Illinoic (UIUC, $$) vs. UC Irvine ($$) vs. Hastings

(Rankings, Profiles, Tuition, Student Life, . . . )

Where would you go: UIUC, Irvine, or Hastings?

Illinois (UIUC, $$)
21
21%
UC Irvine ($$)
62
62%
Hastings (trying to get $$...)
17
17%
 
Total votes: 100

solrac84
Posts: 15
Joined: Fri Jan 25, 2008 6:09 pm

Re: Illinoic (UIUC, $$) vs. UC Irvine ($$) vs. Hastings

Postby solrac84 » Wed Apr 28, 2010 4:16 pm

UCI sounds like a great deal. The undergrad program is great, so I am sure the law school will get some reputation soon.

The only thing I would be concerned about is the job placement in the short run. With that being said, I'm a 2L at Illinois and I had no problem making it back to LA last summer. Less CA firms visit Illinois than California schools, but you shouldn't have too much trouble making it back. This is truly a tough choice.

I had to choose between USC and Illinois. I chose the school that gave me the most scholarship money. I don't regret my decision. I worked with a USC graduate, who graduated, passed the bar, and to this day is jobless. So all I have to say is that I would just be a little nervous of UCI's job placement for the short run. As of today, Illinois has more alumni in LA than does UCI. And in my experience, alumni contact is key to finding a job. That's why I chose Illinois. My 2 cents.

Maybe see if Hastings will offer money?

User avatar
calapp09
Posts: 17
Joined: Fri Oct 24, 2008 1:41 pm

Re: Illinoic (UIUC, $$) vs. UC Irvine ($$) vs. Hastings

Postby calapp09 » Wed Apr 28, 2010 4:53 pm

Danteshek wrote:I wonder what really is driving Chemerinski. The whole thing just seems extremely grandiose. Is he so difficult to work with that he had to set up his own fiefdom (recall how he left USC, Duke, and how he was fired from UCI before getting rehired.). Or is it pure, unvarnished egoism?


I don't think your impressions about Dean Chemerinsky could be further from the truth! After spending a semester in his class, I can say I have never had a more intelligent, humble, respectful or genuinely nice professor. My entire class would agree with me, and after speaking to many of his former students during job interviews and legal events, I know that other people share that view. Many faculty and staff members came to UCI Law mainly for the opportunity to work with Dean Chemerinsky.

Here's an entire LA Times article discussing what a great guy he is: http://articles.latimes.com/2001/mar/06/local/me-33890

I know that there are alot of misconceptions about UCI Law out there, and I would encourage anyone who wants to learn more about the school to come visit and meet Dean Chemerinsky, the faculty, and the students in person. We would love to show you around!

User avatar
pany1985
Posts: 389
Joined: Wed Jan 28, 2009 9:08 am

Re: Illinoic (UIUC, $$) vs. UC Irvine ($$) vs. Hastings

Postby pany1985 » Wed Apr 28, 2010 4:59 pm

Yeah, Chemerinsky is about the most humble unassuming genius you're likely to ever meet. It's pretty evident after knowing him for about a minute that he's not at all some sort of crazy egotist.

bluedee
Posts: 4
Joined: Wed Jun 10, 2009 1:48 pm

Re: Illinoic (UIUC, $$) vs. UC Irvine ($$) vs. Hastings

Postby bluedee » Wed Apr 28, 2010 7:02 pm

:D
Last edited by bluedee on Thu Apr 29, 2010 3:12 pm, edited 1 time in total.

JOThompson
Posts: 1311
Joined: Sun Aug 02, 2009 3:16 am

Re: Illinoic (UIUC, $$) vs. UC Irvine ($$) vs. Hastings

Postby JOThompson » Thu Apr 29, 2010 11:16 am

If Hastings comes even close to UCI's offer, go to Hastings. It's a well established school with a strong alumni network. UIUC is a good school if you don't mind the midwest for a few years. I would only go to Irvine if you really want California.

ek319
Posts: 18
Joined: Sun Jan 03, 2010 8:26 am

Re: Illinoic (UIUC, $$) vs. UC Irvine ($$) vs. Hastings

Postby ek319 » Fri Apr 30, 2010 3:35 am

Thanks for all the input!

