<p>He is asking about UNDERGRAD. Harriet's problem was that she didn't go to H or Y LAW SCHOOL. A person who goes to UCLA for UNDERGRAD can go to H or Y Law School and still become a Supreme court justice!!!!
</p>
<p>See the problem? If I had gone to Harvard instead of UCLA, jlauer wouldn't have felt the need to condescend to me with the ALL CAPS. Yes, I know the OP was talking about undergrad, however unless the OP graduates UCLA with 4.0, stellar ECs and a rockin' LSAT, he's not getting into Harvard, Yale, Michigan, or Boalt law schools. A Harvard undergrad has a far better chance of getting into a top law school. And where you go to undergrad does matter in the top tier law firms, part of the old boys' network concept (even if the boys these days are more likely to be girls). As far as I can tell, no one has yet gone from UCLA undergrad to the Supreme Court, but, of course, that doesn't mean it won't happen. But I intend to give my children all the advantages I can, and so we're looking at Harvard and not my alma mater.</p>
<p>Yes, Supreme Court membership is a real indicator of quality. That's worse than picking a school by the number of Nobel Prize winners. That aside, you don't need all that to go from UCLA to a Top 10 law school. A 3.75 and 170+ LSAT will get you into several Top 10 Law schools from UCLA or most other schools.
If you end up with a 3.2 and 165 LSAT from Harvard you'll be going to some other Law School</p>
<p>The Harvard Law degree may be more prestigious among folks of a certain generation, but other law schools have since risen in prestige. Wouldn't a law degree from Boalt Hall or Stanford Law be as good as Harvard Law degree for new recruits?</p>
<p>Most major law firms recruit from most of the Top 14 schools. Associates all start at the same pay--which recently went to around $150-$160K a year.</p>
<p>Of course. I was just comparing UCLA to Harvard undergrad as to which is more likely to benefit you if you're planning on going to law school. But, certainly, a graduate of the law schools at Yale, Boalt, Stanford, Michigan should do as well as a Harvard Law grad and will probably be more successful (defined as getting the best jobs) than grads of the next tier of schools. My general position is that for prospective lawyers, you should go to the most prestigious school you can (starting at preschool, but since we're talking colleges now, I'll start there) because the better the school, the more doors that will open for you -- the more connections you will make, the better clerkship you can get which means the better firm that will hire you which means the more money you'll make. And I know from experience that where you went to school -- both college and law school -- will follow you throughout your career as many firms will not consider applicants without the appropriate pedigree.
I'm already tired of debating this. You're all free to choose whatever schools you want for whatever reason, as, I hope, am I. I've made the decision for my kids to give them the best education possible, starting with elementary school. I don't think you can go wrong pouring money into your kids' heads. My daughter doesn't get designer purses or designer jeans, but she gets a designer education.</p>
<p>UCLA. For sure. (And by the way, you may end up deciding NOT to study law, after all. 17 is a little young to be planning out your entire life.)</p>
<p>I'll back up the fact that BurnThis has correctly stated: your undergrad school can matter in law hiring. I have seen this explicitly in a few instances, implicitly in many more. </p>
<p>On the question posed in the message opening this thread, my first question would be </p>
<p>1) What puts $100 IN YOUR POCKET by going to UCLA? Who is putting that money in your pocket? </p>
<p>My second question would be </p>
<p>2 What kind of law you want to practice? Do you have any lawyers in the family already who can guide your career development? </p>
<p>People posting in this thread have suggested that a Harvard undergraduate degree couldn't possibly be worth more than $100K more than a UCLA undergraduate degree, and others have also suggested that there may be contrary instances. I would be open to the possibility that the economic value of the Harvard undergraduate degree is REAL, and of interest even to someone who will pursue a further degree at some yet-to-be-known school. </p>
<p>P.S. Just as I was posting, I noticed the previous post saying that seventeen is a young age at which to decide your future. And I would take that true fact to reach the opposite conclusion about the preferred school. On that reasoning, I would choose Harvard, as leaving open more future possibilities that you may not know about until you are twenty-one.</p>
