UCLA? Forum

[tru]

.

[capitalacq]

Brentwood because Westwood is A) expensive, B) full of undergrads, and C) a little college bubble, which I don't want to live in.

Also, people who live in Weyburn still have to take the UCLA shuttle (or bike/walk a decent way uphill) to get to the law school, so I figure adding 10 minutes to the bus ride to the law school doesn't outweigh the hundreds of dollars I save on rent a month. Weyburn is between $1000-1500/month, and everything in Brentwood is between $700-900/month.

Westwood kicks ass. its not *so* full of UGs (there's med students too!!!) and its definitely not a bubble (unless movie stars are part of your bubble). PLUS THERES AN URBAN OUTFITTERS!!!!

[Hopefullawstudent]

Just got the call from R.S. this morning... ACCEPTED... now the debate as old as time UCLA or stay at USC?

Hm. I'd say the "debate" is over. UCLA is higher ranked, cheaper, in a much better location, at a more prestigious institution, has nicer facilities, better faculty, stronger student body, more degree portability, and there's the common perception that UCLA will continue to rise in the rankings over time (which I've never heard of for USC).

Two more facts that seem to settle the debate: 1) It is common knowledge that most students at USC were rejected from UCLA, whereas the reverse is not the same, and 2) it is commonly said that 95% of cross-admits between the two schools choose UCLA.

To be fair, USC has the Trojan Network. But let's think about that: There's a reason why USC alumni are instructed to dip so low into their own school's graduating classes... they have to! Who else would hire these people? Is a network born from desperation worthy of admiration, or, should this network be taken as evidence that USC is working really hard at remedying an embarrassing (well, to them at least) problem they know they have: being second-best to UCLA?

Go to UCLA.

[jay115]

Brentwood because Westwood is A) expensive, B) full of undergrads, and C) a little college bubble, which I don't want to live in.

Also, people who live in Weyburn still have to take the UCLA shuttle (or bike/walk a decent way uphill) to get to the law school, so I figure adding 10 minutes to the bus ride to the law school doesn't outweigh the hundreds of dollars I save on rent a month. Weyburn is between $1000-1500/month, and everything in Brentwood is between $700-900/month.

Westwood kicks ass. its not *so* full of UGs (there's med students too!!!) and its definitely not a bubble (unless movie stars are part of your bubble). PLUS THERES AN URBAN OUTFITTERS!!!!

OMG urban outfitters! I bought some stuff during the first ASD but forgot that I still had to attend the ASD. So during the entire time, I had to walk around with my urban outfitters bag with all my stuff in it and I'm pretty sure everyone around me thought I was the most pretentious homo they've ever seen. Ugh.

[ajauffret]

Just got the call from R.S. this morning... ACCEPTED... now the debate as old as time UCLA or stay at USC?

About as old as the debate: would you like to get shot running through the ghettos of LA getting to class at USC, or go to UCLA and live 15 minutes away near from the Santa Monica boardwalk?

or higher ranked school + better price + better location + better job opportunities = UCLA

do you think ranked 2 or 3 higher is really that important, especially since they are both out of the top 14? and many would claim that UCLA offers better job opportunities is pretty debatable right? (and with scholy money SC would be way cheaper)... ill give you on location but that may not be enough to convince me

[jay115]

or higher ranked school + better price + better location + better job opportunities = UCLA

do you think ranked 2 or 3 higher is really that important, especially since they are both out of the top 14? and many would claim that UCLA offers better job opportunities is pretty debatable right? (and with scholy money SC would be way cheaper)... ill give you on location but that may not be enough to convince me

it sounds like you already know where you want to go, lol.

[tru]

.

[ogurty]

Although they are both out of T14, UCLA places far better in biglaw. This is a fact.

Any proof please. USC places better in NLJ250 and V50.

[Hopefullawstudent]

Although they are both out of T14, UCLA places far better in biglaw. This is a fact.

Any proof please. USC places better a higher percentage of its class in NLJ250 and V50.

If we go by your choice of words, then UCLA places "better" than Yale in top firm spots also. You know, it looks like law school is going to be a pretty frustrating endeavor after all, if not for my fellow students and their poor grasp of Statistics 101 alone.

