Top Law Schools

I am an Asian male from NYC (CUNY) and trying to settle down in SoCal after my graduation.
Truth of the matter is, I am a prestige-whore, but I am pretty debt-averse.
So I could get some $$$ out of USC/UCLA, I am down to attend one of these two after checking them out.
so my question is how are their prospects in BigLaw, I mean making "good money" = 6 figures?

Both have similar prospects and prestige here in SoCal. If you want biglaw then you're looking at top 30-35%. Although both are solid schools, I highly recommend that you do not attend either at sticker.

Oh my brotha from anotha motha,
Why would you leave CALI, and venture onto East Coast?
One big reason why I want to settle down in SoCal is QOL and relaxed atmosphere in general.
I am pretty much an active guy, so I would love to jog under the sun and around the beaches, go surfing, and visit/hike canyons, etc etc... which East Coast lacks in several ways.

apollo13 wrote:Oh my brotha from anotha motha,
Why would you leave CALI, and venture onto East Coast?
One big reason why I want to settle down in SoCal is QOL and relaxed atmosphere in general.
I am pretty much an active guy, so I would love to jog under the sun and around the beaches, go surfing, and visit/hike canyons, etc etc... which East Coast lacks in several ways.

While LA was cool for a few years, it is really a severely overrated city. Bandwagon sports fans, people with no substance, superficial women. After 9PM the city is literally dead, unless you venture out to Hollywood or something like that. Public transport sucks and there isn't really much to do in the city. Just my opinion man.

I would only pay sticker at Stanford or Berk if I wanted big law in So Cal. And then again maybe not even Berk.

However, USC and UCLA are both great schools with reasonable prospects for big law in LA.

dpk711 wrote:

apollo13 wrote:Oh my brotha from anotha motha,
Why would you leave CALI, and venture onto East Coast?
One big reason why I want to settle down in SoCal is QOL and relaxed atmosphere in general.
I am pretty much an active guy, so I would love to jog under the sun and around the beaches, go surfing, and visit/hike canyons, etc etc... which East Coast lacks in several ways.

While LA was cool for a few years, it is really a severely overrated city. Bandwagon sports fans, people with no substance, superficial women. After 9PM the city is literally dead, unless you venture out to Hollywood or something like that. Public transport sucks and there isn't really much to do in the city. Just my opinion man.

Then by all means, welcome to New York City. It's a compacted and fun place with a lot of people and decent, get-around transportation system. Maybe I am taking huge advantage of this place, but I guess people are same everywhere. But honestly, I am so sick of commuting to/from through subways and buses and the whole crowded, cold face-valued, no nature aspect. I need some air in my life. But this is funny tho, we are a dichotomy

apollo13 wrote:

dpk711 wrote:

apollo13 wrote:Oh my brotha from anotha motha,
Why would you leave CALI, and venture onto East Coast?
One big reason why I want to settle down in SoCal is QOL and relaxed atmosphere in general.
I am pretty much an active guy, so I would love to jog under the sun and around the beaches, go surfing, and visit/hike canyons, etc etc... which East Coast lacks in several ways.

While LA was cool for a few years, it is really a severely overrated city. Bandwagon sports fans, people with no substance, superficial women. After 9PM the city is literally dead, unless you venture out to Hollywood or something like that. Public transport sucks and there isn't really much to do in the city. Just my opinion man.

Then by all means, welcome to New York City. It's a compacted and fun place with a lot of people and decent, get-around transportation system. Maybe I am taking huge advantage of this place, but I guess people are same everywhere. But honestly, I am so sick of commuting to/from through subways and buses and the whole crowded, cold face-valued, no nature aspect. I need some air in my life. But this is funny tho, we are a dichotomy

Haha, I hear ya. For sure though, you're going to miss NY. You will get sick and tired of LA after the brief honeymoon period.

dpk711 wrote:

apollo13 wrote:

dpk711 wrote:

apollo13 wrote:Oh my brotha from anotha motha,
Why would you leave CALI, and venture onto East Coast?
One big reason why I want to settle down in SoCal is QOL and relaxed atmosphere in general.
I am pretty much an active guy, so I would love to jog under the sun and around the beaches, go surfing, and visit/hike canyons, etc etc... which East Coast lacks in several ways.

While LA was cool for a few years, it is really a severely overrated city. Bandwagon sports fans, people with no substance, superficial women. After 9PM the city is literally dead, unless you venture out to Hollywood or something like that. Public transport sucks and there isn't really much to do in the city. Just my opinion man.