<p><<< As far as I can tell, no one has yet gone from UCLA undergrad to the Supreme Court, >>>></p>
<p>Good heavens, for being an attorney, you sure aren't able to make a cohesive argument.</p>
<p>I said: " A person who goes to UCLA for UNDERGRAD can go to H or Y Law School and still become a Supreme court justice!!!!"</p>
<p>Did you miss the part where I wrote that a person could go from UCLA to an Ivy law school and then become a supreme court justice? Nowhere did I suggest that one could go directly from UCLA as an undergrad to the Supreme court. I hope you make better arguments in court! Stop building straw men and then tearing them down!</p>
<p>
[quote]
I would be open to the possibility that the economic value of the Harvard undergraduate degree is REAL, and of interest even to someone who will pursue a further degree at some yet-to-be-known school.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I agree that in general, there is real economic value to a Harvard degree. I think, though, the question is whether a Harvard degree is worth more than UCLA +$100k. To us, that was not even a question, since it would have cost as much for S to attend Cal or UCLA as an OOS student. But for a CA resident, that is a question worth asking. UCLA+ $100K vs. Harvard is not the same as Podunk U+$100k vs. Harvard (and I know that Mini would choose Podunk U+$100k over Harvard).<br>
Although I agree that Harvard undergraduates have a better chance of getting into HLS, it may be that UCAL undergrads have as good if not a better chance of getting into Boalt Hall or Stanford Law School and their earning power will be similar. So, from a purely economistic point of view, I don't think it makes sense to turn down UCLA for Harvard. If it were a different school, I would likely feel differently.<br>
Now if the family can afford to send their child to Harvard without financial aid and without blinking, that is also entirely different.</p>
<p>Congratulations! You pose a serious question, and deserve a serious response.</p>
<p>A top student from UCLA who also does well on the LSAT will get into an excellent law school. If you are considering a professional school, it makes sense to save that money from undergrad. A regent comes with perks besides money, including a support system and special opportunities for meeting with faculty; not to mention on-campus parking (a big one at UCLA). If you want to spend a year abroad, you can't beat the UC education abroad program. If you have a regents, you will also undoubtedly qualify for the honors college, which means smaller classes.</p>
<p>Weigh that against the Harvard name and a potentially very different type of undergrad experience, residential college system, a larger concentration of very top students, maybe (?) more mentoring or advising (though less likely as an econ major than, say, classics.) </p>
<p>UCLA does not necessarily represent a California bubble, depending on where in California you are from. (People from outside the state don't always realize how diverse the culture is here in different areas.) Besides, you can always get out of state with a year abroad or in grad school.</p>
<p>"UCLA+ $100K vs. Harvard is not the same as Podunk U+$100k vs. Harvard (and I know that Mini would choose Podunk U+$100k over Harvard)."</p>
<p>I don't appreciate being caricatured. (even if I do....;))</p>
<p>No, not necessarily. As I said, I am sure there are 40 or 50 schools that I'd likely choose over Harvard with $100k, and some that I'd choose with no money at all over Harvard. (My d. actually might have had that option, but after visiting H. and speaking with the faculty, she didn't even bother to apply.) And there might be a couple I'd add for $200k (say, a free ride at a Honors College at a second tier school which, nonetheless, had the top department in the country in a particular area in which I wanted to specialize - pre-vet, with an automatic admission to vet school; agriculture? pharmacy with an automatic admit?)</p>
<p>Of course, for us, none of this would have occurred in any case. We wouldn't have had th extra $100k to spend, so it would have been totally academic. So it would depend on one's economic situation, areas of interest, future plans, and alternative uses of the funds. </p>
