UCLA Fall 2016


emily717
I wanted to create this post for anyone who wants updates regarding admissions for UCLA. They stated in their post-application email that they will be releasing decisions late January.

Did anyone apply to any specialisations and know how long it takes to hear back for these additional admissions?
I wanted to create this post for anyone who wants updates regarding admissions for UCLA. They stated in their post-application email that they will be releasing decisions late January.

Did anyone apply to any specialisations and know how long it takes to hear back for these additional admissions?
quote
noble2014
I wanted to create this post for anyone who wants updates regarding admissions for UCLA. They stated in their post-application email that they will be releasing decisions late January.

Did anyone apply to any specialisations and know how long it takes to hear back for these additional admissions?


Hi emily717,

I applied to UCLA about two days ago, however I haven't received any e-mail from them yet. It does not look a fast process to me so far, unfortunately.
<blockquote>I wanted to create this post for anyone who wants updates regarding admissions for UCLA. They stated in their post-application email that they will be releasing decisions late January.

Did anyone apply to any specialisations and know how long it takes to hear back for these additional admissions?</blockquote>

Hi emily717,

I applied to UCLA about two days ago, however I haven't received any e-mail from them yet. It does not look a fast process to me so far, unfortunately.
quote
emily717
I wanted to create this post for anyone who wants updates regarding admissions for UCLA. They stated in their post-application email that they will be releasing decisions late January.

Did anyone apply to any specialisations and know how long it takes to hear back for these additional admissions?


Hi emily717,

I applied to UCLA about two days ago, however I haven't received any e-mail from them yet. It does not look a fast process to me so far, unfortunately.


They replied very quickly to me but I sent my application in October almost as soon as their applications opened. I sent mine to Berkeley even earlier. I'm not surprised they are taking a while since you have left it so late in the year.
<blockquote><blockquote>I wanted to create this post for anyone who wants updates regarding admissions for UCLA. They stated in their post-application email that they will be releasing decisions late January.

Did anyone apply to any specialisations and know how long it takes to hear back for these additional admissions?</blockquote>

Hi emily717,

I applied to UCLA about two days ago, however I haven't received any e-mail from them yet. It does not look a fast process to me so far, unfortunately.</blockquote>

They replied very quickly to me but I sent my application in October almost as soon as their applications opened. I sent mine to Berkeley even earlier. I'm not surprised they are taking a while since you have left it so late in the year.
quote
Wavshrdr
Last year they lost my application so to speak even though it had been submitted through LSAC. I never did hear from them and since I got much better offers I didn't worry about it.
Last year they lost my application so to speak even though it had been submitted through LSAC. I never did hear from them and since I got much better offers I didn't worry about it.
quote
emily717
Last year they lost my application so to speak even though it had been submitted through LSAC. I never did hear from them and since I got much better offers I didn't worry about it.


Whether or not one offer is better than another is completely subjective for each applicant. I have already rejected an offer from Berkeley because I would prefer to take a place at UCLA due to the course selection available and the faculty for my field of law. So I don't know how you decided you got 'much better offers', but I presume it was determined from a comparison of university rankings?
<blockquote>Last year they lost my application so to speak even though it had been submitted through LSAC. I never did hear from them and since I got much better offers I didn't worry about it.</blockquote>

Whether or not one offer is better than another is completely subjective for each applicant. I have already rejected an offer from Berkeley because I would prefer to take a place at UCLA due to the course selection available and the faculty for my field of law. So I don't know how you decided you got 'much better offers', but I presume it was determined from a comparison of university rankings?
quote
Jlybnn
I wanted to create this post for anyone who wants updates regarding admissions for UCLA. They stated in their post-application email that they will be releasing decisions late January.

Did anyone apply to any specialisations and know how long it takes to hear back for these additional admissions?


Hi emily717,

I applied to UCLA about two days ago, however I haven't received any e-mail from them yet. It does not look a fast process to me so far, unfortunately.


Hello Noble2014,

I assume you are also from Turkey. It took them 3 weeks to send me an email. If you don't hear from them in a week or so, I suggest you to send an email to Vic Telesino.
<blockquote><blockquote>I wanted to create this post for anyone who wants updates regarding admissions for UCLA. They stated in their post-application email that they will be releasing decisions late January.

Did anyone apply to any specialisations and know how long it takes to hear back for these additional admissions?</blockquote>

Hi emily717,

I applied to UCLA about two days ago, however I haven't received any e-mail from them yet. It does not look a fast process to me so far, unfortunately.</blockquote>

Hello Noble2014,

I assume you are also from Turkey. It took them 3 weeks to send me an email. If you don't hear from them in a week or so, I suggest you to send an email to Vic Telesino.
quote
Wavshrdr
Whether or not one offer is better than another is completely subjective for each applicant. I have already rejected an offer from Berkeley because I would prefer to take a place at UCLA due to the course selection available and the faculty for my field of law. So I don't know how you decided you got 'much better offers', but I presume it was determined from a comparison of university rankings?


"Better" can be both subject & objective. In this case it was both. I realize now that I clearly made the right choice. The school program, as well as the school ranking, were better than UCLA. As much as I hate to say it, school pedigree makes a huge difference in the US market if you want any chance of getting a job after your degree completion.

Going to certain schools may not get you a job on their own but it does open doors for you to be considered when you might not otherwise be. I didn't realize how important this was until after I started attending school.

At the same time I have to deal with a lot of elitist and snobbish people as well. This gets quite wearisome as well. Couple that with the outright disdain of JD students towards LLMs and it isn't always the best atmosphere. Apparently it is the price I have to pay to have a chance at getting a job in the US market.

Practical US law experience will help me quite a bit in my home country and if it is a good opportunity here, I may avail myself of it long-term.

