GW v. UCLA v. Emory Forum

[fizzyb]

Hi! So I received scholarship offers from GW and Emory in similar amounts, and I'm not expecting anything from UCLA. I am leaning towards attending UCLA for ranking alone, however, I do not want to end up in LA--I would like to make my way back to the east coast, either in Chicago, D.C., or NYC. I'm wondering if it's better to drop from top 20 in rankings and stick in a local market with GW (or southern market with Emory), or if UCLA's reputation will be able to actually land me an east coast job.

[decimalsanddollars]

Emory and GW are similar in overall national placement power, but note that GW is actually in one of your target markets. Below the t13, schools are mostly regional, and that's especially true outside of the t20. Can you get to NYC from UCLA law? Sure, but it's not like going there will give you a serious leg up over GW or Emory in any other market (especially DC).

[trebekismyhero]

If you don't want to be in LA, it makes very little sense to go to UCLA especially when it will cost more than GW and Emory. I would at the very least keep negotiating between GW and Emory to try and increase your scholarship offers, but assuming same cost, GW wins since it is in at least one of the markets you are targeting. As decimals said, outside the t13 it is really regional. So if you want Chicago and can't get into NU/UChicago and other t13, UIUC and ND are your best bets. For NY, outside the t13, Fordham is decent and for DC, it is the most competitive market, but GW will at least make you competitive for jobs

[wanderinglawyer]

More information about the size of the scholarships and COL would be helpful, but with the current information GW is likely your best option. Second place would depend on scholarship information -- it's probably easier to get to DC or the East Coast generally from UCLA over Emory, but a sizeable scholarship could impact the value calculation.

It is of course possible to get to the East Coast from UCLA and a number of people do every year. At either school, you will have to get good grades to do biglaw, but there may be more firms in DC that will affirmatively conduct OCI at GW than at UCLA (where you may be stuck with a resume drop for a larger set of firms). I personally don't think that employment statistics are much help in the analysis because of the self-selection bias at UCLA to stay in California. But for two similarly ranked schools where one is in market and you have a scholarship of some size, and those are the only relevant factors, I would give GW a bit of an edge.

[fizzyb]

If you don't want to be in LA, it makes very little sense to go to UCLA especially when it will cost more than GW and Emory. I would at the very least keep negotiating between GW and Emory to try and increase your scholarship offers, but assuming same cost, GW wins since it is in at least one of the markets you are targeting. As decimals said, outside the t13 it is really regional. So if you want Chicago and can't get into NU/UChicago and other t13, UIUC and ND are your best bets. For NY, outside the t13, Fordham is decent and for DC, it is the most competitive market, but GW will at least make you competitive for jobs

What is the difference in big law placement between GW and UCLA? I could always stick it out in LA for a year or two if i'm working a great job and then apply to firms in DC or Chicago with that experience afterwards...I would like my decision to make financial sense but I also want stellar career prospects and the opportunity to potentially transfer into a T13. I can't push off law school so I really am unable to retake the LSAT and shoot for higher--I'm pretty much stuck with the options I have now.

[cavalier1138]

I can't push off law school so I really am unable to retake the LSAT and shoot for higher--I'm pretty much stuck with the options I have now.

Can you expand on this? Rushing the decision to go to law school can have pretty hefty consequences. Why do you feel that you have to go this year or not at all?

[fizzyb]

I can't push off law school so I really am unable to retake the LSAT and shoot for higher--I'm pretty much stuck with the options I have now.

Can you expand on this? Rushing the decision to go to law school can have pretty hefty consequences. Why do you feel that you have to go this year or not at all?

Mainly family reasons, but even if I were to push it off, I have already taken the LSAT 3 times and each time received the exact same score. UCLA was a bit of a reach for me, and given my stats they may not accept me in a years time.

[cavalier1138]

I can't push off law school so I really am unable to retake the LSAT and shoot for higher--I'm pretty much stuck with the options I have now.

Can you expand on this? Rushing the decision to go to law school can have pretty hefty consequences. Why do you feel that you have to go this year or not at all?

