Would I be stupid to choose Berkeley full tuition over the Ruby? Forum

[Yman]

Hi all,
I was fortunate enough to receive the Ruby from UChicago, and used it to negotiate with other schools. Berkeley offered me full tuition, and in terms of location and school culture, I definitely prefer it to Chicago. I also have deep ties to the Bay Area and want to work in California.

However, I know the Ruby is considered the best deal in law school admissions and UChicago is considered a better school than Berkeley. Would I be stupid to choose Berkeley just because I think I’d be happier there?

[talons2250]

You should absolutely go to Berkeley, given your ties to the Bay Area, the fact that you want to end up working in California, and (most importantly) your prediction that you'll be happier there. The vast majority of people in the legal profession don't obsess over rankings like people on these forums do and they consider Berkeley and Chicago to be pretty much peer schools. This is a no brainer.

[Wubbles]

You should absolutely go to Berkeley, given your ties to the Bay Area, the fact that you want to end up working in California, and (most importantly) your prediction that you'll be happier there. The vast majority of people in the legal profession don't obsess over rankings like people on these forums do and they consider Berkeley and Chicago to be pretty much peer schools. This is a no brainer.

The reason Chicago gets boosted so much for the Ruby is because it also covers living expenses and not just tuition (unless something has changed recently)

[tlsguy2020]

Unless the cost of attendance is significantly different, I wouldn’t go to Chicago. Firms in the bay generally do not treat Chicago students better than Berkeley students. If you already have ties to California, you’ll likely be treated equally but have less networking opportunities. and by all accounts, Berkeley is a more pleasant place to live than Hyde Park.

[nixy]

The Ruby covering living expenses (assuming it still does) gives it some financial edge, but I agree that in this context, Berkeley is the right move. I don't think that a Chicago student with ties would struggle to get something in the Bay Area, but full tuition is a good enough deal that I don't see a basis to move away for 3 years just to move back. I also think that when everything else is equal, attending LS in the region where you want to practice is always better than moving away. (Don't get me wrong, if you had a burning passion to spend 3 years in Chicago or NYC or something before going back to CA, that would be fine, but if you know you want to work in CA and you like Berkeley's culture and location better, just go to Berkeley.)

[showusyourtorts]

OP, can you clarify whether/the extent to which the Ruby gives an additional stipend over full tuition? It may not make much of a difference, but I suppose it could make the difference between ~100k debt or so when in California.

Congrats and a great deal either way.

[CanadianWolf]

Hi all,
I was fortunate enough to receive the Ruby from UChicago, and used it to negotiate with other schools. Berkeley offered me full tuition, and in terms of location and school culture, I definitely prefer it to Chicago. I also have deep ties to the Bay Area and want to work in California.

However, I know the Ruby is considered the best deal in law school admissions and UChicago is considered a better school than Berkeley. Would I be stupid to choose Berkeley just because I think I’d be happier there?

No.

[Access]

Personally I would take the Ruby, but I'm not you. This was your strategy all along: to use it as a negotiation chip. And it worked. You got exactly what you wanted. Enjoy it and don't feel like you have to conform to others' ideas of success.

[VirginiaFan]

Unless you're independently wealthy, you'll regret turning down the Ruby for the rest of your life. Don't be an idiot.

[The Lsat Airbender]

Unless you're independently wealthy, you'll regret turning down the Ruby for the rest of your life. Don't be an idiot.

This seems hyperbolic to me. We're presumably talking about a five-figure sum here. I'd go with Chicago personally but taking a full-ride at Berk is hardly going to be a lifelong regret.

[VirginiaFan]

Unless you're independently wealthy, you'll regret turning down the Ruby for the rest of your life. Don't be an idiot.

This seems hyperbolic to me. We're presumably talking about a five-figure sum here. I'd go with Chicago personally but taking a full-ride at Berk is hardly going to be a lifelong regret.

Maybe I'm missing something, but wouldn't the difference be around 300k? Tuition and COL at Berk v. 0 cost at Chicago.

OP, go to Chicago. It's rare that there are such black and white issues in life, but this is one of them. Better school for 0 dollars. You can consider it a 3 year job that pays you 100k a year, and then you can go back to the bay.

[nixy]

Unless you're independently wealthy, you'll regret turning down the Ruby for the rest of your life. Don't be an idiot.

