UCLA v. Stanford for LADA Forum

[powerpuff]

Hello everyone!

I know this has been asked before but not specifically for my situation. I am a UCLA UG, admitted to both UCLA and SLS. La's offering me a generous amount of $$, almost full, with no restrictions for the three years. SLS has been quiet up until now. I have strong ties to LA, want to work here, and am not interested in Big Law, Criminal Law is what's pulling me to LS, and would like to work in the public sector, ideally LADA. Moreover, I'm also super debt averse.

BUT, with that being said, I don't want to be the major L who misses out on Stanford, although I don't want to end up regretting not taking the money either.

So any sort of direction, information, suggestions, commentary, criticism, or concern would be welcome.

[mynameismyname]

Don't make a decision until you get financial aid from Stanford... You'll likely end up at Stanford in any scenario.

[fliptrip]

Don't get antsy. Did you get your stuff into SLS? Last year, I got everything in by the end of January and I heard back 2nd week of March.

[powerpuff]

Don't get antsy. Did you get your stuff into SLS? Last year, I got everything in by the end of January and I heard back 2nd week of March.

I did! And yeah, Dean Deal told me that it wouldn't be 'till the 15th of March or so since they're working out budgetary issues and such. Are you @ SLS now? If so, how are you liking it?

[twenty]

I have strong ties to LA, want to work here

and am not interested in Big Law, Criminal Law is what's pulling me to LS

and would like to work in the public sector.

Moreover, I'm also super debt averse.

UCLA is a no-brainer here.

[powerpuff]

I have strong ties to LA, want to work here

and am not interested in Big Law, Criminal Law is what's pulling me to LS

and would like to work in the public sector.

Moreover, I'm also super debt averse.

UCLA is a no-brainer here.

Thank you for replying! And do you really think so? Will I have the same opportunities @ gov or PI at UCLA that I would at Stanford?

[jbagelboy]

I have strong ties to LA, want to work here

and am not interested in Big Law, Criminal Law is what's pulling me to LS

and would like to work in the public sector.

Moreover, I'm also super debt averse.

UCLA is a no-brainer here.

Thank you for replying! And do you really think so? Will I have the same opportunities @ gov or PI at UCLA that I would at Stanford?

No, you won't, TBH. Especially in government, the two schools are quite different. For local PI, the distinction probably isn't notable, but it varies; PD offices in CA for example can be extremely competitive, and even SLS grads struggle to find work in desirable counties (meaning even more challenging for UCLA grads). Less debt will provide more flexibility in your career, especially in PI, but Stanford law would make it easier to find and get offers at any position that demands institutional signaling. You should also consult Stanford's LRAP.

[KiltedKicker]

I think if you just want to be a prosecutor or DA in LA you don't need to go to Stanford. If you're debt averse I'd advise against it given your interests and circumstances. If you want to do impact litigation working for someone like the ACLU, take the debt on at Stanford. If you're interested in working in hard to get positions in government, then Stanford helps as well. But if you're sure you want to do criminal work in the public sector (public defender or prosecutor), the UCLA degree will be plenty. No need to pay off a ton of debt if you'll end up in the same job with either degree, take the cheap one.

[powerpuff]

I think if you just want to be a prosecutor or DA in LA you don't need to go to Stanford. If you're debt averse I'd advise against it given your interests and circumstances. If you want to do impact litigation working for someone like the ACLU, take the debt on at Stanford. If you're interested in working in hard to get positions in government, then Stanford helps as well. But if you're sure you want to do criminal work in the public sector (public defender or prosecutor), the UCLA degree will be plenty. No need to pay off a ton of debt if you'll end up in the same job with either degree, take the cheap one.

I am not 100% sure, but Criminal Law is what has pulled me to law school in the first place so that's definitely what I want to do. Getting into the DA's office, though, is no easy feat so I'll need to mull this over some more. Thank you for replying!!

[twenty]

Thank you for replying! And do you really think so? Will I have the same opportunities @ gov or PI at UCLA that I would at Stanford?