Mainly family reasons, but even if I were to push it off, I have already taken the LSAT 3 times and each time received the exact same score. UCLA was a bit of a reach for me, and given my stats they may not accept me in a years time.

Well, law school isn't going anywhere, so unless you're anticipating that admissions standards will only continue to rise for the rest of your life, you're not writing off UCLA by not going this year. And if your family situation is going to interfere with your ability to go to law school after next year, that's always going to be a problem. Despite what you may hear, your schedule doesn't get any easier after 1L.

More importantly, you're putting three years of your life and a serious amount of money (telling everyone your actual COAs would be helpful) on the line for this. If you want "stellar career prospects," then you need to figure out how to pull your LSAT up into T13 territory. Whatever you did the last two retakes obviously wasn't sufficient, so you at least know what doesn't work. But the reality is that only the T13 offer a reasonable shot--i.e. over 50% chance--at biglaw, and DC firms are extremely competitive. Don't make your goals more difficult to achieve by settling for a school that won't give you a reasonable chance at them.

[fizzyb]

Ok this is going to be a long one.

Stats: 3.86 undergrad GPA/164 Lsat (2 tests at 164; one cancelled score. PT at 164-165). Good softs (law firm experience, volunteer work, internships, first generation college student, lovely personal statement, etc.)

I would ideally like to work in big law. I could give that up if I could make a good amount of money elsewhere to offset attendance costs. Eventually, I would like to be in an interesting job (who doesn't). I'm not shooting for anything crazy like supreme court clerk--just something I can enjoy. Additionally, I want to live in D.C., NYC, or Chicago. All difficult markets, I know.

I've applied to 22 schools. I'm left with a lot of options--the ones that seem most appealing are: GWU with 60k overall; Emory with 75k overall; UCLA with nothing so far (I expect nothing, hitting their 25th percentile. I also kind of dislike LA).

I feel lucky that I got into UCLA because it was a reach. I don't mind being in debt for a while IF the degree gives me a more national reach than GW or Emory would. It's difficult to really understand the numbers, though--they self report a 180,000 median starting salary, with a 154,000 25th percentile starting salary. Those both sound pretty good to me, but i'm suspicious of their accuracy.

Anyways, after a waitlist at Northwestern, a rejection from Cornell and Michigan, and no real reason to believe I'd do any better at the higher T14, I'm left wondering what to do. The idea of taking a year off is scary. I graduated in December, so I already have half a year off, and I spend all of my time thinking/worrying about Law school. I want to go to a better school--NYU, Columbia, or Uchicago would be a dream. But i'm increasingly worried that I can't perform any better than a 164 on the LSAT, and that I should take my UCLA acceptance (and the associated debt) and run with it. I know everyone on here says aim for T13 and don't pay sticker price and UCLA is just a regional market etc. Meanwhile, I look at the stats and talk to the admissions office and hear a different story. I know to take what they say with a grain of salt as they obviously have a vested interest in me attending. But it also seems like the majority of the advice on here is: retake and get a 170. For someone who can't get a 170 (I promise), and probably couldn't do any better than a 165, but who also is fiercely ambitious and not ready to resign to a regional market or accept the full ride from Wake, this process seems impossible to navigate.

any advice?

[cavalier1138]

But it also seems like the majority of the advice on here is: retake and get a 170.

Just to deal with this first: The advice is to retake for a score that will get you into a school from which you can reasonably achieve your career goals. Your goals seem generally aligned with private practice at a large firm in DC, NY, or Chicago. You don't necessarily need a 170 to get into a school that gives you a shot at those goals; even 3-4 more points on the LSAT would start to open up lower T13 schools with decent scholarship offers.

Now, to your questions about UCLA:

I feel lucky that I got into UCLA because it was a reach. I don't mind being in debt for a while IF the degree gives me a more national reach than GW or Emory would. It's difficult to really understand the numbers, though--they self report a 180,000 median starting salary, with a 154,000 25th percentile starting salary. Those both sound pretty good to me, but i'm suspicious of their accuracy.
...
I know everyone on here says aim for T13 and don't pay sticker price and UCLA is just a regional market etc. Meanwhile, I look at the stats and talk to the admissions office and hear a different story. I know to take what they say with a grain of salt as they obviously have a vested interest in me attending.