I've said it a million times before (and always supported by the knowledgeable among us): "A MUCH stronger top-firm placement statistic would be the percentage of students securing employment at a top firm who also considered a top firm job their primary goal." Obviously this statistic presents difficulties in measuring it, thus, it is not measured in this manner at all. Per usual, the legal community chooses to settle for stats based on appalling methodology (ehem, the USNWR) instead of getting it right.

People of TLS, why are we having such a hard time understanding this? We did well on the LSAT, yea?

[tru]

.

[ogurty]

Although they are both out of T14, UCLA places far better in biglaw. This is a fact.

Any proof please. USC places better a higher percentage of its class in NLJ250 and V50.

If we go by your choice of words, then UCLA places "better" than Yale in top firm spots also. You know, it looks like law school is going to be a pretty frustrating endeavor after all, if not for my fellow students and their poor grasp of Statistics 101 alone.

I've said it a million times before (and always supported by the knowledgeable among us): "A MUCH stronger top-firm placement statistic would be the percentage of students securing employment at a top firm who also considered a top firm job their primary goal." Obviously this statistic presents difficulties in measuring it, thus, it is not measured in this manner at all. Per usual, the legal community chooses to settle for stats based on appalling methodology (ehem, the USNWR) instead of getting it right.

People of TLS, why are we having such a hard time understanding this? We did well on the LSAT, yea?

The condescension is seriously off-putting, fyi.

Again, by every measure I've seen, USC (and Yale) place better than UCLA in an overall survey of the most competitive jobs. This is most likely due to the Trojan network; it is nonetheless a fact.

If you have anything to back up your claim that USC students are more money-driven than UCLA students, please show me. From all I can tell, UCLA costs almost as much and is significantly less generous with scholarships. If you know information I don't, please tell me. But this snottiness and "statistics don't measure it well enough, therefore I'm right" attitude is silly.

PS I'm attending UCLA this fall and didn't even consider going to USC because I love UCLA. I just don't subscribe to the exaggerated and ridiculous sports-turned-academics rivalry - I really prefer facts.

[ogurty]

Although they are both out of T14, UCLA places far better in biglaw. This is a fact.

Any proof please. USC places better in NLJ250 and V50.

There is a thread somewhere in the admissions forum that compiles list of NLJ250 and graduates. UCLA has a bigger class size, yet still has a higher ratio and total number of biglaw lawyers. Do a quick search.

http://www.top-law-schools.com/forums/v ... 1&t=108528 This thread?

[tru]

.

[jay115]

so when is everyone moving in? i may go down to LA to buy some stuff for my apartment on august 1st, but i think that i actually am "moving in" around august 15th.

ps - lets keep this thread light kids; UCLAers on TLS are notorious for being laid back (eg. we don't go postal on fordham threads like OS or various other law school blowhards) because that's just who the school attracts.

we all know that we're going to a strong regional school with strong exit options. there was a recent thread (http://www.top-law-schools.com/forums/v ... 3&t=123174) in which students are reporting that ND only has 39 distinct firms bidding at OCI (ugh), whereas UCLA has over 160 distinct employers, with over 300 offices represented. That's more than boalt, although boalt might have less students.

in addition to strong career prospects, it's likely we're going to meet each other in person over the course of the next three years. so, it'd be nice if we could all start on the right foot - yaddamean?

[SHARK WEEK!]

I agree with Hopefullawstudent, the methodology used for measuring how well a school places its students in top firms is absolutely ridiculous. And, it does come from a serious lack of statistics fundamentals. Having said that, I think we can conclude that the two schools place relatively similarly in top firms, with USC placing a slightly larger percentage of students in top firm spots.

There are a number of reasons why USC might have a slightly larger percentage of grads in top firm spots: It doesn't have a large public interest program (Epstein) like UCLA, it places fewer students in clerkships, fewer USC grads go into academia, and from what I've heard, yes, USC students are more cutthroat and competitive than UCLA students so they might be gunning for top law jobs at a higher rate (hey, a competitive culture can produce impressive results - on paper at least).

Point is, I agree it's hogwash to say this school is "better" than that school at placing in top firm jobs while only citing the percentage of grads who go into the NLJ 250, etc. In fact, Yale is ranked #18 I believe in terms of the percentage of grads it places in top firm jobs. Having said that, I believe a Yale law degree can get you a top law firm job anywhere you want.

[ogurty]

Although they are both out of T14, UCLA places far better in biglaw. This is a fact.