I'm going to partly disagree with bagel on this (although not really because I think we're both saying the same thing?). You're not going to have the same opportunities from UCLA per se, but those opportunities are ones you don't care about anyway. The only offices I can think of that would give you bump for being a Stanford grad are DOJ, Manhattan, and SF. If you want to work for LA DA/PD, or even SB, Orange County, Riverside County, etc., they couldn't care less whether you go to UCLA or Stanford. Of course, after a couple years of work experience, even the three offices that would otherwise care aren't going to care.

Bagel is correct in that PD (and DA) offices in CA are extremely competitive. Los Angeles has, in recent years, had a 1-3% hiring selection rate. The thing is, your school name has absolutely nothing to do with getting your application to the peak of that pile - it's dedication and experience. A top 10% Stanford grad with law review and a federal clerkship lined up is less likely to get Los Angeles DA's office than a median Loyola grad with mock trial who worked both summers at the DA's office.

Stanford's LRAP is surprisingly bad for people who want to work in state government in CA for ten years. The flexibility is great for people who want to bail for the private sector, but if you want to work for DA/PD for ten years, do not count on SLS' LRAP. You'd be better off just doing wholesale IBR/PSLF, honestly. But furthermore, there's a strong likelihood that you'll have to volunteer at your PD/DA office you want to work in for a year before they can hire you - and the best LRAP is the one where your loans are minimal to non-existent.

[powerpuff]

Thank you for replying! And do you really think so? Will I have the same opportunities @ gov or PI at UCLA that I would at Stanford?

I'm going to partly disagree with bagel on this (although not really because I think we're both saying the same thing?). You're not going to have the same opportunities from UCLA per se, but those opportunities are ones you don't care about anyway. The only offices I can think of that would give you bump for being a Stanford grad are DOJ, Manhattan, and SF. If you want to work for LA DA/PD, or even SB, Orange County, Riverside County, etc., they couldn't care less whether you go to UCLA or Stanford. Of course, after a couple years of work experience, even the three offices that would otherwise care aren't going to care.

Bagel is correct in that PD (and DA) offices in CA are extremely competitive. Los Angeles has, in recent years, had a 1-3% hiring selection rate. The thing is, your school name has absolutely nothing to do with getting your application to the peak of that pile - it's dedication and experience. A top 10% Stanford grad with law review and a federal clerkship lined up is less likely to get Los Angeles DA's office than a median Loyola grad with mock trial who worked both summers at the DA's office.

Stanford's LRAP is surprisingly bad for people who want to work in state government in CA for ten years. The flexibility is great for people who want to bail for the private sector, but if you want to work for DA/PD for ten years, do not count on SLS' LRAP. You'd be better off just doing wholesale IBR/PSLF, honestly. But furthermore, there's a strong likelihood that you'll have to volunteer at your PD/DA office you want to work in for a year before they can hire you - and the best LRAP is the one where your loans are minimal to non-existent.

Thank you for the detailed info! And yes, I've heard experience is a must and that's a bit of the pull for me towards LA since I'll be right in the center of where I want to work, ideally, forever. So thanks!!!!

[abl]

Thank you for replying! And do you really think so? Will I have the same opportunities @ gov or PI at UCLA that I would at Stanford?

I'm going to partly disagree with bagel on this (although not really because I think we're both saying the same thing?). You're not going to have the same opportunities from UCLA per se, but those opportunities are ones you don't care about anyway. The only offices I can think of that would give you bump for being a Stanford grad are DOJ, Manhattan, and SF. If you want to work for LA DA/PD, or even SB, Orange County, Riverside County, etc., they couldn't care less whether you go to UCLA or Stanford. Of course, after a couple years of work experience, even the three offices that would otherwise care aren't going to care.

Bagel is correct in that PD (and DA) offices in CA are extremely competitive. Los Angeles has, in recent years, had a 1-3% hiring selection rate. The thing is, your school name has absolutely nothing to do with getting your application to the peak of that pile - it's dedication and experience. A top 10% Stanford grad with law review and a federal clerkship lined up is less likely to get Los Angeles DA's office than a median Loyola grad with mock trial who worked both summers at the DA's office.

Stanford's LRAP is surprisingly bad for people who want to work in state government in CA for ten years. The flexibility is great for people who want to bail for the private sector, but if you want to work for DA/PD for ten years, do not count on SLS' LRAP. You'd be better off just doing wholesale IBR/PSLF, honestly. But furthermore, there's a strong likelihood that you'll have to volunteer at your PD/DA office you want to work in for a year before they can hire you - and the best LRAP is the one where your loans are minimal to non-existent.

