Help! Questions! UCLA-, USC-, U.C. Irvine-Related

[PR-0927]

So I quote myself from a thread regarding UCLA School of Law:

Waitlisted just now. Fairly depressed. This is my top choice. Thought a 171 and a 3.76 LSDAS GPA would help me out...

I had to send a statement of intent to register to U.C. Irvine School of Law by their deadline - it's non-binding, free, and doesn't block you from getting admitted to other schools.

However, is there a certain point by which UCLA won't consider me even from the waitlist because of the U.C. Irvine School of Law situation?

If I could ask for any single thing this year, and nothing else, it'd be to be admitted to UCLA School of Law. I want to live and work in the greater LA area for the rest of my life, and UCLA is my dream school.

Bit of a depressing cycle recently (although most of these I applied to just for scholarship negotiation purposes):

http://lawschoolnumbers.com/pr0927

Can anyone give me input on this/answer some questions? I really do like U.C. Irvine, but if I get into UCLA, I'd probably prefer to go there. I have yet to hear from USC, and now I've become pessimistic on its potential outcome.

But here are my basic questions which are causing me much confusion (along with the one in the quoted text above):

- I'm interested in international/comparative law (mostly), along with technology/IP/Internet law (and a bit in national security law as well). I know U.C. Irvine is a "developing" school - would it be bad if I attended this school with my fields of interest? My take on it is that the newness of the school will allow for an on-demand curriculum. Correct?

- What kind of things should I say in my LOCI to UCLA?

- What are your thoughts on my prospects with USC?

- If I get into both UCLA (through the waitlist) and USC (either off the bat or through a waitlist), should I consider these schools "equals?" Meaning, should I be placing more weight on USC over U.C. Irvine like I do with UCLA vs. U.C. Irvine?


Thanks to any who can help - it's been a very stressful...more than a year. I'm sure I'm not alone. Any assistance would be much appreciated!

[071816]

With numbers like that you should be in at several T14s mang. Did you apply to any?

[PR-0927]

With numbers like that you should be in at several T14s mang. Did you apply to any?

Yeah, I did, as listed in my link to my LSN profile. Got waitlisted at every one. But to be honest, I'm only interested in California. People from Ohio and nearby will likely understand.

Also, read the details on my LSN profile (http://lawschoolnumbers.com/pr0927) - I took the LSAT three times - 159, 159, and then 171:

Graduated from The Ohio State University in June 2011. BSBA in MIS, minor in Political Science.

I applied to 12 schools last year (2010-2011 cycle) with two 159 LSATs (what luck...). Was not admitted anywhere, partially because of no safety schools. Lowest ranked I applied to was at rank 35.

Took a year off after graduating. Did an internship at a Congressional District Office, taught a computer course, and studied like a mad man for a third LSAT attempt. Got a 171.

So yes, I went from a 159, got another, to finally a 171. I was great during practices, so the 159s very much upset me.

Could it be the late applications? I was waiting for my third LSAT score, which didn't arrive until January.

[071816]

Your numbers are too good to settle for the options that you currently have. I say, sit out this cycle and reapply at the very beginning of next cycle with a polished application. You will be glad you did. You should be in at multiple T14s with money and at the very least you will have a shot at USC/UCLA with money or perhaps Berkeley. Don't settle when you don't have to.

Edit: to be clear, yea, I think the late applications hurt you big time (assuming there wasn't something else about your app that wasn't extremely subpar).

[PR-0927]

Your numbers are too good to settle for the options that you currently have. I say, sit out this cycle and reapply at the very beginning of next cycle with a polished application. You will be glad you did. You should be in at multiple T14s with money and at the very least you will have a shot at USC/UCLA with money or perhaps Berkeley. Don't settle when you don't have to.

I don't have that option - I am already taking a year off after graduating from undergrad, and my parents threw a remarkable hissy fit at me doing one year off. Not to mention, I have no potential employment options here for that entire year (seriously - the law firms here pretty much only hire current law students, and most aren't hiring at all). Doing another year off is an absolute no-way.

Last year I got in nowhere. This year is already a massive improvement. Settling is what I will have to do.

