Top Law Schools

I guess I got it figured out.

Without the SO in the equation, I think Columbia is a steal at that price. But, the SO changes things. But, if it was me, and this was a super serious relationship, I would take UCLA. This is really a super personal question, and I don't know how much advice we can offer you here. I think if you take UCLA, you are making a totally rational choice.

Finding a good job in NYC is actually pretty easy. They tend to pay better than LA too.

.

Winston1984 wrote:Without the SO in the equation, I think Columbia is a steal at that price. But, the SO changes things. But, if it was me, and this was a super serious relationship, I would take UCLA. This is really a super personal question, and I don't know how much advice we can offer you here. I think if you take UCLA, you are making a totally rational choice.

Agreed. If you didn't have the SO in LA this might be a close call. But, unless you think that you and your SO won't last anyway, I don't see the point in living apart for three years of your life. That's a big personal cost. When you pile the additional $100K of financial cost on top of the personal cost, it seems like UCLA is the right choice.

Tiago Splitter wrote:Finding a good job in NYC is actually pretty easy. They tend to pay better than LA too.

She's a college professor in a full-time faculty position, and those are not easy to come by anywhere.

edit: I do want to know if people think there is a legitimate advantage in LA from Columbia versus UCLA, however, because if there is one it might make the difference.

AmicusInimici wrote:

Winston1984 wrote:Without the SO in the equation, I think Columbia is a steal at that price. But, the SO changes things. But, if it was me, and this was a super serious relationship, I would take UCLA. This is really a super personal question, and I don't know how much advice we can offer you here. I think if you take UCLA, you are making a totally rational choice.

Thank you. It's nice just to hear I'm not crazy for considering UCLA over Columbia in this situation.

Oh, not at all, I think. Assuming you are not up for a three-year long distance arrangement, it's not just that your SO would now have to find a job in NYC (and leaving something good behind), but also find one in LA again in three years; that's no small deal. Plus both of you have to move cross-country twice, and you'll have to spend summers apart (because presumably you'd try to spend both your 1L and 2L summers at an LA firm, while your SO would be working in NYC). I'd probably stay put if I were you.

AmicusInimici wrote:edit: I do want to know if people think there is a legitimate advantage in LA from Columbia versus UCLA, however, because if there is one it might make the difference.

I think at least HYSCCB has a legitimate advantage over UCLA for LA big law. You are giving up something. As I wrote earlier, I don't think that advantage is worth the financial and personal cost to you. But, yes, I think you are hurting your big law chances at least a bit by attending UCLA instead of CLS.

have you considered getting B to match?

yes, CLS will give you are higher % chance of Big Law in LA, but not that much. Not worth it if you SO has a tenure track position. (Much harder than big law, by far.)

Mack.Hambleton wrote:have you considered getting B to match?

Good idea but it doesn't solve the problem

rpupkin wrote:

AmicusInimici wrote:edit: I do want to know if people think there is a legitimate advantage in LA from Columbia versus UCLA, however, because if there is one it might make the difference.

I think at least HYSCCB has a legitimate advantage over UCLA for LA big law. You are giving up something. As I wrote earlier, I don't think that advantage is worth the financial and personal cost to you. But, yes, I think you are hurting your big law chances at least a bit by attending UCLA instead of CLS.

That's good to know. I have looked through quite a few of the large law firms rosters in LA, and they seem to almost universally have a larger number of UCLA grads than other law schools, but would you say that is mostly a matter of self selection?

AmicusInimici wrote: That's good to know. I have looked through quite a few of the large law firms rosters in LA, and they seem to almost universally have a larger number of UCLA grads than other law schools, but would you say that is mostly a matter of self selection?

Definitely. You'll be competing with nearly 100% of your class for those jobs. If you got the Butler I'm optimistic you'd get the grades but your cushion is much smaller than if you were at Columbia.

Mack.Hambleton wrote:have you considered getting B to match?

I have, and it's definitely not out of the question as a long distance relationship between LA and SF is definitely easier to manage, but it seems like if I am going to go the non-LA route, I might as well go as high up the rankings as I can.

Unless Berkeley offers better LA placement than Columbia?

