Top Law Schools

I'm an undergrad transfer student whose UCSD admission was unfortunately revoked last week at the last minute. I'm now re-applying for junior standing for Fall 2011.

My questions: If it were you, would you choose a CSU over a UC school, given the longstanding notion that the prestige of your undergraduate institution is not a very important factor as your undergraduate LSAT & GPA? If so, which CSU or UC (excluding Berkeley and UCLA) would you choose?

Facts to consider:
-Your goal is to attend a Top-14 law school.
-You're an urban studies major. [What are your thoughts on this btw? I've declared this major because I'm interested in the subject, not because the courses are easy.]
-Your LSAT diagnostic is a 169.

Btw, something I've been considering is applying to Chapman University for Spring 2011 -- but their sticker price is $40k a year for tuition alone. The only reason I'm considering is because they're the only decent undergrad (to me) that's open for Spring 2011. Though I'm worried as to the quality I'll get at Chapman. Should I just choose a CSU or UC for Fall 2011 and get a high GPA and two decent rec letters with hopes of earning admission to a Top-14?

Wherever you can get the best grades and is cheapest.

bk187 wrote:Wherever you can get the best grades and is cheapest.

This. Just go to the best UC you can get into, imo.

bk187 wrote:
Wherever you can get the best grades and is cheapest.


This. Just go to the best UC you can get into, imo.

UCs cost more than CSUs, and isn't it arguable that you could do better at a CSU than you could at a UC? (If so, why even shoot for the "best UC") Not to sound overly outspoken or anything.

ComatoseClown wrote:

bk187 wrote:
Wherever you can get the best grades and is cheapest.


This. Just go to the best UC you can get into, imo.

UCs cost more than CSUs, and isn't it arguable that you could do better at a CSU than you could at a UC? (If so, why even shoot for the "best UC") Not to sound overly outspoken or anything.

haha no worries man, it's just CSU's have a worse rep than UC's, and are in pretty bad shape due to the budget crisis (not that UC's aren't, but I think CSUs took it the worst). I'm sure you can do well at either UCs or CSUs though.

I transfered from a community college to UC Irvine. I have several friends that attended CSU. I think there are a few factors to consider:

1) Your GPA will be the most important factor. It will be easier to get good grades at a CSU but with a little extra work it should be no problem at a UC.

2) UC's will offer far more opportunities for undergraduates to demonstrate strong academic qualities. I was able to participate in two research projects and get strong LOR's from the Professors. Coming from a community college, I think it is important to demonstrate you are up for the academic challenges that await you in law school.

3) The cost of a UC is about $7,000 - $8,000 more per year but since you will only be attending for 2 years, the added cost is marginal, especially when factoring in the cost of law school.

My advice would be to attend a UC.

P.S. Forget Chapman.

Anecdotally, at my T-10, I have yet to meet any CSU graduates. Of the UC graduates I've met, I would say a large majority come from UCLA and Cal. Take this for what you will. I really do believe that top schools take UG into account more than people on this site like to admit.

Also, check out the sites for some of the schools you are looking at. Occasionally, the school will list the most common undergraduate institutions. For UCLA, the most common UG institutions are something like UCLA, Berkeley, Duke, UCSB, UCSD, Ivy League.

Point is, go to a UC.

CSU:
1) Cheaper
2) Dependent on which CSU and major, does have some good faculty (the better the location, the better the faculty).
3) Possibly easier to get a higher GPA, though this would depend on campus and major.
4) Your numbers are not discounted because they're from a CSU. CSU grads do just as well as their numbers + softs would dictate.

1) Damaged by the budget crisis (reduced number of classes, lay-offs of non-tenure track faculty).
2) Less prestigious
3) Fewer research opportunities (though some do exist in the social sciences and hard sciences).

UC:
1) More prestigious (except maybe UC Merced) name-brand
2) Less impacted by the budget crisis
3) More research opportunities; more professors currently doing publishable research

1) More expensive
2) Perhaps, depending on which campus and which major, more difficult to get a high GPA
3) That I've seen, no evidence of a "boost" in admissions. Your numbers will still be your numbers.

DISCLAIMER: Accepted to both, chose to attend a CSU for undergrad. Cracked the T-14, currently a 1L at a T-20.

EDIT: I stand corrected as to the extent of the damage to the UCs due to the budget problems, though I would argue the CSU as a system has taken heavier cuts (due to the lack of regents etc.)

I don't think having more UCLA or CAL grads at your law school is a sign that law schools care about your undergrad. It is more likely selection bias based on the fact that these schools are composed of people who have already demonstrated standardized test taking skills and are likely to do well on the LSAT.

tallboone wrote:Anecdotally, at my T-10, I have yet to meet any CSU graduates. Of the UC graduates I've met, I would say a large majority come from UCLA and Cal. Take this for what you will. I really do believe that top schools take UG into account more than people on this site like to admit.

Agree with this. I think there are two CSU alums in my year at NYU, but there are a lot of UCLA and Berkeley. Law schools do care where you attended undergrad, some of them more than others.

Also, the name of your school follows you in life far, far longer than your GPA. There are advantages to having a name that people know and admire.

What's your GPA at CSU?

I'd transfer to a UC. With a 169 (timed, right?) diagnostic, you have a great chance at destroying the LSAT, and then you can apply to YHS which will care about UG to a certain extent.

Do UC. It's tough to graduate on time at a CSU because there aren't enough pre-req classes.

169 diagnostic?

I'm thinking the fact that there are a lot of UCLA and UCB people in top law schools is indicative of the fact that if you're going to a top law school, you're probably an overachiever, which means you probably care about prestige, which means you probably tried your damnedest to get into the best UCs.