This is mostly incorrect.

[powerpuff]

Thank you for replying! And do you really think so? Will I have the same opportunities @ gov or PI at UCLA that I would at Stanford?

I'm going to partly disagree with bagel on this (although not really because I think we're both saying the same thing?). You're not going to have the same opportunities from UCLA per se, but those opportunities are ones you don't care about anyway. The only offices I can think of that would give you bump for being a Stanford grad are DOJ, Manhattan, and SF. If you want to work for LA DA/PD, or even SB, Orange County, Riverside County, etc., they couldn't care less whether you go to UCLA or Stanford. Of course, after a couple years of work experience, even the three offices that would otherwise care aren't going to care.

Bagel is correct in that PD (and DA) offices in CA are extremely competitive. Los Angeles has, in recent years, had a 1-3% hiring selection rate. The thing is, your school name has absolutely nothing to do with getting your application to the peak of that pile - it's dedication and experience. A top 10% Stanford grad with law review and a federal clerkship lined up is less likely to get Los Angeles DA's office than a median Loyola grad with mock trial who worked both summers at the DA's office.

Stanford's LRAP is surprisingly bad for people who want to work in state government in CA for ten years. The flexibility is great for people who want to bail for the private sector, but if you want to work for DA/PD for ten years, do not count on SLS' LRAP. You'd be better off just doing wholesale IBR/PSLF, honestly. But furthermore, there's a strong likelihood that you'll have to volunteer at your PD/DA office you want to work in for a year before they can hire you - and the best LRAP is the one where your loans are minimal to non-existent.

This is mostly incorrect.

Could you elaborate?

[jbagelboy]

Thank you for replying! And do you really think so? Will I have the same opportunities @ gov or PI at UCLA that I would at Stanford?

I'm going to partly disagree with bagel on this (although not really because I think we're both saying the same thing?). You're not going to have the same opportunities from UCLA per se, but those opportunities are ones you don't care about anyway. The only offices I can think of that would give you bump for being a Stanford grad are DOJ, Manhattan, and SF. If you want to work for LA DA/PD, or even SB, Orange County, Riverside County, etc., they couldn't care less whether you go to UCLA or Stanford. Of course, after a couple years of work experience, even the three offices that would otherwise care aren't going to care.

Bagel is correct in that PD (and DA) offices in CA are extremely competitive. Los Angeles has, in recent years, had a 1-3% hiring selection rate. The thing is, your school name has absolutely nothing to do with getting your application to the peak of that pile - it's dedication and experience. A top 10% Stanford grad with law review and a federal clerkship lined up is less likely to get Los Angeles DA's office than a median Loyola grad with mock trial who worked both summers at the DA's office.

Stanford's LRAP is surprisingly bad for people who want to work in state government in CA for ten years. The flexibility is great for people who want to bail for the private sector, but if you want to work for DA/PD for ten years, do not count on SLS' LRAP. You'd be better off just doing wholesale IBR/PSLF, honestly. But furthermore, there's a strong likelihood that you'll have to volunteer at your PD/DA office you want to work in for a year before they can hire you - and the best LRAP is the one where your loans are minimal to non-existent.

This is mostly incorrect.

Could you elaborate?

I don't want to speak for abl, but among other things,

1) california DA offices do recognize the distinction between a UCLA law student and a Stanford law student, so long as they both show substantial dedication to criminal law and public interest (if the SLS grad took a 2L SA, for example, they might weaken their application, but assuming similar profiles they would be looked on more favorably than UCLA). The elite school advantage doesn't just play out in major cities in this case.

2) School name alone might not mean much (abl will argue it does, I think thats part of it but its more complicated), but everything Stanford has to offer--which we can safely say includes the degree--does have something to do with ones application to a PD office. Stanford students have more opportunities to select their clinical and extracurricular interests and pursue them from an earlier point; they have much greater access to coveted district court clerkships with liberal judges coming out of the PD/advocacy system and who can place them directly into PD offices; they also have a stronger alumni network at the higher reaches of just about every level of California justice system and legal community. All of this makes a difference.