There is a thread somewhere in the admissions forum that compiles list of NLJ250 and graduates. UCLA has a bigger class size, yet still has a higher ratio and total number of biglaw lawyers. Do a quick search.

http://www.top-law-schools.com/forums/v ... 1&t=108528 This thread?

No because that link in thread makes no distinction between Firm & Clerkship positions. Also the link is broken. Check your sources before you believe anything.

Try more like this one:
It's a compilation of profiles in Biglaw jobs. Do the math yourself if you don't believe posters. UCLA places more than USC in total number of graduates into biglaw + higher ratio.

http://www.top-law-schools.com/forums/v ... 2&t=121138
http://rapidshare.com/files/401398827/L ... Study.xlsx

I also don't like the tone of your voice. We're trying to help you out here because you asked. We don't need to prove anything to you and this is about your future and your job prospect. So take a step back on that "Prove to me and help me with my future at your expense" attitude.

You might have me confused with another poster, I asked no question like that. I simply think your comment, that UCLA places far better in biglaw, is wrong. Just checked the links too, and neither is broken. That's definitely interesting stuff you posted, but it's very flawed it only includes 40 firms, and only information available on the firm websites. Follow my links again - the NLJ 250 statistics for 2 years have had USC placing a significantly higher number of graduates into biglaw, with UCLA having a negligible lead in clerkships.

Anyway, like I said, my only point is that it's in no way clear that UCLA places any better in biglaw, let alone far better. I understand, of course, that available statistics don't paint a reliable picture of who places better per se. I think, based on what I know, that USC places better. I misspoke earlier when I said that conclusively.

[jay115]

No because that link in thread makes no distinction between Firm & Clerkship positions. Also the link is broken. Check your sources before you believe anything.

Try more like this one:
It's a compilation of profiles in Biglaw jobs. Do the math yourself if you don't believe posters. UCLA places more than USC in total number of graduates into biglaw + higher ratio.

http://www.top-law-schools.com/forums/v ... 2&t=121138
http://rapidshare.com/files/401398827/L ... Study.xlsx

I also don't like the tone of your voice. We're trying to help you out here because you asked. We don't need to prove anything to you and this is about your future and your job prospect. So take a step back on that "Prove to me and help me with my future at your expense" attitude.

You might have me confused with another poster, I asked no question like that. I simply think your comment, that UCLA places far better in biglaw, is wrong. Just checked the links too, and neither is broken. That's definitely interesting stuff you posted, but it's very flawed it only includes 40 firms, and only information available on the firm websites. Follow my links again - the NLJ 250 statistics for 2 years have had USC placing a significantly higher number of graduates into biglaw, with UCLA having a negligible lead in clerkships.

Anyway, like I said, my only point is that it's in no way clear that UCLA places any better in biglaw, let alone far better. I understand, of course, that available statistics don't paint a reliable picture of who places better per se. I think, based on what I know, that USC places better. I misspoke earlier when I said that conclusively.

I respectively disagree with your clerkship assertion. UCLA places between 1 percent more of its class into federal clerkships (http://lawclerkaddict2009.blogspot.com/ ... chart.html). And, given that UCLA has a substantially bigger class than USC (UCLA is around 370/class, and USC is around 215/class), UCLA gets a substantial more people into federal clerkships than USC. Given that UCLA and USC are not in the T14, I think 1% is actually not as "negligible" as one might think when weighing federal clerkships.

Furthermore, within the last ten years, UCLA has funneled one kid into SCOTUS, whereas USC has not. UCLA also has more alumni functioning as federal judges than USC.

[ogurty]

Jay: you're right. I'm speaking too impresicely and I'm getting off topic. My only point is that it's not clear that UCLA places better into biglaw, and I really should have left it at that. Sorry y'all.

[tru]

.

[tranandy]

The NLJ250 statistics that come out every year don't give a completely accurate picture of the placement power of a school. It is only a somewhat relevant measure for comparison between schools. As stated above, Yale is ranked 18th in the latest NLJ250, behind USC. No rational person would say that Yale is worse than USC for big law. Also, schools that place more students in public interest, clerkships and academia are penalized by the NLJ metric even though many of those positions are way more prestigious and sought after than a below-market paying associate position in a tertiary market at say, for example, the 249th largest firm in America (which happens to be Ruden McClosky in Ft. Lauderdale). See the full NLJ250 list here: --LinkRemoved--

UCLA year after year gets more public interest positions, federal clerkships and professorship positions than USC. That makes up for the fact that UCLA might be slightly behind USC in the NLJ250 some years (although it has been ahead several years in the past which just indicates that results fluctuate).

