Is Berkeley worth $50K more than UCLA? Forum

[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.)

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.

Actually, your logic is even more far off than I thought. Yikes.

In all seriousness, if you're not trolling, you need to take a step back here. You're not thinking clearly about an important decision.

[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.

Actually, your logic is even more far off than I thought. Yikes.

In all seriousness, if you're not trolling, you need to take a step back here. You're not thinking clearly about an important decision.

Did you go to Berkeley?

[ModelPenalChoade]

Well obviously it's more complicated than just the first year salary, but it was meant to be a simplified way at quantifying the difference. Keep in mind that most people only make it 2-3 years in biglaw, so LOL at the responses that said the differences between the two schools is "in the millions" over the course of a career. As if, you go to Berkeley you'll make biglaw partner, but if you go to UCLA you won't pass the bar.

There may be some modest advantage in getting your first job, if at all, by going to a school that is T10 vs. T20. But beyond that, the difference in lifetime earnings will come down to how you perform as an attorney, not whether you went to Cal or UCLA. That difference isnt worth $50k, after-tax, in your pocket today.

In terms of exit options, after your first couple of years practicing (i.e. when most people leave biglaw), where you went to law school becomes increasingly less important. Certainly the difference between Cal and UCLA will likely not even come up in a hiring decision for a lateral move.

So, yeah maybe I simplified the math. But some of the replies grossly exaggerate the difference in value--assuming there is even a difference to begin with.

[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.)

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.

Actually, your logic is even more far off than I thought. Yikes.

In all seriousness, if you're not trolling, you need to take a step back here. You're not thinking clearly about an important decision.

Did you go to Berkeley?

Not for law school.

[22191313]

Lol penn brainwash syndrome

Berk and chi are different tiers- undergrad and law.

Berk is respectable just incredibly bizarre in their political expression, and COL is absurd. The biglaw placement is good, but idk if it beats the georgraphical location of UCLA for networking.

Just my opinion.

[monsterman]

Well obviously it's more complicated than just the first year salary, but it was meant to be a simplified way at quantifying the difference. Keep in mind that most people only make it 2-3 years in biglaw, so LOL at the responses that said the differences between the two schools is "in the millions" over the course of a career. As if, you go to Berkeley you'll make biglaw partner, but if you go to UCLA you won't pass the bar.

There may be some modest advantage in getting your first job, if at all, by going to a school that is T10 vs. T20. But beyond that, the difference in lifetime earnings will come down to how you perform as an attorney, not whether you went to Cal or UCLA. That difference isnt worth $50k, after-tax, in your pocket today.

In terms of exit options, after your first couple of years practicing (i.e. when most people leave biglaw), where you went to law school becomes increasingly less important. Certainly the difference between Cal and UCLA will likely not even come up in a hiring decision for a lateral move.

So, yeah maybe I simplified the math. But some of the replies grossly exaggerate the difference in value--assuming there is even a difference to begin with.

Right but isn't the point that if you miss the biglaw boat you are making substantially less money out of the gate and your potential for higher earnings after that is much more of a crapshoot? if you get biglaw and only last 2-3 years you still have much better exit options than if you did not get biglaw. Going to UCLA and getting biglaw is equal to going to berkley and getting biglaw--same value after that and the school probably doesn't matter much. i think posters here are saying that the chances of getting that first job of biglaw and the subsequent opportunities after that for higher earnings are substantially better at berk, which is why that 50k you save now is likely not worth the risk long term

[ModelPenalChoade]

In 2015 UCLA had 123 out of 335 graduates work for law firms with more than 250 attorneys. That's 37%. http://www.law.ucla.edu/careers/employment-statistics/

Cal had 120 out of 278. That's 43%. https://www.law.berkeley.edu/careers/em ... tatistics/

If you want to risk $50k on that differential, your choice. It's only money.

Well obviously it's more complicated than just the first year salary, but it was meant to be a simplified way at quantifying the difference. Keep in mind that most people only make it 2-3 years in biglaw, so LOL at the responses that said the differences between the two schools is "in the millions" over the course of a career. As if, you go to Berkeley you'll make biglaw partner, but if you go to UCLA you won't pass the bar.

There may be some modest advantage in getting your first job, if at all, by going to a school that is T10 vs. T20. But beyond that, the difference in lifetime earnings will come down to how you perform as an attorney, not whether you went to Cal or UCLA. That difference isnt worth $50k, after-tax, in your pocket today.

