UCLA ($) vs. USC ($$) Forum

[Lextor]

Hey everyone, I am looking at a decision between UCLA ($78k total, $26k per year) and USC ($68k, $23k per year). These figures are the full cost of attendance, accounting for tuition increases and living expenses. I have been leaning towards UCLA, but USC came back with a large offer, and after negotiating with UCLA I was able to increase my award but not enough to make the costs equal. I am hestitating because I do not know if UCLA is worth $10k ($3.33k per year) more than USC. I know this topic has been posted countless times and I may be beating a dead horse here, but I really appreciate any feedback. Thank you all!

EDIT: I left out a few important details. I plan on working in Los Angeles after graduation. I have ties to the area and I do not plan on leaving in the near future at all. I would also like to work in private practice.

[still]

ucla might be more than $10k more expensive than usc if you consider housing

ucla is in one of the best parts of la and sc is in one of the worst and this is reflected in the housing rates

imo i would go ucla but this is coming from a biased double bruin (current 1L at ucla).

also while the employment numbers look pretty similar, keep in mind usc has a notoriously high school-funded rate. iirc usc isnt even ranked top 50 by atl but wtv

[Lextor]

ucla might be more than $10k more expensive than usc if you consider housing

ucla is in one of the best parts of la and sc is in one of the worst and this is reflected in the housing rates

imo i would go ucla but this is coming from a biased double bruin (current 1L at ucla).

also while the employment numbers look pretty similar, keep in mind usc has a notoriously high school-funded rate. iirc usc isnt even ranked top 50 by atl but wtv

Thanks for your feedback, I was forgetting about checking the school-funded rate. It looks like USC and UCLA had the same number of students in school-funded jobs, despite UCLA having significantly more students.

Also, to the first point, those numbers are with housing costs included for what it is worth (I will not be paying for housing while in law school).

[krads153]

I think UCLA has slightly better job prospects, and the cost difference isn't that big, so I'd probably go to UCLA.

Also, just from a Californian POV, UCLA has a better overall institutional rep than USC.

[fliptrip]

I voted UCLA, but that has more to do with softer factors I have to admit. I would much rather go to school in Westwood than whatever they call South Central these days. Also, the better reputation helps too.

I don't think you'd be wrong going USC, though.

[Tiago Splitter]

Also from a Californian perspective I'd say USC is seen as being just as strong as UCLA. Either way I think they are peers at the law school level and you should choose whichever is more convenient.

[Lextor]

Thanks for the responses everyone. Is there anyone who feels strongly that spending the extra money for UCLA is a bad/unwise idea? Or does personal preference really just decide it here (as opposed to if say UCLA were 100k more, which I imagine nearly everyone would say is certainly not be worth it for more objective reasons).

[Glasseyes]

You could make a case for either school, so in some way it may just come down to which you prefer; and if that preference is going to cost you $10k a year (remember: 30k total is not a small amount of money), you just need to decide if it's worth it to YOU.

They have a roughly equivalent standing in LA, and outside the city UCLA probably has a slight edge, but just barely. Everyone knows UCLA is ranked higher and might be slightly, slightly harder to get into, but these are still very much peer schools. Things to consider: UCLA has a much larger incoming class, whereas USC's class size is relatively tiny. Neither size is "better", but you might prefer one over the other. UCLA places a bit more emphasis on public interest programs (at least outwardly) than USC, whereas USC likes to brag about its close ties to the business community and the brand power of its Trojan network. Both are probably meaningless when directly compared, and they're almost certainly a wash when it comes to employment opportunities in LA. So far as I can tell, their biglaw numbers flip year by year, and they're always close.

Personally, I'd visit both schools; you may like the vibe better at one over the other. While personal impressions are generally a terrible way to make a decision that should really boil down to overall cost balanced with employment stats, when the schools are direct peers like these two, choosing the school you liked better is a valid tiebreaker.

[Lextor]

You could make a case for either school, so in some way it may just come down to which you prefer; and if that preference is going to cost you $10k a year (remember: 30k total is not a small amount of money), you just need to decide if it's worth it to YOU.

They have a roughly equivalent standing in LA, and outside the city UCLA probably has a slight edge, but just barely. Everyone knows UCLA is ranked higher and might be slightly, slightly harder to get into, but these are still very much peer schools. Things to consider: UCLA has a much larger incoming class, whereas USC's class size is relatively tiny. Neither size is "better", but you might prefer one over the other. UCLA places a bit more emphasis on public interest programs (at least outwardly) than USC, whereas USC likes to brag about its close ties to the business community and the brand power of its Trojan network. Both are probably meaningless when directly compared, and they're almost certainly a wash when it comes to employment opportunities in LA. So far as I can tell, their biglaw numbers flip year by year, and they're always close.

Personally, I'd visit both schools; you may like the vibe better at one over the other. While personal impressions are generally a terrible way to make a decision that should really boil down to overall cost balanced with employment stats, when the schools are direct peers like these two, choosing the school you liked better is a valid tiebreaker.

Thanks for that, I'm thinking along those lines too. And the cost is $10k more total ($3.3k per year) so the difference is not even that large.

[cron1834]

UCLA is a little better, but USC is slightly cheaper here. Whichever your gut prefers is defensible, imo.

[zot1]

UCLA.

[SemiReverseSplinter]

If you want to do private practice, and that includes big law, they are identical for outcomes. Don't go to UCLA b/c they are two spots above in the rankings. I would agree that the location of the two schools should be a significant factor in your decision and that the price of housing near UCLA will make its COA significantly more. The softs should command here.

[Holodigm]

Cost difference is negligible, don't focus on that. If I were in your situation, I would go with whichever school I felt I would be more comfortable in. I assume you've visited both campuses right? Which one "spoke" to you?

My personal opinion: I've visited both campuses twice, and both are great. To me UCLA would be the smarter choice, but I fell in love with everything at USC - the environment and atmosphere just seemed too good to be true. All things being equal, I would do USC. But again, that's because it spoke to me.

As the cool kids say, you do you.

[Person1111]

I work in LA biglaw, and I (and most of my co-workers) view these schools as fungible. You should pick whatever school you like more. They are in enormously different locations and have enormously different vibes. (I agree that UCLA's location is more expensive, but the luxury buildings downtown--where many USC students seem to live--are not that much cheaper than housing in Westwood.)