Over the last month, I have had the opportunity to visit and/or attend events for each of these schools (and then some, what with my recent pop-ins as a waitlister at others!). As such, I guess I should amend/add to my own two cents...

Hastings
I have put down my seat deposit and applied for housing here, and--barring any big surprises waitlist-wise--am happily headed here in the fall! I personally chose to skip the hoopla of ASD, and visit on a regular class day instead. My concerns of campus and community were immediately laid to rest--students were hanging out at the cafeteria, outside, etc. There did not at all seem to be that "office" feeling that I had so feared! There even happened to be an ice cream social that day, and as this was more or less just a regular school day, rest assured it was not staged, haha.

I also had the chance to attend a class (albeit a 2L/3L class) and take the campus tour. In a nutshell, the general consensus seemed to be that although there will be competition, this is true of any campus and Hastings isn't really more or less cutthroat than any other. My tour guide did warn, however, that 1L "will be the hardest you have ever worked. Ever." I completely take her word for it, especially since I have heretofore been an incredibly lazy student...

On the street en route to the Tower, our tour guide introduced us to one of her friends, who has been externing at the 9th Circuit just a couple blocks down the street. As some of you have suggested, this is an incredible perk that is perhaps available only at Hastings. The idea that we can have that sort of head-start, or even just be in that environment (or, in my case, still be able to perhaps continue by freelance writing gigs around the city that I still feel as if I am selling out in exchange for law school!), is awesome.

I won't waste further screen space waxing poetic about my soon-to-be school, as I am sure the 66-page Hastings thread has got that covered. In the meantime, I am still trying to finagle some sort of scholarship...

Irvine
I attended their ASD and, pretending all else is equal (or, quite frankly, if the school were just a few years older!), I loved it. The faculty panel they assembled was one of the most inspiring group of professors I have encountered, not just for their intellectual prowess, but for their unique ability to make the frequently-stressful study of law seem fun. The same can be said for all the faculty, who were supportive in a way that I have never experienced. On this note I must, like others who have posted here, rush to the defense of Dean Chemerinsky. He seemed genuinely humble, generous, and caring, all the while leaving me in awe--I am sincerely sad I will not be able to sit in his Con.Law class come August. Granted, all ASDs--and perhaps in particular Irvine's--are means of "selling" you the school, but everyone there, be they students or staff, seemed truly nice. The reception at the end of the day was, at you might expect, largely made up of lawyers, etc. from Orange County who were simultaneously excited about Irvine and cautious to make promises that their firms wouldn't hold a "wait and see" attitude for a few more years.

A few days following my day-trip to Orange County, I emailed a few faculty members explaining my concerns and asking them for their most honest assessment of job prospects outside of Southern California (in particular Dean Ortiz, who is herself a Boalt transplant). Dean Ortiz was nice enough to personally call me. Of course, she told me I shouldn't worry, and everything she is required/expected to say (not that a word of it seemed in the least dishonest!). She explained that most Bay Area firms would likely not make their way down there for OCI, and my best bet would instead be to express my interest to Bay Area firm's Southern California affiliates/branches, which would then act as some sort of middleman in interviewing me for a job up north. However, this would really only be the case with a large firm, and she did not go into detail about how I would pursue, say, public interest in San Francisco. Regional school status confirmed.

As an added worry... Though Irvine is on the fast-track towards full accreditation, it will remain at provisional status for a while longer. This most likely means that if after the first year I were to want to transfer, it would be near-impossible to do so. Not that I really plan on transferring, per se, but it's nice to have the option just in case.

Illinois
I went to a reception they held here in San Francisco last week. Upon arrival, I was surprised and in some ways a little disappointed that there were all but three prospective students there, myself included. This made it immediately clear that Illinois, despite its superior standing, remains, as many of you have indicated, a strongly regional school--that, and one alumnus who basically told me that if it were indeed by goal to work in San Francisco, I ought to go to Hastings. That said, everyone had at least some of that famous Midwestern nice-ness, and it was a good evening (plus the open bar certainly didn't hurt, haha).