But in regards to my questions in the OP - any input?

[071816]

Your numbers are too good to settle for the options that you currently have. I say, sit out this cycle and reapply at the very beginning of next cycle with a polished application. You will be glad you did. You should be in at multiple T14s with money and at the very least you will have a shot at USC/UCLA with money or perhaps Berkeley. Don't settle when you don't have to.

I don't have that option - I am already taking a year off after graduating from undergrad, and my parents threw a remarkable hissy fit at me doing one year off. Not to mention, I have no potential employment options here for that entire year (seriously - the law firms here pretty much only hire current law students, and most aren't hiring at all). Doing another year off is an absolute no-way.

Last year I got in nowhere. This year is already a massive improvement. Settling is what I will have to do.

But in regards to my questions in the OP - any input?

You should be in at USC. I don't see why they'd reject you. I would also try like hell to get off at least one of your waitlists by visiting, sending LOCIs, whatever it takes. You should get off at least one and will most likely get into USC. Regarding UCLA vs. UCI, UCLA is much more established and, at similar costs, it would not be wise to pick UCI over UCLA. However, with that scholly, I would go with UCI. It's a solid school, just a bit unknown right now and if it's damn near free why not? It's a shame that you have to settle with those numbers. You should really find a way to take another year off. That year may suck, but it could make a huge difference in the rest of your life.

Edit: with that scholarship, why not go to Vandy? $95k is solid. Forget California.

[aekea]

Your numbers are too good to settle for the options that you currently have. I say, sit out this cycle and reapply at the very beginning of next cycle with a polished application. You will be glad you did. You should be in at multiple T14s with money and at the very least you will have a shot at USC/UCLA with money or perhaps Berkeley. Don't settle when you don't have to.

I don't have that option - I am already taking a year off after graduating from undergrad, and my parents threw a remarkable hissy fit at me doing one year off. Not to mention, I have no potential employment options here for that entire year (seriously - the law firms here pretty much only hire current law students, and most aren't hiring at all). Doing another year off is an absolute no-way.

Last year I got in nowhere. This year is already a massive improvement. Settling is what I will have to do.

But in regards to my questions in the OP - any input?

The fact that your parents will be upset if you take another year off shouldn't be a total decision maker for you unless they are going to be paying for your legal education and will refuse to pay for it if you do take another year. If that's the case, then going this year is probably the right choice. If you're going into debt yourself, then you have to make the best decision for you and that is to take another year off and apply early with your much improved LSAT score. You don't need to work at a law firm before going to law school. There are plenty of other things you can do with a year off.

[PR-0927]

You should be in at USC. I don't see why they'd reject you. I would also try like hell to get off at least one of your waitlists by visiting, sending LOCIs, whatever it takes. You should get off at least one and will most likely get into USC. Regarding UCLA vs. UCI, UCLA is much more established and, at similar costs, it would not be wise to pick UCI over UCLA. It's a shame that you have to settle with those numbers. You should really find a way to take another year off. That year may suck, but it could make a huge difference in the rest of your life.

Yeah, I'm going to get on making a good LOCI for UCLA first thing once I wake up tomorrow. What about UCI vs. USC? Assuming comparable scholarships? How about with UCI having a substantially better scholarship than USC?

And yeah - the year off thing - I know, but it just will not happen. It's not an option whatsoever for me, for a plethora of reasons (one being that my parents would disown me, cut me off financially, etc. - another being that my family is Indian, and taking a year off is like the worst possible thing one can do in an academic sense in an Indian household).

The fact that your parents will be upset if you take another year off shouldn't be a total decision maker for you unless they are going to be paying for your legal education and will refuse to pay for it if you do take another year. If that's the case, then going this year is probably the right choice. If you're going into debt yourself, then you have to make the best decision for you and that is to take another year off and apply early with your much improved LSAT score. You don't need to work at a law firm before going to law school. There are plenty of other things you can do with a year off.

Actually yeah, they are paying for it. And pretty much my whole life - I have minimal savings of my own. This is not unusual for South Asian households, BTW.