Then by all means, welcome to New York City. It's a compacted and fun place with a lot of people and decent, get-around transportation system. Maybe I am taking huge advantage of this place, but I guess people are same everywhere. But honestly, I am so sick of commuting to/from through subways and buses and the whole crowded, cold face-valued, no nature aspect. I need some air in my life. But this is funny tho, we are a dichotomy

Haha, I hear ya. For sure though, you're going to miss NY. You will get sick and tired of LA after the brief honeymoon period.

Haha, that is why San Fran is my 2nd option.

apollo13 wrote: Haha, that is why San Fran is my 2nd option.

Although SF is also overrated, it's better than LA IMHO.

This thread is full of extremely subjective statements about cities. I am interested in the original topic, especially USC's placement/quality in CA. The posts in this thread barely address OP's original question. I am on USC's WL and am wondering if you guys think USC (presumably at sticker) would be worth taking over Loyola LA with an 87k scholarship (top 30% stip). Any insight would be appreciated.

chimp wrote:This thread is full of extremely subjective statements about cities. I am interested in the original topic, especially USC's placement/quality in CA. The posts in this thread barely address OP's original question. I am on USC's WL and am wondering if you guys think USC (presumably at sticker) would be worth taking over Loyola LA with an 87k scholarship (top 30% stip). Any insight would be appreciated.

USC sticker is a huge gamble but it is significantly better than Loyola. Also, that 30% stipulation is pretty horrible. I would choose USC here if you want biglaw but remember that only 30%-35% of the class get that at USC. Personally I would never go to USC sticker. I would never go to GULC or Cornell sticker either just to put things into perspective.

dpk711 wrote:

chimp wrote:This thread is full of extremely subjective statements about cities. I am interested in the original topic, especially USC's placement/quality in CA. The posts in this thread barely address OP's original question. I am on USC's WL and am wondering if you guys think USC (presumably at sticker) would be worth taking over Loyola LA with an 87k scholarship (top 30% stip). Any insight would be appreciated.

USC sticker is a huge gamble but it is significantly better than Loyola. Also, that 30% stipulation is pretty horrible. I would choose USC here if you want biglaw but remember that only 30%-35% of the class get that at USC. Personally I would never go to USC sticker. I would never go to GULC or Cornell sticker either just to put things into perspective.

Gotcha. Thanks for the advice.

dpk711 wrote:

chimp wrote:This thread is full of extremely subjective statements about cities. I am interested in the original topic, especially USC's placement/quality in CA. The posts in this thread barely address OP's original question. I am on USC's WL and am wondering if you guys think USC (presumably at sticker) would be worth taking over Loyola LA with an 87k scholarship (top 30% stip). Any insight would be appreciated.

USC sticker is a huge gamble but it is significantly better than Loyola. Also, that 30% stipulation is pretty horrible. I would choose USC here if you want biglaw but remember that only 30%-35% of the class get that at USC. Personally I would never go to USC sticker. I would never go to GULC or Cornell sticker either just to put things into perspective.

Does one really have to be in the top third or so for this? I am just looking at Law School Transparency and it shows about 45% making 145k or more. I know "Big Law" is defined differently by different people, but 145k seems pretty good. Also, I imagine there are those people that choose to go PI that are in the top third. With this it seems like above median is fine at USC to make enough to pay off loans comfortably. Am I missing something or am I just being liberal with the big law term?

This is from a UCLA law student in the UCLA profile on this website- "In a good economy, about 40 percent of the class gets a firm job. The top 40 percent is somewhere around a 3.3 GPA, and I think the median GPA is a little over a 3.2". My guess is that it's around 30% or so like someone else said. Just from knowing some people at USC law graduating this year, median wasn't good enough when they did OCI. Hope that helps.

And to the poster above me- One explanation could be that if you got the class of 2009 numbers (the most recent numbers on LST), they went through OCI in 2007, which was a much different time. That could mean that in a good economy, the numbers you said (45%) were what you'd want to be around for a big firm job.

YaSvoboden wrote: Does one really have to be in the top third or so for this? I am just looking at Law School Transparency and it shows about 45% making 145k or more. I know "Big Law" is defined differently by different people, but 145k seems pretty good. Also, I imagine there are those people that choose to go PI that are in the top third. With this it seems like above median is fine at USC to make enough to pay off loans comfortably. Am I missing something or am I just being liberal with the big law term?

