Top Law Schools

Would Columbia be better than USC, even for biglaw in LA? Would Berkeley Law be better than USC/UCLA?

If you are la or bust, I would say Cal>Columbia>UCLA/usc

The difference between Columbia and Cal is pretty marginal. The difference between UCLA and Columbia is fairly substantial.

BerkeleyLaw wrote:Would Columbia be better than USC, even for biglaw in LA? Would Berkeley Law be better than USC/UCLA?

The best law schools for BigLaw in any market are the T13, roughly in that order; then (with a large gap) the T20s (if any) in that region; then any strong T1s (if any) in that region. Absolutely don't go to USC/UCLA over any T13 with BigLaw goals. The T13 alone (plus Vandy and Georgetown, at least during the current boom times) assure median students BigLaw. The average student at USC/UCLA does not land BigLaw.

Do you have existing CA ties? If yes, then I think that assuming equal COA, Columbia wins over Berkeley (simply due to Columbia's increased overall BigLaw placement strength). If you don't have CA ties, then Berkeley might confer a bit of an added advantage due to being in CA, but even then I don't think that should be determinative.

dabigchina wrote:If you are la or bust, I would say Cal>Columbia>UCLA/usc

The difference between Columbia and Cal is pretty marginal. The difference between UCLA and Columbia is fairly substantial.

Hmm okay thank you for the input! : )

QContinuum wrote:

BerkeleyLaw wrote:Would Columbia be better than USC, even for biglaw in LA? Would Berkeley Law be better than USC/UCLA?

The best law schools for BigLaw in any market are the T13, roughly in that order; then (with a large gap) the T20s (if any) in that region; then any strong T1s (if any) in that region. Absolutely don't go to USC/UCLA over any T13 with BigLaw goals. The T13 alone (plus Vandy and Georgetown, at least during the current boom times) assure median students BigLaw. The average student at USC/UCLA does not land BigLaw.

Do you have existing CA ties? If yes, then I think that assuming equal COA, Columbia wins over Berkeley (simply due to Columbia's increased overall BigLaw placement strength). If you don't have CA ties, then Berkeley might confer a bit of an added advantage due to being in CA, but even then I don't think that should be determinative.

I went to USC undergrad and have lived in cali all my life. Thank you for the input!! : )

The answer to the title question is “Stanford.”
But with LA roots, I don’t think Berkeley / a CA school confers any particular advantage. I would definitely opt for a T14 over UCLA/USC if on the table. And I’d take Columbia over Berkeley if for some reason all else was equal.

QContinuum wrote:

BerkeleyLaw wrote:Would Columbia be better than USC, even for biglaw in LA? Would Berkeley Law be better than USC/UCLA?

The best law schools for BigLaw in any market are the T13, roughly in that order; then (with a large gap) the T20s (if any) in that region; then any strong T1s (if any) in that region. Absolutely don't go to USC/UCLA over any T13 with BigLaw goals. The T13 alone (plus Vandy and Georgetown, at least during the current boom times) assure median students BigLaw. The average student at USC/UCLA does not land BigLaw.

Do you have existing CA ties? If yes, then I think that assuming equal COA, Columbia wins over Berkeley (simply due to Columbia's increased overall BigLaw placement strength). If you don't have CA ties, then Berkeley might confer a bit of an added advantage due to being in CA, but even then I don't think that should be determinative.

I practice in LA and I disagree. While I think most attorneys in LA regard Columbia as a better school than Berkeley, I think that's counterbalanced by the fact that a lot of LA offices don't interview at CCN. (My office interviews only at Harvard and the T30 schools in CA, and I think that's not uncommon.) If you are absolutely dead set on being in LA, I think your best bets are approximately: S>YH>Berkeley>CCN>rest of the T14+USC+UCLA.

hlsperson1111 wrote:

QContinuum wrote:The best law schools for BigLaw in any market are the T13, roughly in that order; then (with a large gap) the T20s (if any) in that region; then any strong T1s (if any) in that region. Absolutely don't go to USC/UCLA over any T13 with BigLaw goals. The T13 alone (plus Vandy and Georgetown, at least during the current boom times) assure median students BigLaw. The average student at USC/UCLA does not land BigLaw.

