Columbia v. Berkeley for CA big law Forum

[Anonymous User]

Greetings TLS!

I am accepted at Berkeley and I realize that acceptances have not come out for Columbia yet, however both law review competitions for Berkeley and Columbia began today. Also, Berkeley's deadline to "declare intent to enroll" is tomorrow. My stats are top ~3% at Davis/Hastings (anonymity reasons)
There was another similar topic recently posted, but it only received a few reviews and did not have a poll. -> http://www.top-law-schools.com/forums/v ... &p=7808455

My end game is to hopefully be in CA (preferably so cal) in big law. I currently attend Davis/Hastings but am from southern california and did my undergrad there. It would definitely be a big move for me out to NY, and I really want to know whether or not it would be really worth the extra hassle/increased CoA for the bump in rank and prestige if I eventually want to get back to so cal.
Extra: I was accepted to NYU on 7/1, but withdrew my acceptance because I did not believe NYU would be that much better than Berkeley for so cal big law (correct me if I'm wrong).

Any advice or assistance would be greatly appreciated!

[rpupkin]

Berkeley. Your logic for withdrawing from NYU basically applies to CLS as well.

[JVK]

I'm a rising 2L at Columbia, and I'd say go to Berkeley.

Columbia does fine with employment in California, but so does Berkeley. I don't know much about Berkeley stats but if anything, the difference in marketability's negligible. Starting at Davis/Hastings and transferring to New York, on the other hand, might be seen as, at the very least, a slightly reduced interest in staying. It would open up so many more New York doors, but you know you don't want that.

Columbia also has a good amount of LA firms attending EIP, but Berkeley has as much or more at its own OCI, I'm sure. Berkeley's also cheaper at full tuition.

I love my school but I don't think it offers you any more than Berkeley will.

[InfoWolf]

Longtime lurk, first time post.
I am currently in a very similar position you are (similar stats as well), however I have been leaning towards Columbia if I get in. A few things are going into my consideration:
-The Prestige of Columbia and all the other doors that it will open. I am in the same boat that I want to be in so cal big law, however if CLS and Berkeley place similar (as above posters have noted, although I do believe a CLS degree could be better for LA still), why not try NY out to see if you want to be there or somewhere else in the world? The only thing having lost is 10k per year of tuition (not much if you consider it in the scope of $50-$60k range). Also 1BDR in Berkeley is surprisingly similar CoL compared to NYC.
-Personally, I dislike Berkeley's grading system: 60% of the students get P's, which means you could be in the top 50% of the class, yet be rated just like you were in the bottom.
-I dont like the Berkeley area, but that's just me I guess

Pros: Obviously still in CA, not a big move. A bit cheaper. Closer to where you want to be and to the connections you have already made.

TLDR: The overriding reason for me to be leaning towards Columbia just has to do with the national prestige/continual #4 ranking that Columbia gets.

[rpupkin]

-The Prestige of Columbia and all the other doors that it will open.
. . .
The overriding reason for me to be leaning towards Columbia just has to do with the national prestige/continual #4 ranking that Columbia gets.

I don't think the "prestige" difference between Columbia and Boalt extends beyond New York. Columbia isn't Harvard or Yale. In DC, at least, a CLS grad basically has the same opportunities as a Boalt grad. In Northern California, a Boalt grad will have more "open doors." I think it's probably a wash in Southern California.

If you want to practice law in NYC, transfer to Columbia. And if you hate the idea of living in the SF Bay Area for a couple of years and would like to get a job in Southern California, then transfer to Columbia so you can enjoy life during your last two years of law school. But I think it's a mistake to choose Columbia because of some imagined "prestige" that is unlikely to have a substantive impact on your legal career outside of NYC. And it's definitely a mistake to make a decision based on rankings that no one pays attention to except for law school applicants, law school administrators, and TLS trolls.

[FSK]

Additional Benefit of Berk (which, as above, is the right choice here): You never have to trudge through MFH.

[Anonymous User]

OP here. Thank you for all the advice. One thing I keep getting stuck on are the Big Law employment numbers of Columbia v. Berkeley which are 70+% v. 50%. Also, the overall employment % of berkeley 9 mo. after graduation is 88% to Columbia's 97%. Was wondering if someone could speak to the reasoning behind the difference and why it has not necessarily affected people's votes.

I
Starting at Davis/Hastings and transferring to New York, on the other hand, might be seen as, at the very least, a slightly reduced interest in staying.

Is this actually a thing? Would employers not accept the fact that I would have turned down Berkeley for an essentially "better ranked school" with better employment stats into BigLaw?

Thanks again!

EDIT: Also what is the MFH? (evidence of my lack of knowledge of NY)

[sundance95]

MFH = Man Fucking Hattan

It strikes me that if you want Cal, you should go to Cal. Some national firms will not send a west coast office representative to OCI and instead rely upon an east coast person to forward their impressions to hiring personnel in west coast offices; I found my CB conversion ratio to be far less when I wasn't interviewing with someone who was from the west coast.

At Boalt you will not only have folks from the west coast, but probably from the LA and SF and SV offices, so you will be talking to people with direct influence on your CB-offer outcome. On the negative side, a much larger percentage of your class will be trying to get the same positions relative to what percentage you would see at an east coast school.

[SLS_AMG]

Longtime lurk, first time post.
I am currently in a very similar position you are (similar stats as well), however I have been leaning towards Columbia if I get in. A few things are going into my consideration:
-The Prestige of Columbia and all the other doors that it will open. I am in the same boat that I want to be in so cal big law, however if CLS and Berkeley place similar (as above posters have noted, although I do believe a CLS degree could be better for LA still), why not try NY out to see if you want to be there or somewhere else in the world? The only thing having lost is 10k per year of tuition (not much if you consider it in the scope of $50-$60k range). Also 1BDR in Berkeley is surprisingly similar CoL compared to NYC.
-Personally, I dislike Berkeley's grading system: 60% of the students get P's, which means you could be in the top 50% of the class, yet be rated just like you were in the bottom.
-I dont like the Berkeley area, but that's just me I guess

Pros: Obviously still in CA, not a big move. A bit cheaper. Closer to where you want to be and to the connections you have already made.

TLDR: The overriding reason for me to be leaning towards Columbia just has to do with the national prestige/continual #4 ranking that Columbia gets.

What you should take from that post. Columbia is not going to open any more "doors" in the long term; after your first job, you'll be judged by your actual work product. There are Cravath partners from Yale and Harvard just as there are Cravath partners from Fordham and below. The poster above is just as likely to be judged negatively based upon his/her 1L school as s/he is to be judged positively about a prestige boost from CLS in employment after the first job.

Also, just LOL at Columbia being more prestigious than Berkeley in LA.

[jsb422]

OP PM me - same situation

[jbagelboy]

For CA, berkeley. But if you have a good scholarship at Davis (and you're evidently top 10%+ since you got in transfer) I might even consider not transferring.

[Tiago Splitter]

OP here. Thank you for all the advice. One thing I keep getting stuck on are the Big Law employment numbers of Columbia v. Berkeley which are 70+% v. 50%. Also, the overall employment % of berkeley 9 mo. after graduation is 88% to Columbia's 97%. Was wondering if someone could speak to the reasoning behind the difference and why it has not necessarily affected people's votes.

Columbia is better for biglaw but that's because 40% of the biglaw SA's are in NYC. You'll only benefit from Columbia's superior placement if you are willing to put about half of your OCI bids toward NYC offices. If you're going to focus exclusively on California I doubt there is any placement advantage.