UCLA? Forum

[savesthedayajb]

I am DYING for a call, plzzzzzz ucla plzzzz make my life.

+1 I'll pay almost anything to go too!

[daesonesb]

I know this has been asked before, but I'm sure I'm not the only person who will be caught making this tough decision: UCLA or a lower T-14 like Georgetown/Cornell. How much prestige does Georgetown or Cornell get you in California as compared to UCLA? I was reading a thread earlier today where someone said that Cornell will place you better in San Francisco than UCLA. Really??

Psssshhhhhh. You wanna spend the next three years in cold ass ithaca, or you wanna live it up in westwood?
After year one, you get tuition at 35k, so its cheaper too.

Plus, nah, whoever said UCLA places worse in san fran: They are probably involved in a lil bit of conjecture. Ask for hard data! Sounds like some bullllloney.

I see you've applied to Cornell. Say you get in. It's between Cornell and UCLA. Which do you choose. Why?

UCLA. Cornell costs more and is in a less desirable area. A 2 spot difference in rankings isn't important to me. You have to figure that your happiness is more important. UCLA can give you just as many opportunities if you are a top student, and get involved.

Plus if you are planning to stay on the west coast, then Cornell makes no sense at all (if you actually think you'd like uCLA more).

[SHARK WEEK!]

I estimate tuition will be around $36,500 in-state and $46,500 out-of-state. This is based on the incremental increases over the last 10 years. It has been growing, but it's got to begin tapering off soon.

College tuition taper off? I disagre. Also UC has huge budget problems and tuition will most likely jump 10-15% rather than an incremental increase. When do they release the real cost though? March?

By tapering off I mean that the dollar amount will begin to approach the competitive equilibrium, which off the top of my head should be about $40,000. It's like an asymptote in math, that's all I'm saying. Let's face it, the tuition increases have gone up, but the rate at which they are increasing has gone down (second-derivative is negative). In the year 1999-2000, in-state tuition was $11,000 (correct me if I'm wrong)!

[Jericwithers]

I estimate tuition will be around $36,500 in-state and $46,500 out-of-state. This is based on the incremental increases over the last 10 years. It has been growing, but it's got to begin tapering off soon.

College tuition taper off? I disagre. Also UC has huge budget problems and tuition will most likely jump 10-15% rather than an incremental increase. When do they release the real cost though? March?

By tapering off I mean that the dollar amount will begin to approach the competitive equilibrium, which off the top of my head should be about $40,000. It's like an asymptote in math, that's all I'm saying. Let's face it, the tuition increases have gone up, but the rate at which they are increasing has gone down (second-derivative is negative). In the year 1999-2000, in-state tuition was $11,000 (correct me if I'm wrong)!

Yes but all estimates have it at $50k resident tuition in 3 years....

[SHARK WEEK!]

I estimate tuition will be around $36,500 in-state and $46,500 out-of-state. This is based on the incremental increases over the last 10 years. It has been growing, but it's got to begin tapering off soon.

College tuition taper off? I disagre. Also UC has huge budget problems and tuition will most likely jump 10-15% rather than an incremental increase. When do they release the real cost though? March?

By tapering off I mean that the dollar amount will begin to approach the competitive equilibrium, which off the top of my head should be about $40,000. It's like an asymptote in math, that's all I'm saying. Let's face it, the tuition increases have gone up, but the rate at which they are increasing has gone down (second-derivative is negative). In the year 1999-2000, in-state tuition was $11,000 (correct me if I'm wrong)!

Yes but all estimates have it at $50k resident tuition in 3 years....

Yes. Of course the upper-bound that I'm referring to will continue to climb. So does cost of living, wages, lawyer salaries (this is all assuming the economy recovers, which it will - people need to be fucking patient with these things by the way. Give Obama a break!). I guess my main point is that I think UCLA's in-state tuition is still too low when economics is applied.

Edit: Obviously the regents and I are seeing things the same way. Look, I'm a consumer in all of this too. I wish tuition were lower. I want it to be lower. But you have to pay a fair price for the things you buy. This is an investment not in a commodity, but in something that actually pays you over time. A UCLA Law degree can net you big bucks. On average, it is an excellent deal at the current cost of attending.)

[Jericwithers]

I guess my main point is that I think UCLA's in-state tuition is still too low when economics is applied.

Ya I agree. I'm from Texas and we have cheapcheapcheap in-state law tuition also. It sucks because it has really discounted the education for me, but I know its probably too good of a deal to pass on.

[ruleser]

Yes. Of course the upper-bound that I'm referring to will continue to climb. So does cost of living, wages, lawyer salaries (this is all assuming the economy recovers, which it will - people need to be fucking patient with these things by the way. Give Obama a break!). I guess my main point is that I think UCLA's in-state tuition is still too low when economics is applied.