As for program/school ranking, I've only seen a few areas where program ranking trumps school ranking. That would specifically be Tax. Most employers I've spoken with are more focused on your school ranking than where your program ranks among others. Obviously if your school is very strong in a local market, such as UCLA or USC for Los Angeles, that will help. All other things being equal the LA employer would likely choose the Stanford grad over UCLA or USC if he doesn't have particularly close ties to either USC or UCLA even though they are both fine school.
<blockquote>Whether or not one offer is better than another is completely subjective for each applicant. I have already rejected an offer from Berkeley because I would prefer to take a place at UCLA due to the course selection available and the faculty for my field of law. So I don't know how you decided you got 'much better offers', but I presume it was determined from a comparison of university rankings?</blockquote>

"Better" can be both subject & objective. In this case it was both. I realize now that I clearly made the right choice. The school program, as well as the school ranking, were better than UCLA. As much as I hate to say it, school pedigree makes a huge difference in the US market if you want any chance of getting a job after your degree completion.

Going to certain schools may not get you a job on their own but it does open doors for you to be considered when you might not otherwise be. I didn't realize how important this was until after I started attending school.

At the same time I have to deal with a lot of elitist and snobbish people as well. This gets quite wearisome as well. Couple that with the outright disdain of JD students towards LLMs and it isn't always the best atmosphere. Apparently it is the price I have to pay to have a chance at getting a job in the US market.

Practical US law experience will help me quite a bit in my home country and if it is a good opportunity here, I may avail myself of it long-term.

As for program/school ranking, I've only seen a few areas where program ranking trumps school ranking. That would specifically be Tax. Most employers I've spoken with are more focused on your school ranking than where your program ranks among others. Obviously if your school is very strong in a local market, such as UCLA or USC for Los Angeles, that will help. All other things being equal the LA employer would likely choose the Stanford grad over UCLA or USC if he doesn't have particularly close ties to either USC or UCLA even though they are both fine school.
quote
noble2014
I wanted to create this post for anyone who wants updates regarding admissions for UCLA. They stated in their post-application email that they will be releasing decisions late January.

Did anyone apply to any specialisations and know how long it takes to hear back for these additional admissions?


Hi emily717,

I applied to UCLA about two days ago, however I haven't received any e-mail from them yet. It does not look a fast process to me so far, unfortunately.


Hello Noble2014,

I assume you are also from Turkey. It took them 3 weeks to send me an email. If you don't hear from them in a week or so, I suggest you to send an email to Vic Telesino.


Hi Jlybnn,
Well, I actually submitted my application to UCLA on January 12th, and got "the application is complete" e-mail on January 14th. It points out that the date of submission doesn't matter when you'll receive confirmation e-mail in contrast to the information which Emily717 gave above.

Thank you for your concern my friend!

Best luck!
<blockquote><blockquote><blockquote>I wanted to create this post for anyone who wants updates regarding admissions for UCLA. They stated in their post-application email that they will be releasing decisions late January.

Did anyone apply to any specialisations and know how long it takes to hear back for these additional admissions?</blockquote>

Hi emily717,

I applied to UCLA about two days ago, however I haven't received any e-mail from them yet. It does not look a fast process to me so far, unfortunately.</blockquote>

Hello Noble2014,

I assume you are also from Turkey. It took them 3 weeks to send me an email. If you don't hear from them in a week or so, I suggest you to send an email to Vic Telesino. </blockquote>

Hi Jlybnn,
Well, I actually submitted my application to UCLA on January 12th, and got "the application is complete" e-mail on January 14th. It points out that the date of submission doesn't matter when you'll receive confirmation e-mail in contrast to the information which Emily717 gave above.

Thank you for your concern my friend!

Best luck!
quote
emily717
Whether or not one offer is better than another is completely subjective for each applicant. I have already rejected an offer from Berkeley because I would prefer to take a place at UCLA due to the course selection available and the faculty for my field of law. So I don't know how you decided you got 'much better offers', but I presume it was determined from a comparison of university rankings?


"Better" can be both subject & objective. In this case it was both. I realize now that I clearly made the right choice. The school program, as well as the school ranking, were better than UCLA. As much as I hate to say it, school pedigree makes a huge difference in the US market if you want any chance of getting a job after your degree completion.

Going to certain schools may not get you a job on their own but it does open doors for you to be considered when you might not otherwise be. I didn't realize how important this was until after I started attending school.

At the same time I have to deal with a lot of elitist and snobbish people as well. This gets quite wearisome as well. Couple that with the outright disdain of JD students towards LLMs and it isn't always the best atmosphere. Apparently it is the price I have to pay to have a chance at getting a job in the US market.

Practical US law experience will help me quite a bit in my home country and if it is a good opportunity here, I may avail myself of it long-term.

As for program/school ranking, I've only seen a few areas where program ranking trumps school ranking. That would specifically be Tax. Most employers I've spoken with are more focused on your school ranking than where your program ranks among others. Obviously if your school is very strong in a local market, such as UCLA or USC for Los Angeles, that will help. All other things being equal the LA employer would likely choose the Stanford grad over UCLA or USC if he doesn't have particularly close ties to either USC or UCLA even though they are both fine school.



I understand where you're coming from, and I know that in certain fields of law the pedigree of the university is more important. But in the field of law I am going into, it's really quite the opposite. I've worked in criminal defense for quite some time, and the most enjoyable experience I had was working with indigent clients at the public defender's office.

While I was there, I worked very closely with the chief public defender, and he has continued to advise me throughout my applications. He has told me on numerous occasions that he would want to pick someone who has relevant courses in public interest, criminal defense, philosophy of punishment, trial advocacy etc. over someone who has been to a higher-ranked school not famed for their criminal law. Sadly, criminal law isn't considered prestige, especially the defense of indigent clients, and although I find it the most noble work, others certainly don't.

