UCLA (almost ticket) vs. Seattle U (Full ride) Forum

[PUBDEFENDERWANNABE]

Somehow I have two choices. Full ride at Seattle U or Epstein Program and basically ticket price at UCLA.

My initial inkling is that I don’t want to bury myself in debt. But the Epstein Program at UCLA is amazing. I’m going 100% public service focused so there is no chance to go to big law. But most of my friends are pulling mid 100s in public service within a few years and I network very well. Career goals would be to be a managing attorney for a midsize PD office or head up a mid level state government department- prison oversight, reentry etc. Thinking UCLA might play out better for the latter.

I currently am the regional manager of a very large company so I’ll be able to bring this experience with me when I graduate so I won’t be too fresh.

[cavalier1138]

Do you want to work in Washington or California? Either way, UCLA at sticker is a pretty horrible option. The Epstein Program sounds like a neat networking tool, but it's not $300k cool.

Your goals are also a little interesting. You seem more interested in management than in being an attorney, which is emphasized by the experience you chose to highlight. Are you actually interested in practicing law, or are you just interested in criminal justice reform policy initiatives? Because the latter doesn't require a JD.

[Anonguy715]

Do you want to work in Washington or California? Either way, UCLA at sticker is a pretty horrible option. The Epstein Program sounds like a neat networking tool, but it's not $300k cool.

Your goals are also a little interesting. You seem more interested in management than in being an attorney, which is emphasized by the experience you chose to highlight. Are you actually interested in practicing law, or are you just interested in criminal justice reform policy initiatives? Because the latter doesn't require a JD.

I'd echo all of this.

The first question you need to ask yourself is whether you want to practice in California or Washington. The next question is whether you believe there's any chance of going private sector after graduation or jumping ship a few years out to the private sector. Taking on UCLA at sticker only to later realize you don't want to end up in PI would put you in quite a bind. Something else to consider is that a lot of law students want to get to California after graduation. The career goals you listed seem to be pretty focused on being "in charge," which may be more likely to happen in the smaller legal pond of Washington than the immense pond of California.

[PUBDEFENDERWANNABE]

Thanks guys for the input. No, I'm deadset on practicing law. My fantasy world would consist of practicing as a public defender for several years and then becoming a managing attorney/department head. Whatever the title that is used in my area. As for the advocacy type work I know that it's possible without a JD but I definitely think it boosts income potential and opens a lot of doors to have one. But I'm definitely more focused on the former than the latter, but those are the only two things I can see myself doing at this time. Of course that could change but right now I'm in corporate business and it's a very toxic environment for me and that's why I'm choosing to leave it so I doubt any corporate law is in my future. Please- I don't need to be told how toxic law can be, I've already made my decision.

I definitely am nervous about the saturation in California. My wife does advocacy work and it's scary how low paying the jobs are in LA due to saturation. I think my big question is this,

1. How will a UCLA law degree compete with a Seattle U law degree in Washington state or Oregon? Definitely want to stay on West Coast. From what I've been told by attorneys is that I could probably run the table based off of my goals if I went to UCLA in a noncompetitive law market. Anyone agree/disagree?

[cavalier1138]

1. How will a UCLA law degree compete with a Seattle U law degree in Washington state or Oregon? Definitely want to stay on West Coast. From what I've been told by attorneys is that I could probably run the table based off of my goals if I went to UCLA in a noncompetitive law market. Anyone agree/disagree?

If you want to practice in Washington/Oregon (more the former than the latter), then you should be gunning for University of Washington with a full scholarship. Seattle might be an ok choice for PDs offices in Washington state, but I'd imagine that Seattle itself is a more competitive office. Competitive PD offices tend to place more emphasis on school rank, etc. than you might expect.

I completely disagree that a UCLA degree is as portable as the attorneys you've talked to think it is. How old are these attorneys, and where are they practicing? Unless the answer is "under 40" and "somewhere that isn't California," take anything they say about degree portability with a massive grain of salt.

[Wubbles]

Yeah, this doesn't sound good. You seem to be overestimating what public defenders make, the portability of a UCLA degree into two insular states (do you have ties to Washington/Oregon?), etc.

[PUBDEFENDERWANNABE]

I did not get into UW unfortunately. That's why I led with "somehow I have two choices". And no, when I am discussing salary I am speaking of high level government positions. I have ran a few contacts names through state databases and they are making about $140,000. I do have some great contacts in Washington state, which would probably give me a networking boost at Seattle U.

Sounds like this board is leaning towards Seattle U. Unfortunately Oregon Law wasn't an option either, my wife didn't have too many employment opportunities there.

[cavalier1138]

I did not get into UW unfortunately. That's why I led with "somehow I have two choices".

But that's not true. You have two choices right now. You don't have to only have two choices, and you certainly don't need to be deciding between a school with pretty abysmal employment prospects for free and a school with decent employment prospects (but not in the area you want to work) for $300k. What are your current numbers? If they were good enough to snag UCLA, I have to believe that an LSAT retake would be sufficient to put UW in play.

Sounds like this board is leaning towards Seattle U.

That's definitely not the conclusion I would reach. Right now, the advice is leaning towards neither.

[Anonguy715]

I did not get into UW unfortunately. That's why I led with "somehow I have two choices".

But that's not true. You have two choices right now. You don't have to only have two choices, and you certainly don't need to be deciding between a school with pretty abysmal employment prospects for free and a school with decent employment prospects (but not in the area you want to work) for $300k. What are your current numbers? If they were good enough to snag UCLA, I have to believe that an LSAT retake would be sufficient to put UW in play.

Sounds like this board is leaning towards Seattle U.

That's definitely not the conclusion I would reach. Right now, the advice is leaning towards neither.

Once again, I echo all of this. If you got into UCLA, that means a retake could boost you to UCLA with money and into Washington. It's tough to go beyond that without seeing your numbers, but presumably a meaningful LSAT jump could also put you into Berkeley, which is probably a better choice than both and would provide you with a solid employment "floor."

Also, I know you are looking at the salaries of your contacts, but I don't think that's a good idea. I think you should instead look at the entry level salaries for the positions you would want after graduation. 140k is great in PI, but most grads who go into PI don't end up running their office or an agency. Look at an entry level salary in Seattle or LA and then compare that to the rent for an apartment in that city. Can you make that work for 5 years? How much debt would be too much under those circumstances?

[lmb38]

As someone who is familiar with the PNW area, I think Seattle U is a strong option. They do have low employment numbers, sure. Every law school in the region does, unfortunately (and that includes UW which has more prestige because they feed people into biglaw, but their number of un- and under-employed grads is not much better than the rest). UW also tends to give so little in scholarship, even on the better end you'll still pay around $125k-150k out of pocket, which I personally think is just too high at a school that still has a significant number of unemployed graduates. Seattle U actually feeds very well into the jobs that you are considering. I would encourage you to talk to admissions a lot, get in touch with recent grads, ask a ton of questions about what your job prospects would look like. The PNW is extremely insular, and if you want to exclusively work in the Northwest, you are better off attending a local school, regardless of the (admittedly mediocre) employment numbers.

That said, I also agree that it seems like your salary expectations are quite high. The Washington AG only makes $160k, so I think aspiring to a $140k salary in the same area is a big goal. I do see there are folks that make that, but I think you're likely to be in the $40k-$60k zone for a number of years as a PD. So as long as you are willing to tough it out through that, there is a relatively high ceiling.

UCLA, while a great school that could get you to your goals, would not be reliable for securing a job in the northwest. If you want to work in California, it's a great option. However, at full cost - no. I don't think there's any circumstance where that makes sense, let alone for PI.