UC Hastings Students Taking Questions Forum

[Moonlight]

Are you set on biglaw? (full disclosure, I live in Walnut Creek. I think we have a satellite office for one "big" firm, that's it.) Several smaller firms though.

Not really to be honest. I'd love to go big law and get the experience even if I don't do it long term though. However I'm perfectly happy with medium firms and will settle for smaller firms. Not a huge fan of the 2 attorney firms though just because I want to learn when I first start out and I think a bigger setting may help?

I work in Walnut Creek actually! Haha small world. I love Walnut Creek. I wouldn't mind working for a medium or smaller firm here again if its not the 2 people firms.

What do you think of Hastings in medium and smaller? What do you consider medium and smaller btw?

[taxman128]

the tax law program? Whether its worth it

Resident Cost: $226,846

http://www.lstscorereports.com/?school=hastings

based on my experience with an llm in taxation from new york university, you are not likely to be hired as a tax attorney from this school.

it's a lot safer and cheaper to take tax courses at San Jose state, get excellent grades and work for an accounting firm.

law school is a scam. please don't go.

good luck!

[OneMoreLawHopeful]

I have a different view on a lot of the past several comments. I'm not calling anyone a liar, but the same people can view the same situation differently.

the tax law program? Whether its worth it

Resident Cost: $226,846

I have no idea how LST calculates the "Resident Cost" except to say that it's just not right. I'm sitting on ~$125k of law school debt right now, as a second semester 3L (i.e. with no more borrowing ahead of me), and I had zero savings going into law school. I'll acknowledge getting a good amount of financial aid in grants...but the thing is that the "average" student does as well. According to UCH's 509 report (mandated by the ABA), the "median" grant was over $15k last year, and 80% of students received a grant. (source: http://www.uchastings.edu/about/consume ... 9_2013.pdf ). I suspect LST isn't taking this into account. I also suspect that LST assumes you will not make money over the summer (not true for most people), and thus overestimates borrowing to begin with. LST does a lot of good work, but on this number, there's no way.

Do you think USC has same pull as Hastings in Nor Cal? I want to be here in Nor Cal ultimately.

USC likely does since it's top 20 or so IIRC. But I see mostly a lot of regional schools (Stanford, Boalt, Hastings, SCU, GGU) in firm profiles. I do see some UCLA but not much USC actually.

I'm not sure about this at all. I know people that were shut out of SF/SV at UCLA, and based on my own experience at OCI/interviewing with firms, there are VERY few USC hires at most SF/SV offices. USC definitely has better employment prospects, but if you're set on SF/SV (like I was), then I would argue it's a closer call. But don't take my word for it, look at the NorCal offices of the V100 firms yourself, and you'll quickly see what I'm talking about.

Some don't get SF firm jobs. Some do. SF is a small market, so they take a few SLS a few Berkeley, and a UCH or two (max, seriously, I know two people from UCH going to biglaw in SF next year) and then they are full. If you're OK with Palo Alto, then you are better off, but still you have to be top 20%.

I know you mean well, but this sounds almost misleading to me. Do you have to be top 20% at UCH to get biglaw in SF/SV? Yes. But LST shows that ~60 kids from Hastings went into biglaw last year, not "two people." Maybe I'm misunderstanding your point here, but it sounds like you're suggesting no one from Hastings gets SF biglaw based upon people you know personally. It's clearly easier to get biglaw from Berkeley/Stanford, but in terms of SF biglaw, Hastings is probably better represented than at least some of the T14 (seriously, how many UVA kids do you see in SF biglaw?).

If you want to be in NorCal, Hastings can give you a shot at that, but if you just want a job, USC is clearly better.

So what do you think of the new rank? And also what do you think of the reported 30% employed at graduation? I'm seriously considering Hastings, although I think USC may take me so would love your thoughts on that as well. Thanks

I'm not thrilled with the ratings drop, though I'm somewhat relieved as I thought it would be much steeper. I'm reasonably certain the ratings will recover because the drop was caused by a preposterously large class size in 2012 (it's smaller now), and there's reason to believe that the class of 2013 did better employment-wise than 2012 did (based on the NLJ's early numbers, as cited by Dean Wu in the above link).