<p>It is not clear or obvious to me, and I have seen no data whatsoever indicating, that a non-wealthy student of very high caliber who goes to H. as an undergraduate has ANY better chance of going to Harvard Law than that very same student of high caliber who turns down that opportunity to go elsewhere. The ability to attend H. Law (both to even consider applying, and to get in), is so heavily dependent on the confidence that one might be able to afford it.</p>
<p>Really, the only consistent message I'd give folks is that if you choose to spend an extra $100k (which for some is what $10k is like to me), be very clear about what it is you are buying, and be clear that it is better than an alternative educational use of funds. Oh, and that college is not the only place one gets an education.</p>
<p>Wait, where does this UCLA 100k from? Are you sainyg UCLA is paying you 100k? If you are a Regent scholar, I thought UCLA gives you a free ride + $5500, but not 100k. If this is a true story, 1. you should go to UCLA + 100k, and 2. i can't beleive the state of CA would give one individual person 100k while we are hugely in debt and thousands of underpriveleged kids cant attend UCs because of it</p>
<p>Perhaps they are calculating the $ amount based on what they will SAVE by not having to pay tuition and R&B?</p>
<p>I know we are in a similar position with our son - he just got accepted at Brown and Columbia (his top 2 choices) but with no aid. But he's a Nutmeg Scholar at UConn (Full tution, R&B). So to us the choice is obvious. Columbia and Brown are great schools - but not THAT much greater than UConn.</p>
<p>But of course it's his decision - however, for his sake, I pray that he doesn't decide to graduate college $100k or so in debt.</p>
<p>The 100k is not given by the state of CA. I'm calculating based on what my parents were willing to pay for undergrad which can be used for grad instead if I go to UCLA and "save the $" during undergrad.</p>
<p>As to why I want to go to Harvard, there are too many reasons to count. Resources, students, new environment ( I live in CA vs. MA), social scene (Cambridge/Boston-Theater! Dancing! So much food!), career resources. I'm likely pursuing finance/econ/business and going on to law. </p>
<p>If you have any new advice based on this information, I'd greatly appreciate hearing from all of you. And congrats to everyone who received acceptances yesterday!</p>
<p>IMHO, having worked at Harvard and a son who graduated from UCLA last year, I would say UCLA hands down. Why?</p>
<p>Weather</p>
<p>Excellent undergraduate education (Harvard focuses more on its graduate schools than UCLA does)</p>
<p>Lack of debt</p>
<p>The son of some former neighbors turned Harvard down for USC and never regretted it. He's become quite successful in the theatre world even though he majored in the humanities and did research at USC in the sciences--as an undergrad. (Harvard wouldn't allow him to do research as a freshman.) UCLA is also more cohesive an institution than Harvard where every tub, i.e., school, is on its own bottom financially, etc.</p>
<p>
[quote]
social scene (Cambridge/Boston-Theater! Dancing! So much food!)
[/quote]
</p>
<p>The main gripe Harvard undergads have about Harvard is the social scene. Yes, there is the Cambridge/Boston social scene, and many do participate in it. But most attend parties (or not) on campus. There is a lack of a campus-wide social center which students have been complaining about.<br>
As for food, MA food cannot compare with CA food. Harvard food is about okay for a college. Not great, at least according to S and his friends.
The Econ dept is top notch. The current Ec 10 instructor is Gegory Mankiw, who succeeded Martin Feldstein. The number of Econ majors is huge and the dept is not known for being warm and fuzzy (this quality generally being in inverse proportion to size of department)</p>
<p>Ad hominem attacks are not helpful. As far as I can tell, no one has gone from UCLA undergrad to whatever law school to the Supreme Court. Simply put, UCLA does not put you on the same trajectory as Harvard. I have nothing against UCLA and I'm a proud Bruin who will be rooting them on in the Final Four. I understand that you went to UCI and may think I'm UC bashing, but that is not the case. I'm just trying to offer my real world experience to the OP and let him know that Harvard will open more doors for you and be more of an advantage throughout your post-college career than will UCLA. I've been a stay-at-home mother for fourteen years, so perhaps my legal skills are a bit rusty. But I hope they don't detract from the message to the OP -- do not focus solely on the short term expense differential when the decision you make about college can have life long benefits that will pay you back many times over.</p>