Berk $$ vs. Duke $$ Forum

[rizzlebizness]

Duke upped their offer so I'm going to Duke.

[presidentspivey]

Hi Everyone!

With only a couple of days left to decide, I'm hoping to get some opinions on whether there is a clear victor between Berk and Duke for my circumstances and goals. Sorry in advance that the post is lengthy...

A little bit about me. I've lived in AZ for almost my entire life. I've worked in healthcare consulting/analytics at an actuarial firm for about 4 years now (25 y/o). I've always had the aspiration to become a lawyer and I'm at the point in my life/career where it most the makes sense for me to attend law school. I've already announced my intentions to my firm and I will be leaving in July and have been slacking off on billables so no way I can stick around another year.

Stats: 166 (1st attempt, but a couple points higher than PTs) / 3.5 GPA, MA URM.

Debt at Repayment: Duke ~$110k (60k scholly + some personal savings). Berkeley ~$110k (45k scholly + some personal savings).
I'm post-negotiation at Berk and have an outstanding negotiation request at Duke.

Where do I want to work:
I've spent some time in both NYC and SF so I'm impartial for job placement. I'm thinking that Duke and Berk are equal on ability to send to NY but Duke has DC edge and Berk has large SF/SV edge.

General career goals:
Fed Clerkship --> Biglaw . For my interests I'm split between staying in current field and trying to work in the biotech/pharm/healthcare area or doing something in securities/investments/etc. Maybe something that can be the best of both worlds.

I attended both ASWs and wanted to also include some fluff that probably shouldn't matter since it mostly speculation but thought I'd share anyway:
- I'm wondering if biotech and the SF/SV area is going to be the more secure and promising field to be in and some of my current work experience would be relevant. At Duke's ASW they really tried to sell their startup/research triangle opportunities but I think Berk wins this hands down.
- Regardless of school, I'm def planning on taking as many MBA electives as possible for networking purposes and to keep my quantitative and team-based skills fresh. I feel like Haas and Berk's econ department > Fuqua & Duke Econ which may not matter. Going back to the networking piece, I'm pretty social and would like to network with as many students for different grad schools as I possible can during my 3 years. Also, I don't want my MBA. Practicing law is what I'm interested in the most and an MBA is not right for me.
-Duke's employment stats were great this past year especially for my goals and were definitely better than Berk's objectively.. I still can't tell if that is a PI self-selection bias and whether I would still be okay at Berk... Might not be worth the risk
-Culture.... Berkeley is mostly Cali residents, very laid back, with the well-known progressive/think with your heart mentality. Duke had a definite East Coast vibe but was very geographically diverse and had more of a structured/think with your mind mentality. I'm a little bit of both so I don't mind either environment, although I'd probably fit in more at Berkeley.

I'd probably lean Duke because of the superior BL+FC numbers. Tough call though. You could make a case for either.

[SmokeytheBear]

Hi Everyone!

With only a couple of days left to decide, I'm hoping to get some opinions on whether there is a clear victor between Berk and Duke for my circumstances and goals. Sorry in advance that the post is lengthy...

A little bit about me. I've lived in AZ for almost my entire life. I've worked in healthcare consulting/analytics at an actuarial firm for about 4 years now (25 y/o). I've always had the aspiration to become a lawyer and I'm at the point in my life/career where it most the makes sense for me to attend law school. I've already announced my intentions to my firm and I will be leaving in July and have been slacking off on billables so no way I can stick around another year.

Stats: 166 (1st attempt, but a couple points higher than PTs) / 3.5 GPA, MA URM.

Debt at Repayment: Duke ~$110k (60k scholly + some personal savings). Berkeley ~$110k (45k scholly + some personal savings).
I'm post-negotiation at Berk and have an outstanding negotiation request at Duke.

Where do I want to work:
I've spent some time in both NYC and SF so I'm impartial for job placement. I'm thinking that Duke and Berk are equal on ability to send to NY but Duke has DC edge and Berk has large SF/SV edge.