The Dean, who I had an opportunity to speak with at some length, explained that they are trying to increase their national visibility by more aggressively attempting to place students outside of the region. That said, this is a new effort that is just now being jumpstarted, and again, like I said with Irvine, perhaps five years down the line I'd be here in a heartbeat. They are also going to help students travel to Chicago, New York, etc. to go to interviews and recruiting events that would otherwise miss. Of course, the key idea here is that we would have to go to them and more or less crash someone else's OCI, haha...

In a nutshell: most of what everyone has been saying has been right en pointe. Just thought I'd share my epic (and perhaps somewhat ego-driven) observations in case anyone else is struggling with a similar situation!

P.S. As I mentioned, I also had the opportunity to take a quick jaunt through USC and UCLA, at both of which I am waitlisted, and gained some insight into the chances, strategies, etc. getting in. Should any of you be interested, ping me!

ViP
Posts: 419
Joined: Tue Oct 13, 2009 11:53 pm

Re: Illinoic (UIUC, $$) vs. UC Irvine ($$) vs. Hastings

Postby ViP » Fri Apr 30, 2010 11:35 am

Danteshek wrote:I wonder what really is driving Chemerinski. The whole thing just seems extremely grandiose. Is he so difficult to work with that he had to set up his own fiefdom (recall how he left USC, Duke, and how he was fired from UCI before getting rehired.). Or is it pure, unvarnished egoism?


Not sure why you would say something like that...

Why shouldn't the dean of a brand new law school do everything in his power (and he has quite a bit of power) to live up to his word and create a top law school from the outset?

And I think others have already spoken well for Chem's distinctive modesty...

EDIT: Congrats on your decision, Ek! Best of luck!

User avatar
General Tso
Posts: 2289
Joined: Sun Dec 07, 2008 6:51 pm

Re: Illinoic (UIUC, $$) vs. UC Irvine ($$) vs. Hastings

Postby General Tso » Fri Apr 30, 2010 11:52 am

This poll perfectly exemplifies everything that is wrong with TLS's over reliance on USNWR. To straight up suggest to someone wanting to work in the Bay Area to attend Illinois over Hastings is nothing short of ludicrous. The CA legal market is competitive, insular, and "xenophobic". Every firm I've interviewed with has been interested in my commitment to the region, and I go to school here! I've heard of big firms harassing Stanford and Boalt grads over their long-term commitment to CA.

Firms are not idiots...they know the high cost of living and challenging conditions that CA presents, and they know from experience that many top law grads like the IDEA of living near the sun and the beach for a few years, but when they realize that means they won't own a 4 BR house until they are in their mid 40s, they often bolt back for home.

Sure OP is a Bay Area native and that might help her gain legitimacy with some employers, but for most the fact that she attended Illnois would be a red flag on her resume, and believe me, they have plenty of Hastings, Davis, Loyola, etc. resumes in that stack.

OP - how much debt will you take on at Hastings? If it is too high you might want to just go with UCI after all. I think Hastings definitely has benefits over UCI for someone wanting to work in SF but I am not sure those benefits outweigh the $$.

Danteshek
Posts: 2172
Joined: Wed Dec 10, 2008 4:40 pm

Re: Illinoic (UIUC, $$) vs. UC Irvine ($$) vs. Hastings

Postby Danteshek » Fri Apr 30, 2010 2:53 pm

My personal belief is that UCI is a boondoggle. The UC system does not need another law school, much less ANOTHER one that conveniently ignores the fact that UC should serve the interests of Californians and not try to compete with out of state private schools in a attempt to be a "top" school (radical belief, I know). If Chemerinski wanted to start a "top" school, he should have set up a private school (in name and in fact) and not piggiebacked on the reputation of a state university system that is cutting faculty and students at the undergraduate level. UCI can parrot all it wants its committment to public interest, but everyone knows that once UCI is established as a "top" school - hello BIGLAW.

User avatar
drdolittle
Posts: 628
Joined: Tue Mar 09, 2010 4:15 am

Re: Illinoic (UIUC, $$) vs. UC Irvine ($$) vs. Hastings

Postby drdolittle » Fri Apr 30, 2010 3:09 pm

Danteshek wrote:My personal belief is that UCI is a boondoggle. The UC system does not need another law school, much less ANOTHER one that conveniently ignores the fact that UC should serve the interests of Californians and not try to compete with out of state private schools in a attempt to be a "top" school (radical belief, I know). If Chemerinski wanted to start a "top" school, he should have set up a private school (in name and in fact) and not piggiebacked on the reputation of a state university system that is cutting faculty and students at the undergraduate level. UCI can parrot all it wants its committment to public interest, but everyone knows that once UCI is established as a "top" school - hello BIGLAW.