I didn't even bother applying to Stanford because there would be absolutely no point attending unless I wanted to enter some sort of corporate/ tax world after graduation, and I only applied to Berkeley because of their famed death penalty clinic. If I get a place on the traditional track, I may still attend Berkeley because it has a fantastic reputation and good criminal options. However UCLA offer a specialisation in public interest law with a great deal more relevant courses than any other school I've looked at.

So I understand that if one were applying to a job in a corporate firm in LA, they should probably have Stanford on their transcript over UCLA. But in my position, I know that my employers would rather see an interest in the field, the last thing a public defender's office wants is to higher someone who thinks that they're 'too good for the trade' but couldn't find a job elsewhere.
<blockquote><blockquote>Whether or not one offer is better than another is completely subjective for each applicant. I have already rejected an offer from Berkeley because I would prefer to take a place at UCLA due to the course selection available and the faculty for my field of law. So I don't know how you decided you got 'much better offers', but I presume it was determined from a comparison of university rankings?</blockquote>

"Better" can be both subject & objective. In this case it was both. I realize now that I clearly made the right choice. The school program, as well as the school ranking, were better than UCLA. As much as I hate to say it, school pedigree makes a huge difference in the US market if you want any chance of getting a job after your degree completion.

Going to certain schools may not get you a job on their own but it does open doors for you to be considered when you might not otherwise be. I didn't realize how important this was until after I started attending school.

At the same time I have to deal with a lot of elitist and snobbish people as well. This gets quite wearisome as well. Couple that with the outright disdain of JD students towards LLMs and it isn't always the best atmosphere. Apparently it is the price I have to pay to have a chance at getting a job in the US market.

Practical US law experience will help me quite a bit in my home country and if it is a good opportunity here, I may avail myself of it long-term.

As for program/school ranking, I've only seen a few areas where program ranking trumps school ranking. That would specifically be Tax. Most employers I've spoken with are more focused on your school ranking than where your program ranks among others. Obviously if your school is very strong in a local market, such as UCLA or USC for Los Angeles, that will help. All other things being equal the LA employer would likely choose the Stanford grad over UCLA or USC if he doesn't have particularly close ties to either USC or UCLA even though they are both fine school.</blockquote>


I understand where you're coming from, and I know that in certain fields of law the pedigree of the university is more important. But in the field of law I am going into, it's really quite the opposite. I've worked in criminal defense for quite some time, and the most enjoyable experience I had was working with indigent clients at the public defender's office.

While I was there, I worked very closely with the chief public defender, and he has continued to advise me throughout my applications. He has told me on numerous occasions that he would want to pick someone who has relevant courses in public interest, criminal defense, philosophy of punishment, trial advocacy etc. over someone who has been to a higher-ranked school not famed for their criminal law. Sadly, criminal law isn't considered prestige, especially the defense of indigent clients, and although I find it the most noble work, others certainly don't.

I didn't even bother applying to Stanford because there would be absolutely no point attending unless I wanted to enter some sort of corporate/ tax world after graduation, and I only applied to Berkeley because of their famed death penalty clinic. If I get a place on the traditional track, I may still attend Berkeley because it has a fantastic reputation and good criminal options. However UCLA offer a specialisation in public interest law with a great deal more relevant courses than any other school I've looked at.

So I understand that if one were applying to a job in a corporate firm in LA, they should probably have Stanford on their transcript over UCLA. But in my position, I know that my employers would rather see an interest in the field, the last thing a public defender's office wants is to higher someone who thinks that they're 'too good for the trade' but couldn't find a job elsewhere.
quote
Wavshrdr
Most governmental offices won't hire anyone without either US citizenship or legal permanent residency. Of course it depends on the state & entity. But many openings I looked at required at least permanent residency.

With a one year LLM, all your are really going to be able to show is just an "interest" in any field. Compared to a JD student, you are at a huge disadvantage. There are other ways to show "interest" than just through your class work. That is one of the ways I differentiate myself from my peers.

One thing to keep in mind is that not all schools get invited to the LLM job fairs. This is one of the best options for finding employment. I can tell you from the job fairs I am attending, I don't recall a single employer looking for anyone with criminal law experience. The vast majority of them were looking for people with ties to China or South America.

If you have a personal/professional connection, then it is best if you can leverage that. Keep in mind that people promise a lot and often deliver little. Advice is one thing, but seriously helping with a job is quite another. Start networking from the day you arrive. If you go to Berkeley, hopefully your political views will coincide with the school's.

There is one thing I've learned already about California. The people who claim to be liberal and tolerant are usually the exact opposite of that. They tend to be hypocrites. They talk how they are open to everyone, from every where, and then are the first people to discriminate against you based on where you came from.
Most governmental offices won't hire anyone without either US citizenship or legal permanent residency. Of course it depends on the state & entity. But many openings I looked at required at least permanent residency.

With a one year LLM, all your are really going to be able to show is just an "interest" in any field. Compared to a JD student, you are at a huge disadvantage. There are other ways to show "interest" than just through your class work. That is one of the ways I differentiate myself from my peers.

One thing to keep in mind is that not all schools get invited to the LLM job fairs. This is one of the best options for finding employment. I can tell you from the job fairs I am attending, I don't recall a single employer looking for anyone with criminal law experience. The vast majority of them were looking for people with ties to China or South America.

If you have a personal/professional connection, then it is best if you can leverage that. Keep in mind that people promise a lot and often deliver little. Advice is one thing, but seriously helping with a job is quite another. Start networking from the day you arrive. If you go to Berkeley, hopefully your political views will coincide with the school's.

There is one thing I've learned already about California. The people who claim to be liberal and tolerant are usually the exact opposite of that. They tend to be hypocrites. They talk how they are open to everyone, from every where, and then are the first people to discriminate against you based on where you came from.
quote
emily717
Most governmental offices won't hire anyone without either US citizenship or legal permanent residency. Of course it depends on the state & entity. But many openings I looked at required at least permanent residency.