In terms of exit options, after your first couple of years practicing (i.e. when most people leave biglaw), where you went to law school becomes increasingly less important. Certainly the difference between Cal and UCLA will likely not even come up in a hiring decision for a lateral move.

So, yeah maybe I simplified the math. But some of the replies grossly exaggerate the difference in value--assuming there is even a difference to begin with.

Right but isn't the point that if you miss the biglaw boat you are making substantially less money out of the gate and your potential for higher earnings after that is much more of a crapshoot? if you get biglaw and only last 2-3 years you still have much better exit options than if you did not get biglaw. Going to UCLA and getting biglaw is equal to going to berkley and getting biglaw--same value after that and the school probably doesn't matter much. i think posters here are saying that the chances of getting that first job of biglaw and the subsequent opportunities after that for higher earnings are substantially better at berk, which is why that 50k you save now is likely not worth the risk long term

[rpupkin]

Lol penn brainwash syndrome

Berk and chi are different tiers- undergrad and law.

Berk is respectable just incredibly bizarre in their political expression, and COL is absurd. The biglaw placement is good, but idk if it beats the georgraphical location of UCLA for networking.

Just my opinion.

I practice law in California. Boalttt and Chicago are not "different tiers" for law--at least not out here. You've got some bad information.

Pro-tip: all of the top law schools are liberal. Until recently, I actually thought that UChi was one of the more (relatively) conservative schools in the T14, but a poster pointed me to a recent study showing that Chicago actually now has one of the more left-leaning faculties. And the political culture at UCLA is very similar to the political culture at Berkeley. Based on anecdotes I've heard and read about, the UCLA Law community is, if anything, more intolerant of conservative thought than Berkeley Law.

Also, your law school experience really isn't affected by the political ideology of your classmates and professors. And I say this as someone politically to the right of most T14 law students.

Look, Chicago is a good law school, and you'll do fine in the LA market with a degree from there. But you're leaning toward it for weird reasons.

[Glacial]

Did you go to Berkeley?

Not for law school.

Where did/do you go to law school?

[Jordan Catalano]

Berkeley is millitant in its liberal ideology (to the point that they boycotted ASW in a weird protest thing)

I wouldn't call what students did at ASW a "boycott". Dean Tom began ASW with what I felt was an open and upfront discussion on the matter, and students, professors and staff also spoke on the issue. While current students brought signs and posters stating their support for the staff member who is accusing Choudhry of sexual harassment, a "rally" might be a more appropriate term, as they still participated in ASW, perhaps even more than current students normally do.

[rpupkin]

In 2015 UCLA had 123 out of 335 graduates work for law firms with more than 250 attorneys. That's 37%. http://www.law.ucla.edu/careers/employment-statistics/

Cal had 120 out of 278. That's 43%. https://www.law.berkeley.edu/careers/em ... tatistics/

If you want to risk $50k on that differential, your choice. It's only money.

I was feeling sorry for you earlier in this thread. Folks were piling on in a mean way. But now that you're doubling down on your ignorance, I don't mind observing that your mathematical problems apparently extend to simple addition.

[rpupkin]

Did you go to Berkeley?

Not for law school.

Where did/do you go to law school?

If you want to know specific details about me, feel free to PM.

[Glacial]

Did you go to Berkeley?

Not for law school.

Where did/do you go to law school?

If you want to know specific details about me, feel free to PM.

OK, but what's the big secret? You sound like a Chi/Mich student/graduate.

[Tls1328]

Did you go to Berkeley?

Not for law school.

Where did/do you go to law school?

If you want to know specific details about me, feel free to PM.

OK, but what's the big secret? You sound like a Chi/Mich student/graduate.

There is a 0% chance he went to Uchi.

I'd say Michigan or penn

[rpupkin]

Did you go to Berkeley?

Not for law school.

Where did/do you go to law school?

If you want to know specific details about me, feel free to PM.

OK, but what's the big secret? You sound like a Chi/Mich student/graduate.

There is a 0% chance he went to Uchi.

I'd say Michigan or penn

You got me. I went to Penn. I just loved it there.

[speed_the_loot]

.

