I was faced with the same decision two years ago. I chose UCLA because of the tuition break and I DO plan to practice outside of CA after graduation. Based on my peers' and my own experiences with job searches (now this is purely anecdotal, so take it with a grain of salt), UCLA might even give us an edge in large non-CA markets. Firms want diversity. New York firms get tons of GULC applicants, but comparatively few UCLA applicants who are serious about practicing outside of CA. Conversely, CA firms get tons of UCLA students who absolutely plan to stay in-state after graduation. I know a few people who place below the median who had great luck with New York firms and less than stellar responses from CA firms because their diversity gave them an edge in the former market, but they were one of many vying for LA-based firms. Of course, no one really knows hiring partners' exact rubrics in assessing candidates, but I honest to God believe this whole T14 business exists only in online discussion boards. Hiring partners do not set an arbitrary prestige cutoff between the 14th and 15th schools (at least, as far as I've seen and experienced). Obviously they will treat similarly ranked candidates from Harvard and UCLA very differently. But GULC and UCLA? I really don't think so. If you want the change of scenery and the experience of living in DC for a few years, GULC might be a great option. But if you're judging by job prospects alone? I don't believe the differential outweighs the difference in tuition. Again, this is not based on hard scientific evidence, but my own experiences and perceptions. Take what you will.