As for jobs - I'm having a hard enough time obtaining even a crappy part-time job. The local economy here is DEAD.

[6thbackstreetboy]

FWIW I'm taking UCI with the same scholarship($120,000) over Michigan and UCLA with $. I know of at least a few other people taking UCI over T14s as well so I wouldn't say it is completely unheard of. Depends on what you want to do though…If you're set on biglaw, UCI is probably not the best choice.

[PR-0927]

Sorry for the tangent, but I didn't want the following to be missed:

http://ucla.lawschoolnumbers.com/applic ... order=desc


They've been waitlisting a LOT of people with higher scores/GPAs than mine, and even of people who applied much earlier than me. The graph near my LSAT/GPA combo has no distinct pattern - it's chaotic admits and waitlists everywhere.

YP perhaps? Maybe they freaked out when their undergrad branch accidentally admitted 900 students too many and had to reject them all?

[071816]

USC is pretty much equivalent to UCLA as far as placement goes and it would take a lot of money for me to pick UCI over either one (but you were given a pretty good scholarship so it's definitely worth considering). I would wait for USC, but if you aren't offered a scholarship there, I would take UCI because you likely won't be given anywhere near that amount of cash from any of the other schools that waitlisted you.

Also, see my edit above.

[PR-0927]

FWIW I'm taking UCI with the same scholarship($120,000) over Michigan and UCLA with $. I know of at least a few other people taking UCI over T14s as well so I wouldn't say it is completely unheard of. Depends on what you want to do though…If you're set on biglaw, UCI is probably not the best choice.

This is reassuring to hear - I know lots of UCI students decide between it and UCLA/USC. Not sure what I want to do, honestly - the future will tell. Pretty open to most stuff, but definitely in a branch of law in which I find interest, of course.

USC is pretty much equivalent to UCLA as far as placement goes and it would take a lot of money for me to pick UCI over either one (but you were given a pretty good scholarship so it's definitely worth considering). I would wait for USC, but if you aren't offered a scholarship there, I would take UCI because you likely won't be given anywhere near that amount of cash from any of the other schools that waitlisted you.

Also, see my edit above.

O.K., thought so. And I'd agree. As for Vanderbilt - that and University of Texas at Austin were both really for scholarship negotiation - I'm very averse to living in either area, and as I want to remain in SoCal for the rest of my life (for a variety of reasons - not just the weather, haha, but the political environment, the economic center, and the presence of industry which I'm familiar with and interested in), both options wouldn't be best (regional "lock-in" and job placement).

[071816]

Welp then I guess try to get in off the waitlists at Berkely, UCLA and whichever T14s you'd actually attend and if you get in, try using your UCI, Vanderbilt, UT offers to negotiate for some money. Good luck with USC. Hopefully they come through for you.

[PR-0927]

Welp then I guess try to get in off the waitlists at Berkely, UCLA and whichever T14s you'd actually attend and if you get in, try using your UCI, Vanderbilt, UT offers to negotiate for some money. Good luck with USC. Hopefully they come through for you.

Haha, if only I was waitlisted at U.C. Berkeley - that was a straight reject!

Thanks for the input - it's really much appreciated, more than I can express via text. I know I wasn't responding to your suggestions in the way you would have most liked, haha, but I guess that's just the reality of my situation.

And thanks for the well-wishing!

[jck4487]

FWIW I'm taking UCI with the same scholarship($120,000) over Michigan and UCLA with $. I know of at least a few other people taking UCI over T14s as well so I wouldn't say it is completely unheard of. Depends on what you want to do though…If you're set on biglaw, UCI is probably not the best choice.

Even if you are interested in BigLaw, if you want to live in SoCal then UCI will not be a disadvantage. UCLA and USC have alumni connections, sure, but UCI has a ridiculous amount of community support (federal and state judges, prominent members of the bar, etc). You obviously have a great work ethic, so you'll get the grades that keep many people from "breaking into" the big firms. Lots of current students chose UCI over UCLA/USC, and I even know a few who chose UCI over Boalt. When it all boils down to it, you really have to pick the school where you think you'll be most happy. With your work ethic, you'll be successful and all these schools are good enough to take someone in your position anywhere you want to go. Good luck!