General career goals:
Fed Clerkship --> Biglaw . For my interests I'm split between staying in current field and trying to work in the biotech/pharm/healthcare area or doing something in securities/investments/etc. Maybe something that can be the best of both worlds.

I attended both ASWs and wanted to also include some fluff that probably shouldn't matter since it mostly speculation but thought I'd share anyway:
- I'm wondering if biotech and the SF/SV area is going to be the more secure and promising field to be in and some of my current work experience would be relevant. At Duke's ASW they really tried to sell their startup/research triangle opportunities but I think Berk wins this hands down.
- Regardless of school, I'm def planning on taking as many MBA electives as possible for networking purposes and to keep my quantitative and team-based skills fresh. I feel like Haas and Berk's econ department > Fuqua & Duke Econ which may not matter. Going back to the networking piece, I'm pretty social and would like to network with as many students for different grad schools as I possible can during my 3 years. Also, I don't want my MBA. Practicing law is what I'm interested in the most and an MBA is not right for me.
-Duke's employment stats were great this past year especially for my goals and were definitely better than Berk's objectively.. I still can't tell if that is a PI self-selection bias and whether I would still be okay at Berk... Might not be worth the risk
-Culture.... Berkeley is mostly Cali residents, very laid back, with the well-known progressive/think with your heart mentality. Duke had a definite East Coast vibe but was very geographically diverse and had more of a structured/think with your mind mentality. I'm a little bit of both so I don't mind either environment, although I'd probably fit in more at Berkeley.

I'd probably lean Duke because of the superior BL+FC numbers. Tough call though. You could make a case for either.

I second the tough call and a case can be made (and will be made for either). I think this is a bit of a coin toss, but you're going to be fine either way you go.

For real reasons, I'd go Boalt because of some of your stated career preferences and networking. I think your work experience will do you well during OCI, and as amigo above said Duke has better big law placement. But if that is the field you want to go into, the Bay is the better place to be.

For realer real reasons, the Bay has better weather and better mexican food.

Seriously though, coin toss. Good work on getting these two great options and I am sure you will do well!

[poptart123]

Dropping in just to say congrats!!

[ithrowds]

I don't know much about Berkeley job placement in general (obviously I'm sure they do fine in the Bay Area), but I will chime in and say if you want SF/SV from Duke - it is incredibly attainable as a median student (with any semblance of ties). People are often surprised by the # of Duke Summers at Bay Area firms...i.e. last year 4 at Cooley Palo Alto and 3 at Simpson Thacher SV alone.

At Duke, there are 3 avenues for getting to the Bay Area:
1) OCI: all the big firms from the Bay interview for their offices at OCI. This is done through lottery.
2) Regional Interview Week: Duke coordinates with a bunch of firms in the Bay Area (last year it was about 8 or so?) and you'll be able to do screener interviews with firms (in their offices) the week before OCI. This is also done through lottery.
3) Bay Area Diversity Career Fair: As a URM, you'll be able to participate in the BADCF (open to rising 2Ls from all law schools). It's pre-select, so firms will see your resume and then decide whether or not to give you a screener at the fair. If you get interviews here, its one less interview you have to do at OCI, if you don't get an interview, you can always bid them through lottery at OCI.

[rizzlebizness]

Dropping in just to say congrats!!

Thanks! Congrats on UChi, maybe I'll get off the WL the day before orientation starts

[grades??]

Duke and its not even close. Can get you back to the bay area but it opens up more markets then B. Also significantly higher BL+FC numbers. Like significant difference. And Duke isn't broke like B.

[rizzlebizness]

Hi Everyone!

With only a couple of days left to decide, I'm hoping to get some opinions on whether there is a clear victor between Berk and Duke for my circumstances and goals. Sorry in advance that the post is lengthy...