With a one year LLM, all your are really going to be able to show is just an "interest" in any field. Compared to a JD student, you are at a huge disadvantage. There are other ways to show "interest" than just through your class work. That is one of the ways I differentiate myself from my peers.

One thing to keep in mind is that not all schools get invited to the LLM job fairs. This is one of the best options for finding employment. I can tell you from the job fairs I am attending, I don't recall a single employer looking for anyone with criminal law experience. The vast majority of them were looking for people with ties to China or South America.

If you have a personal/professional connection, then it is best if you can leverage that. Keep in mind that people promise a lot and often deliver little. Advice is one thing, but seriously helping with a job is quite another. Start networking from the day you arrive. If you go to Berkeley, hopefully your political views will coincide with the school's.

There is one thing I've learned already about California. The people who claim to be liberal and tolerant are usually the exact opposite of that. They tend to be hypocrites. They talk how they are open to everyone, from every where, and then are the first people to discriminate against you based on where you came from.


I am aware that most governmental offices don't hire anyone without legal permanent residency, considering I want to be a public defender, unsurprisingly I have actually researched the reality of the job prospect. I am in fact engaged to an American and we are moving to California together with no intention to leave. I will have permanent legal residency and then citizenship in just over three years.

In addition, I already have passed the LPC in England and have an LLM in English law. The one advantage that I have is that American law is built off English law. We operate under the same common law and the only differences in our legal practice stem from very recent case law and from legislation - which doesn't particularly affect a great change in practice. Across the numbered summers I worked in criminal defense in America I have completed practically all possible client work other than presenting in court, so I can say with authority that it's not different. I have also spoken to several lawyers (family friends who I am very certain aren't 'hypocrites') in California who have said they are often happy to hire someone qualified in English law since our practice is so similar.

And of course criminal firms aren't going to be at job fairs, I haven't been to a single legal job fair in the world and found any criminal firms, that's not the way that they look for employees.I think you are very confused about the difference between criminal and corporate practice. Public defender's and small criminal practices are not going to care if you have ties to China or South America. Criminal practices are small and do not need to advertise vacancies at a job fair.
<blockquote>Most governmental offices won't hire anyone without either US citizenship or legal permanent residency. Of course it depends on the state & entity. But many openings I looked at required at least permanent residency.

With a one year LLM, all your are really going to be able to show is just an "interest" in any field. Compared to a JD student, you are at a huge disadvantage. There are other ways to show "interest" than just through your class work. That is one of the ways I differentiate myself from my peers.

One thing to keep in mind is that not all schools get invited to the LLM job fairs. This is one of the best options for finding employment. I can tell you from the job fairs I am attending, I don't recall a single employer looking for anyone with criminal law experience. The vast majority of them were looking for people with ties to China or South America.

If you have a personal/professional connection, then it is best if you can leverage that. Keep in mind that people promise a lot and often deliver little. Advice is one thing, but seriously helping with a job is quite another. Start networking from the day you arrive. If you go to Berkeley, hopefully your political views will coincide with the school's.

There is one thing I've learned already about California. The people who claim to be liberal and tolerant are usually the exact opposite of that. They tend to be hypocrites. They talk how they are open to everyone, from every where, and then are the first people to discriminate against you based on where you came from.</blockquote>

I am aware that most governmental offices don't hire anyone without legal permanent residency, considering I want to be a public defender, unsurprisingly I have actually researched the reality of the job prospect. I am in fact engaged to an American and we are moving to California together with no intention to leave. I will have permanent legal residency and then citizenship in just over three years.

In addition, I already have passed the LPC in England and have an LLM in English law. The one advantage that I have is that American law is built off English law. We operate under the same common law and the only differences in our legal practice stem from very recent case law and from legislation - which doesn't particularly affect a great change in practice. Across the numbered summers I worked in criminal defense in America I have completed practically all possible client work other than presenting in court, so I can say with authority that it's not different. I have also spoken to several lawyers (family friends who I am very certain aren't 'hypocrites') in California who have said they are often happy to hire someone qualified in English law since our practice is so similar.

And of course criminal firms aren't going to be at job fairs, I haven't been to a single legal job fair in the world and found any criminal firms, that's not the way that they look for employees.I think you are very confused about the difference between criminal and corporate practice. Public defender's and small criminal practices are not going to care if you have ties to China or South America. Criminal practices are small and do not need to advertise vacancies at a job fair.
quote
Emily you seem to be well credentialed so it is unclear why you seek approval from fellow applicants. The replies to your posts have been helpful and Wavshdr offers good insight into the realities of the situation.
Having read many of your posts on this forum, I am surprised at how much detailed information you provide about yourself, making it very easy for schools and employers to identify you, a law degree does not make you a lawyer so you may not realise how important professionalism and confidentiality are, example is posting the amount of tuition discount that USC offer to you, they would have requested you keep the details to yourself, that you didn't is a surprise when you say you want to work in criminal law.
Emily you seem to be well credentialed so it is unclear why you seek approval from fellow applicants. The replies to your posts have been helpful and Wavshdr offers good insight into the realities of the situation.
Having read many of your posts on this forum, I am surprised at how much detailed information you provide about yourself, making it very easy for schools and employers to identify you, a law degree does not make you a lawyer so you may not realise how important professionalism and confidentiality are, example is posting the amount of tuition discount that USC offer to you, they would have requested you keep the details to yourself, that you didn't is a surprise when you say you want to work in criminal law.
quote
Wavshrdr
Emily you seem to be well credentialed so it is unclear why you seek approval from fellow applicants. The replies to your posts have been helpful and Wavshdr offers good insight into the realities of the situation.
Having read many of your posts on this forum, I am surprised at how much detailed information you provide about yourself, making it very easy for schools and employers to identify you, a law degree does not make you a lawyer so you may not realise how important professionalism and confidentiality are, example is posting the amount of tuition discount that USC offer to you, they would have requested you keep the details to yourself, that you didn't is a surprise when you say you want to work in criminal law.


