<p>Quote:</p>
<p>UCLA vs Michigan</p>
<br>
<p>I purposefully didn't apply to michigan or chicago so I wouldn't be faced with the same decision. I'm waitlisted at columbia but if I did get in off the waitlist, I think I'd still opt for ucla. the tuition's cheap, and my job prospects in CA would be better coming from ucla than from columbia, surprisingly enough. (I went to columbia grad school and lived w/ a bunch of law students there who lost out on jobs in CA to students from ucla). I assume the same would be true of michigan. so if you want to work in CA ultimately, I'd go to ucla. if you're not sure, go to michigan </p>
<br>
<p>I'm not sure who you're quoting, but I'd say this is an example of flawed reasoning. Law school is much more heirarchical than other graduate programs, and I'd say both Columbia and Michigan would clearly have an advantage over UCLA, even in California. (This may not be true, on the other hand, with regard to other schools not traditionally ranked in the top 6 or 7.) </p>
<p>What's important to realize is that you can't judge actual placement opportunities by simple numerical breakdowns, like the one you note for West Coast placement. The fact is, almost all UCLA grads stay in California, so they will by necessity be more highly represented in California firms. Graduates from the traditional top programs, on the other hand, will go all over the country, which means a smaller number will end up in California firms.</p>
<p>However, the truth is that most UCLA grads will not be in the top California firms, and a higher proportion of top school grads working in that region will be.</p>
<p>Ultimately, what really matters is your chances of getting a good job, in a given location -- if you want it. The list you note doesn't really capture that. UCLA is an excellent and improving school, but anyone who thinks UCLA grads will have more opportunities than Yale grads in California, simply because more UCLA grads end up there, is probably confused.</p>