Do you have existing CA ties? If yes, then I think that assuming equal COA, Columbia wins over Berkeley (simply due to Columbia's increased overall BigLaw placement strength). If you don't have CA ties, then Berkeley might confer a bit of an added advantage due to being in CA, but even then I don't think that should be determinative.

I practice in LA and I disagree. While I think most attorneys in LA regard Columbia as a better school than Berkeley, I think that's counterbalanced by the fact that a lot of LA offices don't interview at CCN. (My office interviews only at Harvard and the T30 schools in CA, and I think that's not uncommon.) If you are absolutely dead set on being in LA, I think your best bets are approximately: S>YH>Berkeley>CCN>rest of the T14+USC+UCLA.

I believe all of the "known names" in LA BigLaw interview at Columbia & NYU. Those that don't specifically fly out LA partners to OCI still allow C/N students to interview for LA via an NY partner at OCI (followed by a callback interview in LA). Finally, "mass mailing" (applying directly to firms outside of OCI) also works. I haven't heard of a single C/N student with CA ties who had difficulty getting considered by LA/Sil Val BigLaw. (Of course, LA BigLaw is more grades-selective, overall, than NY BigLaw, but that's true for Berkeley students too, not just CCN students.)

It's still marginally harder from CCN, though, if only because the alumni networks are smaller over there. Conventional wisdom still seems to hold:

Tier 1: HYSBerkeley
Tier 1.5: CCN with ties (Michigan traditionally was up here too but idk if that's still valid)
Tier 2: Other T13 with ties
<<<below this point you'll have trouble at median>>>
Tier 3: The last two groups but without ties, UCLA/USC/UCI
Tier 4: Other T20s with strong ties

QContinuum wrote:

hlsperson1111 wrote:

QContinuum wrote:The best law schools for BigLaw in any market are the T13, roughly in that order; then (with a large gap) the T20s (if any) in that region; then any strong T1s (if any) in that region. Absolutely don't go to USC/UCLA over any T13 with BigLaw goals. The T13 alone (plus Vandy and Georgetown, at least during the current boom times) assure median students BigLaw. The average student at USC/UCLA does not land BigLaw.

Do you have existing CA ties? If yes, then I think that assuming equal COA, Columbia wins over Berkeley (simply due to Columbia's increased overall BigLaw placement strength). If you don't have CA ties, then Berkeley might confer a bit of an added advantage due to being in CA, but even then I don't think that should be determinative.

I practice in LA and I disagree. While I think most attorneys in LA regard Columbia as a better school than Berkeley, I think that's counterbalanced by the fact that a lot of LA offices don't interview at CCN. (My office interviews only at Harvard and the T30 schools in CA, and I think that's not uncommon.) If you are absolutely dead set on being in LA, I think your best bets are approximately: S>YH>Berkeley>CCN>rest of the T14+USC+UCLA.

I believe all of the "known names" in LA BigLaw interview at Columbia & NYU. Those that don't specifically fly out LA partners to OCI still allow C/N students to interview for LA via an NY partner at OCI (followed by a callback interview in LA). Finally, "mass mailing" (applying directly to firms outside of OCI) also works. I haven't heard of a single C/N student with CA ties who had difficulty getting considered by LA/Sil Val BigLaw. (Of course, LA BigLaw is more grades-selective, overall, than NY BigLaw, but that's true for Berkeley students too, not just CCN students.)