Tiago Splitter wrote:

AmicusInimici wrote: That's good to know. I have looked through quite a few of the large law firms rosters in LA, and they seem to almost universally have a larger number of UCLA grads than other law schools, but would you say that is mostly a matter of self selection?

Definitely. You'll be competing with nearly 100% of your class for those jobs. If you got the Butler I'm optimistic you'd get the grades but your cushion is much smaller than if you were at Columbia.

Thanks, that's sort of what I figured, but it's good to have it confirmed.

AmicusInimici wrote:That's good to know. I have looked through quite a few of the large law firms rosters in LA, and they seem to almost universally have a larger number of UCLA grads than other law schools, but would you say that is mostly a matter of self selection?

Absolutely. There are, for example, a lot more GULC grads in DC firms than SLS, CLS, and YLS grads, but that doesn't mean that GULC is better for big law in DC than those schools.

Would the LA BL placement matter less if your SO was able to find a job in NYC?

AmicusInimici wrote:

Mack.Hambleton wrote:have you considered getting B to match?

I have, and it's definitely not out of the question as a long distance relationship between LA and SF is definitely easier to manage, but it seems like if I am going to go the non-LA route, I might as well go as high up the rankings as I can.

Unless Berkeley offers better LA placement than Columbia?

Maybe not better, but definitely not worse. For California, I'd say CLS and Berkeley are about equal in terms of prestige. Forget about magazine rankings.

I think UCLA is a fine choice here if you'd prefer a non-biglaw job in LA over a biglaw job in NYC.

pancakes3 wrote:Would the LA BL placement matter less if your SO was able to find a job in NYC?

Ultimately I know we both want to be in LA, as both of our families are here. As for the next 5-7 years, if we needed to spend the time on the East coast I think we could manage it. However, if I started in an NYC firm, is it reasonable to hope to move back to LA within 3 or 4 years?

AmicusInimici wrote:

pancakes3 wrote:Would the LA BL placement matter less if your SO was able to find a job in NYC?

Ultimately I know we both want to be in LA, as both of our families are here. As for the next 5-7 years, if we needed to spend the time on the East coast I think we could manage it. However, if I started in an NYC firm, is it reasonable to hope to move back to LA within 3 or 4 years?

It's certainly possible, though it depends a bit on which NYC firm you get.

If you know that you and your SO want to be in LA long term, it really does make more sense to start your law career in LA. And that's true regardless of where you go to law school.

I'd take the butler and see if SO can move. But it depends on your relationship and whether that accords with your dynamic. Objectively speaking with SO out of the question, it will still be easier to get a good firm in LA coming from Columbia than from UCLA. I don't know what this "work in new york first" business is about. The school has national reach. This is coming from someone from SoCal who went through two rounds of firm recruiting in LA, not to mention chambers hiring.

If this were sticker at CLS that would be a different story entirely, but the Butler is too good to pass up.

PM if you want to chat

jbagelboy wrote:I don't know what this "work in new york first" business is about. The school has national reach. This is coming from someone from SoCal who went through two rounds of firm recruiting in LA, not to mention chambers hiring.

You always make it sound a lot easier than it is. I think if you go to Columbia you need to be prepared to work in NYC and if you go to UCLA you need to be prepared to strike out and shoot for non Biglaw options.

I'd also add that the whole "start in NYC and lateral" thing applies to corporate more than to litigation. Don't know if that will influence the OP at all.

Split the baby and do B - chances of LA Biglaw way better than UCLA and its an hour flight.

Tiago Splitter wrote:

jbagelboy wrote:I don't know what this "work in new york first" business is about. The school has national reach. This is coming from someone from SoCal who went through two rounds of firm recruiting in LA, not to mention chambers hiring.

You always make it sound a lot easier than it is. I think if you go to Columbia you need to be prepared to work in NYC and if you go to UCLA you need to be prepared to strike out and shoot for non Biglaw options.

I'd also add that the whole "start in NYC and lateral" thing applies to corporate more than to litigation. Don't know if that will influence the OP at all.

Yea, I mean, realistically you probably need to be median and above at either school to open up large firms in LA (and this is being generous to UCLA, assuming median is in play for biglaw). I acknowledge this. But if you fall below median at the two schools, the options start to diverge more sharply. Anyway, its not just about risk minimization. I don't think its really easy to go to California, nor do I think CLS -> stuck in New York is fair.