Exactly, not to take anything away from the excellent faculty and students currently at Irvine. The link below effectively highlights the biggest issues with opening yet another UC law school...

http://www.professorbainbridge.com/professorbainbridgecom/2009/07/kill-uc-irvine-law.html

User avatar
Borhas
Posts: 4850
Joined: Sun Sep 27, 2009 6:09 pm

Re: Illinoic (UIUC, $$) vs. UC Irvine ($$) vs. Hastings

Postby Borhas » Fri Apr 30, 2010 5:30 pm

I have put down my seat deposit and applied for housing here, and--barring any big surprises waitlist-wise--am happily headed here in the fall! I personally chose to skip the hoopla of ASD, and visit on a regular class day instead. My concerns of campus and community were immediately laid to rest--students were hanging out at the cafeteria, outside, etc. There did not at all seem to be that "office" feeling that I had so feared! There even happened to be an ice cream social that day, and as this was more or less just a regular school day, rest assured it was not staged, haha.


must be a nice feeling to make the tough choice and move on... Congrats and see you in the fall!

User avatar
DerrickRose
Posts: 1106
Joined: Sat Dec 06, 2008 5:08 pm

Re: Illinoic (UIUC, $$) vs. UC Irvine ($$) vs. Hastings

Postby DerrickRose » Fri Apr 30, 2010 6:14 pm

ek319 wrote: There even happened to be an ice cream social that day, and as this was more or less just a regular school day, rest assured it was not staged, haha.


Note to all TLS 0L's: The amount of free food you get at law school is beyond belief. Say, would you like way too much free pizza with this Federalist Society Lecture? Yes Please! Hey, the dean just put a bunch of caramel apples out for us (this actually happened at Illinois). Why thanks!

User avatar
General Tso
Posts: 2289
Joined: Sun Dec 07, 2008 6:51 pm

Re: Illinoic (UIUC, $$) vs. UC Irvine ($$) vs. Hastings

Postby General Tso » Fri Apr 30, 2010 6:37 pm

DerrickRose wrote:
ek319 wrote: There even happened to be an ice cream social that day, and as this was more or less just a regular school day, rest assured it was not staged, haha.


Note to all TLS 0L's: The amount of free food you get at law school is beyond belief. Say, would you like way too much free pizza with this Federalist Society Lecture? Yes Please! Hey, the dean just put a bunch of caramel apples out for us (this actually happened at Illinois). Why thanks!


yeah i would estimate there are free pizza lunches at least 1 day per week at hastings...often 2-3 days per week probably. it's nice but on the other hand I think that $$ might be better spent on something else

ViP
Posts: 419
Joined: Tue Oct 13, 2009 11:53 pm

Re: Illinoic (UIUC, $$) vs. UC Irvine ($$) vs. Hastings

Postby ViP » Fri Apr 30, 2010 9:40 pm

drdolittle wrote:
Danteshek wrote:My personal belief is that UCI is a boondoggle. The UC system does not need another law school, much less ANOTHER one that conveniently ignores the fact that UC should serve the interests of Californians and not try to compete with out of state private schools in a attempt to be a "top" school (radical belief, I know). If Chemerinski wanted to start a "top" school, he should have set up a private school (in name and in fact) and not piggiebacked on the reputation of a state university system that is cutting faculty and students at the undergraduate level. UCI can parrot all it wants its committment to public interest, but everyone knows that once UCI is established as a "top" school - hello BIGLAW.


Exactly, not to take anything away from the excellent faculty and students currently at Irvine. The link below effectively highlights the biggest issues with opening yet another UC law school...

http://www.professorbainbridge.com/professorbainbridgecom/2009/07/kill-uc-irvine-law.html


I think you guys are missing the gist of the very popular argument that we need less, and certainly not more, schools.

