Top Law Schools

Edit: Thank you all!

If your SO can provide COL then SLS, if not then I would say UC if it doesn't strain the relationship.
I'm assuming median at UC is the same as being median at Berkeley if you're looking at Norcal Biglaw.

I don't think I would be able to pass up Berkeley for free with your goals. If the SO does end up covering COL, though, go to Stanford. That's an incredible opportunity at $51k.

Especially considering your SO/family seem to be in CA, I don't really see UChi making sense if Berkeley would be free. If it turns out it's between the non-SO-subsidized numbers, then UChi is looking a lot better.

sesto elemento wrote:If your SO can provide COL then SLS, if not then I would say UC if it doesn't strain the relationship.
I'm assuming median at UC is the same as being median at Berkeley if you're looking at Norcal Biglaw.

I mean, if the funding is coming from a significant other, then it's the OP's money too. Unless, that is, this relationship isn't a long-term thing.

OP: As I see it, the real question here is whether SLS is worth 80K more than Berkeley. (There's no sense considering Chicago when you're 100% sure you want to work in Northern California.) I think it's a close call. SLS definitely gives you an advantage over Berkeley for most jobs, but it's only a slight advantage in the Bay Area.

If you go to SLS and end up at a big law firm in SF/SV that you would've gotten anyway out of Berkeley, you'll be kicking yourself for giving up $80K. If, on the other hand, you finish near the bottom of your class at SLS, you'll be grateful for the extra bit of job security that the SLS name provides.

I don't know. I think I would probably go to Stanford if I were you, but it's really close.

.

lc39 wrote:

rpupkin wrote:

sesto elemento wrote:If your SO can provide COL then SLS, if not then I would say UC if it doesn't strain the relationship.
I'm assuming median at UC is the same as being median at Berkeley if you're looking at Norcal Biglaw.

I mean, if the funding is coming from a significant other, then it's the OP's money too. Unless, that is, this relationship isn't a long-term thing.

OP: As I see it, the real question here is whether SLS is worth 80K more than Berkeley. (There's no sense considering Chicago when you're 100% sure you want to work in Northern California.) I think it's a close call. SLS definitely gives you an advantage over Berkeley for most jobs, but it's only a slight advantage in the Bay Area.

If you go to SLS and end up at a big law firm in SF/SV that you would've gotten anyway, you'll be kicking yourself for giving up $80K. If, on the other hand, you finish near the bottom of your class at SLS, you'll be grateful for the extra bit of job security that the SLS name provides.

I don't know. I think I would probably go to Stanford if I were you, but it's really close.

It's a fairly long term relationship (4 years now) and he is more than willing to provide support for both of us once he gets a job. But I have to make a school decision before he graduates so while it's impossible to be 100% sure of having that financial support, I'm confident in his abilities!

My real point is that you shouldn't be treating his support like it's scholarship money or something. If you two remain together, then any money he spends supporting you in law school is money that you two no longer have as you move forward. I mean, the difference in COA between Berkeley and Stanford ($80K) could go towards buying a house. It's your money too. I wouldn't present your COA figures like you're getting a scholarship, which is basically what you've done in your poll.

.

rpupkin wrote:

sesto elemento wrote:If your SO can provide COL then SLS, if not then I would say UC if it doesn't strain the relationship.
I'm assuming median at UC is the same as being median at Berkeley if you're looking at Norcal Biglaw.

I mean, if the funding is coming from a significant other, then it's the OP's money too. Unless, that is, this relationship isn't a long-term thing.

OP: As I see it, the real question here is whether SLS is worth 80K more than Berkeley. (There's no sense considering Chicago when you're 100% sure you want to work in Northern California.) I think it's a close call. SLS definitely gives you an advantage over Berkeley for most jobs, but it's only a slight advantage in the Bay Area.

If you go to SLS and end up at a big law firm in SF/SV that you would've gotten anyway out of Berkeley, you'll be kicking yourself for giving up $80K. If, on the other hand, you finish near the bottom of your class at SLS, you'll be grateful for the extra bit of job security that the SLS name provides.

I think this is TCR.

One minor factor to consider how your SO's commute changes depending on where you and your SO will be living. Due to BART, it's easier to get from Berkeley to SF than it is to get from Stanford/Palo Alto to SF. Of course, Berkeley also has the commute advantage for jobs in the North and East Bay, and Stanford for jobs on the Peninsula or South Bay. It's a feather on the scales in the grand scheme of things, but might be worth considering because long distance commuting in the Bay Area sucks. Especially if you have to do it for 3 years.

If your SO is okay with the Chicago, go to Chicago.