[PR-0927]

Even if you are interested in BigLaw, if you want to live in SoCal then UCI will not be a disadvantage. UCLA and USC have alumni connections, sure, but UCI has a ridiculous amount of community support (federal and state judges, prominent members of the bar, etc). You obviously have a great work ethic, so you'll get the grades that keep many people from "breaking into" the big firms. Lots of current students chose UCI over UCLA/USC, and I even know a few who chose UCI over Boalt. When it all boils down to it, you really have to pick the school where you think you'll be most happy. With your work ethic, you'll be successful and all these schools are good enough to take someone in your position anywhere you want to go. Good luck!

Thanks man - you have no idea how uplifting this comment is. Currently I'm feeling this burden of uneasiness and depression from being waitlisted by UCLA, the school I've been raving about for so long (and when I vacationed in India a few weeks ago, I kept seeing signs, hoodies, and t-shirts advertising UCLA - it was like the universe's way to taunt me). I needed to read a comment like yours.

I guess it's just a waiting game now, aside from a well-crafted LOCI to UCLA. Of course, USC's decision will be very relevant as well.

[Systematic1]

Are the prospects of disownment really that bad?

If you don't get into USC...

1. Move to Cali now (preferably LA).
-If mommy and daddy don't like it, then cut off all contact with them.
-Eventually they will crack, all parents crack–even Indian parents.
-You can find one bedroom studios in LA for $749 utilities included, look out for the roaches though.

2. Get a job as a law clerk (or any other semi-professional job) to help pay the bills and rack up WE.
-You're a busad major, it shouldn't be too difficult. I haven't even finished UG yet, and it took me all of two weeks to snag a law clerk job at a midsize firm in LA.
-You might have to work a crappy job, and I'm not saying you'll be rolling in cash, but it will give you a chance to network and establish some ties here in Cali.

3. You're going to have almost a year to fine-tune your application.
-Not to mention you'll have a great story for your personal statement. How many people can say they were disowned for pursuing the law school of their dreams?
-If you apply at the beginning of the cycle you're pretty much guaranteed to be a shoe-in at UCLA and USC with money–perhaps Berk, and perhaps Stanford.
-and (don't quote me on this) you may qualify for in-state tuition which could further lower your costs of attendance.

...or you could flush your numbers down the toilet and attend UCI. And then every time you go to apply for a job in Orange County or LA, and a UCLA or a USC grad beats you out for the position, you can think about the life you could have had if only you'd taken our advice. Probably still end up getting disowned for being unemployed...

[jck4487]

[PR-0927]

Are the prospects of disownment really that bad?

If you don't get into USC...

1. Move to Cali now (preferably LA).
-If mommy and daddy don't like it, then cut off all contact with them.
-Eventually they will crack, all parents crack–even Indian parents.
-You can find one bedroom studios in LA for $749 utilities included, look out for the roaches though.

2. Get a job as a law clerk (or any other semi-professional job) to help pay the bills and rack up WE.
-You're a busad major, it shouldn't be too difficult. I haven't even finished UG yet, and it took me all of two weeks to snag a law clerk job at a midsize firm in LA.
-You might have to work a crappy job, and I'm not saying you'll be rolling in cash, but it will give you a chance to network and establish some ties here in Cali.

3. You're going to have almost a year to fine-tune your application.
-Not to mention you'll have a great story for your personal statement. How many people can say they were disowned for pursuing the law school of their dreams?
-If you apply at the beginning of the cycle you're pretty much guaranteed to be a shoe-in at UCLA and USC with money–perhaps Berk, and perhaps Stanford.
-and (don't quote me on this) you may qualify for in-state tuition which could further lower your costs of attendance.

...or you could flush your numbers down the toilet and attend UCI. And then every time you go to apply for a job in Orange County or LA, and a UCLA or a USC grad beats you out for the position, you can think about the life you could have had if only you'd taken our advice. Probably still end up getting disowned for being unemployed...