3) There's absolutely no way PLSF is superior to Stanford's LRAP for someone working as a district attorney, a public defender, or another state operative. Maybe abl can speak to more precise details but I can guarantee that is wrong, since the tax consequences and long-term solvency/credit consequences are very different for government sponsored repayment and institution-backed repayment.

This isn't to say "go to Stanford" so much as, lets not beat around the bush here: by going to UCLA, you're taking money in exchange for increased chance at certain opportunities and resources. The two schools are not the same, even for this.

[powerpuff]

Thank you for replying! And do you really think so? Will I have the same opportunities @ gov or PI at UCLA that I would at Stanford?

I'm going to partly disagree with bagel on this (although not really because I think we're both saying the same thing?). You're not going to have the same opportunities from UCLA per se, but those opportunities are ones you don't care about anyway. The only offices I can think of that would give you bump for being a Stanford grad are DOJ, Manhattan, and SF. If you want to work for LA DA/PD, or even SB, Orange County, Riverside County, etc., they couldn't care less whether you go to UCLA or Stanford. Of course, after a couple years of work experience, even the three offices that would otherwise care aren't going to care.

Bagel is correct in that PD (and DA) offices in CA are extremely competitive. Los Angeles has, in recent years, had a 1-3% hiring selection rate. The thing is, your school name has absolutely nothing to do with getting your application to the peak of that pile - it's dedication and experience. A top 10% Stanford grad with law review and a federal clerkship lined up is less likely to get Los Angeles DA's office than a median Loyola grad with mock trial who worked both summers at the DA's office.

Stanford's LRAP is surprisingly bad for people who want to work in state government in CA for ten years. The flexibility is great for people who want to bail for the private sector, but if you want to work for DA/PD for ten years, do not count on SLS' LRAP. You'd be better off just doing wholesale IBR/PSLF, honestly. But furthermore, there's a strong likelihood that you'll have to volunteer at your PD/DA office you want to work in for a year before they can hire you - and the best LRAP is the one where your loans are minimal to non-existent.

This is mostly incorrect.

Could you elaborate?

I don't want to speak for abl, but among other things,

1) california DA offices do recognize the distinction between a UCLA law student and a Stanford law student, so long as they both show substantial dedication to criminal law and public interest (if the SLS grad took a 2L SA, for example, they might weaken their application, but assuming similar profiles they would be looked on more favorably than UCLA). The elite school advantage doesn't just play out in major cities in this case.

2) School name alone might not mean much (abl will argue it does, I think thats part of it but its more complicated), but everything Stanford has to offer--which we can safely say includes the degree--does have something to do with ones application to a PD office. Stanford students have more opportunities to select their clinical and extracurricular interests and pursue them from an earlier point; they have much greater access to coveted district court clerkships with liberal judges coming out of the PD/advocacy system and who can place them directly into PD offices; they also have a stronger alumni network at the higher reaches of just about every level of California justice system and legal community. All of this makes a difference.

3) There's absolutely no way PLSF is superior to Stanford's LRAP for someone working as a district attorney, a public defender, or another state operative. Maybe abl can speak to more precise details but I can guarantee that is wrong, since the tax consequences and long-term solvency/credit consequences are very different for government sponsored repayment and institution-backed repayment.

This isn't to say "go to Stanford" so much as, lets not beat around the bush here: by going to UCLA, you're taking money in exchange for increased chance at certain opportunities and resources. The two schools are not the same, even for this.

Got it. Thanks a lot for the detail, I'm just going to wait for the SLS fin aid package and see what they offer me.

[twenty]

This isn't to say "go to Stanford" so much as, lets not beat around the bush here: by going to UCLA, you're taking money in exchange for increased chance at certain opportunities and resources. The two schools are not the same, even for this.

There's a lot of misinformation here. It seems borderline dishonest to say that a "2L SA might weaken your application" when in reality that's going to pretty much torpedo your chances no matter where you went to school. It also seems pretty dishonest to just assume that both candidates will have similar profiles when there's simply no way a SLS student can work for LA DA's office during the 2L and 3L school years. If OP wanted to go to a NorCal DA/PD office, then there'd be a much stronger case to be made here.