This seems hyperbolic to me. We're presumably talking about a five-figure sum here. I'd go with Chicago personally but taking a full-ride at Berk is hardly going to be a lifelong regret.

Maybe I'm missing something, but wouldn't the difference be around 300k? Tuition and COL at Berk v. 0 cost at Chicago.

OP, go to Chicago. It's rare that there are such black and white issues in life, but this is one of them. Better school for 0 dollars. You can consider it a 3 year job that pays you 100k a year, and then you can go back to the bay.

The whole point is that they have full tuition at Berkeley. So the question is whether paying for (only) COL at Berkeley is worth it.

[Joachim2017]

You need to think long-term. How sure are you that you only want to work on the West Coast? Life can take all kinds of turns, both based on your own interests/desires or other things that happen. Chicago is objectively a much better school with much better options down the line. With the Ruby in hand? C'mon. Even taking into account the "everyone's different" caveat, this is one of those clear cases where the right answer is Chicago. It's just 3 years, anyway.

[Rule23andMe]

You need to think long-term. How sure are you that you only want to work on the West Coast? Life can take all kinds of turns, both based on your own interests/desires or other things that happen. Chicago is objectively a much better school with much better options down the line. With the Ruby in hand? C'mon. Even taking into account the "everyone's different" caveat, this is one of those clear cases where the right answer is Chicago. It's just 3 years, anyway.

Really disagree with it being a clear case, + agree with the others saying
1) It's not *that* much of a financial difference
2) Chicago isn't *that* much better (if at all?) for California goals (+ certainly doesn't close the door for other options)
3) If OP knows they have a clear preference for California (as stated, + "deep ties" suggests a long-term preference as well) . . .
it's more than justifiable to go with Berkeley here

[nixy]

You need to think long-term. How sure are you that you only want to work on the West Coast? Life can take all kinds of turns, both based on your own interests/desires or other things that happen. Chicago is objectively a much better school with much better options down the line. With the Ruby in hand? C'mon. Even taking into account the "everyone's different" caveat, this is one of those clear cases where the right answer is Chicago. It's just 3 years, anyway.

Really disagree with it being a clear case, + agree with the others saying
1) It's not *that* much of a financial difference
2) Chicago isn't *that* much better (if at all?) for California goals (+ certainly doesn't close the door for other options)
3) If OP knows they have a clear preference for California (as stated, + "deep ties" suggests a long-term preference as well) . . .
it's more than justifiable to go with Berkeley here

Agree with this. I get the reasons for going to Chicago, but that doesn’t make Berkeley a *bad* choice.

[blackacre10]

Not the same exact situation, but I chose Berkeley over CCN at similar cost. Like you, I'm from CA and had a very strong interest in staying in CA. I ended up in biglaw and at each of my firms, there were a handful of Chicago grads (more than Columbia and NYU actually). With that said, the vast majority of Berkeley students stay in CA after graduating. Berkeley places exceptionally well in CA. It might be selection bias, of course, but I think you can count on getting biglaw in CA by going to Berkeley. I don't know if the same can be said about Chicago. When I did OCI, I only placed bids on CA firms (both LA and Bay Area). It's hard to say how well a Chicago student would do by employing the same strategy (or whether that strategy would even be wise for a Chicago student), but I ended up with a decent chunk of offers at median at Berkeley.

[VirginiaFan]

Unless you're independently wealthy, you'll regret turning down the Ruby for the rest of your life. Don't be an idiot.

This seems hyperbolic to me. We're presumably talking about a five-figure sum here. I'd go with Chicago personally but taking a full-ride at Berk is hardly going to be a lifelong regret.

Maybe I'm missing something, but wouldn't the difference be around 300k? Tuition and COL at Berk v. 0 cost at Chicago.

OP, go to Chicago. It's rare that there are such black and white issues in life, but this is one of them. Better school for 0 dollars. You can consider it a 3 year job that pays you 100k a year, and then you can go back to the bay.

The whole point is that they have full tuition at Berkeley. So the question is whether paying for (only) COL at Berkeley is worth it.

Oh, I don't know how I missed that. Choose your favorite then, no wrong decisions.

