<p>What is the first thing that comes to mind when hearing UCLA Law School? What are its strengths/weaknesses?</p>
<p>Why does UCLA’s reputation matter? Job stats, that’s what matters.</p>
<p>I know what the job stats are those are published. To me the question speaks to the quality of education and employability and long range success in chosen branch of law.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Very good, like all T20 law schools. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Poor, like all T14+ law schools; UCLA is limited primarily to SoCal</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>That is up to your chosen branch of law, your work habits and some luck.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The quality of education is probably the same throughout the top 50 schools. That’s because they all pull professors from the same small group of H/Y/S/Chi clerks. Plus, law school doesn’t actually teach you anything about how to practice law, so even a phenomenal education won’t get you far (unless you want to be a professor). As for “employability and long range success,” please see my earlier comment about only job stats mattering.</p>
<p>If the education is essentially the same in the T50 schools then why are the T14 regarded above the rest? Also, same question why do the profs all come from H,Y, S, Chi? Just trying to understand this world.</p>
<p>Also full disclosure, I’m hoping my kiddo who wants to work in California who picked UCLA with about 100K of scholarship $ over 3 T7-14 schools on the basis of either the preferred California location or lack of or less scholarship money chose well. Either way it is done, no turning back now.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>“All” profs do not hail from those 4, but on a per capita basis, grads from those 4 place much better into academia. As to why, it has something to to with self-selection and prestige. (Academics are prestige hounds through and through.) </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>No turning back now, so it doesn’t matter. But for someone who really wanted SoCal, then UCLA and 'SC can make sense. Penn has aweseom employment numbers, for example, but unless he wants to live/work in NYC…However, with admittances to T10, he should’ve been able to finagle a better $ deal from from UCLA. Full tuition would not have been out of the realm of possibility.</p>
<p>^^^Apparently it was, at least for him because he tried. 100k was post negotiation, final offer.</p>
<p>yes and no.</p>
<p>My S had negotiated a slightly higher offer (“the best that they could do”), and when he withdrew, they immediately e-mailed and offered to increase teh $$ again. As Yogi said, ‘it ain’t over till it’s over’. lol</p>
<p>Maybe so but I never thought you could use that strategy as a bluff. That is if you go ahead and withdraw I would think you would have to be prepared to not go to the school if they didn’t come back with a better offer. Am I wrong about that. Definitely too lake for my kiddo but for anyone else it could be interesting.</p>
<p>I would never recommend a bluff per se, unless one is really willing to be called on it.</p>
<p>OTOH, it is easy to keep (ahem) ‘negotiating’, particularly with T10 numbers. Obviously, it doesn’t work all the time, but in today’s application cycle, students with above median numbers are in high demand. As a result, LS have been shelling out big cash to protect their medians. (For example, WashU just upped the ante to full tuition, even for some that had already deposited and committed.)</p>
<p>Good luck to your S.</p>
<p>Thanks, do you really kthere is a shot at this late date now that offers to the other T10’s (2) and a T whatever (Cornell) have all been declined. I would think at this point he could just ask for more cash or walk and he isn’t going to walk. I don’t know what his negotiation strategy was but he did ask for a further increase in $$ before he accepted the offer. He was declined. Perhaps he needed an agent :).</p>