2) School name alone might not mean much (abl will argue it does, I think thats part of it but its more complicated), but everything Stanford has to offer--which we can safely say includes the degree--does have something to do with ones application to a PD office. Stanford students have more opportunities to select their clinical and extracurricular interests and pursue them from an earlier point; they have much greater access to coveted district court clerkships with liberal judges coming out of the PD/advocacy system and who can place them directly into PD offices; they also have a stronger alumni network at the higher reaches of just about every level of California justice system and legal community. All of this makes a difference.

It's simply untrue to say that someone who resides in Northern California is going to have the same level of access to LA DA than someone who lives in Los Angeles will. But also, why on earth would you gun for a federal clerkship with the hope of getting into PD's office as opposed to just... you know, gunning for PD's office?

3) There's absolutely no way PLSF is superior to Stanford's LRAP for someone working as a district attorney, a public defender, or another state operative. Maybe abl can speak to more precise details but I can guarantee that is wrong, since the tax consequences and long-term solvency/credit consequences are very different for government sponsored repayment and institution-backed repayment.

Nah.

https://www-cdn.law.stanford.edu/wp-con ... erms-1.pdf

http://cao.lacounty.gov/pdf/alpha.pdf <- see Deputy District Attorney I ...keeping in mind that you'll be a IV in three years.

Stanford LRAP:

For graduates whose adjusted incomes will exceed $ 80 ,000 , LRAP will provide a loan covering the need - based monthly payments for the year less a base contribution of $ 9,750 plus 60% of the income over $ 80,000 .

So if a DDA II makes 84k a year (where you'd be after a year with the DA's office), you have your base contribution of $9,750 plus an additional $2,400 for a total of $12,150/year. Monthly payment on PAYE/REPAYE is $553 at 84k/year salary, which puts you at $6,636/year. So yeah, if you're going to be at DA's office for more than just a year or two, straight PAYE to PSLF is going to beat SLS' LRAP every time.

[powerpuff]

This isn't to say "go to Stanford" so much as, lets not beat around the bush here: by going to UCLA, you're taking money in exchange for increased chance at certain opportunities and resources. The two schools are not the same, even for this.

There's a lot of misinformation here. It seems borderline dishonest to say that a "2L SA might weaken your application" when in reality that's going to pretty much torpedo your chances no matter where you went to school. It also seems pretty dishonest to just assume that both candidates will have similar profiles when there's simply no way a SLS student can work for LA DA's office during the 2L and 3L school years. If OP wanted to go to a NorCal DA/PD office, then there'd be a much stronger case to be made here.

2) School name alone might not mean much (abl will argue it does, I think thats part of it but its more complicated), but everything Stanford has to offer--which we can safely say includes the degree--does have something to do with ones application to a PD office. Stanford students have more opportunities to select their clinical and extracurricular interests and pursue them from an earlier point; they have much greater access to coveted district court clerkships with liberal judges coming out of the PD/advocacy system and who can place them directly into PD offices; they also have a stronger alumni network at the higher reaches of just about every level of California justice system and legal community. All of this makes a difference.

It's simply untrue to say that someone who resides in Northern California is going to have the same level of access to LA DA than someone who lives in Los Angeles will. But also, why on earth would you gun for a federal clerkship with the hope of getting into PD's office as opposed to just... you know, gunning for PD's office?

3) There's absolutely no way PLSF is superior to Stanford's LRAP for someone working as a district attorney, a public defender, or another state operative. Maybe abl can speak to more precise details but I can guarantee that is wrong, since the tax consequences and long-term solvency/credit consequences are very different for government sponsored repayment and institution-backed repayment.

Nah.

https://www-cdn.law.stanford.edu/wp-con ... erms-1.pdf

http://cao.lacounty.gov/pdf/alpha.pdf <- see Deputy District Attorney I ...keeping in mind that you'll be a IV in three years.

Stanford LRAP:

For graduates whose adjusted incomes will exceed $ 80 ,000 , LRAP will provide a loan covering the need - based monthly payments for the year less a base contribution of $ 9,750 plus 60% of the income over $ 80,000 .

So if a DDA II makes 84k a year (where you'd be after a year with the DA's office), you have your base contribution of $9,750 plus an additional $2,400 for a total of $12,150/year. Monthly payment on PAYE/REPAYE is $553 at 84k/year salary, which puts you at $6,636/year. So yeah, if you're going to be at DA's office for more than just a year or two, straight PAYE to PSLF is going to beat SLS' LRAP every time.