You are missing the fact that there are more factors considered in hiring besides grades. Top 25% have a great shot if they want it based off their grades. There are those who will get big law or 145k plus jobs without great grades. Law students with WE, URM status, patent bar passage, or significant connections will get jobs even below median. To think that being above median guarantees you a job is foolish.

agree that top 30% is pretty necessary, because the la firms hire much smaller "classes" each year. at skadden (for example, though obviously it's much tougher than others) two-ish years ago, they hired like 2 kids from boalt, 2 (or 4?) from ucla/usc, and 2 from loyola. or something like that. anyway, i imagine that trickles down


(also, almost no one from california says cali. )

ladybug89 wrote:agree that top 30% is pretty necessary, because the la firms hire much smaller "classes" each year. at skadden (for example, though obviously it's much tougher than others) two-ish years ago, they hired like 2 kids from boalt, 2 (or 4?) from ucla/usc, and 2 from loyola. or something like that. anyway, i imagine that trickles do

(also, almost no one from california says cali. )

I would say that top 30% is helpful but not necessary. I was talking to some current Law Students at a T10 school and they said that often times people who get biglaw jobs are not just people with top grades. Factors such as work experience, and previous internships and degrees also weigh substantially in the on campus hiring process (if your Law School does not do pre-screening).

miracle2011 wrote:

ladybug89 wrote:agree that top 30% is pretty necessary, because the la firms hire much smaller "classes" each year. at skadden (for example, though obviously it's much tougher than others) two-ish years ago, they hired like 2 kids from boalt, 2 (or 4?) from ucla/usc, and 2 from loyola. or something like that. anyway, i imagine that trickles do

(also, almost no one from california says cali. )

I would say that top 30% is helpful but not necessary. I was talking to some current Law Students at a T10 school and they said that often times people who get biglaw jobs are not just people with top grades. Factors such as work experience, and previous internships and degrees also weigh substantially in the on campus hiring process (if your Law School does not do pre-screening).

This argument is flawed in numerous ways, not the least being that USC/UCLA is not a T10 school.

dpk711 wrote:

miracle2011 wrote:

ladybug89 wrote:agree that top 30% is pretty necessary, because the la firms hire much smaller "classes" each year. at skadden (for example, though obviously it's much tougher than others) two-ish years ago, they hired like 2 kids from boalt, 2 (or 4?) from ucla/usc, and 2 from loyola. or something like that. anyway, i imagine that trickles do

(also, almost no one from california says cali. )

I would say that top 30% is helpful but not necessary. I was talking to some current Law Students at a T10 school and they said that often times people who get biglaw jobs are not just people with top grades. Factors such as work experience, and previous internships and degrees also weigh substantially in the on campus hiring process (if your Law School does not do pre-screening).

This argument is flawed in numerous ways, not the least being that USC/UCLA is not a T10 school.

However biglaw hiring processes are not as formulaic as these boards seem to think. To tell me that Skadden will hire someone who has no work experience and is median at Berkeley, and not someone who is median at UCLA, but worked for five years at a fortune 500 company in an executive position is ludicrous. Prestige is important, but people can't hide behind their fancy degree when their competitors have substantive experiences which they can bring to the company.

miracle2011 wrote:

dpk711 wrote:

miracle2011 wrote:

ladybug89 wrote:agree that top 30% is pretty necessary, because the la firms hire much smaller "classes" each year. at skadden (for example, though obviously it's much tougher than others) two-ish years ago, they hired like 2 kids from boalt, 2 (or 4?) from ucla/usc, and 2 from loyola. or something like that. anyway, i imagine that trickles do

(also, almost no one from california says cali. )

I would say that top 30% is helpful but not necessary. I was talking to some current Law Students at a T10 school and they said that often times people who get biglaw jobs are not just people with top grades. Factors such as work experience, and previous internships and degrees also weigh substantially in the on campus hiring process (if your Law School does not do pre-screening).

This argument is flawed in numerous ways, not the least being that USC/UCLA is not a T10 school.

However biglaw hiring processes are not as formulaic as these boards seem to think. To tell me that Skadden will hire someone who has no work experience and is median at Berkeley, and not someone who is median at UCLA, but worked for five years at a fortune 500 company in an executive position is ludicrous. Prestige is important, but people can't hide behind their fancy degree when their competitors have substantive experiences which they can bring to the company.

Actually, on the contrary, it is pretty formulaic. A student who is median at UCLA shouldn't expect biglaw unless they have networked exceptionally well. To be honest, I think the person who graduated median at Berkeley has the edge in your hypothetical.

dpk711 wrote:

apollo13 wrote:Oh my brotha from anotha motha,
Why would you leave CALI, and venture onto East Coast?
One big reason why I want to settle down in SoCal is QOL and relaxed atmosphere in general.
I am pretty much an active guy, so I would love to jog under the sun and around the beaches, go surfing, and visit/hike canyons, etc etc... which East Coast lacks in several ways.