As for the 30% employed at graduation, I'd be really careful with that because it's not an ABA statistic, so there's no guarantee of uniformity across schools. In general there are good jobs that will get you employment at graduation (biglaw/article III clerkships), questionable jobs that will give you employment at graduation (state/non-article III clerkships), and good jobs that will not make an offer of employment pre-graduation (many prosecutor and PD offices). Without a breakdown, and without knowing what "employed at graduation" means, it's hard to see it as useful (Does it count people that are employed at Starbucks while studying for the bar? What about people working internships at prosecutor's offices that are known to lead to post-bar employment, do they count as employed?).

As for USC, if you read the rest of this post, you can probably guess my opinion: if you care about being in NorCal, it's a close call, but if you just want a job, then go for USC. I personally know people who went to UCLA thinking they could get employed in NorCal, and it worked out for exactly none of them. This isn't to say that it never happens, but you'd basically have to be in the top 10% of your class, and if you're top 10% at Hastings you can usually work in NorCal anyway, so it's hard for me to see it as anything other than a wash. Again, though, if you're just focused on being a lawyer, go to USC.

didnt you transfer out of Hastings? Why did you transfer? if nothing changed, oh wait you realised that hastings had poor employment prospects and got the fuck out of there when you had the chance to.

Hey deebanger, I'm still waiting on you to answer my question: what law school are you currently attending?

[lisavj]

Some don't get SF firm jobs. Some do. SF is a small market, so they take a few SLS a few Berkeley, and a UCH or two (max, seriously, I know two people from UCH going to biglaw in SF next year) and then they are full. If you're OK with Palo Alto, then you are better off, but still you have to be top 20%.

I know you mean well, but this sounds almost misleading to me. Do you have to be top 20% at UCH to get biglaw in SF/SV? Yes. But LST shows that ~60 kids from Hastings went into biglaw last year, not "two people." Maybe I'm misunderstanding your point here, but it sounds like you're suggesting no one from Hastings gets SF biglaw based upon people you know personally. It's clearly easier to get biglaw from Berkeley/Stanford, but in terms of SF biglaw, Hastings is probably better represented than at least some of the T14 (seriously, how many UVA kids do you see in SF biglaw?).

If you want to be in NorCal, Hastings can give you a shot at that, but if you just want a job, USC is clearly better.

[/quote]

I'm fairly sure I messed up the quotes there, but don't care enough to go back and figure it out.

A few points. First, clarification. I know two people going to SF. I know about three going to SV. Take that as what it is - people I know. I knew only a few people because I had no social life. Anyone who ventured into my corner of the library might have been considered a "friend" so I have some.

Second, I'd dispute your 60 number. Remember, not everyone from UCH goes to SF. Many go to SV (which is still Bay Area, but not SF, trust me, I do the commute and it is NOT SF). A few go to biglaw where they have connections because they are from that area (though I'd admit that number ain't many). A few go to LA. All of a sudden you have far fewer in "big firms" in SF. My honest guess would be about 20 of the 60 are actually "in SF."

UCH does get you some points...a lot of alums out there, so you have a lot of higher ups who will pull for you, which no doubt helps you out. Of course, the question then is: 20/400 (350 now, what's the entering class size?) enough to outweigh whatever the USC placement is. There I can't help you.

Better?

I also can't help you with numbers for midlaw/small - I didn't want it so I didn't look at it.

