the JD/PhD program. They are very flexible about this and allow you spend a semester/quarter focusing on one or the other. Obviously, this would create a serious problem in applying to jobs. Part of my decision, then, is deciding whether or not to go ahead with law school and not finish the PhD, finish and then apply to law school, or do the jd/phd and risk law employment issues and possibly stay in academia.

Why not finish your PhD first and then apply for law school after if you still want to?

Yea All Right wrote:Why not finish your PhD first and then apply for law school after if you still want to?

Is there a chance OP will be hampered at OCI by being characterized as a "professional student?"

Figure that if you do a JD/PhD, your JD will become worthless unless you can finish your PhD before your JD. But then what would be stopping you from finishing up your PhD in the next two years -> going to law school for three, as opposed to committing to five years for a JD/PhD?

I'd say all in on UCLA, kick the PhD, and know you're biglaw or bust, OR finish the PhD and retake for the cycle after this upcoming one.

Kick the PhD and go all in on UCLA

Good outcome: You land a biglaw job. Congrats! You have a lot of loans to pay off with the biglaw job, but then you can go be an attorney doing whatever post biglaw attorneys do. About 30% likelihood.

Medium outcome: You got a non-biglaw legal job. Because you lived in OC and had a small scholarship, the debt won't be completely crushing, but your quality of life going to be far from great. About 50% likelihood.

Bad outcome: You have no legal job and no PhD. You have a ton of debt, and you're fucked. About 20% likelihood.

Kick the PhD and go to UCI law

Good outcome: You graduate and get biglaw. You have no debt, so you get to laugh at the person in the office next to you while you cash your 120k/year+ checks. About 15% likelihood.

Medium outcome: You get a non-biglaw legal job. No debt, so hey, you're not making a lot, but at least you don't have anything hanging over your head. About 50% likelihood.

Bad outcome: You don't have any job, but no debt either. You wasted three years on a JD, but at least it wasn't an expensive JD. About 35% likelihood.

JD/PhD, do the JD first, and wrap up with the PhD

Great outcome: You're on the legal academia path. 10% likelihood.

Good outcome: You end up in academia based on the PhD. Your JD is worthless, but free. Unfortunately, this is the same job you could have gotten if you'd just finished up your PhD. <20% likelihood.

Medium/Bad outcome: You couldn't get a job in academia, and your JD is worthless because you decided to wait 1-2 years before even starting to look for a legal job. At least it was free. 70%+ likelihood

JD/PhD with the JD on the back end

Good outcome: 10% chance of legal academia.

Other outcome: Whatever you would have had with the JD alone, except two years older.

Retake, finish up PhD, come back in two years

Path 1: You score worse on the LSAT, and you end up having the same options you had this cycle

Outcome: The same exact outcome as you would have with the JD/PhD. The only difference is instead of working on them jointly, you're just working on the JD now. Also, your loans have been accumulating interest over three years instead of five.

Path 2: You score better on the LSAT, and you have substantially better options than you had this cycle

Outcome: Instead of having a low chance at legal academia, you get to go to a significantly better school (UChicago?) and now have a substantially better shot at legal academia. Furthermore, your biglaw opportunities increase drastically, and you'll certainly have more money from UCLA than just 8k/year. Instead of choosing between two "eh" options, you could be looking at multiple terrific law school options; and by the way, a PhD is not a bad soft to have for admissions purposes.

I agree with most of Twenty's estimates, but I think the estimate of a 10% chance at legal academia is too optimistic. The market is really tough for legal academics right now, especially if you're not graduating from a Top 10 law school. The PhD helps (though it depends quite a bit on what the PhD is in), but I can't imagine a PhD/JD combination that actually puts the odds at 10%, especially considering that we don't know how the OP is going to do in law school.

Why did you start the PhD? Are there other opportunities besides academia for the field? In your context, you seem to have a weak reason to go to law school (especially one of these).

Yeah, honestly, 10% might be too high. And 20% for regular academia might be too high depending on what "social sciences" is.

twenty wrote:Yeah, honestly, 10% might be too high. And 20% for regular academia might be too high depending on what "social sciences" is.

I had an adjunct professor in UG who received his JD at UNC before realizing he hated the practice of law. He went on to get his PhD in History. The JD has helped him because the small school uses him to teach Constitutional Law (he uses Chemerinsky's casebook, the Socratic method, and one exam to badger students to not go to law school), but not enough to justify doing it. After all, like most entering academics he's still just an adjunct.

HRomanus wrote:

twenty wrote:Yeah, honestly, 10% might be too high. And 20% for regular academia might be too high depending on what "social sciences" is.

I had an adjunct professor in UG who received his JD at UNC before realizing he hated the practice of law. He went on to get his PhD in History. The JD has helped him because the small school uses him to teach Constitutional Law (he uses Chemerinsky's casebook, the Socratic method, and one exam to badger students to not go to law school), but not enough to justify doing it. After all, like most entering academics he's still just an adjunct.

For the record, I am assuming that a "career in legal academia" means a tenure-track position somewhere. Frankly, it's not that difficult to get an adjunct/lecturer position at some TTT if that's what you really want. But the pay will likely be shit. Unless you get really lucky and land a clinical position at a top school, you generally can't make a legitimate career out of academia alone unless you're tenure track.

I usually put "I want academia" in the same category as "I want a federal clerkship" in that you just kind of have to smile and nod because there's no way you're going to be able to convince anyone of anything else. But you're right, academia ITE is jumping from temporary jobs at TTTs for little pay. There's just no good way of convincing anyone of that.