[MT Cicero]

In 2015 UCLA had 123 out of 335 graduates work for law firms with more than 250 attorneys. That's 37%. http://www.law.ucla.edu/careers/employment-statistics/

Cal had 120 out of 278. That's 43%. https://www.law.berkeley.edu/careers/em ... tatistics/

If you want to risk $50k on that differential, your choice. It's only money.

Folks generally use 100 attorneys on here (I think that's what they use on LST). And yeah, with a snapshot of ONLY biglaw for ONLY 2015, it looks pretty close. But you don't discuss federal clerkships, who are almost certainly could've-been (and almost all will eventually be) in biglaw. Add those in, and the separation is a little greater. Look at 2014 and 2013, and it's different as well. Fortunately, you don't have to. Here are the numbers for BL + FC for each of the last three years:

2015
Berk: 56.5%
UCLA: 44.8%

2014
Berk: 62.4%
UCLA: 39.6%

2013
Berk: 55.8%
UCLA: 39.5%

3-YEAR AGGREGATE
Berk: 58.2%
UCLA: 41.3%

I'd say that's a non-negligible difference, even without accounting for what the Berkeley folks will claim is a much higher PI self-selection (and it is about 15% a year at Berk, which is pretty high).

[Tls1328]

In 2015 UCLA had 123 out of 335 graduates work for law firms with more than 250 attorneys. That's 37%. http://www.law.ucla.edu/careers/employment-statistics/

Cal had 120 out of 278. That's 43%. https://www.law.berkeley.edu/careers/em ... tatistics/

If you want to risk $50k on that differential, your choice. It's only money.

Folks generally use 100 attorneys on here (I think that's what they use on LST). And yeah, with a snapshot of ONLY biglaw for ONLY 2015, it looks pretty close. But you don't discuss federal clerkships, who are almost certainly could've-been (and almost all will eventually be) in biglaw. Add those in, and the separation is a little greater. Look at 2014 and 2013, and it's different as well. Fortunately, you don't have to. Here are the numbers for BL + FC for each of the last three years:

2015
Berk: 56.5%
UCLA: 44.8%

2014
Berk: 62.4%
UCLA: 39.6%

2013
Berk: 55.8%
UCLA: 39.5%

3-YEAR AGGREGATE
Berk: 58.2%
UCLA: 41.3%

I'd say that's a non-negligible difference, even without accounting for what the Berkeley folks will claim is a much higher PI self-selection (and it is about 15% a year at Berk, which is pretty high).

Isn't 56% biglaw almost Georgetown status? Aka BoalTTT

[MT Cicero]

My long post

Isn't 56% biglaw almost Georgetown status? Aka BoalTTT

GU at 44% for c/o 2015: http://www.top-law-schools.com/forums/v ... 1&t=262376

[Tls1328]

My long post

Isn't 56% biglaw almost Georgetown status? Aka BoalTTT

GU at 44% for c/o 2015: http://www.top-law-schools.com/forums/v ... 1&t=262376

Brutal...

[A. Nony Mouse]

My long post

Isn't 56% biglaw almost Georgetown status? Aka BoalTTT

GU at 44% for c/o 2015: http://www.top-law-schools.com/forums/v ... 1&t=262376

Brutal...

why are you alting? are you trying to distance yourself from your earlier posts?

[Tls1328]

My long post

Isn't 56% biglaw almost Georgetown status? Aka BoalTTT

GU at 44% for c/o 2015: http://www.top-law-schools.com/forums/v ... 1&t=262376

Brutal...

why are you alting? are you trying to distance yourself from your earlier posts?

I am not atting and I'm not quite sure what that means

[A. Nony Mouse]

Nice try. (22191313 aka Tls1328 is no longer with us.)

[Alive97]

^LOL

OP for God's sake go to Berkeley. It's not just your first legal job that your LS is relevant for. I would also bet the low-end of Berk grads is higher (on average) than the low end of UCLA (should you not get biglaw).

But I would be certain that 125k is an accurate COA, considering you're not getting any Berkeley scholarship. I assume those outside scholarships are already a lock. Be sure to account for loan origination fees and COL/tuition increases each year.

[jbagelboy]

Rpupkin and Nony, holding the line. Thank god there are still adults in the room.

For anyone, OP or otherwise, who is actually seeking advise on law schools and the legal world based on responses here, read rpupkin's posts and some others from the first page like bruinfan--many of the other contributions don't rise above idiosyncratic ad hominem banter from people who haven't even been to law school, not to mention worked in the field.