[taxman128]

Non-Discounted Cost of Attending Law School


The non-discounted cost is the total debt owed when a graduate debt-finances legal education without tuition discounts or other effective discounts
Projections assume a modest 3% annual tuition increase and 2% annual indirect cost (room, board, books, etc.) increase from 2011-2012 figures
Interest calculations are time-sensitive—based on semester disbursement periods—and use a blended interest rate. (The first 10.25k each semester is weighted at 6.8%, the rest at 7.9%.) Interest accrues upon disbursement and capitalizes six months after graduation when the first loan payment is due.


http://www.lawschooltransparency.com/re ... nted-Cost/

[hiima3L]

Are you set on biglaw? (full disclosure, I live in Walnut Creek. I think we have a satellite office for one "big" firm, that's it.) Several smaller firms though.

Not really to be honest. I'd love to go big law and get the experience even if I don't do it long term though. However I'm perfectly happy with medium firms and will settle for smaller firms. Not a huge fan of the 2 attorney firms though just because I want to learn when I first start out and I think a bigger setting may help?

I work in Walnut Creek actually! Haha small world. I love Walnut Creek. I wouldn't mind working for a medium or smaller firm here again if its not the 2 people firms.

What do you think of Hastings in medium and smaller? What do you consider medium and smaller btw?

Here's the thing. Unless you're in the top 10-15% after 1L, you are not getting a job from OCI. You will not get big law. The oft-discussed myth of mid law being a myth is by and large true for the simple fact that mid law firms almost exclusively hire people with experience. This generally means people with 3-5 years' experience elsewhere, and there are a lot of pushed out big law associates who trickle into mid law.

So, are you willing to spend one year and an exorbitant amount of money for a 10, maybe 15% chance at a decent job? If so, go ahead and take the risk. If you are paying anywhere near sticker you will NEED a big law or public interest (PICAP-funded) job or another source of money to service the debt.

Also, I would not at all be cautious of the 30% at graduation rate of the class of 2012. I was in that class and it was horrible. To be fair, a large number of my friends who didn't have jobs at graduation found stuff after the bar results (or their jobs were contingent on passing the bar), but plenty didn't find things for a long time, or still haven't found anything.

[Moonlight]

My impression was always that USC folks were shut out at most SF/SV firms as well. I'm pretty set on SF/SV. Is there a suggested site to look at the top V100 firms?

Thanks for your explanation of your thoughts on the rankings. I'm glad it's because of that large class. So you think it was the employment rate that killed the rankings this year then?

Good point on the 30$ thing by USNWR

[Moonlight]

Are you set on biglaw? (full disclosure, I live in Walnut Creek. I think we have a satellite office for one "big" firm, that's it.) Several smaller firms though.

Not really to be honest. I'd love to go big law and get the experience even if I don't do it long term though. However I'm perfectly happy with medium firms and will settle for smaller firms. Not a huge fan of the 2 attorney firms though just because I want to learn when I first start out and I think a bigger setting may help?

I work in Walnut Creek actually! Haha small world. I love Walnut Creek. I wouldn't mind working for a medium or smaller firm here again if its not the 2 people firms.

What do you think of Hastings in medium and smaller? What do you consider medium and smaller btw?

Here's the thing. Unless you're in the top 10-15% after 1L, you are not getting a job from OCI. You will not get big law. The oft-discussed myth of mid law being a myth is by and large true for the simple fact that mid law firms almost exclusively hire people with experience. This generally means people with 3-5 years' experience elsewhere, and there are a lot of pushed out big law associates who trickle into mid law.

So, are you willing to spend one year and an exorbitant amount of money for a 10, maybe 15% chance at a decent job? If so, go ahead and take the risk. If you are paying anywhere near sticker you will NEED a big law or public interest (PICAP-funded) job or another source of money to service the debt.

Also, I would not at all be cautious of the 30% at graduation rate of the class of 2012. I was in that class and it was horrible. To be fair, a large number of my friends who didn't have jobs at graduation found stuff after the bar results (or their jobs were contingent on passing the bar), but plenty didn't find things for a long time, or still haven't found anything.

Hmm. Now you said unless top 15% you won't get job from OCI. Is that for big law or all jobs in general?

By the way, has Hastings ever given stipends for things aside from tuition? If we can get half tuition, which is close to 20 to 25k then is it a reasonable to attend? Tuition is 40 something K in general right?