Edit: Obviously the regents and I are seeing things the same way. Look, I'm a consumer in all of this too. I wish tuition were lower. I want it to be lower. But you have to pay a fair price for the things you buy. This is an investment not in a commodity, but in something that actually pays you over time. A UCLA Law degree can net you big bucks. On average, it is an excellent deal at the current cost of attending.)

I'd disagree with that - affordable public education is an investment the state makes in itself - and one of the best. It builds up its citizens who build up the state. I can use my family as an example - my father was dirt poor growing up, but got to go to a public college, went on to be C-level officer of one of the largest companies on the planet. If that public college had tuitions jacked up, he very possibly doesn't get that chance, doesn't get to contribute to that company and how it helped the country, doesn't help earn/pay taxes the same way. I also experienced this first hand - I'd been in CA and couldn't afford to finish college - they didn't even offer loans despite the fact I'd earned basically nothing - luckily I moved to another state that had super cheap tuition and gave me a grant actually that covered all of tuition and books. I've gone on to have a solid career helping out the community in that state for years and now elsewhere. Other things I'd agree, but cheap public ed for the residents of a state, definitely an investment, and the best one a state can make.

[jay115]

I estimate tuition will be around $36,500 in-state and $46,500 out-of-state. This is based on the incremental increases over the last 10 years. It has been growing, but it's got to begin tapering off soon.

College tuition taper off? I disagre. Also UC has huge budget problems and tuition will most likely jump 10-15% rather than an incremental increase. When do they release the real cost though? March?

California has budget problems - and while the UC's do receive about 30% of their annual budget from the state, they've also been growing their own endowments and preparing for greater independence in 2003 (google pact b/t Schwarzenegger, UC Chancellor, and CSU Chancellor). In terms of UCLA specifically, UCLA just completed the second largest fundraising campaigns in history (a little under 3 billion dollars) and that's not including UCLA Law's capital endowment campaign, which is expected to raise around 100 million by 2011 or 2012, I forget which one.

Edit: I suppose what I'm saying is that the UC has budget problems, but aren't in the dire straights everyone on TLS says they are. While I will be going to UCLA and I do have incentive to persuade stronger students to attend my school, I'm personally not really concerned about the type of students UCLA attracts. For it's ranking and relatively young history, the level of students that apply and ultimately attend UCLA speaks to the law school's future.

[dancinginseptember]

got a call from Dean Schwartz today! about 30 minutes ago.

in

[SHARK WEEK!]

got a call from Dean Schwartz today! about 30 minutes ago.

in

Congratulations!

Edit: I suppose what I'm saying is that the UC has budget problems, but aren't in the dire straights everyone on TLS says they are. While I will be going to UCLA and I do have incentive to persuade stronger students to attend my school, I'm personally not really concerned about the type of students UCLA attracts. For it's ranking and relatively young history, the level of students that apply and ultimately attend UCLA speaks to the law school's future.

I agree whole heartedly with the first statement in bold. I agree within reason (of course) to the second statement in bold.


Also, I love how members of the admissions office are probably reading these posts and going, "Oh no. They brought up tuition, the budget, oye...."

[imisscollege]

my question--UCLA seems to be accepting a lot of people with numbers that are worthy of higher ranked schools at the moment. does ucla expect them to go there? Do they tend to go there? For a school whose median is a 168, they don't seem to be accepting too many 168's. Do they usually go deep into the waitlist?

[SanBun]

my question--UCLA seems to be accepting a lot of people with numbers that are worthy of higher ranked schools at the moment. does ucla expect them to go there? Do they tend to go there? For a school whose median is a 168, they don't seem to be accepting too many 168's. Do they usually go deep into the waitlist?

+1
?

[Hopefullawstudent]

my question--UCLA seems to be accepting a lot of people with numbers that are worthy of higher ranked schools at the moment. does ucla expect them to go there? Do they tend to go there? For a school whose median is a 168, they don't seem to be accepting too many 168's. Do they usually go deep into the waitlist?

I got in with a 168 this week. To be completely honest, I was a little surprised. I'm not a URM, and my softs must have helped.

According to an interview with Dean Schwartz, UCLA does utilize the waitlist and they take a "significant portion" from it in a typical year. To be totally candid however, one should recognize that this is certainly not a typical year. Many people are expecting all of the T20 to boost their numbers this year. This is why I thought I was a dead duck with "only" a 168. I thought a wall would be built at 169 (and a floor set at 3.5-3.6 GPA) with no movement coming through these barriers. Obviously I was 1) wrong, 2) I bought the TLS myth that numbers are all that matters, and 3) I was a bit too cynical about my chances. I'm telling you, you all have to keep the faith, stay positive, and send in any items that may help you from here on out.