The bolded should be your focus. UCLA sends roughly 6% of its class to NY and 2-3% of its class to DC. Some of that is likely self-selection, and you definitely don't need ties to get to New York from anywhere. But UCLA is a regional school. And make sure you're reading salary data correctly. The median salary for UCLA graduates is $130,000. The 25th percentile is $69,000. You've been focusing on private sector outcomes only, which will naturally skew higher and only account for roughly 60% of the class (and remember that over 40% of the class gets biglaw, so they're going to really skew the reporting).

I want to go to a better school--NYU, Columbia, or Uchicago would be a dream. But i'm increasingly worried that I can't perform any better than a 164 on the LSAT, and that I should take my UCLA acceptance (and the associated debt) and run with it.

Why are you convinced that 164 is your ceiling? What have you done to prep for the LSAT, and what haven't you tried?

[fizzyb]

But it also seems like the majority of the advice on here is: retake and get a 170.

Just to deal with this first: The advice is to retake for a score that will get you into a school from which you can reasonably achieve your career goals. Your goals seem generally aligned with private practice at a large firm in DC, NY, or Chicago. You don't necessarily need a 170 to get into a school that gives you a shot at those goals; even 3-4 more points on the LSAT would start to open up lower T13 schools with decent scholarship offers.

Now, to your questions about UCLA:

I feel lucky that I got into UCLA because it was a reach. I don't mind being in debt for a while IF the degree gives me a more national reach than GW or Emory would. It's difficult to really understand the numbers, though--they self report a 180,000 median starting salary, with a 154,000 25th percentile starting salary. Those both sound pretty good to me, but i'm suspicious of their accuracy.
...
I know everyone on here says aim for T13 and don't pay sticker price and UCLA is just a regional market etc. Meanwhile, I look at the stats and talk to the admissions office and hear a different story. I know to take what they say with a grain of salt as they obviously have a vested interest in me attending.

The bolded should be your focus. UCLA sends roughly 6% of its class to NY and 2-3% of its class to DC. Some of that is likely self-selection, and you definitely don't need ties to get to New York from anywhere. But UCLA is a regional school. And make sure you're reading salary data correctly. The median salary for UCLA graduates is $130,000. The 25th percentile is $69,000. You've been focusing on private sector outcomes only, which will naturally skew higher and only account for roughly 60% of the class (and remember that over 40% of the class gets biglaw, so they're going to really skew the reporting).

I want to go to a better school--NYU, Columbia, or Uchicago would be a dream. But i'm increasingly worried that I can't perform any better than a 164 on the LSAT, and that I should take my UCLA acceptance (and the associated debt) and run with it.

Why are you convinced that 164 is your ceiling? What have you done to prep for the LSAT, and what haven't you tried?

Thanks for clarifying the employment data. If over 40% of the class get biglaw, it seems reassuring--I know that you can't assume you're going to do well in law school, but is it okay to think that if you put in the work you will at least do averagely? If 60% of the class is going into the private sector (and I feel like at least a small percentage of those who aren't may be deciding to go into public interest because of UCLA's PI reputation), I feel like I have pretty decent chances of ending up in that 60%. I'm OK with spending some time in LA after law school working a private sector job--I've read elsewhere that your school choice really only matters for your first job, and after that they are looking at your work experience. I could be wrong on that so feel free to correct me.

I took over a year to study for the LSAT already. Even on practice tests, the highest I was scoring was a 165, and most often I was scoring around a 160. Test day had a noticeable bump for me and after that initial bump I plateaued. I devoted a lot of time to it and tried different methods, invested in private tutoring, the works--I'm 100% sure that the highest I could ever score on an LSAT is 165, and that one point boost does not seem worth it. Plus, it seems like law schools look poorly at too many retakes--with 3 under my belt already, I feel like a slightly higher score might be outweighed by the fact that it took me so many tries to get there. And then theres the possibility of scoring worse on a retake...