Thank you soo much for your reply. I hold the exact same reasons you pointed out as to why I'm leaning a bit more towards LA than SLS -- I'll have access to the DA's office here where the Bay area will offer me different connections. I know that SLS has national reach, but that's a reach I don't necessarily care for. Being able to graduate from UCLA with minimal debt while gunning for top 10 & DA's office excites me so much more than any academic perks that SLS might offer.

[A. Nony Mouse]

Speaking generally, twenty's arguments are more consistent with my understanding of how DA hiring works. I don't know the LA market specifically so there may be something there that bucks the general trends, of course. (Also not sure why jbagel is talking about federal judges placing people into the PD system when the OP is asking about DA hiring.)

[powerpuff]

Speaking generally, twenty's arguments are more consistent with my understanding of how DA hiring works. I don't know the LA market specifically so there may be something there that bucks the general trends, of course. (Also not sure why jbagel is talking about federal judges placing people into the PD system when the OP is asking about DA hiring.)

I might actually be interested in PD, I'm not set on which side of the coin I'd want to flip on, but I've always assumed it's the same deal either way. On TLS, I've heard current PD's attest to the importance of relevant experience over prestige (even moot court).

Thanks for you reply!

[abl]

jdbagelboy is pretty on the money.

This isn't to say "go to Stanford" so much as, lets not beat around the bush here: by going to UCLA, you're taking money in exchange for increased chance at certain opportunities and resources. The two schools are not the same, even for this.

There's a lot of misinformation here. It seems borderline dishonest to say that a "2L SA might weaken your application" when in reality that's going to pretty much torpedo your chances no matter where you went to school. It also seems pretty dishonest to just assume that both candidates will have similar profiles when there's simply no way a SLS student can work for LA DA's office during the 2L and 3L school years. If OP wanted to go to a NorCal DA/PD office, then there'd be a much stronger case to be made here.

No it won't. "Weaken" is the most accurate word. Also, the value of working for a competitive major DA's office during the school year is relatively significantly less than the value of working for your average DA's office. That's not to say that it's unhelpful -- but offices like the LA DA's office are going to hire much more based on credentials than your average DA's office. (And yes, if you haven't done much relevant at Stanford for a DA's office, you're probably not getting hired by the LA DA's office. But if you've done the criminal defense clinic and taken advantage of many of the relevant opportunities at Stanford, you're going to have a good shot.)

2) School name alone might not mean much (abl will argue it does, I think thats part of it but its more complicated), but everything Stanford has to offer--which we can safely say includes the degree--does have something to do with ones application to a PD office. Stanford students have more opportunities to select their clinical and extracurricular interests and pursue them from an earlier point; they have much greater access to coveted district court clerkships with liberal judges coming out of the PD/advocacy system and who can place them directly into PD offices; they also have a stronger alumni network at the higher reaches of just about every level of California justice system and legal community. All of this makes a difference.

It's simply untrue to say that someone who resides in Northern California is going to have the same level of access to LA DA than someone who lives in Los Angeles will. But also, why on earth would you gun for a federal clerkship with the hope of getting into PD's office as opposed to just... you know, gunning for PD's office?

These positions are competitive enough that things like federal clerkships (esp. w/ "true believers" like Judge Paez) do matter. It's misleading to imply that all that matters for an LA DA position is demonstrating your commitment more than others. It's going to be a combination of demonstrating that you are committed to this stuff and showing that you're a killer lawyer.

3) There's absolutely no way PLSF is superior to Stanford's LRAP for someone working as a district attorney, a public defender, or another state operative. Maybe abl can speak to more precise details but I can guarantee that is wrong, since the tax consequences and long-term solvency/credit consequences are very different for government sponsored repayment and institution-backed repayment.

Nah.

https://www-cdn.law.stanford.edu/wp-con ... erms-1.pdf

http://cao.lacounty.gov/pdf/alpha.pdf <- see Deputy District Attorney I ...keeping in mind that you'll be a IV in three years.