In any event, placement in the V50 or V100 is probably a better indicator of the prestige and placement power of a school, but I have seen no evidence that USC places better in those areas than UCLA.

Compare the alumni numbers at these two links directly form the school websites:
http://www.law.ucla.edu/home/apps/lawfirm/
http://lawweb.usc.edu/assets/docs/alumn ... ndings.pdf

Here are some of the V50 firms: Latham (94 UCLA:52 USC), Paul Hastings (47:32), Gibson (56:46), Orrick (25:13), MoFo (43:12), Kirkland (18:4), O'melveny (44:33), Munger (16:16), Irell (26:18), Skadden (36:??); Simpson Thacher (12:??), Sidley Austin (24:25), Jones Day (50:21), Arnold & Porter (12:10), Quinn Emanuel (18:??).

It doesn't seem clear to me that USC grads do better than UCLA grads at the above V50 firms.

See also these links for further top firm comparisons:
http://www.leiterrankings.com/jobs/2008job_biglaw.shtml

Also see the thread and spreadsheet that Dakturjobs referred to a few posts up. The spreadsheet shows that, even accounting for class size, UCLA places more grads in V50 schools. UCLA's class size is 320 not 370 btw. USC's is 215. Both numbers are from the schools' websites.

[jay115]

The NLJ250 statistics that come out every year don't give a completely accurate picture of the placement power of a school. It is only a somewhat relevant measure for comparison between schools. As stated above, Yale is ranked 18th in the latest NLJ250, behind USC. No rational person would say that Yale is worse than USC for big law. Also, schools that place more students in public interest, clerkships and academia are penalized by the NLJ metric even though many of those positions are way more prestigious and sought after than a below-market paying associate position in a tertiary market at say, for example, the 249th largest firm in America (which happens to be Ruden McClosky in Ft. Lauderdale). See the full NLJ250 list here: --LinkRemoved--

UCLA year after year gets more public interest positions, federal clerkships and professorship positions than USC. That makes up for the fact that UCLA might be slightly behind USC in the NLJ250 some years (although it has been ahead several years in the past which just indicates that results fluctuate).

In any event, placement in the V50 or V100 is probably a better indicator of the prestige and placement power of a school, but I have seen no evidence that USC places better in those areas than UCLA.

Compare the alumni numbers at these two links directly form the school websites:
http://www.law.ucla.edu/home/apps/lawfirm/
http://lawweb.usc.edu/assets/docs/alumn ... ndings.pdf

Here are some of the V50 firms: Latham (94 UCLA:52 USC), Paul Hastings (47:32), Gibson (56:46), Orrick (25:13), MoFo (43:12), Kirkland (18:4), O'melveny (44:33), Munger (16:16), Irell (26:18), Skadden (36:??); Simpson Thacher (12:??), Sidley Austin (24:25), Jones Day (50:21), Arnold & Porter (12:10), Quinn Emanuel (18:??).

It doesn't seem clear to me that USC grads do better than UCLA grads at the above V50 firms.

See also these links for further top firm comparisons:
http://www.leiterrankings.com/jobs/2008job_biglaw.shtml

Also see the thread and spreadsheet that Dakturjobs referred to a few posts up. The spreadsheet shows that, even accounting for class size, UCLA places more grads in V50 schools. UCLA's class size is 320 not 370 btw. USC's is 215. Both numbers are from the schools' websites.

It's class sizes vary - probably due to transfers. http://www.law.ucla.edu/home/index.asp?page=1975

At the bottom of the page, it states that there are a total of 1115 students enrolled at UCLA. 1115/3 (three years of law school) = 371.67 students per class.

[weee]

How about they're both good(ish) (for LA) and if you can go to one for significantly cheaper than the other then go for it...?

[leron]

How about they're both good(ish) (for LA) and if you can go to one for significantly cheaper than the other then go for it...?

reason on tls... how dare you

[elle]

Just got the call today from DS. He said they will be looking at some other applications so CALL and tell the admissions office you would DEFINITELY go if you were to be offered a seat (if this is the case).

Good luck!