This argument refers to garbage schools that open in the 34th tier and virtually allow any "aspiring lawyer" to enter their doors and submissively write a fat check that all but guarantees a future of fat debt. Those who advocate this position want to shut down the majority of law schools, which are pretty crap. Furthermore, they want to prevent any new garbage schools from opening. Why? The point is to disallow the ABA and law schools from immorally baiting weak applicants with the false hope that they will become great lawyers and make tons of money (which also leads to a flood of new lawyers in the market).

UCI is going to be a top school upon its first appearance in US News. Maybe not T20, maybe not T30, but surely T50. Rankings aside, no one will argue that UCI is a garbage school. In fact, even those that think UCI will be a 2nd tier school will concede that the school will provide a fantastic legal education and land its students jobs at least in the region.

Plus, unlike garbage schools, UCI attracts students that would otherwise attend other top schools. They're not contributing to the flood of lawyers that critics reference when attacking new schools. The aspiring lawyers that attend UCI Law would've been aspiring lawyers at other T20 schools if they declined UCI's offer.

In response to the "Cali-crisis" comment in the article- the law school is being funded by rich private donors. Very rich. Furthermore, the region has been begging for this school for many years. With private funding holding it up for a few years, the school is real resource and investment for Orange County.

In summary: UCI is an anomaly. It's not your typical "new school."

User avatar
drdolittle
Posts: 628
Joined: Tue Mar 09, 2010 4:15 am

Re: Illinoic (UIUC, $$) vs. UC Irvine ($$) vs. Hastings

Postby drdolittle » Fri Apr 30, 2010 10:27 pm

ViP wrote:I think you guys are missing the gist of the very popular argument that we need less, and certainly not more, schools.

This argument refers to garbage schools that open in the 34th tier and virtually allow any "aspiring lawyer" to enter their doors and submissively write a fat check that all but guarantees a future of fat debt. Those who advocate this position want to shut down the majority of law schools, which are pretty crap. Furthermore, they want to prevent any new garbage schools from opening. Why? The point is to disallow the ABA and law schools from immorally baiting weak applicants with the false hope that they will become great lawyers and make tons of money (which also leads to a flood of new lawyers in the market).

UCI is going to be a top school upon its first appearance in US News. Maybe not T20, maybe not T30, but surely T50. Rankings aside, no one will argue that UCI is a garbage school. In fact, even those that think UCI will be a 2nd tier school will concede that the school will provide a fantastic legal education and land its students jobs at least in the region.

Plus, unlike garbage schools, UCI attracts students that would otherwise attend other top schools. They're not contributing to the flood of lawyers that critics reference when attacking new schools. The aspiring lawyers that attend UCI Law would've been aspiring lawyers at other T20 schools if they declined UCI's offer.

In response to the "Cali-crisis" comment in the article- the law school is being funded by rich private donors. Very rich. Furthermore, the region has been begging for this school for many years. With private funding holding it up for a few years, the school is real resource and investment for Orange County.

In summary: UCI is an anomaly. It's not your typical "new school."


I agree with most of this in principle. For sure there are law schools out there that should close or at least lose their accreditation, just based on job prospects/tuition alone. The point of the link though is that the UC system is tiered and to pretend, as originally intended, that all UCs are or can be top notch national universities is delusional. Within CA, the UC system heavily lobbies the state towards this idea to get more money, but the reality is that the campuses are far from equal. So the question is whether it makes most sense expanding the system by opening new schools/campuses and spreading the wealth accordingly vs. investing more into the currently established schools/campuses to help them stay competitive nationally. Given the economic realities of CA and the UC, the prudent choice is clear.

The link makes a compelling argument against Irvine not based on any expected inadequacies, but on what the decision to open a new UC law school in this weak CA economy says about the overall management of the UC system. And even if Irvine is backed by big money and will require limited state funds (for now), its presence effectively deludes the value of a UC law degree simply because it increases supply in a market of low demand.
Last edited by drdolittle on Fri Apr 30, 2010 10:36 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Borhas
Posts: 4850
Joined: Sun Sep 27, 2009 6:09 pm

Re: Illinoic (UIUC, $$) vs. UC Irvine ($$) vs. Hastings

Postby Borhas » Fri Apr 30, 2010 10:35 pm

ViP wrote:
drdolittle wrote:
Danteshek wrote:My personal belief is that UCI is a boondoggle. The UC system does not need another law school, much less ANOTHER one that conveniently ignores the fact that UC should serve the interests of Californians and not try to compete with out of state private schools in a attempt to be a "top" school (radical belief, I know). If Chemerinski wanted to start a "top" school, he should have set up a private school (in name and in fact) and not piggiebacked on the reputation of a state university system that is cutting faculty and students at the undergraduate level. UCI can parrot all it wants its committment to public interest, but everyone knows that once UCI is established as a "top" school - hello BIGLAW.