A little bit about me. I've lived in AZ for almost my entire life. I've worked in healthcare consulting/analytics at an actuarial firm for about 4 years now (25 y/o). I've always had the aspiration to become a lawyer and I'm at the point in my life/career where it most the makes sense for me to attend law school. I've already announced my intentions to my firm and I will be leaving in July and have been slacking off on billables so no way I can stick around another year.

Stats: 166 (1st attempt, but a couple points higher than PTs) / 3.5 GPA, MA URM.

Debt at Repayment: Duke ~$110k (60k scholly + some personal savings). Berkeley ~$110k (45k scholly + some personal savings).
I'm post-negotiation at Berk and have an outstanding negotiation request at Duke.

Where do I want to work:
I've spent some time in both NYC and SF so I'm impartial for job placement. I'm thinking that Duke and Berk are equal on ability to send to NY but Duke has DC edge and Berk has large SF/SV edge.

General career goals:
Fed Clerkship --> Biglaw . For my interests I'm split between staying in current field and trying to work in the biotech/pharm/healthcare area or doing something in securities/investments/etc. Maybe something that can be the best of both worlds.

I attended both ASWs and wanted to also include some fluff that probably shouldn't matter since it mostly speculation but thought I'd share anyway:
- I'm wondering if biotech and the SF/SV area is going to be the more secure and promising field to be in and some of my current work experience would be relevant. At Duke's ASW they really tried to sell their startup/research triangle opportunities but I think Berk wins this hands down.
- Regardless of school, I'm def planning on taking as many MBA electives as possible for networking purposes and to keep my quantitative and team-based skills fresh. I feel like Haas and Berk's econ department > Fuqua & Duke Econ which may not matter. Going back to the networking piece, I'm pretty social and would like to network with as many students for different grad schools as I possible can during my 3 years. Also, I don't want my MBA. Practicing law is what I'm interested in the most and an MBA is not right for me.
-Duke's employment stats were great this past year especially for my goals and were definitely better than Berk's objectively.. I still can't tell if that is a PI self-selection bias and whether I would still be okay at Berk... Might not be worth the risk
-Culture.... Berkeley is mostly Cali residents, very laid back, with the well-known progressive/think with your heart mentality. Duke had a definite East Coast vibe but was very geographically diverse and had more of a structured/think with your mind mentality. I'm a little bit of both so I don't mind either environment, although I'd probably fit in more at Berkeley.

I'd probably lean Duke because of the superior BL+FC numbers. Tough call though. You could make a case for either.

I agree about the superior numbers. It's almost more of a "sure thing" to be confident about, and Dean Levi is killing it over there vs. uncertain leadership at Berkeley at the moment.

[UVA2B]

Several confusing points in your post need to be addressed. How are Duke and Berkeley the same price with different scholarships and no in-state? Even with in-state 2L and 3L, this is strange.

How bad do you want SF/SV? You seem noncommittal, but that's easily the biggest factor in making this decision. If SV/SF matters, Berkeley. If not, Duke is a better choice.

You wrote an extensively lengthy post, but the essentials are still a bit lacking. If you really want SV/SF/CA, Berkeley. If you want more assurance of a generic outcome, Duke is better.

[UVA2B]

Duke and its not even close. Can get you back to the bay area but it opens up more markets then B. Also significantly higher BL+FC numbers. Like significant difference. And Duke isn't broke like B.

The numbers speak for themselves, but Duke doesn't open more or less markets compared to Berkeley. I'm all for championing an alma mater (even pre graduation), but to say Duke carries more weight in more markets is silly. They place more in BL+FC, and they place nationally. So does Berkeley, albeit at a lower percentage that could be due to a litany of reasons. It's pointless to draw distinctions between Duke and Berkeley for national placement, because no data supports/refutes that assertion. Maybe Berkeley students are more PI focused. Maybe they foolishly all target CA wanting only CA. And maybe Duke places better nationally than Berkeley. I'm suspect any argument can be made to make any of those assertions absolutely true. So what we're left with is Duke outplacing Berkeley in BL+FC. If OP wants CA, Berkeley is still the better call. But if they're not married to CA, Duke wins.