It seems like you're advising against paying sticker for UCLA, or attending there in general if my goal is D.C./Chicago/NYC. How about GW with the 60k scholarship? It seems like overall my 3 years at GW would cost around 212k, whereas at UCLA without scholarship it would be max 251k. If I did externships and summer positions in D.C. (UCLA offers a lot--It seems like they want to get more people placed outside of SoCal to show that they have a national brand), I could potentially offset at least some of the disadvantages I would face being outside of D.C.

It might be worth noting that I also have a Fordham acceptance, likely with money (they haven't sent scholarship info yet). Would that be a school worth considering? Or Wake Forest, with full tuition/fees? Thanks for your advice.

[decimalsanddollars]

It seems like you're advising against paying sticker for UCLA, or attending there in general if my goal is D.C./Chicago/NYC. How about GW with the 60k scholarship? It seems like overall my 3 years at GW would cost around 212k, whereas at UCLA without scholarship it would be max 251k. If I did externships and summer positions in D.C. (UCLA offers a lot--It seems like they want to get more people placed outside of SoCal to show that they have a national brand), I could potentially offset at least some of the disadvantages I would face being outside of D.C.

It might be worth noting that I also have a Fordham acceptance, likely with money (they haven't sent scholarship info yet). Would that be a school worth considering? Or Wake Forest, with full tuition/fees? Thanks for your advice.

This is tricky, but I think you've somewhat missed the point of the "regional school" versus "national school" divide. UCLA can, but probably won't, place you outside LA, and you have already said you don't like LA. GW, Fordham, and Wake Forest are all even more regional (and less national) than UCLA, so between those you should go to the school that gives the best employment outcomes for the money given that the employment outcomes will come almost exclusively from the school's home market. If Fordham all-in costs the same as GW all-in, I think the choice for you is whether you prefer NYC or DC. Unless you actually want to practice in North Carolina or the Deep South (with preexisting ties to the state or region you're targeting, e.g. Alabama with a UA/AU undergrad), Wake Forest is a bad option.

[Anon-non-anon]

It seems like you're advising against paying sticker for UCLA, or attending there in general if my goal is D.C./Chicago/NYC. How about GW with the 60k scholarship? It seems like overall my 3 years at GW would cost around 212k, whereas at UCLA without scholarship it would be max 251k. If I did externships and summer positions in D.C. (UCLA offers a lot--It seems like they want to get more people placed outside of SoCal to show that they have a national brand), I could potentially offset at least some of the disadvantages I would face being outside of D.C.

It might be worth noting that I also have a Fordham acceptance, likely with money (they haven't sent scholarship info yet). Would that be a school worth considering? Or Wake Forest, with full tuition/fees? Thanks for your advice.

This is tricky, but I think you've somewhat missed the point of the "regional school" versus "national school" divide. UCLA can, but probably won't, place you outside LA, and you have already said you don't like LA. GW, Fordham, and Wake Forest are all even more regional (and less national) than UCLA, so between those you should go to the school that gives the best employment outcomes for the money given that the employment outcomes will come almost exclusively from the school's home market. If Fordham all-in costs the same as GW all-in, I think the choice for you is whether you prefer NYC or DC. Unless you actually want to practice in North Carolina or the Deep South (with preexisting ties to the state or region you're targeting, e.g. Alabama with a UA/AU undergrad), Wake Forest is a bad option.

I will say that GW does an OCI in NYC day. And it's not like one of those BS regional things (GW in LA definitely sucks). It's a full day of mostly V50 firms that are hiring for their NYC office. Many firms with multiple offices also wait for DC OCI and ask which offices you'd be interested in. GW is definitely more regional than UCLA, which is more regional than T13, but NYC is kinda in GW's region. Maybe Fordham would be better, but the people getting DC OCI hits were also getting NYC ones from GW. NYC was probably easier (bigger class sizes).