While LA was cool for a few years, it is really a severely overrated city. Bandwagon sports fans, people with no substance, superficial women. After 9PM the city is literally dead, unless you venture out to Hollywood or something like that. Public transport sucks and there isn't really much to do in the city. Just my opinion man.

dpk711 wrote:

apollo13 wrote: Haha, that is why San Fran is my 2nd option.

Although SF is also overrated, it's better than LA IMHO.

op please ignore this poster

sfxx wrote:

dpk711 wrote:

apollo13 wrote:Oh my brotha from anotha motha,
Why would you leave CALI, and venture onto East Coast?
One big reason why I want to settle down in SoCal is QOL and relaxed atmosphere in general.
I am pretty much an active guy, so I would love to jog under the sun and around the beaches, go surfing, and visit/hike canyons, etc etc... which East Coast lacks in several ways.

While LA was cool for a few years, it is really a severely overrated city. Bandwagon sports fans, people with no substance, superficial women. After 9PM the city is literally dead, unless you venture out to Hollywood or something like that. Public transport sucks and there isn't really much to do in the city. Just my opinion man.

dpk711 wrote:

apollo13 wrote: Haha, that is why San Fran is my 2nd option.

Although SF is also overrated, it's better than LA IMHO.

op please ignore this poster

haha, we got some SF love here...
This whole talk about which city is better from tired, jaded habitants perspective is overrated.
Anyhow, so I should be looking at top 30-40% from both schools for good money, ehh...

YaSvoboden wrote:

dpk711 wrote:

chimp wrote:This thread is full of extremely subjective statements about cities. I am interested in the original topic, especially USC's placement/quality in CA. The posts in this thread barely address OP's original question. I am on USC's WL and am wondering if you guys think USC (presumably at sticker) would be worth taking over Loyola LA with an 87k scholarship (top 30% stip). Any insight would be appreciated.

USC sticker is a huge gamble but it is significantly better than Loyola. Also, that 30% stipulation is pretty horrible. I would choose USC here if you want biglaw but remember that only 30%-35% of the class get that at USC. Personally I would never go to USC sticker. I would never go to GULC or Cornell sticker either just to put things into perspective.

Does one really have to be in the top third or so for this? I am just looking at Law School Transparency and it shows about 45% making 145k or more. I know "Big Law" is defined differently by different people, but 145k seems pretty good. Also, I imagine there are those people that choose to go PI that are in the top third. With this it seems like above median is fine at USC to make enough to pay off loans comfortably. Am I missing something or am I just being liberal with the big law term?

The one major adjustment that needs to be made relates to the sharp difference in '09 opportunities vs present day. For many schools, the Class of 2009 represents the very best hiring in the history of the programs. If you look at the decreases just in NLJ250 hiring (for which the 2010 employer-culled list is now available), you can see that USC dropped from 41.3% to 28.7%. Following the trend, Class of 2011 opportunities will most likely be even more limited to only the very top performers.

My general advice is that, absent the school's responsible decision to provide you with up-to-date information on recent employment outcomes, you should assume that current placement ability is about half what it was a few years ago. That may seem ridiculous given that tuition at most schools is more than it was a few years ago, but the market hasn't yet corrected for the sharp decrease in opportunities for top students, let alone reflect what people would actually be willing to pay were they fully informed of the risks involved and the actual opportunities available to past graduates.

In other words, someone deciding whether to attend USC might assume that a little more than a fifth of the class (22%) will have the opportunity to make $145K, while 15% or so may still land a 160K job upon graduation. This raises serious questions about what the rest of the class is left doing for work, which requires you to contact the school directly. Obviously these estimates are far from certain, but for a risk-averse applicant they represent the type of assumptions you need to make in the absence of basic consumer information being released by the school.

Your best bet at making an informed decision is to contact career services and request detailed information on Class of 2010 graduates for every school you're considering, following the data schools just submitted to NALP. Relying on the comparative strength in NLJ250 placement, U.S. News rank*, or other metrics which track only the placement ability for top performers is extremely risky. You have a right to know what every graduate is doing for work and to make your decision to attend based on that information. G'luck.

*U.S. News does serve as a rough proxy for biglaw placement for the very top law schools, but the rankings are largely useless when deciding between schools ranked out of the top 10 or 15.