[grades??]

Duke and its not even close. Can get you back to the bay area but it opens up more markets then B. Also significantly higher BL+FC numbers. Like significant difference. And Duke isn't broke like B.

The numbers speak for themselves, but Duke doesn't open more or less markets compared to Berkeley. I'm all for championing an alma mater (even pre graduation), but to say Duke carries more weight in more markets is silly. They place more in BL+FC, and they place nationally. So does Berkeley, albeit at a lower percentage that could be due to a litany of reasons. It's pointless to draw distinctions between Duke and Berkeley for national placement, because no data supports/refutes that assertion. Maybe Berkeley students are more PI focused. Maybe they foolishly all target CA wanting only CA. And maybe Duke places better nationally than Berkeley. I'm suspect any argument can be made to make any of those assertions absolutely true. So what we're left with is Duke outplacing Berkeley in BL+FC. If OP wants CA, Berkeley is still the better call. But if they're not married to CA, Duke wins.

I don't feel like posting the numbers, but Duke places more students in more markets. Maybe its because B has a home market and so more people stay in Cali, but Duke places in more markets nationally. Hypo: if you wanted DC- which of the two do you pick? Answer Duke. If you wanted Texas- which do you pick? Duke. If you wanted Atlanta- Duke. Chicago- probably Duke. Im sure their are B kids going to these markets, but not at the rate nor with the alumni base. Agreed that if OP wanted cali and is okay with the lower employment numbers, then B is the choice. Otherwise, Duke.

[UVA2B]

Duke and its not even close. Can get you back to the bay area but it opens up more markets then B. Also significantly higher BL+FC numbers. Like significant difference. And Duke isn't broke like B.

The numbers speak for themselves, but Duke doesn't open more or less markets compared to Berkeley. I'm all for championing an alma mater (even pre graduation), but to say Duke carries more weight in more markets is silly. They place more in BL+FC, and they place nationally. So does Berkeley, albeit at a lower percentage that could be due to a litany of reasons. It's pointless to draw distinctions between Duke and Berkeley for national placement, because no data supports/refutes that assertion. Maybe Berkeley students are more PI focused. Maybe they foolishly all target CA wanting only CA. And maybe Duke places better nationally than Berkeley. I'm suspect any argument can be made to make any of those assertions absolutely true. So what we're left with is Duke outplacing Berkeley in BL+FC. If OP wants CA, Berkeley is still the better call. But if they're not married to CA, Duke wins.

I don't feel like posting the numbers, but Duke places more students in more markets. Maybe its because B has a home market and so more people stay in Cali, but Duke places in more markets nationally. Hypo: if you wanted DC- which of the two do you pick? Answer Duke. If you wanted Texas- which do you pick? Duke. If you wanted Atlanta- Duke. Chicago- probably Duke. Im sure their are B kids going to these markets, but not at the rate nor with the alumni base. Agreed that if OP wanted cali and is okay with the lower employment numbers, then B is the choice. Otherwise, Duke.

I agree, Duke places more grads nationally, and they place in BL+FC at a higher rate (which should be the deciding factor if OP isn't dead set on CA), but the point wasn't contesting the numbers: it was contesting the relative placement power. I don't think UVA/Duke/Michigan/NU/Berkeley/Cornell/Penn/NYU/Chicago/Columbia (if I missed any non-HYS T13, my apologies, and even then it's somewhat relative) place substantially better in non-primary markets than any of their peers. Columbia and NYU substantially place in NYC, but does that mean they can't place elsewhere on par with Berkeley, who substantially places in CA? Hardly. Will a Cornell grad at median be treated differently in LA than a Duke grad? Nothing explicitly says so.