[kapital98]

If USC calls you pick up the phone.

Otherwise, nothing has changed. Just bragging rights about attending a "T1" that will only matter to the soulless TLS lurkers.

didnt you transfer out of Hastings? Why did you transfer? if nothing changed, oh wait you realised that hastings had poor employment prospects and got the fuck out of there when you had the chance to.

You know absolutely nothing about my personal reasons to transfer. It wasn't to get biglaw. It was for employment reasons but that's because my new school is, by far, the strongest in the region.

Transferring is not something to be taken lightly.

[kapital98]

@Moonlight: I'm just going to defer to OneMoreLawHopeful regarding USC. Also anything Lasers says.

I don't know enough about the difference in markets and the portability of one degree to another market to give you the same quality of answers.

[deebanger]

kaptial 98- So, because hastings had poor employment reasons? got it. and not set on big law? please! who are you kidding. And oh I knew your reasons. You realised that Hastings had abysimal employment stats, you had good grades after your first year, had to the chance to tranfer, something that not everybody has, so you just got the fuck out there and went to the best school that would have accepted you. Seriously, hastings applicants will take you seriously, if you had not transfered and got a job as a hastings grad. Then you can vouch for hastings, as someone who got the fuck out of there when you had the chance, you cannot vouch for hastings, as you got out of there before it could get ugly. And hey what do you have to say about the 95 hastings grads who are unemployed form the class of 2012. your thoughts on it? And your thoughts on now Hastings being a tier two law school? and ranked below Davis, Berkeley, and Stanford. All 3 of those schools have better employment numbers than Hastings.

[Dingo Starr]

wut?

chill out, broham.

[hiima3L]

Are you set on biglaw? (full disclosure, I live in Walnut Creek. I think we have a satellite office for one "big" firm, that's it.) Several smaller firms though.

Not really to be honest. I'd love to go big law and get the experience even if I don't do it long term though. However I'm perfectly happy with medium firms and will settle for smaller firms. Not a huge fan of the 2 attorney firms though just because I want to learn when I first start out and I think a bigger setting may help?

I work in Walnut Creek actually! Haha small world. I love Walnut Creek. I wouldn't mind working for a medium or smaller firm here again if its not the 2 people firms.

What do you think of Hastings in medium and smaller? What do you consider medium and smaller btw?

Here's the thing. Unless you're in the top 10-15% after 1L, you are not getting a job from OCI. You will not get big law. The oft-discussed myth of mid law being a myth is by and large true for the simple fact that mid law firms almost exclusively hire people with experience. This generally means people with 3-5 years' experience elsewhere, and there are a lot of pushed out big law associates who trickle into mid law.

So, are you willing to spend one year and an exorbitant amount of money for a 10, maybe 15% chance at a decent job? If so, go ahead and take the risk. If you are paying anywhere near sticker you will NEED a big law or public interest (PICAP-funded) job or another source of money to service the debt.

Also, I would not at all be cautious of the 30% at graduation rate of the class of 2012. I was in that class and it was horrible. To be fair, a large number of my friends who didn't have jobs at graduation found stuff after the bar results (or their jobs were contingent on passing the bar), but plenty didn't find things for a long time, or still haven't found anything.

Hmm. Now you said unless top 15% you won't get job from OCI. Is that for big law or all jobs in general?

By the way, has Hastings ever given stipends for things aside from tuition? If we can get half tuition, which is close to 20 to 25k then is it a reasonable to attend? Tuition is 40 something K in general right?

OCI is, with very, very few exceptions, the only way you'll get a big law job. And if you miss that boat, the likelihood of ever landing a big law job is close to zero. And the likelihood of getting any job (aside from DA/PD, small firm jobs) is vanishingly small.

Even with half tuition, you're still looking at upwards of $90-100k of debt. That amounts to payments of roughly $900-1000/mo, and that will barely be enough to cover interest. I don't think that makes it reasonable to attend. Expect tuition to continually go up a few thousand each year. It went up $8k from my 1L to 2L.