Stanford LRAP:

For graduates whose adjusted incomes will exceed $ 80 ,000 , LRAP will provide a loan covering the need - based monthly payments for the year less a base contribution of $ 9,750 plus 60% of the income over $ 80,000 .

So if a DDA II makes 84k a year (where you'd be after a year with the DA's office), you have your base contribution of $9,750 plus an additional $2,400 for a total of $12,150/year. Monthly payment on PAYE/REPAYE is $553 at 84k/year salary, which puts you at $6,636/year. So yeah, if you're going to be at DA's office for more than just a year or two, straight PAYE to PSLF is going to beat SLS' LRAP every time.

[/quote]

I think Stanford adjusts your income down by $1,000/year you're on the program, which I don't think you're taking into account. Also, Stanford doesn't require a 10-year commitment to get forgiveness--so after one year in the program, 1/10 of your loans will be repaid, after two years, 2/10 will, etc (does UCLA? I don't know). Also, I don't think that getting Stanford's LRAP precludes you from also being on PAYE (but I might be wrong about that).

The question is how these two compare. Unless I'm missing something, have you actually described UCLA's loan assistance program?

[KiltedKicker]

Would it make sense to reach out to a DA's office in SoCal to ask their thoughts? I imagine if you can get to the right person they'd probably give you honest feedback

[adelllla]

I agree with the poster who says contact the offices; you might get some insight. I'm in a similar boat, I have a considerable scholarship from UCLA and waiting on Stanford's fin aid. I think most people underestimate the reach LA has in the local region. I personally don't think you can go wrong either way, but make sure you negotiate and visit schools before you commit. You might end up leaning one way from visiting Stanford alone.

[bruinfan10]

I think the biggest feeder school for LA DA is Southwestern. So that should tell you a lot. Avoid the debt, go to UCLA. Unless Deal coughs up a TON of money, and if she doesn't, still hardball Schwartz hard to increase your scholly given the SLS acceptance.

I'd play it out as long as possible so he starts sweating---he's kind of a used car salesman negotiator---I know for a fact that he's increased scholarship offers AFTER students have sent him a decline letter saying they're going elsewhere. I wouldn't used that as a negotiating strategy---too risky---but it tells you a lot about how Schwartz operates.

[L’Étranger]

I have strong ties to LA, want to work here

and am not interested in Big Law, Criminal Law is what's pulling me to LS

and would like to work in the public sector.

Moreover, I'm also super debt averse.

UCLA is a no-brainer here.

Thank you for replying! And do you really think so? Will I have the same opportunities @ gov or PI at UCLA that I would at Stanford?

No, you won't, TBH. Especially in government, the two schools are quite different. For local PI, the distinction probably isn't notable, but it varies; PD offices in CA for example can be extremely competitive, and even SLS grads struggle to find work in desirable counties (meaning even more challenging for UCLA grads). Less debt will provide more flexibility in your career, especially in PI, but Stanford law would make it easier to find and get offers at any position that demands institutional signaling. You should also consult Stanford's LRAP.

Are we talking PD or DA?

PD in CA seems actually harder to get than biglaw (which is insane but...)

DA seems much less hard.

[powerpuff]

I have strong ties to LA, want to work here

and am not interested in Big Law, Criminal Law is what's pulling me to LS

and would like to work in the public sector.

Moreover, I'm also super debt averse.

UCLA is a no-brainer here.

Thank you for replying! And do you really think so? Will I have the same opportunities @ gov or PI at UCLA that I would at Stanford?

No, you won't, TBH. Especially in government, the two schools are quite different. For local PI, the distinction probably isn't notable, but it varies; PD offices in CA for example can be extremely competitive, and even SLS grads struggle to find work in desirable counties (meaning even more challenging for UCLA grads). Less debt will provide more flexibility in your career, especially in PI, but Stanford law would make it easier to find and get offers at any position that demands institutional signaling. You should also consult Stanford's LRAP.

Are we talking PD or DA?

PD in CA seems actually harder to get than biglaw (which is insane but...)

DA seems much less hard.

I'm not 100% set yet. I've always wanted PD but the job comes with realities that I don't know if I'd be able to handle. Why would one be more difficult than the other? I'd assume DA is harder to land than PD. LA's a tough market either way, though. That's why I feel like staying close would be the best option for me.