There is a weird sub-culture in the T13 between schools with primary markets and those lacking a primary market, and it absolutely skews the numbers at least marginally. So while Michigan is placing ~65% into Biglaw+FC nationally, that doesn't necessarily suggest they have inferior placement power in a given market against a Duke grad who places ~75-80%.

The stats are important to understand relative placement power, but to try to create gradations within the T13 (or T14 if we're being generous and including GULC) just seems incomplete. Berkeley might have less placement power relative to Duke in Anchorage, but nothing persuasive actually substantiates that beyond Duke placing more graduates in different markets generally because they don't have a home market they rely on.

[rizzlebizness]

Several confusing points in your post need to be addressed. How are Duke and Berkeley the same price with different scholarships and no in-state? Even with in-state 2L and 3L, this is strange.

How bad do you want SF/SV? You seem noncommittal, but that's easily the biggest factor in making this decision. If SV/SF matters, Berkeley. If not, Duke is a better choice.

You wrote an extensively lengthy post, but the essentials are still a bit lacking. If you really want SV/SF/CA, Berkeley. If you want more assurance of a generic outcome, Duke is better.

Duke, low COL with high tuition vs Berkeley high COL with high tuition but Duke still comes out ~17k more expensive. Berkeley gave me 15k less so they end up the same.

I feel like your last two sentences were mentioned in my post but maybe not as concisely as your points. I agree with the points btw.

Edit: Don't really care about SF/SV placement. I'd go to any major market.

[grades??]

Several confusing points in your post need to be addressed. How are Duke and Berkeley the same price with different scholarships and no in-state? Even with in-state 2L and 3L, this is strange.

How bad do you want SF/SV? You seem noncommittal, but that's easily the biggest factor in making this decision. If SV/SF matters, Berkeley. If not, Duke is a better choice.

You wrote an extensively lengthy post, but the essentials are still a bit lacking. If you really want SV/SF/CA, Berkeley. If you want more assurance of a generic outcome, Duke is better.

Duke, low COL with high tuition vs Berkeley high COL with high tuition but Duke still comes out ~17k more expensive. Berkeley gave me 15k less so they end up the same.

I feel like your last two sentences were mentioned in my post but maybe not as concisely as your points. I agree with the points btw.

Edit: Don't really care about SF/SV placement. I'd go to any major market.

If you will go to any major market, then Duke is clearly the right answer.

[UVA2B]

Several confusing points in your post need to be addressed. How are Duke and Berkeley the same price with different scholarships and no in-state? Even with in-state 2L and 3L, this is strange.

How bad do you want SF/SV? You seem noncommittal, but that's easily the biggest factor in making this decision. If SV/SF matters, Berkeley. If not, Duke is a better choice.

You wrote an extensively lengthy post, but the essentials are still a bit lacking. If you really want SV/SF/CA, Berkeley. If you want more assurance of a generic outcome, Duke is better.

Duke, low COL with high tuition vs Berkeley high COL with high tuition but Duke still comes out ~17k more expensive. Berkeley gave me 15k less so they end up the same.

I feel like your last two sentences were mentioned in my post but maybe not as concisely as your points. I agree with the points btw.

Edit: Don't really care about SF/SV placement. I'd go to any major market.

If you will go to any major market, then Duke is clearly the right answer.

Glad we can all agree. Duke is clearly the right answer.

[rpupkin]

Duke and its not even close. Can get you back to the bay area but it opens up more markets then B. Also significantly higher BL+FC numbers. Like significant difference. And Duke isn't broke like B.

Yes, Duke can get you back to the Bay Area. Or it might not. Berkeley gives OP a better chance at a job in the Bay Area. If OP values that, then Berkeley.

Edit: Just saw OP's edit that he/she doesn't care about market, so the above doesn't apply. But OP: you should care about the market.

[UVA2B]

Duke and its not even close. Can get you back to the bay area but it opens up more markets then B. Also significantly higher BL+FC numbers. Like significant difference. And Duke isn't broke like B.

