Is Berkeley worth $50K more than UCLA? Forum

[larsy91]

I am 100% certain I want LA Biglaw and to stay in LA for a very long time (won't say forever since I know plans can always change). I have lived in other major cities and am sure of this fact.

My COA is stated below:
UCLA: 75K
Berkeley: 125K

I don't want any unicorn positions and not very interested in clerkships/academia. I am leaning towards UCLA at this point, hoping to do well and secure a biglaw job (3 year WE), and live happily ever after in LA. Please let me know what you think - I NEED HELP!

[t-14orbust]

I think 50k is worth the adaditional biglaw security

[Goldchain]

Yes.

[L’Étranger]

Unequivocally, yes.

Much improved chances to get to LA biglaw from B with relatively (in the scheme of things) little extra cost.

[Good Guy Gaud]

Yes.

[Draconem]

Yes.

[ModelPenalChoade]

I don't think so. I'm at UCLA and was able to land the biglaw SA position I was shooting for.

Think of it this way. If you land big law at both, you'll get paid the same. You will not get paid more by graduating from Berkeley. So the only question is what increase in probability (of getting big law) will you have at Berkeley, versus at UCLA.

If you think the probability of getting biglaw at Berkeley is 75%, but at UCLA is say, only 50%, then that probability differential is not worth it. Your expected value = the difference in probabilities, times the expected compensation. So if you earn $160,000 graduating from either school, then the value difference from going to Berkeley is worth (.25) x (160,000) = $40,000. But that is pre-tax, and your difference in COL is after-tax. So to make it apples-to-apples cut your $40k in half (40% top federal rate, and 12% CA state income tax rate). So now your expected value is only $20k, which is well less than the $50k you save at UCLA. Go Bruins.

You can play around with the probabilities, but my guess is the difference in probability at getting biglaw from UCLA vs. at Berkeley, is well less than the added cost in living you incur living in the bay area. You might be able to find the actual statistics either online, or by calling career services at both schools. I don't know what the actual figures are.

Also worth keeping in mind that you'll have a better chance networking with the LA offices, by actually living in LA while in school.

[rpupkin]

Yes.

[larsy91]

I don't think so. I'm at UCLA and was able to land the biglaw SA position I was shooting for.

Think of it this way. If you land big law at both, you'll get paid the same. You will not get paid more by graduating from Berkeley. So the only question is what increase in probability (of getting big law) will you have at Berkeley, versus at UCLA.

If you think the probability of getting biglaw at Berkeley is 75%, but at UCLA is say, only 50%, then that probability differential is not worth it. Your expected value = the difference in probabilities, times the expected compensation. So if you earn $160,000 graduating from either school, then the value difference from going to Berkeley is worth (.25) x (160,000) = $40,000. But that is pre-tax, and your difference in COL is after-tax. So to make it apples-to-apples cut your $40k in half (40% top federal rate, and 12% CA state income tax rate). So now your expected value is only $20k, which is well less than the $50k you save at UCLA. Go Bruins.

You can play around with the probabilities, but my guess is the difference in probability at getting biglaw from UCLA vs. at Berkeley, is well less than the added cost in living you incur living in the bay area. You might be able to find the actual statistics either online, or by calling career services at both schools. I don't know what the actual figures are.

Also worth keeping in mind that you'll have a better chance networking with the LA offices, by actually living in LA while in school.

My instincts have led me down this exact path and calculation.... but the resounding answer besides you is that I should go to Berkeley. SIGH STILL CONFUSED

[jbagelboy]

Yes

[jbagelboy]

I don't think so. I'm at UCLA and was able to land the biglaw SA position I was shooting for.

Think of it this way. If you land big law at both, you'll get paid the same. You will not get paid more by graduating from Berkeley. So the only question is what increase in probability (of getting big law) will you have at Berkeley, versus at UCLA.

If you think the probability of getting biglaw at Berkeley is 75%, but at UCLA is say, only 50%, then that probability differential is not worth it. Your expected value = the difference in probabilities, times the expected compensation. So if you earn $160,000 graduating from either school, then the value difference from going to Berkeley is worth (.25) x (160,000) = $40,000. But that is pre-tax, and your difference in COL is after-tax. So to make it apples-to-apples cut your $40k in half (40% top federal rate, and 12% CA state income tax rate). So now your expected value is only $20k, which is well less than the $50k you save at UCLA. Go Bruins.

You can play around with the probabilities, but my guess is the difference in probability at getting biglaw from UCLA vs. at Berkeley, is well less than the added cost in living you incur living in the bay area. You might be able to find the actual statistics either online, or by calling career services at both schools. I don't know what the actual figures are.