Exactly, not to take anything away from the excellent faculty and students currently at Irvine. The link below effectively highlights the biggest issues with opening yet another UC law school...

http://www.professorbainbridge.com/professorbainbridgecom/2009/07/kill-uc-irvine-law.html


I think you guys are missing the gist of the very popular argument that we need less, and certainly not more, schools.

This argument refers to garbage schools that open in the 34th tier and virtually allow any "aspiring lawyer" to enter their doors and submissively write a fat check that all but guarantees a future of fat debt. Those who advocate this position want to shut down the majority of law schools, which are pretty crap. Furthermore, they want to prevent any new garbage schools from opening. Why? The point is to disallow the ABA and law schools from immorally baiting weak applicants with the false hope that they will become great lawyers and make tons of money (which also leads to a flood of new lawyers in the market).

UCI is going to be a top school upon its first appearance in US News. Maybe not T20, maybe not T30, but surely T50. Rankings aside, no one will argue that UCI is a garbage school. In fact, even those that think UCI will be a 2nd tier school will concede that the school will provide a fantastic legal education and land its students jobs at least in the region.

Plus, unlike garbage schools, UCI attracts students that would otherwise attend other top schools. They're not contributing to the flood of lawyers that critics reference when attacking new schools. The aspiring lawyers that attend UCI Law would've been aspiring lawyers at other T20 schools if they declined UCI's offer.

In response to the "Cali-crisis" comment in the article- the law school is being funded by rich private donors. Very rich. Furthermore, the region has been begging for this school for many years. With private funding holding it up for a few years, the school is real resource and investment for Orange County.

In summary: UCI is an anomaly. It's not your typical "new school."


I buy everything you said except bolded

ViP
Posts: 419
Joined: Tue Oct 13, 2009 11:53 pm

Re: Illinoic (UIUC, $$) vs. UC Irvine ($$) vs. Hastings

Postby ViP » Fri Apr 30, 2010 11:01 pm

Borhas wrote:
ViP wrote:
drdolittle wrote:
Danteshek wrote:My personal belief is that UCI is a boondoggle. The UC system does not need another law school, much less ANOTHER one that conveniently ignores the fact that UC should serve the interests of Californians and not try to compete with out of state private schools in a attempt to be a "top" school (radical belief, I know). If Chemerinski wanted to start a "top" school, he should have set up a private school (in name and in fact) and not piggiebacked on the reputation of a state university system that is cutting faculty and students at the undergraduate level. UCI can parrot all it wants its committment to public interest, but everyone knows that once UCI is established as a "top" school - hello BIGLAW.


Exactly, not to take anything away from the excellent faculty and students currently at Irvine. The link below effectively highlights the biggest issues with opening yet another UC law school...

http://www.professorbainbridge.com/professorbainbridgecom/2009/07/kill-uc-irvine-law.html


I think you guys are missing the gist of the very popular argument that we need less, and certainly not more, schools.

This argument refers to garbage schools that open in the 34th tier and virtually allow any "aspiring lawyer" to enter their doors and submissively write a fat check that all but guarantees a future of fat debt. Those who advocate this position want to shut down the majority of law schools, which are pretty crap. Furthermore, they want to prevent any new garbage schools from opening. Why? The point is to disallow the ABA and law schools from immorally baiting weak applicants with the false hope that they will become great lawyers and make tons of money (which also leads to a flood of new lawyers in the market).

UCI is going to be a top school upon its first appearance in US News. Maybe not T20, maybe not T30, but surely T50. Rankings aside, no one will argue that UCI is a garbage school. In fact, even those that think UCI will be a 2nd tier school will concede that the school will provide a fantastic legal education and land its students jobs at least in the region.