Once you get past the big native LA firms (Latham, GDC, OMM, MTO, Paul Hastings) this is just not accurate. The summer classes are much smaller than in NYC, and the attitude at many places is that they can fill their summer classes at the CA schools (and HLS, which LA schools like because it is prestigious and has a critical mass of students who want LA firms) without needing to look at mass mail applicants or applicants from schools where they don't do OCI. There are also not that many students at the non-CA schools who want to be in LA, so it often doesn't make sense to send someone to interview there. And this leads to smaller alumni networks, which in turn leads to less recruiting from those schools. I know it really does not jive with TLS wisdom, but I really do think Berkeley places better in LA than CCN and I think that's the conventional wisdom among LA practitioners.

hlsperson1111 wrote: I know it really does not jive with TLS wisdom, but I really do think Berkeley places better in LA than CCN and I think that's the conventional wisdom among LA practitioners.

Nah, this is the traditional TLS wisdom too. It's about as uncontroversial as saying Duke is better than CCN for Atlanta, or Michigan is better than CCN for Detroit. Some of the best Californian posters have been gone for a while, so maybe it's getting forgotten.

I think the pushback you're getting comes from this consideration: if you already have stellar LA ties (e.g., grew up in southern California and then went to UCLA undergrad), then the difference between CCN and Berkeley mostly washes out, and CCN meanwhile offers better fallback options if you get bad grades and want to bail out into NYC biglaw.

So in this "CLS or Cal, equal CoA" hypo I'd go with Columbia for someone who's biglaw-or-bust and Berkeley for someone who's LA-or-bust.

The Lsat Airbender wrote:

hlsperson1111 wrote: I know it really does not jive with TLS wisdom, but I really do think Berkeley places better in LA than CCN and I think that's the conventional wisdom among LA practitioners.

I think the pushback you're getting comes from this consideration: if you already have stellar LA ties (e.g., grew up in southern California and then went to UCLA undergrad), then the difference between CCN and Berkeley mostly washes out, and CCN meanwhile offers better fallback options if you get bad grades and want to bail out into NYC biglaw.

LSAT Airbender is completely correct. Perhaps hlsperson and I were speaking a bit past each other. My advice ITT has been directed to OP, who's a lifelong Californian and attended USC undergrad. (My advice would be less strongly in favor of C/N over Berkeley if OP had weak or no CA ties.) And it relies on the logic articulated above, that CCN offer better BigLaw placement overall should OP not do well enough (grades-wise) to land LA BigLaw. It's fairly easy, especially with ties, to lateral to CA BigLaw from non-CA BigLaw (or even transfer offices within the same firm).

And of course I also agree that Stanford is better than CCN for California (or even anywhere in the country, really). And that Harvard has an edge too, as does Yale. I don't think anyone ITT has suggested anything to the contrary re YSH.

QContinuum wrote:

The Lsat Airbender wrote:

hlsperson1111 wrote: I know it really does not jive with TLS wisdom, but I really do think Berkeley places better in LA than CCN and I think that's the conventional wisdom among LA practitioners.

I think the pushback you're getting comes from this consideration: if you already have stellar LA ties (e.g., grew up in southern California and then went to UCLA undergrad), then the difference between CCN and Berkeley mostly washes out, and CCN meanwhile offers better fallback options if you get bad grades and want to bail out into NYC biglaw.

LSAT Airbender is completely correct. Perhaps hlsperson and I were speaking a bit past each other. My advice ITT has been directed to OP, who's a lifelong Californian and attended USC undergrad. (My advice would be less strongly in favor of C/N over Berkeley if OP had weak or no CA ties.) And it relies on the logic articulated above, that CCN offer better BigLaw placement overall should OP not do well enough (grades-wise) to land LA BigLaw. It's fairly easy, especially with ties, to lateral to CA BigLaw from non-CA BigLaw (or even transfer offices within the same firm).

And of course I also agree that Stanford is better than CCN for California (or even anywhere in the country, really). And that Harvard has an edge too, as does Yale. I don't think anyone ITT has suggested anything to the contrary re YSH.

What I'll say is that OP needs to weigh the better chances of NYC biglaw + generally better prestige/opportunities against having a better alumni network and a more streamlined process for getting a job in LA through OCI. I think you can make a reasonable argument on either side.