UVa vs UCLA

[t L]

Just an interesting tidbit, but Mike Spivey told me a few weeks ago that 70% of people get jobs through OCI at Vandy. That number impressed the hell out of me.

I have a hard time believing this.  I can't even imagine only but a few t-14s being able to make this claim.

[JeNeSaisLaw]

I had a hard time believing it too, but then I considered the alternative. The alternative is that he lied to me. Does that seem plausible to you? It wasn't as if the statement wasn't clear and therefore easy to misunderstand.

"As an fyi, 70% secured employment through OCI, 30% otherwise."

This does not mean that 70% of those employed (98%) received jobs at market firm levels. This likely includes government jobs, PI, and anybody else who was at OCI. I do wonder, however, if they exclude clerkships. They must.



All of that said, I don't want to derail the thread too much more. OP: I don't think UCLA would be a stupid decision.

[kev199]

It seems pretty cut and dry here.  If you want to practice in LA or Cali, go to UCLA.  If not, go to UVA.

According to the OCI numbers on LSN in the Cali mkt: UCLA=176 & UVA=104.  You still have 104 opportunities to meet Cali employers at UVA, but I still see UCLA as the better choice.

[Special Agent Dana Scully]

Just an interesting tidbit, but Mike Spivey told me a few weeks ago that 70% of people get jobs through OCI at Vandy. That number impressed the hell out of me.

I have a hard time believing this.  I can't even imagine only but a few t-14s being able to make this claim.

The odd thing is that I couldn't get much out of C about placement, and it places, according to most sites, extremely well.  I wonder why Vandy and Duke are so quick to advertise their numbers, while Yale, Stanford, Harvard, and even Columbia lurk in the shadows, saying nothing concrete.

TTT schools are all over the "this is our median salary" game, while T14 schools usually aren't as gung-ho about those statistics.  Perhaps they're trying to appear less vocational, more academic?   

I think it's because they don't need to put the info out...they aren't playing a game of let's impress prospectives by our shiny employment statistics.  Of course, schools give general info, but I guess they feel they don't need to go through all of the extra trouble.

[JeNeSaisLaw]

Since they prescreen at UVA, might it make a difference to the UVA grad wanting to work in California? If anything, this is an argument in favor of UCLA for the OP.

[t L]

I had a hard time believing it too, but then I considered the alternative. The alternative is that he lied to me.

Or he misrepresented the facts and misled you.

UCLA would be foolhardy unless you're prepared to take your chances.  Don't forget: the bottom of UCLA's class won't obtain BigLaw.  The bottom of UVa's class might have a shot, I've heard, especially if they have previous WE or notable interpersonal skills.

I agree with Wally.  IN THIS ECONOMY, I would not risk anything.  Bottom line.

[Bulldog86]

Just an interesting tidbit, but Mike Spivey told me a few weeks ago that 70% of people get jobs through OCI at Vandy. That number impressed the hell out of me.

I have a hard time believing this.  I can't even imagine only but a few t-14s being able to make this claim.

The odd thing is that I couldn't get much out of C about placement, and it places, according to most sites, extremely well.  I wonder why Vandy and Duke are so quick to advertise their numbers, while Yale, Stanford, Harvard, and even Columbia lurk in the shadows, saying nothing concrete.

TTT schools are all over the "this is our median salary" game, while T14 schools usually aren't as gung-ho about those statistics.  Perhaps they're trying to appear less vocational, more academic?   

I think your guess is probably part of it -- YSH especially (and especially Y) send a lot more people to lower-paying jobs like clerkships (which, of course, are a gateway to great jobs, but not immediately where you can report it on a stat-sheet) and, eventually, academia -- BIGLAW is just a means to that end for a lot of people headed there.

I would also think part of it (if not most of it?) is that top 5-ish schools would like to think they are "above" numbers, and that obviously people going there can get any job they want -- so if the median salary is less than market, it's just due to self-selection into public interest or something. (So in that respect, tossing out numbers can't help you when the perception is already that firms will hire the bottom of the class.) But if you're not-quite-T10 like Duke or not-quite-T14 like Vandy, it's certainly in your interests to tout numbers -- there are threads on this board all the time wondering if schools like Vandy place nearly as well as the T14, so the more data they can put out there to minimize that difference, the better.

I wouldn't call it "playing a game to impress prospects" at this level (though it probably is at TTTs)... I think it's more reassuring prospects that their investment is worth it, regardless of what they "heard" on pre-law message boards, etc. More openness about career placement at all levels can only be a good thing, IMHO...

[JeNeSaisLaw]

I had a hard time believing it too, but then I considered the alternative. The alternative is that he lied to me.

Or he misrepresented the facts and misled you.

You can package the referent however you like, but misrepresentation and misleading somebody is lying. And I maintain that it is wildly implausible that he would lie.

[bunk]

Somewhat amusing that most of the people arguing for UCLA in this thread are on the UVA waitlist. 

[JeNeSaisLaw]

Somewhat amusing that most of the people arguing for UCLA in this thread are on the UVA waitlist. 

For what it's worth, I'm not signing the commitment to UVA that they just sent out to all WL candidates. I have no chance off of the WL and am not putting in any extra effort to ensure a spot off of it. I'm not even positive I would go if I got off of it.



Wally: If that was to me, I quoted from an email. You know, that thing that is a paper trail.