Plus, unlike garbage schools, UCI attracts students that would otherwise attend other top schools. They're not contributing to the flood of lawyers that critics reference when attacking new schools. The aspiring lawyers that attend UCI Law would've been aspiring lawyers at other T20 schools if they declined UCI's offer.

In response to the "Cali-crisis" comment in the article- the law school is being funded by rich private donors. Very rich. Furthermore, the region has been begging for this school for many years. With private funding holding it up for a few years, the school is real resource and investment for Orange County.

In summary: UCI is an anomaly. It's not your typical "new school."


I buy everything you said except bolded


That's cool. But it's true that the region has been begging UCI to build this program for awhile, and I can't seen how it's not a good investment for the region. It's harder to argue that it's a good investment for the UC system, however. I totally concede that it's hard to swallow for the UC system, but I stand by the main points of my post.

User avatar
Borhas
Posts: 4850
Joined: Sun Sep 27, 2009 6:09 pm

Re: Illinoic (UIUC, $$) vs. UC Irvine ($$) vs. Hastings

Postby Borhas » Fri Apr 30, 2010 11:13 pm

ok, what do you mean by "region"

the OC residents?
UC Irvine faculty/admins?
OC lawyers?

I just have a hard time imagining OC residents drinking beer by their pools and talking about how the OC needs more lawyers because UCLA, USC, USD, Southwestern, and Chapman just couldn't produce enough lawyers for them.

ViP
Posts: 419
Joined: Tue Oct 13, 2009 11:53 pm

Re: Illinoic (UIUC, $$) vs. UC Irvine ($$) vs. Hastings

Postby ViP » Fri Apr 30, 2010 11:15 pm

drdolittle wrote:
ViP wrote:I think you guys are missing the gist of the very popular argument that we need less, and certainly not more, schools.

This argument refers to garbage schools that open in the 34th tier and virtually allow any "aspiring lawyer" to enter their doors and submissively write a fat check that all but guarantees a future of fat debt. Those who advocate this position want to shut down the majority of law schools, which are pretty crap. Furthermore, they want to prevent any new garbage schools from opening. Why? The point is to disallow the ABA and law schools from immorally baiting weak applicants with the false hope that they will become great lawyers and make tons of money (which also leads to a flood of new lawyers in the market).

UCI is going to be a top school upon its first appearance in US News. Maybe not T20, maybe not T30, but surely T50. Rankings aside, no one will argue that UCI is a garbage school. In fact, even those that think UCI will be a 2nd tier school will concede that the school will provide a fantastic legal education and land its students jobs at least in the region.

Plus, unlike garbage schools, UCI attracts students that would otherwise attend other top schools. They're not contributing to the flood of lawyers that critics reference when attacking new schools. The aspiring lawyers that attend UCI Law would've been aspiring lawyers at other T20 schools if they declined UCI's offer.

In response to the "Cali-crisis" comment in the article- the law school is being funded by rich private donors. Very rich. Furthermore, the region has been begging for this school for many years. With private funding holding it up for a few years, the school is real resource and investment for Orange County.

In summary: UCI is an anomaly. It's not your typical "new school."


I agree with most of this in principle. For sure there are law schools out there that should close or at least lose their accreditation, just based on job prospects/tuition alone. The point of the link though is that the UC system is tiered and to pretend, as originally intended, that all UCs are or can be top notch national universities is delusional. Within CA, the UC system heavily lobbies the state towards this idea to get more money, but the reality is that the campuses are far from equal. So the question is whether it makes most sense expanding the system by opening new schools/campuses and spreading the wealth accordingly vs. investing more into the currently established schools/campuses to help them stay competitive nationally. Given the economic realities of CA and the UC, the prudent choice is clear.

The link makes a compelling argument against Irvine not based on any expected inadequacies, but on what the decision to open a new UC law school in this weak CA economy says about the overall management of the UC system. And even if Irvine is backed by big money and will require limited state funds (for now), its presence effectively deludes the value of a UC law degree simply because it increases supply in a market of low demand.


I can't say I disagree with much of what you're saying. It's definitely hard to defend the case for a new school in the UC system. I think it's probably somewhat different for a professional school, however, at least with regard to the the "UC delusion" of being a top school.