I generally write so as to help MORE than just the person I may be responding to. My intent is to share knowledge that may be helpful to anyone reading the thread where I post. A lot of the other people who are considering different types of law would and want to practice law in the US really need to pay attention to these things.

With your somewhat condescending attitude you'll fit right in with a lot of the other LLM students I've met. Berkeley would be a good place for you. From what I've seen from students form the former British Empire, the Aussies and New Zealanders are the best liked and are generally collegial. The ones from Great Britain tend to be more pompous. The Irish are pretty down to earth and the Scotts have a good sense of humor.

Good luck with your pending marriage. Until it happens, the paperwork is filed, affidavit of support, interview and ultimately the conditional permanent residency received, a lot of things can go wrong but I hope the best for you.

Just for the record, I did just see some postings for criminal law lawyers at a job fair later this year. They were for a county prosecutors office. One thing I learned in life, we never know what we don't know and we can always learn. Sometimes we learn from the most unlikely of people.

Good luck in your studies, wherever you end up. Others reading this post I'll strongly encourage you to look into the political atmosphere at whatever school you plan to attend. If your political views don't align with the school's then the atmosphere can be somewhat hostile and the teachers will quickly try and shut down any dissenting opinion. For those spoon-fed pablum by the BBC from an early age- Berkeley is a great choice.
<blockquote>Emily you seem to be well credentialed so it is unclear why you seek approval from fellow applicants. The replies to your posts have been helpful and Wavshdr offers good insight into the realities of the situation.
Having read many of your posts on this forum, I am surprised at how much detailed information you provide about yourself, making it very easy for schools and employers to identify you, a law degree does not make you a lawyer so you may not realise how important professionalism and confidentiality are, example is posting the amount of tuition discount that USC offer to you, they would have requested you keep the details to yourself, that you didn't is a surprise when you say you want to work in criminal law.</blockquote>

I generally write so as to help MORE than just the person I may be responding to. My intent is to share knowledge that may be helpful to anyone reading the thread where I post. A lot of the other people who are considering different types of law would and want to practice law in the US really need to pay attention to these things.

With your somewhat condescending attitude you'll fit right in with a lot of the other LLM students I've met. Berkeley would be a good place for you. From what I've seen from students form the former British Empire, the Aussies and New Zealanders are the best liked and are generally collegial. The ones from Great Britain tend to be more pompous. The Irish are pretty down to earth and the Scotts have a good sense of humor.

Good luck with your pending marriage. Until it happens, the paperwork is filed, affidavit of support, interview and ultimately the conditional permanent residency received, a lot of things can go wrong but I hope the best for you.

Just for the record, I did just see some postings for criminal law lawyers at a job fair later this year. They were for a county prosecutors office. One thing I learned in life, we never know what we don't know and we can always learn. Sometimes we learn from the most unlikely of people.

Good luck in your studies, wherever you end up. Others reading this post I'll strongly encourage you to look into the political atmosphere at whatever school you plan to attend. If your political views don't align with the school's then the atmosphere can be somewhat hostile and the teachers will quickly try and shut down any dissenting opinion. For those spoon-fed pablum by the BBC from an early age- Berkeley is a great choice.
quote
Hi there!

Changing of subject, I'd like to know what do you think about this thread:http://www.llm-guide.com/board/150682
Is it true? Because, I'm thinking about applying to UCLA but I'm not sure.
Thanks in advance!
Hi there!

Changing of subject, I'd like to know what do you think about this thread:http://www.llm-guide.com/board/150682
Is it true? Because, I'm thinking about applying to UCLA but I'm not sure.
Thanks in advance!
quote
Wavshrdr
I think there is a lot of value in what was said in that post. To transfer from an LLM program into a JD program is difficult almost anywhere.

In some ways I think the LLM programs are all about the universities making money. The emphasis is clearly on the JD programs and where you attend class with the JD students you, as an LLM, typically are not treated the same way.
I think there is a lot of value in what was said in that post. To transfer from an LLM program into a JD program is difficult almost anywhere.

In some ways I think the LLM programs are all about the universities making money. The emphasis is clearly on the JD programs and where you attend class with the JD students you, as an LLM, typically are not treated the same way.
quote
I think there is a lot of value in what was said in that post. To transfer from an LLM program into a JD program is difficult almost anywhere.

In some ways I think the LLM programs are all about the universities making money. The emphasis is clearly on the JD programs and where you attend class with the JD students you, as an LLM, typically are not treated the same way.


I've already been accepted to USC with a generous scholarship and I'm tempted to accept their offer. Should I accept their offer or take a chance on UCLA? I have until april to decide
<blockquote>I think there is a lot of value in what was said in that post. To transfer from an LLM program into a JD program is difficult almost anywhere.

In some ways I think the LLM programs are all about the universities making money. The emphasis is clearly on the JD programs and where you attend class with the JD students you, as an LLM, typically are not treated the same way.</blockquote>

I've already been accepted to USC with a generous scholarship and I'm tempted to accept their offer. Should I accept their offer or take a chance on UCLA? I have until april to decide
quote
Wavshrdr
Do you plan on trying to get into the JD program? Don't focus on just the scholarships. I had several offers where it was basically free for me to go other than living expenses. Even if if costs you more, make sure the school aligns with your professional and personal goals. Their isn't a huge difference in rankings at a school level.

I will say that the UCLA campus and location is much nicer than USC. It is also a more expensive area to live in. I would see how the programs match up to your interests. All things being equal though, and USC offered a lot more scholarship money, I'd definitely be tempted to go with USC if the difference is 5-10k cheaper at USC. Both have excellent alumni networks.