With your ties you shouldn't have trouble getting SF from chicago. With your ties, I doubt SF firms would rather have the berkeley grad than the chi grad with the same class rank. I think a really important question would be how below median stanford grads fare at oci with sf biglaw. If below median stanford grads have to big nyc to get biglaw then I think it tips the scale closer to chicago. However, if even well below median stanford grads get sf biglaw, then it makes the case for stanford.

I just don't see how stanford is worth 130k over chicago. Especially if you're willing to work nyc biglaw for a couple years then lateral to sf.

WeeBey wrote:If your SO is okay with the Chicago, go to Chicago.

With your ties you shouldn't have trouble getting SF from chicago. With your ties, I doubt SF firms would rather have the berkeley grad than the chi grad with the same class rank.

What do you base this statement on?

WeeBey wrote:I think a really important question would be how below median stanford grads fare at oci with sf biglaw. If below median stanford grads have to big nyc to get biglaw then I think it tips the scale closer to chicago. However, if even well below median stanford grads get sf biglaw, then it makes the case for stanford.

Below median SLS grads can get big law in SF. If my goal is SF/SV big law and I am below median, I would much, much rather be at SLS than Chicago.

I just don't see how stanford is worth 130k over chicago. Especially if you're willing to work nyc biglaw for a couple years then lateral to sf.

NYC big law is miserable, and it can be particularly miserable during your first two years as an associate. Also, lateraling from NYC to SF isn't as easy as some seem to assume on here. You might have limited options if you go that route.

Agree with everything rpupkin said.

If my goal was SF/SV big law and I am below median, I would much, much rather be at SLS than Chicago.

I'll take this a step further. I'd much rather be median (or below) at Berkeley Law than the same rank at Chicago if my goal was NorCal. The less selective/less elite (but still market paying) firms in SF/SV will go to SLS and Berkeley OCI, but they won't go to Chicago's.

rpupkin wrote: NYC big law is miserable, and it can be particularly miserable during your first two years as an associate. Also, lateraling from NYC to SF isn't as easy as some seem to assume on here. You might have limited options if you go that route.

Lateraling is pretty easy from NYC to anywhere, including SF, but making it more than 2-3 years in biglaw and being okay with biglaw for a couple more years is what's hard.....I constantly get recruiter calls (like 10 times a day) for all markets.

lc39 wrote:

rpupkin wrote:

sesto elemento wrote:If your SO can provide COL then SLS, if not then I would say UC if it doesn't strain the relationship.
I'm assuming median at UC is the same as being median at Berkeley if you're looking at Norcal Biglaw.

I mean, if the funding is coming from a significant other, then it's the OP's money too. Unless, that is, this relationship isn't a long-term thing.

OP: As I see it, the real question here is whether SLS is worth 80K more than Berkeley. (There's no sense considering Chicago when you're 100% sure you want to work in Northern California.) I think it's a close call. SLS definitely gives you an advantage over Berkeley for most jobs, but it's only a slight advantage in the Bay Area.

If you go to SLS and end up at a big law firm in SF/SV that you would've gotten anyway, you'll be kicking yourself for giving up $80K. If, on the other hand, you finish near the bottom of your class at SLS, you'll be grateful for the extra bit of job security that the SLS name provides.

I don't know. I think I would probably go to Stanford if I were you, but it's really close.

It's a fairly long term relationship (4 years now) and he is more than willing to provide support for both of us once he gets a job. But I have to make a school decision before he graduates so while it's impossible to be 100% sure of having that financial support, I'm confident in his abilities!

Um, what's his field? Engineering or medicine? How much is he going to get paid? Does he have loans? If he's getting paid less than legit six figures, I don't see how it's reasonable to rely solely on him. That just doesn't seem fair, since apparently he doesn't have money either.

.

Congrats on the great options again LC, I think you gotta go berk/Stanford. Either one works just depends how you much you value the extra security from S

Mack.Hambleton wrote:Congrats on the great options again LC, I think you gotta go berk/Stanford. Either one works just depends how you much you value the extra security from S

+1

Stanford

bsdfree wrote:Agree with everything rpupkin said.

If my goal was SF/SV big law and I am below median, I would much, much rather be at SLS than Chicago.

I'll take this a step further. I'd much rather be median (or below) at Berkeley Law than the same rank at Chicago if my goal was NorCal. The less selective/less elite (but still market paying) firms in SF/SV will go to SLS and Berkeley OCI, but they won't go to Chicago's.