I think you're exaggerating the "situation" with UCI a bit. They're not a bad school by any measure.

And yes, being disowned is not something I'm trying to consider. Believe it or not, I like having an identifiable family. And don't forget the above mentioned point where I said that I have virtually no money whatsoever - flying out to LA in itself would be likely impossible for me.

I really don't know if you intended your post to be taken seriously or if it was a tongue-in-cheek joke...

[TyrionLannister]

FWIW I'm taking UCI with the same scholarship($120,000) over Michigan and UCLA with $. I know of at least a few other people taking UCI over T14s as well so I wouldn't say it is completely unheard of. Depends on what you want to do though…If you're set on biglaw, UCI is probably not the best choice.

Even if you are interested in BigLaw, if you want to live in SoCal then UCI will not be a disadvantage. UCLA and USC have alumni connections, sure, but UCI has a ridiculous amount of community support (federal and state judges, prominent members of the bar, etc). You obviously have a great work ethic, so you'll get the grades that keep many people from "breaking into" the big firms. Lots of current students chose UCI over UCLA/USC, and I even know a few who chose UCI over Boalt. When it all boils down to it, you really have to pick the school where you think you'll be most happy. With your work ethic, you'll be successful and all these schools are good enough to take someone in your position anywhere you want to go. Good luck!

Really nice post. No intention to high jack the thread here, but as a SoCal resident interested in next cycle, I am very intrigued with what I hear about UCI. UCLA was my UG and I too geek out about hopefully going back there to study law. But there is seriously so many raves about Irvine, despite it's fledgling status. Apologies to the OP if this doesn't help you, but for anyone who has chosen UCI over other local schools, what exactly played into making that choice? The great scholly? Community support? The drive of the dean to put the place in the map? Really curious.


As for the OP, I have Indian friends and I understand the family pressure. Seems like you have your head right, so trust your gut and you will be fine! Best of luck.

[TyrionLannister]

Are the prospects of disownment really that bad?

In the Indian culture, yes. They are that bad. Family is everything. Your plan is very well thought out, for sure. If the OP can get the parents on board, I'd say that's even the advisable route. However, if they can't come around, going against the deeply embedded respect for mom and dad ain't happening.

[jck4487]

Are the prospects of disownment really that bad?

In the Indian culture, yes. They are that bad. Family is everything. Your plan is very well thought out, for sure. If the OP can get the parents on board, I'd say that's even the advisable route. However, if they can't come around, going against the deeply embedded respect for mom and dad ain't happening.

In any culture, $160k job isn't worth screwing up the relationship with the people thatthat, ya know, birthed you and cared for you for 20-some years. I wish my parents cared so much about my success. But I guess I am an outlier? There's a great law review article entitled "On Being a Happy, Healthy and Ethical Member of an Unhappy, Unhealthy and Unethical Profession" by Patrick Schiltz that's really good to read.

Sorry about the typos, I'm on my phone.

[TyrionLannister]

In any culture, $160k job isn't worth screwing up the relationship with the people thatthat, ya know, birthed you and cared for you for 20-some years. I wish my parents cared so much about my success. But I guess I am an outlier? There's a great law review article entitled "On Being a Happy, Healthy and Ethical Member of an Unhappy, Unhealthy and Unethical Profession" by Patrick Schiltz that's really good to read.

Sorry about the typos, I'm on my phone.

Thanks for mentioning that article. Googled and Bookmarked!

[Systematic1]

Very well
To each his own, good luck.
I really do hope you prove me wrong, and given your numbers, I'd say that's pretty likely to occur.

[goldenflash19]

OP, as a fellow Ohioan deadset on California, I'd say go to UCI, or reapply. My situation is almost identical to you, except I'm retaking in June. My parents weren't happy either but got over it; just be persistent. I showed them threads from this site and lawschooltransparency.com, and this helped a lot. Be sure to make it clear to them that this year off ultimately could help you make millions of more dollars in lifetime earnings. Apply early to UCLA, USC, and Berkeley if you take off. Spend the summer perfecting a four page PS for Berk, and submit it first day. Good luck!!