In any case, a prospective UCI student will reap the benefits of the program, and of course that's the focus of this thread. For better or worse, students have much to gain by attending UCI law, despite the points we've discussed (which are totally legitimate and worthy of discussion).

ViP
Posts: 419
Joined: Tue Oct 13, 2009 11:53 pm

Re: Illinoic (UIUC, $$) vs. UC Irvine ($$) vs. Hastings

Postby ViP » Fri Apr 30, 2010 11:20 pm

Borhas wrote:ok, what do you mean by "region"

the OC residents?
UC Irvine faculty/admins?
OC lawyers?

I just have a hard time imagining OC residents drinking beer by their pools and talking about how the OC needs more lawyers because UCLA, USC, USD, Southwestern, and Chapman just couldn't produce enough lawyers for them.


Haha buddy I'm not just making this stuff up...

At ASD, the local employers and the administration told us that there have been talks between the OC community (lawyers of all kinds, businesspeople, non-profits, etc.) and UC Irvine for over 10 years now. The plan for building a law school has been in the works for years. Don't ask me why.

Whether they're lying to us is another question. But I doubt it.

User avatar
Borhas
Posts: 4850
Joined: Sun Sep 27, 2009 6:09 pm

Re: Illinoic (UIUC, $$) vs. UC Irvine ($$) vs. Hastings

Postby Borhas » Fri Apr 30, 2010 11:26 pm

fair enough

just saying that "begging" might not be the most accurate characterization :mrgreen:

ViP
Posts: 419
Joined: Tue Oct 13, 2009 11:53 pm

Re: Illinoic (UIUC, $$) vs. UC Irvine ($$) vs. Hastings

Postby ViP » Sat May 01, 2010 12:43 am

Borhas wrote:fair enough

just saying that "begging" might not be the most accurate characterization :mrgreen:


Haha, maybe not, but it's the word that was used at ASD! :lol:

Danteshek
Posts: 2172
Joined: Wed Dec 10, 2008 4:40 pm

Re: Illinoic (UIUC, $$) vs. UC Irvine ($$) vs. Hastings

Postby Danteshek » Sat May 01, 2010 2:39 am

The problem is not that UCI is isn't going to be a good school -- of course it will be. The problem (among many) is that the school will not serve the interests of the community. Lower tiered schools are the schools that serve the interests of the community, not top schools. There is a reason why 50 percent of the LA DA's and PD's offices is made up of Loyola and Southwestern alums. As a "top" school, UCI law will only serve the interests of the students in the form of high paying jobs in big law firms - institutions that remind us all of giant squids sucking the lifeblood out of our communities. Californians (or anyone in the OC except for the well heeled segment of the legal community) don't benefit from this. The UC system should not be abetting this. There is no real need for another "top" school in the OC. The school should be closed.

Of course, all the wealthy UCI donors (read: rich partners in big law firms) know this!
Last edited by Danteshek on Sat May 01, 2010 2:50 am, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
pany1985
Posts: 389
Joined: Wed Jan 28, 2009 9:08 am

Re: Illinoic (UIUC, $$) vs. UC Irvine ($$) vs. Hastings

Postby pany1985 » Sat May 01, 2010 2:48 am

Yeah, I'm sure the community didn't benefit from the hundreds of hours of pro bono work we've already done as 1Ls. The students with summer jobs at the DA's office/PD's office/various OC courts won't be any help, that's for sure. The community probably won't benefit from our clinics in environmental law or immigration law either. Also, unless you're saying that 100% of UCI grads for the foreseeable future will be offered biglaw gigs and will actually want to take them, I would guess some people are gonna fill those lowly government jobs that people from "top" schools obviously don't like.

Danteshek
Posts: 2172
Joined: Wed Dec 10, 2008 4:40 pm

Re: Illinoic (UIUC, $$) vs. UC Irvine ($$) vs. Hastings

Postby Danteshek » Sat May 01, 2010 3:07 am

UCI's commitment to public interest remains to be seen. The first few classes don't really count, because all the students are on scholarship. Who knows what will happen when the students have huge loans? Will they really turn down the money and work for the people? Isn't the whole point of being a top school is so students can go out and make tons of money? If UCI ends up anything like UCLA, UCI will have failed miserably.




Return to “Choosing a Law School”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot], SweetTort and 3 guests