[fizzyb]

It seems like you're advising against paying sticker for UCLA, or attending there in general if my goal is D.C./Chicago/NYC. How about GW with the 60k scholarship? It seems like overall my 3 years at GW would cost around 212k, whereas at UCLA without scholarship it would be max 251k. If I did externships and summer positions in D.C. (UCLA offers a lot--It seems like they want to get more people placed outside of SoCal to show that they have a national brand), I could potentially offset at least some of the disadvantages I would face being outside of D.C.

It might be worth noting that I also have a Fordham acceptance, likely with money (they haven't sent scholarship info yet). Would that be a school worth considering? Or Wake Forest, with full tuition/fees? Thanks for your advice.

This is tricky, but I think you've somewhat missed the point of the "regional school" versus "national school" divide. UCLA can, but probably won't, place you outside LA, and you have already said you don't like LA. GW, Fordham, and Wake Forest are all even more regional (and less national) than UCLA, so between those you should go to the school that gives the best employment outcomes for the money given that the employment outcomes will come almost exclusively from the school's home market. If Fordham all-in costs the same as GW all-in, I think the choice for you is whether you prefer NYC or DC. Unless you actually want to practice in North Carolina or the Deep South (with preexisting ties to the state or region you're targeting, e.g. Alabama with a UA/AU undergrad), Wake Forest is a bad option.

Gotcha. Fordham will likely be a larger scholarship than GW. I like NYC and DC equally, but obviously want wherever the higher pay will be. Also, I don't love LA but I could make it work. If I go to UCLA and try for a private sector job in LA, is full sticker price reasonable? I would like a more nationally recognized school, and out of the firms that I have talked to (all east coast, all large firms), they have said UCLA is a great school. I wonder how much of them not being "national" is self-selection, as they say...

Additionally, would it be wrong to assume that after my first job (provided that it's a good private sector job) I'd have more mobility? It doesn't seem like you need previous ties to get to DC or NYC, they're just very competitive markets. Even if I can't break into them, I am coming from a large east coast city with a less competitive market so if all else fails I can come back here.

[decimalsanddollars]

I like NYC and DC equally, but obviously want wherever the higher pay will be.

If you want to do biglaw, basically all major firms pay the same amount in NYC and DC (and SF, Silicon Valley, LA, Chicago, even Houston and Dallas), so you probably won't see much of a compensation difference at the high end, unless you land a job at an above-market lit boutique or WLRK (each slightly higher), but that's not likely from the schools you've listed. Also, big fed is standard-scaled compensation that varies only slightly based on location (although cities like NYC and DC are significantly higher than, say, South Dakota), so it wouldn't make sense to pick one city or the other because of "higher pay." Personal preference and perhaps different costs of living will make a bigger difference.

Also, I don't love LA but I could make it work. If I go to UCLA and try for a private sector job in LA, is full sticker price reasonable?

I would say yes, if that really is your focus. UCLA places very well in LA itself, but note that you'd be competing against a ton of people (who actually want to be in LA) from T13 and USC. Even then, it's still in that gray area of whether a strong regional school---which UCLA definitely is---is worth paying sticker. I would lean yes if you want to be there/work there, and no otherwise. Sticker is reasonable to attend the best school in the region where you want to work, but if you want to work elsewhere (which you do), I don't think it is.

Additionally, would it be wrong to assume that after my first job (provided that it's a good private sector job) I'd have more mobility? It doesn't seem like you need previous ties to get to DC or NYC, they're just very competitive markets. Even if I can't break into them, I am coming from a large east coast city with a less competitive market so if all else fails I can come back here.

Without diving into this too much, I'll just say that it's probably easier to get to NYC/DC as a junior and lateral elsewhere than it is to start elsewhere and lateral to NYC/DC (although it does happen). NYC firms in particular take huge junior classes, planning on significant attrition within the first few years and winnowing after that. There are fewer jobs for a 5th year than for a 1st year generally, and that effect is strongest in the NYC market. DC is similar, but smaller and more competitive at every level.