Regarding LLM programs, I think almost all universities that have an LLM program (other than Tax) are in it mostly for the revenue. Sure there a few other specialized ones but in many ways they are trying to "sell" foreign students on the dream of possibly working in the US.

Of course not all LLM students want to come to the US to work. For them going to a prestigious school can often help them at home.

I will work in the US, I have no doubt about it but I am more interested in the practical training aspect and to leverage this experience back home. Having worked for a very high profile firm at home, I'll have even more opportunities when I complete my LLM. I am tired of the rat-race of firms and likely will go into some sort of public service.
Do you plan on trying to get into the JD program? Don't focus on just the scholarships. I had several offers where it was basically free for me to go other than living expenses. Even if if costs you more, make sure the school aligns with your professional and personal goals. Their isn't a huge difference in rankings at a school level.

I will say that the UCLA campus and location is much nicer than USC. It is also a more expensive area to live in. I would see how the programs match up to your interests. All things being equal though, and USC offered a lot more scholarship money, I'd definitely be tempted to go with USC if the difference is 5-10k cheaper at USC. Both have excellent alumni networks.

Regarding LLM programs, I think almost all universities that have an LLM program (other than Tax) are in it mostly for the revenue. Sure there a few other specialized ones but in many ways they are trying to "sell" foreign students on the dream of possibly working in the US.

Of course not all LLM students want to come to the US to work. For them going to a prestigious school can often help them at home.

I will work in the US, I have no doubt about it but I am more interested in the practical training aspect and to leverage this experience back home. Having worked for a very high profile firm at home, I'll have even more opportunities when I complete my LLM. I am tired of the rat-race of firms and likely will go into some sort of public service.
quote
emily717
Emily you seem to be well credentialed so it is unclear why you seek approval from fellow applicants. The replies to your posts have been helpful and Wavshdr offers good insight into the realities of the situation.
Having read many of your posts on this forum, I am surprised at how much detailed information you provide about yourself, making it very easy for schools and employers to identify you, a law degree does not make you a lawyer so you may not realise how important professionalism and confidentiality are, example is posting the amount of tuition discount that USC offer to you, they would have requested you keep the details to yourself, that you didn't is a surprise when you say you want to work in criminal law.


Hi countykat, I appreciate your concern and thanks for pointing it out. I think the issue I've always had in the past is that I had no idea what kind of school I would realistically have a chance to get in. I don't have that much money to waste on applications nor on tuition. This will be the case for a lot of people on here. The forum is supposed to be a place for advice and assistance. Emily isn't my real name and I ensure you that any checks a future employer may make, they would not be able to find me based on vague details of my past. Perhaps it was an error to post the details of my scholarship from USC but I wanted to help people and had they not directly asked, I probably wouldn't have said.

I think this forum should a place to provide realistic but kind encouragement. I initially posted asking what school I could get into with some information about myself, as I have seen others do, with the hope that someone may shed some light for me and give me hope - I had to start saving for the opportunity a long time ago. Unfortunately Wavshdr told me last year that I would never have a chance at Berkeley, and that if I got into Stanford - they would buy a lottery ticket that day! Perhaps they thought that was the reality of the situation and really thought they were helping to bring me down to level. But I took a chance and applied to Berkeley and got in, I didn't apply to Stanford and Wavshdr's words probably influenced that decision, so I'll never know if I could have got in there. I don't think other people deserve to be put off from schools, and if they have a past similar to mine (I do not have excellent credentials) but they see I have got into good schools, perhaps they will have more faith.
<blockquote>Emily you seem to be well credentialed so it is unclear why you seek approval from fellow applicants. The replies to your posts have been helpful and Wavshdr offers good insight into the realities of the situation.
Having read many of your posts on this forum, I am surprised at how much detailed information you provide about yourself, making it very easy for schools and employers to identify you, a law degree does not make you a lawyer so you may not realise how important professionalism and confidentiality are, example is posting the amount of tuition discount that USC offer to you, they would have requested you keep the details to yourself, that you didn't is a surprise when you say you want to work in criminal law.</blockquote>

Hi countykat, I appreciate your concern and thanks for pointing it out. I think the issue I've always had in the past is that I had no idea what kind of school I would realistically have a chance to get in. I don't have that much money to waste on applications nor on tuition. This will be the case for a lot of people on here. The forum is supposed to be a place for advice and assistance. Emily isn't my real name and I ensure you that any checks a future employer may make, they would not be able to find me based on vague details of my past. Perhaps it was an error to post the details of my scholarship from USC but I wanted to help people and had they not directly asked, I probably wouldn't have said.

I think this forum should a place to provide realistic but kind encouragement. I initially posted asking what school I could get into with some information about myself, as I have seen others do, with the hope that someone may shed some light for me and give me hope - I had to start saving for the opportunity a long time ago. Unfortunately Wavshdr told me last year that I would never have a chance at Berkeley, and that if I got into Stanford - they would buy a lottery ticket that day! Perhaps they thought that was the reality of the situation and really thought they were helping to bring me down to level. But I took a chance and applied to Berkeley and got in, I didn't apply to Stanford and Wavshdr's words probably influenced that decision, so I'll never know if I could have got in there. I don't think other people deserve to be put off from schools, and if they have a past similar to mine (I do not have excellent credentials) but they see I have got into good schools, perhaps they will have more faith.
quote
emily717
Emily you seem to be well credentialed so it is unclear why you seek approval from fellow applicants. The replies to your posts have been helpful and Wavshdr offers good insight into the realities of the situation.
Having read many of your posts on this forum, I am surprised at how much detailed information you provide about yourself, making it very easy for schools and employers to identify you, a law degree does not make you a lawyer so you may not realise how important professionalism and confidentiality are, example is posting the amount of tuition discount that USC offer to you, they would have requested you keep the details to yourself, that you didn't is a surprise when you say you want to work in criminal law.