Yes, Duke can get you back to the Bay Area. Or it might not. Berkeley gives OP a better chance at a job in the Bay Area. If OP values that, then Berkeley.

Edit: Just saw OP's edit that he/she doesn't care about market, so the above doesn't apply. But OP: you should care about the market.

Corollary point to my previous point: figure out your career arc, create a narrative for that arc, sell that career arc.

[rizzlebizness]

Duke and its not even close. Can get you back to the bay area but it opens up more markets then B. Also significantly higher BL+FC numbers. Like significant difference. And Duke isn't broke like B.

Yes, Duke can get you back to the Bay Area. Or it might not. Berkeley gives OP a better chance at a job in the Bay Area. If OP values that, then Berkeley.

Edit: Just saw OP's edit that he/she doesn't care about market, so the above doesn't apply. But OP: you should care about the market.

The problem is I'm ambivalent to biotech (SF/SV BL to let's say Inhouse at Gilead) and securities (NY BL to let's say D.C. for SEC). So that's why I say "I don't care".

[rpupkin]

Duke and its not even close. Can get you back to the bay area but it opens up more markets then B. Also significantly higher BL+FC numbers. Like significant difference. And Duke isn't broke like B.

Yes, Duke can get you back to the Bay Area. Or it might not. Berkeley gives OP a better chance at a job in the Bay Area. If OP values that, then Berkeley.

Edit: Just saw OP's edit that he/she doesn't care about market, so the above doesn't apply. But OP: you should care about the market.

The problem is I'm ambivalent to biotech (SF/SV BL to let's say Inhouse at Gilead) and securities (NY BL to let's say D.C. for SEC). So that's why I say "I don't care".

Understood. But there's more to market preference than subject area. What about a preference for a city or region? What about the quality of life in certain markets? I've noticed of late that many posters are accepting these BL+FC numbers a little too blindly. I mean, it's great that Cornell and Penn dump a bunch of grads into big law offices in NYC, but, if you read the employment threads, you'll see that NYC big law is a miserable experience for many. (Big law everywhere is rough, but NYC is, overall, particularly oppressive and soul-deadening.)

I've got friends in small Cali firms that wouldn't show up in TLS's BL+FC metric, and they are, overall, a lot happier than my friends in NYC big law.

Now, neither Duke nor Berkeley is as dependent on NYC big law as some of the T14 (though—between those two—I suspect that much more of Duke's placement is tied to NYC). But l still suggest thinking some more about where you want to live (and what you want your post-grad life to be like) before committing to law school.

[SmokeytheBear]

Duke and its not even close. Can get you back to the bay area but it opens up more markets then B. Also significantly higher BL+FC numbers. Like significant difference. And Duke isn't broke like B.

Yes, Duke can get you back to the Bay Area. Or it might not. Berkeley gives OP a better chance at a job in the Bay Area. If OP values that, then Berkeley.

Edit: Just saw OP's edit that he/she doesn't care about market, so the above doesn't apply. But OP: you should care about the market.

The problem is I'm ambivalent to biotech (SF/SV BL to let's say Inhouse at Gilead) and securities (NY BL to let's say D.C. for SEC). So that's why I say "I don't care".

Understood. But there's more to market preference than subject area. What about a preference for a city or region? What about the quality of life in certain markets? I've noticed of late that many posters are accepting these BL+FC numbers a little too blindly. I mean, it's great that Cornell and Penn dump a bunch of grads into big law offices in NYC, but, if you read the employment threads, you'll see that NYC big law is a miserable experience for many. (Big law everywhere is rough, but NYC is, overall, particularly oppressive and soul-deadening.)

I've got friends in small Cali firms that wouldn't show up in TLS's BL+FC metric, and they are, overall, a lot happier than my friends in NYC big law.