[OneMoreLawHopeful]

hastings applicants will take you seriously, if you had not transfered and got a job as a hastings grad. Then you can vouch for hastings, as someone who got the fuck out of there when you had the chance, you cannot vouch for hastings, as you got out of there before it could get ugly.

I'm a Hastings 3L who has a job, and I'm happy to talk about it.

But first, you need to answer the question I've asked 3 times now: what law school are you attending?

[lisavj]

wut?

chill out, broham.

[Moonlight]

hastings applicants will take you seriously, if you had not transfered and got a job as a hastings grad. Then you can vouch for hastings, as someone who got the fuck out of there when you had the chance, you cannot vouch for hastings, as you got out of there before it could get ugly.

I'm a Hastings 3L who has a job, and I'm happy to talk about it.

But first, you need to answer the question I've asked 3 times now: what law school are you attending?

lol this is getting interesting

[deebanger]

hastings applicants will take you seriously, if you had not transfered and got a job as a hastings grad. Then you can vouch for hastings, as someone who got the fuck out of there when you had the chance, you cannot vouch for hastings, as you got out of there before it could get ugly.

I'm a Hastings 3L who has a job, and I'm happy to talk about it.

But first, you need to answer the question I've asked 3 times now: what law school are you attending?

wow, one hastings grad has a big law job? so shocking!, no shit, top students from every school in the country will most likely get a job. How about the 95 students from the class of 2012 who are unemployed? Stop misguiding naive law school applicants. Its like me saying you should play the powerball, because I won it. Well, its a numbers game, the odds say that I will most likely lose. So, I would rather play scratchers where the odds are higher to win. This analogy is what every law school applicant should keep in mind. Yes, you can can get a job coming out Hasitings, but the odds are going to be higher and better in many other school both in Nor cal and in So cal.


and this what another hastings grad posted above me. This is more likely what many hastings grads feel. This is realistic and this poster is not suffering from special snowflake syndrome. "Here's the thing. Unless you're in the top 10-15% after 1L, you are not getting a job from OCI. You will not get big law. The oft-discussed myth of mid law being a myth is by and large true for the simple fact that mid law firms almost exclusively hire people with experience. This generally means people with 3-5 years' experience elsewhere, and there are a lot of pushed out big law associates who trickle into mid law.

So, are you willing to spend one year and an exorbitant amount of money for a 10, maybe 15% chance at a decent job? If so, go ahead and take the risk. If you are paying anywhere near sticker you will NEED a big law or public interest (PICAP-funded) job or another source of money to service the debt.

Also, I would not at all be cautious of the 30% at graduation rate of the class of 2012. I was in that class and it was horrible. To be fair, a large number of my friends who didn't have jobs at graduation found stuff after the bar results (or their jobs were contingent on passing the bar), but plenty didn't find things for a long time, or still haven't found anything."

[OneMoreLawHopeful]

*sigh*

deebanger, it's cute that you discount my viewpoint because of my success. I'd also question your use of "special snowflake" given that I've actually gone through law school and have a job waiting (as opposed to you not having even gotten into a law school you are willing to attend).

But hey, I guess I'm just an "employed" "special snowflake" (booo for me!), and therefore people should discount my experience and listen to your vast knowledge as someone who has never been to law school.

[deebanger]

*sigh*

deebanger, it's cute that you discount my viewpoint because of my success. I'd also question your use of "special snowflake" given that I've actually gone through law school and have a job waiting (as opposed to you not having even gotten into a law school you are willing to attend).

But hey, I guess I'm just an "employed" "special snowflake" (booo for me!), and therefore people should discount my experience and listen to your vast knowledge as someone who has never been to law school.

"as opposed to you not having even gotten into a law school you are willing to attend"- I got into Hastings, and I turned it down. Oh no, does that cause you to have even more of an inferiority complex? I know its hard to believe that one can choose to turn down an offer from the law school you chose to attend right, but its true, people turn down hastings, if you dont believe it look at the transfer stats, people get the fuck out of there if they have the chance too.