Berkeley C/O 2013 placed only 56% in 100+ firms and Fed Clerkships. Below median berk grads are struggling to find any biglaw let alone SF biglaw. Chicago C/O 2013 placed 73% in 100+ firms and fed clerkships. I couldnt imagine paying 50k more to go to a school that places 17% worse. Let's not forget, striking out is the worst case scenario and is much more likely from Berkeley than Chicago. LC has very strong ties to NorCal, with good grades from Chicago, she won't have trouble.

To me it comes down Stanford and Chicago. I'd pay 80k for Stanford over Berk because Stanford basically guarantees her biglaw.

Stanford costs 130k more, but it lets her stay in the bay area for LS, guarantees her biglaw, makes SF biglaw much more likely, and lets her not have to endure Chicago's winters. If that's worth 130k take Stanford.

WeeBey wrote: Berkeley C/O 2013 placed only 56% in 100+ firms and Fed Clerkships. Below median berk grads are struggling to find any biglaw let alone SF biglaw. Chicago C/O 2013 placed 73% in 100+ firms and fed clerkships. I couldnt imagine paying 50k more to go to a school that places 17% worse. Let's not forget, striking out is the worst case scenario and is much more likely from Berkeley than Chicago. LC has very strong ties to NorCal, with good grades from Chicago, she won't have trouble.

You can't just take overall big law placement and project it onto the Bay Area market, which can be parochial. San Francisco isn't LA.

Look, I won't go so far as to say that a median Boalt student is better off than a median Chicago student for SF/SV big law. But a median Boalt student is definitely not worse off. And if the OP does strike out at OCI at Boalt, her debt will be low enough that she can explore post-OCI mid-law or small-law options in the Bay Area. And for that kind of thing, Boalt is unquestionably better than UChi.

The problem with your advice is that you're treating the OP like she's unattached and willing to go wherever big law leads her--NYC, Chicago, wherever. But that's not the case. She's in a long-term relationship and wants to live and work in the Bay Area with her SO. And she'll have minimal debt coming out of Berkeley, so a lower-paying legal job wouldn't be catastrophic. For those reasons, Berkeley is a better choice than Chicago for OP.

But as I said earlier in this thread, I'm far less sure that Berkeley is a better choice than Stanford.

rpupkin wrote:

WeeBey wrote: Berkeley C/O 2013 placed only 56% in 100+ firms and Fed Clerkships. Below median berk grads are struggling to find any biglaw let alone SF biglaw. Chicago C/O 2013 placed 73% in 100+ firms and fed clerkships. I couldnt imagine paying 50k more to go to a school that places 17% worse. Let's not forget, striking out is the worst case scenario and is much more likely from Berkeley than Chicago. LC has very strong ties to NorCal, with good grades from Chicago, she won't have trouble.

You can't just take overall big law placement and project it onto the Bay Area market, which can be parochial. San Francisco isn't LA.

Look, I won't go so far as to say that a median Boalt student is better off than a median Chicago student for SF/SV big law. But a median Boalt student is definitely not worse off. And if the OP does strike out at OCI at Boalt, her debt will be low enough that she can explore post-OCI mid-law or small-law options in the Bay Area. And for that kind of thing, Boalt is unquestionably better than UChi.

The problem with your advice is that you're treating the OP like she's unattached and willing to go wherever big law leads her--NYC, Chicago, wherever. But that's not the case. She's in a long-term relationship and wants to live and work in the Bay Area with her SO. And she'll have minimal debt coming out of Berkeley, so a lower-paying legal job wouldn't be catastrophic. For those reasons, Berkeley is a better choice than Chicago for OP.

But as I said earlier in this thread, I'm far less sure that Berkeley is a better choice than Stanford.

Yea, so were not really disagreeing here. I said it is between Chicago and Stanford depending on how much she values staying in the bay area. Stanford IMO is worth 80k more than Berkeley. It makes her more likely to work in SF Biglaw and much more likely to not strike out if she falls below the curve.

Median at UChi with SF ties will have zero problems getting multiple offers in SF.

UChis placement for people with Cali ties targeting Cali is damn near 100% regardless of grades. That this is even a question and that people are seriously telling OP to take out 6 figures of debt for an equally good chance at their career plus better weather is extremely frustrating. Stop giving shitty advice based on nothing more than parroting other shitty advice.

Stanford is likely to be only 32K more than Chicago.

doesn't berkley match? Can you get them to give you the same scholarship you got from uchi?

2014 wrote:UChis placement for people with Cali ties targeting Cali is damn near 100% regardless of grades.

Because you're a shillbot joke/troll account it's hard to take this seriously. You're going to need to back up this claim. People on this site cannot just take you at your word.

Pumpkin's post seems to be spot on.