[fizzyb]

If you want to do biglaw, basically all major firms pay the same amount in NYC and DC (and SF, Silicon Valley, LA, Chicago, even Houston and Dallas), so you probably won't see much of a compensation difference at the high end, unless you land a job at an above-market lit boutique or WLRK (each slightly higher), but that's not likely from the schools you've listed. Also, big fed is standard-scaled compensation that varies only slightly based on location (although cities like NYC and DC are significantly higher than, say, South Dakota), so it wouldn't make sense to pick one city or the other because of "higher pay." Personal preference and perhaps different costs of living will make a bigger difference.

Is biglaw actually an option from my listed schools?

I would say yes, if that really is your focus. UCLA places very well in LA itself, but note that you'd be competing against a ton of people (who actually want to be in LA) from T13 and USC. Even then, it's still in that gray area of whether a strong regional school---which UCLA definitely is---is worth paying sticker. I would lean yes if you want to be there/work there, and no otherwise. Sticker is reasonable to attend the best school in the region where you want to work, but if you want to work elsewhere (which you do), I don't think it is.

So even though UCLA is a higher ranked school, if my end goal is NY or dc then go with one of the other two? Are either of them worth the cost that I will be paying (don't know for Fordham, but a 60k scholarship from GW)? I'm worried about debt payoff if I don't land a high paying job (130-180k) which seems unattainable without a T13 degree.

[trebekismyhero]

If you want to do biglaw, basically all major firms pay the same amount in NYC and DC (and SF, Silicon Valley, LA, Chicago, even Houston and Dallas), so you probably won't see much of a compensation difference at the high end, unless you land a job at an above-market lit boutique or WLRK (each slightly higher), but that's not likely from the schools you've listed. Also, big fed is standard-scaled compensation that varies only slightly based on location (although cities like NYC and DC are significantly higher than, say, South Dakota), so it wouldn't make sense to pick one city or the other because of "higher pay." Personal preference and perhaps different costs of living will make a bigger difference.

Is biglaw actually an option from my listed schools?

I would say yes, if that really is your focus. UCLA places very well in LA itself, but note that you'd be competing against a ton of people (who actually want to be in LA) from T13 and USC. Even then, it's still in that gray area of whether a strong regional school---which UCLA definitely is---is worth paying sticker. I would lean yes if you want to be there/work there, and no otherwise. Sticker is reasonable to attend the best school in the region where you want to work, but if you want to work elsewhere (which you do), I don't think it is.

So even though UCLA is a higher ranked school, if my end goal is NY or dc then go with one of the other two? Are either of them worth the cost that I will be paying (don't know for Fordham, but a 60k scholarship from GW)? I'm worried about debt payoff if I don't land a high paying job (130-180k) which seems unattainable without a T13 degree.

$60k from GW still leaves you with a lot of debt and a 1 in 3 chance at best of big law. Fordham it is entirely dependent on the scholarship. But UCLA at sticker when you don't want to be in LA seems like a recipe for disaster. I'd say personally only one school is worth paying sticker and certainly not outside the t13. Big law is certainly possible with the schools you have listed, but it is not likely (which is why it is important to limit your debt)

[wanderinglawyer]

Imo, the bottom line here is that you (and many other people who post here) have a statistically better shot at big law than the options you have now if you retake the LSAT and get a better score. But if you decide that's not an option, the next question seems to be is there a materially better chance of NY/DC biglaw from UCLA than GW, given that the former is slightly higher ranked - and I think the answer to that question is no. At either school, you will need good grades and will probably need to do some of your own legwork to generate biglaw opportunities. Given that, a scholarship in the city you prefer to be in is a better option. I don't think the scholarship amount from Emory is worthwhile. In my experience in biglaw in these markets, I do encounter UCLA and GW grads in practice and I have never encountered an Emory grad. Anecdotal, of course, but take it for what it is. If you are not in biglaw, then you will be looking at jobs that vary much more widely in terms of salary, and you should read more about the bimodal salary curve for lawyers and what salaries look at like in different paths (federal government, state government, DA/PD, midlaw, etc.). This is why if you are deadset on high salary, getting better options gives you statistically better odds of achieving that outcome.