Now, neither Duke nor Berkeley is as dependent on NYC big law as some of the T14 (though—between those two—I suspect that much more of Duke's placement is tied to NYC). But l still suggest thinking some more about where you want to live (and what you want your post-grad life to be like) before committing to law school.

Fully concer with punkin on each point in his last two posts.

NYC biglaw is so miserable. I'm at an LA office of an NY firm and I feel bad for my NYC counterparts.

[rizzlebizness]

Duke and its not even close. Can get you back to the bay area but it opens up more markets then B. Also significantly higher BL+FC numbers. Like significant difference. And Duke isn't broke like B.

Yes, Duke can get you back to the Bay Area. Or it might not. Berkeley gives OP a better chance at a job in the Bay Area. If OP values that, then Berkeley.

Edit: Just saw OP's edit that he/she doesn't care about market, so the above doesn't apply. But OP: you should care about the market.

The problem is I'm ambivalent to biotech (SF/SV BL to let's say Inhouse at Gilead) and securities (NY BL to let's say D.C. for SEC). So that's why I say "I don't care".

Understood. But there's more to market preference than subject area. What about a preference for a city or region? What about the quality of life in certain markets? I've noticed of late that many posters are accepting these BL+FC numbers a little too blindly. I mean, it's great that Cornell and Penn dump a bunch of grads into big law offices in NYC, but, if you read the employment threads, you'll see that NYC big law is a miserable experience for many. (Big law everywhere is rough, but NYC is, overall, particularly oppressive and soul-deadening.)

I've got friends in small Cali firms that wouldn't show up in TLS's BL+FC metric, and they are, overall, a lot happier than my friends in NYC big law.

Now, neither Duke nor Berkeley is as dependent on NYC big law as some of the T14 (though—between those two—I suspect that much more of Duke's placement is tied to NYC). But l still suggest thinking some more about where you want to live (and what you want your post-grad life to be like) before committing to law school.

Agreed. And maybe the whole "NYC is a good place to visit not live" is true but I've visited in freezing and warm weather and didn't mind it. Plus I love the energy of the city (I weirdly enjoy the whole fast walk/walk when no cars are coming culture). That's cool to know about the small firm/quality of life. Like you said sometimes the BL or bust mentality (especially from a 0L like me) might overinfluence decisions.

[Keilz]

biotech/pharm/healthcare area

I work with a couple clients in this field now and they're located in the Research Triangle (offices in Durham, Greenville, etc.).

I also work with tech/communications companies, and while more of the companies I work with are located in the bay area, the second most popular place is definitely NC.

So, while CA is obv known as the tech HQ, since you're not 100% if you want that path, don't count NC out because of it, because they do have a lot of industries going on

[rizzlebizness]

Duke and its not even close. Can get you back to the bay area but it opens up more markets then B. Also significantly higher BL+FC numbers. Like significant difference. And Duke isn't broke like B.

Yes, Duke can get you back to the Bay Area. Or it might not. Berkeley gives OP a better chance at a job in the Bay Area. If OP values that, then Berkeley.

Edit: Just saw OP's edit that he/she doesn't care about market, so the above doesn't apply. But OP: you should care about the market.

The problem is I'm ambivalent to biotech (SF/SV BL to let's say Inhouse at Gilead) and securities (NY BL to let's say D.C. for SEC). So that's why I say "I don't care".

Understood. But there's more to market preference than subject area. What about a preference for a city or region? What about the quality of life in certain markets? I've noticed of late that many posters are accepting these BL+FC numbers a little too blindly. I mean, it's great that Cornell and Penn dump a bunch of grads into big law offices in NYC, but, if you read the employment threads, you'll see that NYC big law is a miserable experience for many. (Big law everywhere is rough, but NYC is, overall, particularly oppressive and soul-deadening.)

I've got friends in small Cali firms that wouldn't show up in TLS's BL+FC metric, and they are, overall, a lot happier than my friends in NYC big law.