Also worth keeping in mind that you'll have a better chance networking with the LA offices, by actually living in LA while in school.

This is totally wrong. Your expected value calculation is completely meaningless unless you assume everyone only works in biglaw for one year and that post-biglaw career options are equivalent in compensation to biglaw ones. The difference between landing a large firm job out of law school and not landing one isn't $160,000. It's probably valued in the millions when you consider both the years of increasing salary and bonus (175k+185k+210k+... - non-biglaw alternatives for the # of years until 50% attrition rate) and the added value of the superior exit options from a large firm in the private sector for the rest of your career.

[rpupkin]

My instincts have led me down this exact path and calculation.... but the resounding answer besides you is that I should go to Berkeley. SIGH STILL CONFUSED

Berkeley gives you a substantially better shot at LA big law than UCLA. Is it possible that you'll get big law out of UCLA? Of course. Is it possible you'll strike out of big law if you go to Berkeley? Yep. But, based on the judgment of most of the posters in this thread, the improved chance at landing big law out of Berkeley is worth an extra 50K. If it's not worth $50K to you, then go to UCLA. Not sure what you're so confused about.

[Paul Campos]

I don't think so. I'm at UCLA and was able to land the biglaw SA position I was shooting for.

Think of it this way. If you land big law at both, you'll get paid the same. You will not get paid more by graduating from Berkeley. So the only question is what increase in probability (of getting big law) will you have at Berkeley, versus at UCLA.

If you think the probability of getting biglaw at Berkeley is 75%, but at UCLA is say, only 50%, then that probability differential is not worth it. Your expected value = the difference in probabilities, times the expected compensation. So if you earn $160,000 graduating from either school, then the value difference from going to Berkeley is worth (.25) x (160,000) = $40,000. But that is pre-tax, and your difference in COL is after-tax. So to make it apples-to-apples cut your $40k in half (40% top federal rate, and 12% CA state income tax rate). So now your expected value is only $20k, which is well less than the $50k you save at UCLA. Go Bruins.

You can play around with the probabilities, but my guess is the difference in probability at getting biglaw from UCLA vs. at Berkeley, is well less than the added cost in living you incur living in the bay area. You might be able to find the actual statistics either online, or by calling career services at both schools. I don't know what the actual figures are.

Also worth keeping in mind that you'll have a better chance networking with the LA offices, by actually living in LA while in school.

This calculation makes sense if you're planning to have a one-year legal career.

Also, marginal tax rates aren't effective tax rates, although this is a minor point relative to the first one.

[bruinfan10]

Yes no q's asked. Would have taken Boalt in your situation in a heartbeat.

[arisboddle]

I don't think so. I'm at UCLA and was able to land the biglaw SA position I was shooting for.

Think of it this way. If you land big law at both, you'll get paid the same. You will not get paid more by graduating from Berkeley. So the only question is what increase in probability (of getting big law) will you have at Berkeley, versus at UCLA.

If you think the probability of getting biglaw at Berkeley is 75%, but at UCLA is say, only 50%, then that probability differential is not worth it. Your expected value = the difference in probabilities, times the expected compensation. So if you earn $160,000 graduating from either school, then the value difference from going to Berkeley is worth (.25) x (160,000) = $40,000. But that is pre-tax, and your difference in COL is after-tax. So to make it apples-to-apples cut your $40k in half (40% top federal rate, and 12% CA state income tax rate). So now your expected value is only $20k, which is well less than the $50k you save at UCLA. Go Bruins.

You can play around with the probabilities, but my guess is the difference in probability at getting biglaw from UCLA vs. at Berkeley, is well less than the added cost in living you incur living in the bay area. You might be able to find the actual statistics either online, or by calling career services at both schools. I don't know what the actual figures are.

Also worth keeping in mind that you'll have a better chance networking with the LA offices, by actually living in LA while in school.

i guess this is the value of a UCLA education....

Here's where you went wrong:

1. Assuming your premises that UCLA biglaw odds are 50% and Berk big law odds are 75% means that you are 150% (!) as likely to get big law from berk. Just subtracting .5 from .75 doesn't work.

2. Why did you only include one year of salary? The real analysis is the lifetime differential between starting with a biglaw salary($160,000) and starting with a non-big law salary ($100,000, generously), which is way more than $160,000 after just 3 years of big law....

Berk is the way to go, brother.

[22191313]

I don't think so. I'm at UCLA and was able to land the biglaw SA position I was shooting for.