[OneMoreLawHopeful]

"as opposed to you not having even gotten into a law school you are willing to attend"- I got into Hastings, and I turned it down. Oh no, does that cause you to have even more of an inferiority complex? I know its hard to believe that one can choose to turn down an offer from the law school you chose to attend right, but its true, people turn down hastings, if you dont believe it look at the transfer stats, people get the fuck out of there if they have the chance too.

Riiiight. See, examine your sentence structure: you got into Hastings but were not willing to attend. Ergo, you have not gotten into a law school you were willing to attend.

Maybe this is why you need to take the LSAT a third time?

[Moonlight]

Deebanger, you may want to save your lip considering Onelaw has gone through law school and done well apparently. Special snowflake or not (btw that's such an odd choice of terms), he made it. You aren't even in law school yet. If law school is tougher than undergrad, I fully anticipate seeing people who scored well on standard tests to potentially suck as well. I met plenty of those in undergrad. I turned down Berkeley for undergrad for a full ride at a lesser known college. So yes we all get that people turn school offers down. The fact you turned down Hastings doesn't mean you'll be better off for certain.

Now chick fight aside, can we get back to examining the potential issues here?

[kapital98]

Now chick fight aside, can we get back to examining the potential issues here?

Exactly. Lets stop feeding the troll.

[hiima3L]

I'll try to continue the remnants of this discussion in a civil manner.

Yes, lots of people transfer out of Hastings. The vast majority of them go to Cal/UCLA/SLS. In fact, I don't know of anyone from my class who transferred to any other school. The people who transfer are almost always someone who couldn't get into these schools, did well 1L year, and wanted better employment options. I'm sure some people transfer for purely personal reasons, but I'm unaware of any of them.

Transferring isn't UCH-specific. Every lower-ranked school has dozens of people who transfer to top schools after 1L for the sole reason of having a better chance at getting a job. UCH gets a bunch from the bottom-feeder schools every year too. I wanted to transfer to Cal but wasn't top 10% after 1L so I didn't bother applying.

But UCH worked out well for me--I got a job my 3L year, enjoyed almost every class and professor I had, and think I got a good education. Of note, I think UCH has an incredibly strong LWR/moot court program that really taught me how to write and do oral arguments well. As a litigator, knowing how to write well has been tremendously important. I've worked with recent grads/interns from other schools and their writing is noticeably worse. (But I also TA'd some students at UCH whose writing was atrocious, so.) I still have mixed feelings on whether our enormous alumni base means anything in that it will actually open up job opps, but it is certainly a great resource for networking. There are also a number of judges who seem to hire exclusively UCH clerks (but, again, you have to be in the very top of the class to clerk). The most shocking thing to me is that UCH still has a really, really good reputation amongst older attorneys because it was a top school in the 80s-00s.

That being said, I cannot in good conscience recommend that anyone go to UCH and take on any serious debt. It is just far, far too risky. My class (2012) got seriously fucked. Our ranking dropped from #30 to #54 for a reason: the class of 2012 had absolutely horrible job outcomes. There is no other way to honestly describe it. (I think the rankings are by and large meaningless, but that's for another thread.) The legal job market got decimated in 2008-2010 and its effects weren't fully apparent until 2010-2011. It's a changed world and schools need to adapt. For UCH, this means cutting its class size dramatically. That isn't happening, so the vast majority of its class is now riddled with crippling debt. If that's a risk you're willing to take, go ahead. Just know that all of the info you need to make an informed decision is out there.

[Mick Haller]

Agree with everything hiima3L said except his use of the word decimated. Legal hiring was cut more like 40-50%, not by a tenth.

[hiima3L]

Agree with everything hiima3L said except his use of the word decimated. Legal hiring was cut more like 40-50%, not by a tenth.

Not sure if trolling . . .