Anyway, part of my personal statement was about how the budget cuts affected my UC. It's definitely not true that they only raised fees.

1. They laid of a significant number of workers, so there are fewer dining halls and fewer shuttles (shuttles are essential on my campus).
2. They cut library hours back significantly. Two hours gone every week day, and now they are entirely closed on weekends. This may change this coming year since the students passed an extra few dollar fee to keep them open longer.
3. Classes were made larger, and there were fewer of them. There was a huge thing about student not being able to find classes during the last quarter, and they released some emergency funding for more TAs to make the classes even bigger. I was in a class that originally had 420 students (which filled every seat), and it was expanded to 450. Test days were a mess. I've talked to friends in UCLA who say this was an issue there too.
4. There are a lot of hiring freezes for TAs and professors.
5. There are a lot of annoying student activists on campuses who are trying to act like they're in their own civil rights movement.

That said, I went to the UC with the smallest endowment, so the others may have been able to absorb the cuts better. Also I have no idea what's going on at CSUs.

Dude go to UCI/UCSD/UCSB... with that diag you should be a candidate for HYS. And if you are planning on getting into those schools your GPA must be good (unless you are a cap/tag student).

IAFG wrote:169 diagnostic?

If someone is good at puzzles like LG games, it's very possible.

Desert Fox wrote:

IAFG wrote:169 diagnostic?

If someone is good at puzzles like LG games, it's very possible.

Prospective Urban Studies major?

IAFG wrote:

Desert Fox wrote:

IAFG wrote:169 diagnostic?

If someone is good at puzzles like LG games, it's very possible.

Prospective Urban Studies major?

At a CSU... yea I get your point.

He may have been like me, and did some prep then took my first PT. Diagnostic doesn't necessarily mean cold diagnostic.

IAFG wrote:

Desert Fox wrote:

IAFG wrote:169 diagnostic?

If someone is good at puzzles like LG games, it's very possible.

Prospective Urban Studies major?

I don't get this-he's a prospective Urban Studies major, therefore he couldn't have done a 169 cold? Some people just have a knack for testing and the LSAT, and as DF said, if LG doesn't feel foreign to you it's absolutely possible.

Asserting that someone must be lying about a diag just because of their major is elitist and just plain douchey. It's not like poli-sci majors have the market cornered on high LSAT scores.

sundance95 wrote:

IAFG wrote:

Desert Fox wrote:

IAFG wrote:169 diagnostic?

If someone is good at puzzles like LG games, it's very possible.

Prospective Urban Studies major?

I don't get this-he's a prospective Urban Studies major, therefore he couldn't have done a 169 cold? Some people just have a knack for testing and the LSAT, and as DF said, if LG doesn't feel foreign to you it's absolutely possible.

Asserting that someone must be lying about a diag just because of their major is elitist and just plain douchey. It's not like poli-sci majors have the market cornered on high LSAT scores.

I would definitely question a poli sci major claiming 169 diagnostic lololol. Science-y majors I would suspend my incredulity for, or math or EE

You would do yourself a serious diservice choosing a CSU over a UC, unless you are a hard science major at Cal Poly. I have a lot of friends that go to CSUs, and I went to a UC, and the education may be easier, but you are short changing yourself in quality of education.

The UCs are elite schools, and all rank in the top 100 universities, with the exception of Merced. Most professors are top oftheir field, and the writing requirements will better prepare you for law school.

But this is what you should consider:

The UC has the regents, so you have some type of secured funding, but the entire public school system in California is getting cut. So, keep private in mind, and do not short change yourself.

But dont listen to me. Tour the campuses and go off the vibes.

PS. I have been out for almost a year. The budget cuts had not fully taken affect when I graduated. So, if you get money at a good private college it may be a better choice.

jarofsoup wrote:You would do yourself a serious diservice choosing a CSU over a UC, unless you are a hard science major at Cal Poly. I have a lot of friends that go to CSUs, and I went to a UC, and the education may be easier, but you are short changing yourself in quality of education.

The UCs are elite schools, and all rank in the top 100 universities, with the exception of Merced. Most professors are top oftheir field, and the writing requirements will better prepare you for law school.

But this is what you should consider:

The UC has the regents, so you have some type of secured funding, but the entire public school system in California is getting cut. So, keep private in mind, and do not short change yourself.

But dont listen to me. Tour the campuses and go off the vibes.

PS. I have been out for almost a year. The budget cuts had not fully taken affect when I graduated. So, if you get money at a good private college it may be a better choice.

Nefarious UC fanboyism

Nefarious is a word I should definitely use more often.

sundance95 wrote:

IAFG wrote:

Desert Fox wrote:

IAFG wrote:169 diagnostic?

If someone is good at puzzles like LG games, it's very possible.

Prospective Urban Studies major?

I don't get this-he's a prospective Urban Studies major, therefore he couldn't have done a 169 cold? Some people just have a knack for testing and the LSAT, and as DF said, if LG doesn't feel foreign to you it's absolutely possible.

Asserting that someone must be lying about a diag just because of their major is elitist and just plain douchey.

+1. My diagnostic was a 174. English major. Not a fancy undergrad.

sundance95 wrote:

IAFG wrote:

Desert Fox wrote:

IAFG wrote:169 diagnostic?

If someone is good at puzzles like LG games, it's very possible.

Prospective Urban Studies major?

I don't get this-he's a prospective Urban Studies major, therefore he couldn't have done a 169 cold? Some people just have a knack for testing and the LSAT, and as DF said, if LG doesn't feel foreign to you it's absolutely possible.

Asserting that someone must be lying about a diag just because of their major is elitist and just plain douchey. It's not like poli-sci majors have the market cornered on high LSAT scores.

+1. The constant sarcasm/elitism is annoying.