I generally write so as to help MORE than just the person I may be responding to. My intent is to share knowledge that may be helpful to anyone reading the thread where I post. A lot of the other people who are considering different types of law would and want to practice law in the US really need to pay attention to these things.

With your somewhat condescending attitude you'll fit right in with a lot of the other LLM students I've met. Berkeley would be a good place for you. From what I've seen from students form the former British Empire, the Aussies and New Zealanders are the best liked and are generally collegial. The ones from Great Britain tend to be more pompous. The Irish are pretty down to earth and the Scotts have a good sense of humor.

Good luck with your pending marriage. Until it happens, the paperwork is filed, affidavit of support, interview and ultimately the conditional permanent residency received, a lot of things can go wrong but I hope the best for you.

Just for the record, I did just see some postings for criminal law lawyers at a job fair later this year. They were for a county prosecutors office. One thing I learned in life, we never know what we don't know and we can always learn. Sometimes we learn from the most unlikely of people.

Good luck in your studies, wherever you end up. Others reading this post I'll strongly encourage you to look into the political atmosphere at whatever school you plan to attend. If your political views don't align with the school's then the atmosphere can be somewhat hostile and the teachers will quickly try and shut down any dissenting opinion. For those spoon-fed pablum by the BBC from an early age- Berkeley is a great choice.


The only reason I was replying in such a condescending fashion is because I am tired of reading you do the exact same thing. I understand that you are trying to be a realist and make people aware of the decision that they are making, but often you are just being quite plainly rude. You actually upset me last year when you told me if I got into Stanford you would buy a lottery ticket. I'm sorry but that doesn't seem like advice which is out there to help more than one person. That's just harsh.

I replied to your post to show that I have researched the realism of my prospects and I'm hoping that others may read it and decide that it is worth their time pursuing an LLM. I wasn't being pompous by discussing my English qualifications, I'm hoping other English students will see this and read what I have been told by others; that it is a good idea for us to pursue a career in the US.

I can happily say that I wasn't 'spoon-fed pablum', nor would I presume that anyone else in England has either, that seems like a rather condescending sweeping generalisation. As would also be your characterisations of my neighbouring countries. Moreover, you seem to have an unnecessary loathing of Berkeley, are you influenced by the school rivalry with Stanford or did they also not admit you like UCLA? Because either way if you want to provide impartial advice, you should probably let it go.
<blockquote><blockquote>Emily you seem to be well credentialed so it is unclear why you seek approval from fellow applicants. The replies to your posts have been helpful and Wavshdr offers good insight into the realities of the situation.
Having read many of your posts on this forum, I am surprised at how much detailed information you provide about yourself, making it very easy for schools and employers to identify you, a law degree does not make you a lawyer so you may not realise how important professionalism and confidentiality are, example is posting the amount of tuition discount that USC offer to you, they would have requested you keep the details to yourself, that you didn't is a surprise when you say you want to work in criminal law.</blockquote>

I generally write so as to help MORE than just the person I may be responding to. My intent is to share knowledge that may be helpful to anyone reading the thread where I post. A lot of the other people who are considering different types of law would and want to practice law in the US really need to pay attention to these things.

With your somewhat condescending attitude you'll fit right in with a lot of the other LLM students I've met. Berkeley would be a good place for you. From what I've seen from students form the former British Empire, the Aussies and New Zealanders are the best liked and are generally collegial. The ones from Great Britain tend to be more pompous. The Irish are pretty down to earth and the Scotts have a good sense of humor.

Good luck with your pending marriage. Until it happens, the paperwork is filed, affidavit of support, interview and ultimately the conditional permanent residency received, a lot of things can go wrong but I hope the best for you.

Just for the record, I did just see some postings for criminal law lawyers at a job fair later this year. They were for a county prosecutors office. One thing I learned in life, we never know what we don't know and we can always learn. Sometimes we learn from the most unlikely of people.

Good luck in your studies, wherever you end up. Others reading this post I'll strongly encourage you to look into the political atmosphere at whatever school you plan to attend. If your political views don't align with the school's then the atmosphere can be somewhat hostile and the teachers will quickly try and shut down any dissenting opinion. For those spoon-fed pablum by the BBC from an early age- Berkeley is a great choice.</blockquote>

The only reason I was replying in such a condescending fashion is because I am tired of reading you do the exact same thing. I understand that you are trying to be a realist and make people aware of the decision that they are making, but often you are just being quite plainly rude. You actually upset me last year when you told me if I got into Stanford you would buy a lottery ticket. I'm sorry but that doesn't seem like advice which is out there to help more than one person. That's just harsh.

I replied to your post to show that I have researched the realism of my prospects and I'm hoping that others may read it and decide that it is worth their time pursuing an LLM. I wasn't being pompous by discussing my English qualifications, I'm hoping other English students will see this and read what I have been told by others; that it is a good idea for us to pursue a career in the US.

I can happily say that I wasn't 'spoon-fed pablum', nor would I presume that anyone else in England has either, that seems like a rather condescending sweeping generalisation. As would also be your characterisations of my neighbouring countries. Moreover, you seem to have an unnecessary loathing of Berkeley, are you influenced by the school rivalry with Stanford or did they also not admit you like UCLA? Because either way if you want to provide impartial advice, you should probably let it go.



quote
Emily you seem to be well credentialed so it is unclear why you seek approval from fellow applicants. The replies to your posts have been helpful and Wavshdr offers good insight into the realities of the situation.
Having read many of your posts on this forum, I am surprised at how much detailed information you provide about yourself, making it very easy for schools and employers to identify you, a law degree does not make you a lawyer so you may not realise how important professionalism and confidentiality are, example is posting the amount of tuition discount that USC offer to you, they would have requested you keep the details to yourself, that you didn't is a surprise when you say you want to work in criminal law.