Good luck to all of you still waiting!

-HL

[los blancos]

Just got the Complete email.

Still think I'm going to end up on the WL as a combination of UCLA's GPA <3 and YP.

[beef wellington]

According to an interview with Dean Schwartz, UCLA does utilize the waitlist and they take a "significant portion" from it in a typical year.

See I thought UCLA's WL was a soft ding, so I just checked LSN and the people who get off it sure don't look like a significant of a portion to me.

[msch0i]

According to an interview with Dean Schwartz, UCLA does utilize the waitlist and they take a "significant portion" from it in a typical year.

See I thought UCLA's WL was a soft ding, so I just checked LSN and the people who get off it sure don't look like a significant of a portion to me.

On the waitlist faq I received it says on average, waitlist applicants constitute 10%-15% of the class, sometimes going higher.

[Hopefullawstudent]

On the waitlist faq I received it says on average, waitlist applicants constitute 10%-15% of the class, sometimes going higher.

I would take that figure with a grain of salt. This year I'll bet UCLA's apps are up at least 20%. That is largely conjecture of course, but I'd be really surprised if UCLA ends up taking that many off of this year's list. At many schools in years with high application volume, they over-enroll.

[ruleser]

According to an interview with Dean Schwartz, UCLA does utilize the waitlist and they take a "significant portion" from it in a typical year.

See I thought UCLA's WL was a soft ding, so I just checked LSN and the people who get off it sure don't look like a significant of a portion to me.

On the waitlist faq I received it says on average, waitlist applicants constitute 10%-15% of the class, sometimes going higher.

The WL e-mail said they take as few as 10 people or as high as 20% of their class - varies by year.

[Hopefullawstudent]

On their resumes, do you think UCLA Law students abbreviate it U.C.L.A. or do they write out the whole name?

[doobelle]

On their resumes, do you think UCLA Law students abbreviate it U.C.L.A. or do they write out the whole name?

Hmm... I went to UC Berkeley for UG and I spell out the whole name. I always err on the side of formality when it comes to resumes.

[Hopefullawstudent]

On their resumes, do you think UCLA Law students abbreviate it U.C.L.A. or do they write out the whole name?

Hmm... I went to UC Berkeley for UG and I spell out the whole name. I always err on the side of formality when it comes to resumes.

Yea, I figure as much. I suppose I'm just looking for an excuse to save space as I have to cram THREE degrees into the education section.......

-HL

[Jericwithers]

On their resumes, do you think UCLA Law students abbreviate it U.C.L.A. or do they write out the whole name?

Hmm... I went to UC Berkeley for UG and I spell out the whole name. I always err on the side of formality when it comes to resumes.

Yea, I figure as much. I suppose I'm just looking for an excuse to save space as I have to cram THREE degrees into the education section.......

-HL

I would put UCLA School of Law. It has enough name recognition as such, and I have never heard of anyone refer to it as "The University of California at Los Angelas School of Law."

[doobelle]

On their resumes, do you think UCLA Law students abbreviate it U.C.L.A. or do they write out the whole name?

Hmm... I went to UC Berkeley for UG and I spell out the whole name. I always err on the side of formality when it comes to resumes.

Yea, I figure as much. I suppose I'm just looking for an excuse to save space as I have to cram THREE degrees into the education section.......

-HL

I would put UCLA School of Law. It has enough name recognition as such, and I have never heard of anyone refer to it as "The University of California at Los Angelas School of Law."

HA! I totally forgot you would have to include "School of Law". Duh. Yeah, I change my vote to UCLA School of Law, just like above with no periods between the letters. And as far as the education section being long... 1) having three degrees is an awesome problem to have!! 2) I'm a paralegal and I recently helped my attorneys with summer law clerk hiring, so I looked at a lot of 2L's resumes - many of the education sections were really long b/c they included recent grades, relevant classes, law review membership, etc. So I guess I'm saying that there's going to be a lot of stuff to make room for!

[Hopefullawstudent]

HA! I totally forgot you would have to include "School of Law". Duh. Yeah, I change my vote to UCLA School of Law, just like above with no periods between the letters. And as far as the education section being long... 1) having three degrees is an awesome problem to have!! 2) I'm a paralegal and I recently helped my attorneys with summer law clerk hiring, so I looked at a lot of 2L's resumes - many of the education sections were really long b/c they included recent grades, relevant classes, law review membership, etc. So I guess I'm saying that there's going to be a lot of stuff to make room for!

Yea, I'd also vote for "UCLA School of Law". It looks cool abbreviated haha.

[kcg171]

Is anyone else happy that it isn't a leap year?

(complete since October email said we'd hear by the end of February)

Or am I just pathetic