Think of it this way. If you land big law at both, you'll get paid the same. You will not get paid more by graduating from Berkeley. So the only question is what increase in probability (of getting big law) will you have at Berkeley, versus at UCLA.

If you think the probability of getting biglaw at Berkeley is 75%, but at UCLA is say, only 50%, then that probability differential is not worth it. Your expected value = the difference in probabilities, times the expected compensation. So if you earn $160,000 graduating from either school, then the value difference from going to Berkeley is worth (.25) x (160,000) = $40,000. But that is pre-tax, and your difference in COL is after-tax. So to make it apples-to-apples cut your $40k in half (40% top federal rate, and 12% CA state income tax rate). So now your expected value is only $20k, which is well less than the $50k you save at UCLA. Go Bruins.

You can play around with the probabilities, but my guess is the difference in probability at getting biglaw from UCLA vs. at Berkeley, is well less than the added cost in living you incur living in the bay area. You might be able to find the actual statistics either online, or by calling career services at both schools. I don't know what the actual figures are.

Also worth keeping in mind that you'll have a better chance networking with the LA offices, by actually living in LA while in school.

My instincts have led me down this exact path and calculation.... but the resounding answer besides you is that I should go to Berkeley. SIGH STILL CONFUSED

For what it's worth, I had an almost identical situation and I dropped Berkeley. I had the same rationale that the marginal increase wasn't worth the money. If anything, Westwood is LA so much better networking ops and chance to hustle a good situation if at UCLA.

I'm down to UChicago vs UCLA now.

[cron1834]

LOL @ that 1-year calculation above. WTF? Stop giving advice if you can't do 8th-grade math problems.

[SplitMyPants]

hoping to do well and secure a biglaw job

A difference amounting to your third-year bonus is a small price to pay to hedge against the uncertainty that is law school exam grading...

I'd choose Cal a millions times over.

[Danger Zone]

LOL @ that 1-year calculation above. WTF? Stop giving advice if you can't do 8th-grade math problems.

I enjoyed how he came in all condescendingly like "I bet these fuckers have never taken a 100 level economics course."

Congrats, ya played yourself

[cron1834]

^

[rpupkin]

For what it's worth, I had an almost identical situation and I dropped Berkeley. I had the same rationale that the marginal increase wasn't worth the money. If anything, Westwood is LA so much better networking ops and chance to hustle a good situation if at UCLA.

I'm down to UChicago vs UCLA now.

Wait...you want CA big law and you dropped Berkeley but kept Chicago? (Nothing wrong with Chicago, but your logic is head-scratching.)

[zot1]

i guess this is the value of a UCLA education....

Hey now. He's going to UCLA for law, not math.

[bruinfan10]

OP, i figure i'll throw you a bone, although it's your career/money to light on fire or not: the people in this thread recommending you take berkeley are by and large attorneys who did well at this process. the people recommending ucla are by and large idiots 0Ls.

p.s. i would've killed to get boalt at that COA. congratulations! also, for what it's worth, old schwartzy over at ucla tried to get me with a full ride. turned him down for a good scholarship to a t14 and it worked out great.

[larsy91]

OP, i figure i'll throw you a bone, although it's your career/money to light on fire or not: the people in this thread recommending you take berkeley are by and large attorneys who did well at this process. the people recommending ucla are by and large idiots 0Ls.

p.s. i would've killed to get boalt at that COA. congratulations! also, for what it's worth, old schwartzy over at ucla tried to get me with a full ride. turned him down for a good scholarship to a t14 and it worked out great.

Yeah... the COA is taking into account outside scholarships and my savings (which I'm deeming a scholarship to myself since the point of taking time off was to be able to save money). Berkeley gave me NOTHING at all.

I understand the importance of the pedigree and all the points made above. $50K is just one more year of indentured servitude.

I tried getting more money at UCLA & was shot down.

Thanks everyone for your thoughts. I really appreciate the advice and will likely end up at Boalt!

[22191313]

For what it's worth, I had an almost identical situation and I dropped Berkeley. I had the same rationale that the marginal increase wasn't worth the money. If anything, Westwood is LA so much better networking ops and chance to hustle a good situation if at UCLA.

I'm down to UChicago vs UCLA now.

Wait...you want CA big law and you dropped Berkeley but kept Chicago? (Nothing wrong with Chicago, but your logic is head-scratching.)

I don't think my logic is that far off. Berkeley is millitant in its liberal ideology (to the point that they boycotted ASW in a weird protest thing)

Uchi is objectively a more valuable degree, long term, regardless of placement.