[Yman]

Hi all, just wanted to provide a bit more info on the financial aspect, now that I have more specifics. While most of my Berk tuition is covered, I would still have to pay about 9k/yr in tuition (27k total) there, as well all of COL, of course. For Chicago, I would have to pay 0 in tuition and also get a 60k total stipend. So that makes a difference of about 90k between the two schools. However, I would likely not have to go into debt to finance Berkeley, and as I said before, I do prefer the Bay Area both for school and post-grad. I also have a surprisingly cheap place, just a five minute walk from the law school. But still, is it worth a somewhat decent financial difference to choose Berk in this instance?

[talons2250]

Given that you prefer to live in the Bay Area and plan to work in California after graduation, I would choose Berkeley if the finances aren't an issue, which appears to be the case based on the numbers you have crunched. With finances aside, the only reason to choose Chicago would be because some people think of Chicago as more prestigious. I don't think Chicago places better in California than Berkeley does and I think it's unlikely that California employers (or any employers?) typically go further into the class at Chicago grades-wise than they do at Berkeley for hiring purposes.

Many of the people who will be hiring you graduated from law school over a decade ago. Twelve years ago, Berkeley and Chicago were tied for 6: https://abovethelaw.com/2009/04/u-s-new ... -rankings/. Twelve years from now, there could be another rankings shake up and it's not inconceivable that Berkeley might one day edge out Chicago in rankings. All this is to say that I just don't believe that rankings within the T14 really matter for the vast majority of law graduates, unless it's a 10-spot difference or something like that.

[nealric]

Unless you're independently wealthy, you'll regret turning down the Ruby for the rest of your life. Don't be an idiot.

Setting aside that OP still has a full ride, someone going to a top law school like Brk or Chi is unlikely to deeply regret a $300k debt for the "rest of their life." That's a ton of money for a 22 year old prospective law student or new graduate, but most reasonably successful lawyers with a T6 background and a modicum of financial sense would have a net worth of many multiples of that by late middle age. Another $300k probably wouldn't significantly change their life.

And if you haven't hit that milestone 20-30 years out of Chicago, you probably wouldn't have hit it 20-30 years out of Brk either. Or, if you were planning on public interest, the debt is likely meaningless anyways.

The main point is that career success is far more important to your future finances than how much you borrow to obtain it. The difference between a wildly successful legal career, a middling one, and a failed one could be tens of millions in lifetime earnings. The "debt trap" scenario where you borrow $300k and struggle to repay it is only relevant if your career never really gets off the ground. That's a big risk if you go to a third tier school, but much less so from a top school.

[The Lsat Airbender]

Unless you're independently wealthy, you'll regret turning down the Ruby for the rest of your life. Don't be an idiot.

Setting aside that OP still has a full ride, someone going to a top law school like Brk or Chi is unlikely to deeply regret a $300k debt for the "rest of their life." That's a ton of money for a 22 year old prospective law student or new graduate, but most reasonably successful lawyers with a T6 background and a modicum of financial sense would have a net worth of many multiples of that by late middle age. Another $300k probably wouldn't significantly change their life.

I disagree with this. $300k at 25 years old, allowed to ferment in the stock market, is going to be four or five million, net of inflation, at 65. A fortune for any lawyer save a handful of biglaw/class-action rockstars. It's hard to imagine the marginal value between two T14 schools being so much.

[nealric]

Unless you're independently wealthy, you'll regret turning down the Ruby for the rest of your life. Don't be an idiot.

Setting aside that OP still has a full ride, someone going to a top law school like Brk or Chi is unlikely to deeply regret a $300k debt for the "rest of their life." That's a ton of money for a 22 year old prospective law student or new graduate, but most reasonably successful lawyers with a T6 background and a modicum of financial sense would have a net worth of many multiples of that by late middle age. Another $300k probably wouldn't significantly change their life.

I disagree with this. $300k at 25 years old, allowed to ferment in the stock market, is going to be four or five million, net of inflation, at 65. A fortune for any lawyer save a handful of biglaw/class-action rockstars. It's hard to imagine the marginal value between two T14 schools being so much.

Think about the difference between a lawyer making $250k and one making $500k. Then compound an additional $100k of savings every year from the latter inflation adjusted for 30 years. Perhaps there is not much marginal difference between two similarly situated schools like Brk and Chi, but the point is that lifetime earnings is going to be FAR more important to your eventual financial outcome than how much you borrow. No 30-year biglaw partner is going to be second guessing their choice of schools or lamenting the student loans they took out.