Now, neither Duke nor Berkeley is as dependent on NYC big law as some of the T14 (though—between those two—I suspect that much more of Duke's placement is tied to NYC). But l still suggest thinking some more about where you want to live (and what you want your post-grad life to be like) before committing to law school.

Fully concer with punkin on each point in his last two posts.

NYC biglaw is so miserable. I'm at an LA office of an NY firm and I feel bad for my NYC counterparts.

May be an obvious answer but is the misery mostly caused by culture or high hours or combination of both? I'm under a billable scheme at my company now and while I never hit 2000+, I can hang w/ 60+ weeks for sure. But if the culture is toxic... that's a different story.

[rizzlebizness]

biotech/pharm/healthcare area

I work with a couple clients in this field now and they're located in the Research Triangle (offices in Durham, Greenville, etc.).

I also work with tech/communications companies, and while more of the companies I work with are located in the bay area, the second most popular place is definitely NC.

So, while CA is obv known as the tech HQ, since you're not 100% if you want that path, don't count NC out because of it, because they do have a lot of industries going on

Further exacerbating the difficulty of my decision :p. On an unrelated note, I work with a lot of SAS programmers now and the fact that the HQ is in NC is pretty cool. But from my Duke ASW experience the New Venture Clinic almost seemed a little limited/competitive vs. Berkeley can almost guarantee that you can work with startups if you so desire.

[SmokeytheBear]

Duke and its not even close. Can get you back to the bay area but it opens up more markets then B. Also significantly higher BL+FC numbers. Like significant difference. And Duke isn't broke like B.

Yes, Duke can get you back to the Bay Area. Or it might not. Berkeley gives OP a better chance at a job in the Bay Area. If OP values that, then Berkeley.

Edit: Just saw OP's edit that he/she doesn't care about market, so the above doesn't apply. But OP: you should care about the market.

The problem is I'm ambivalent to biotech (SF/SV BL to let's say Inhouse at Gilead) and securities (NY BL to let's say D.C. for SEC). So that's why I say "I don't care".

Understood. But there's more to market preference than subject area. What about a preference for a city or region? What about the quality of life in certain markets? I've noticed of late that many posters are accepting these BL+FC numbers a little too blindly. I mean, it's great that Cornell and Penn dump a bunch of grads into big law offices in NYC, but, if you read the employment threads, you'll see that NYC big law is a miserable experience for many. (Big law everywhere is rough, but NYC is, overall, particularly oppressive and soul-deadening.)

I've got friends in small Cali firms that wouldn't show up in TLS's BL+FC metric, and they are, overall, a lot happier than my friends in NYC big law.

Now, neither Duke nor Berkeley is as dependent on NYC big law as some of the T14 (though—between those two—I suspect that much more of Duke's placement is tied to NYC). But l still suggest thinking some more about where you want to live (and what you want your post-grad life to be like) before committing to law school.

Fully concer with punkin on each point in his last two posts.

NYC biglaw is so miserable. I'm at an LA office of an NY firm and I feel bad for my NYC counterparts.

May be an obvious answer but is the misery mostly caused by culture or high hours or combination of both? I'm under a billable scheme at my company now and while I never hit 2000+, I can hang w/ 60+ weeks for sure. But if the culture is toxic... that's a different story.

Both, I think. From speaking with people at other LA offices of LA and NYC firms, hours are just a bit lower here than compared to the east coast (at least in corporate). Generally, there is also less of a face time requirement (again, this will vary group to group and firm to firm), but I Know several people at several firms who just don't come in when they aren't busy, work from home a few days a week, and normal office hours are from 10 until 6. Some of this has to do with just a general LA chilled out mentality--I know that SV and SF can be a bit more intense. People in NYC just like the grind a bit more (which has to do with the NY mentality).

Obviously some of this is anecdotal, but I've been in the game a few years now in LA and have shared war stories with many people at the various V40s.