I generally write so as to help MORE than just the person I may be responding to. My intent is to share knowledge that may be helpful to anyone reading the thread where I post. A lot of the other people who are considering different types of law would and want to practice law in the US really need to pay attention to these things.

With your somewhat condescending attitude you'll fit right in with a lot of the other LLM students I've met. Berkeley would be a good place for you. From what I've seen from students form the former British Empire, the Aussies and New Zealanders are the best liked and are generally collegial. The ones from Great Britain tend to be more pompous. The Irish are pretty down to earth and the Scotts have a good sense of humor.

Good luck with your pending marriage. Until it happens, the paperwork is filed, affidavit of support, interview and ultimately the conditional permanent residency received, a lot of things can go wrong but I hope the best for you.

Just for the record, I did just see some postings for criminal law lawyers at a job fair later this year. They were for a county prosecutors office. One thing I learned in life, we never know what we don't know and we can always learn. Sometimes we learn from the most unlikely of people.

Good luck in your studies, wherever you end up. Others reading this post I'll strongly encourage you to look into the political atmosphere at whatever school you plan to attend. If your political views don't align with the school's then the atmosphere can be somewhat hostile and the teachers will quickly try and shut down any dissenting opinion. For those spoon-fed pablum by the BBC from an early age- Berkeley is a great choice.


The only reason I was replying in such a condescending fashion is because I am tired of reading you do the exact same thing. I understand that you are trying to be a realist and make people aware of the decision that they are making, but often you are just being quite plainly rude. You actually upset me last year when you told me if I got into Stanford you would buy a lottery ticket. I'm sorry but that doesn't seem like advice which is out there to help more than one person. That's just harsh.

I replied to your post to show that I have researched the realism of my prospects and I'm hoping that others may read it and decide that it is worth their time pursuing an LLM. I wasn't being pompous by discussing my English qualifications, I'm hoping other English students will see this and read what I have been told by others; that it is a good idea for us to pursue a career in the US.

I can happily say that I wasn't 'spoon-fed pablum', nor would I presume that anyone else in England has either, that seems like a rather condescending sweeping generalisation. As would also be your characterisations of my neighbouring countries. Moreover, you seem to have an unnecessary loathing of Berkeley, are you influenced by the school rivalry with Stanford or did they also not admit you like UCLA? Because either way if you want to provide impartial advice, you should probably let it go.




Don't take in account harsh or cocky comments. I think this thread has lost its main purpose which is talking about UCLA applications and decisions!
I'll appreciate helpful comments, but those based on misconceptions are completely out of my consideration.You should think that way too Emily ;)
<blockquote><blockquote><blockquote>Emily you seem to be well credentialed so it is unclear why you seek approval from fellow applicants. The replies to your posts have been helpful and Wavshdr offers good insight into the realities of the situation.
Having read many of your posts on this forum, I am surprised at how much detailed information you provide about yourself, making it very easy for schools and employers to identify you, a law degree does not make you a lawyer so you may not realise how important professionalism and confidentiality are, example is posting the amount of tuition discount that USC offer to you, they would have requested you keep the details to yourself, that you didn't is a surprise when you say you want to work in criminal law.</blockquote>

I generally write so as to help MORE than just the person I may be responding to. My intent is to share knowledge that may be helpful to anyone reading the thread where I post. A lot of the other people who are considering different types of law would and want to practice law in the US really need to pay attention to these things.

With your somewhat condescending attitude you'll fit right in with a lot of the other LLM students I've met. Berkeley would be a good place for you. From what I've seen from students form the former British Empire, the Aussies and New Zealanders are the best liked and are generally collegial. The ones from Great Britain tend to be more pompous. The Irish are pretty down to earth and the Scotts have a good sense of humor.

Good luck with your pending marriage. Until it happens, the paperwork is filed, affidavit of support, interview and ultimately the conditional permanent residency received, a lot of things can go wrong but I hope the best for you.

Just for the record, I did just see some postings for criminal law lawyers at a job fair later this year. They were for a county prosecutors office. One thing I learned in life, we never know what we don't know and we can always learn. Sometimes we learn from the most unlikely of people.

Good luck in your studies, wherever you end up. Others reading this post I'll strongly encourage you to look into the political atmosphere at whatever school you plan to attend. If your political views don't align with the school's then the atmosphere can be somewhat hostile and the teachers will quickly try and shut down any dissenting opinion. For those spoon-fed pablum by the BBC from an early age- Berkeley is a great choice.</blockquote>

The only reason I was replying in such a condescending fashion is because I am tired of reading you do the exact same thing. I understand that you are trying to be a realist and make people aware of the decision that they are making, but often you are just being quite plainly rude. You actually upset me last year when you told me if I got into Stanford you would buy a lottery ticket. I'm sorry but that doesn't seem like advice which is out there to help more than one person. That's just harsh.

I replied to your post to show that I have researched the realism of my prospects and I'm hoping that others may read it and decide that it is worth their time pursuing an LLM. I wasn't being pompous by discussing my English qualifications, I'm hoping other English students will see this and read what I have been told by others; that it is a good idea for us to pursue a career in the US.

I can happily say that I wasn't 'spoon-fed pablum', nor would I presume that anyone else in England has either, that seems like a rather condescending sweeping generalisation. As would also be your characterisations of my neighbouring countries. Moreover, you seem to have an unnecessary loathing of Berkeley, are you influenced by the school rivalry with Stanford or did they also not admit you like UCLA? Because either way if you want to provide impartial advice, you should probably let it go.



</blockquote>

Don't take in account harsh or cocky comments. I think this thread has lost its main purpose which is talking about UCLA applications and decisions!
I'll appreciate helpful comments, but those based on misconceptions are completely out of my consideration.You should think that way too Emily ;)
quote

Reply to Post

Related Law Schools

Los Angeles, California 567 Followers 305 Discussions