Top Law Schools

When UCI finally becomes accredited what do you think it will be ranked?

Their goal was T25, and with their first class they had a shot at it, but they blew their wad.

The problem is that with a full scholarship, tons of people considered picking UCI over T25-T20 schools because of the low downside.

With half scholarship, their numbers will plummet.

Whatever scholy amount they offer in year 3, people will see the plummeting numbers and have no nearly the financial incentive to take the plunge.

Through no fault of their own, they picked a horrible, shitty, miserable fucking time to open a law school. Law firms around the country are cutting hiring and doing their best to maintain relationships with schools, there's no way they will dip deeply into the class at a brand new law school.

I'd guess that when U.S. News gets the data they land somewhere in T2 or very low T1. The enthusiasm of the locals can only carry a law school so far.

Definitely T14.

The thing that is going to hurt them are the reputation scores. They will probably do well with the academic community but poorly with the lawyers/judges reputation score.

disco_barred wrote:Their goal was T25, and with their first class they had a shot at it, but they blew their wad.

The problem is that with a full scholarship, tons of people considered picking UCI over T25-T20 schools because of the low downside.

With half scholarship, their numbers will plummet.

Whatever scholy amount they offer in year 3, people will see the plummeting numbers and have no nearly the financial incentive to take the plunge.

Through no fault of their own, they picked a horrible, shitty, miserable fucking time to open a law school. Law firms around the country are cutting hiring and doing their best to maintain relationships with schools, there's no way they will dip deeply into the class at a brand new law school.

I'd guess that when U.S. News gets the data they land somewhere in T2 or very low T1. The enthusiasm of the locals can only carry a law school so far.

I disagree, I would be absolutely shocked if it was a T2, and surprised if it was ranked any lower than 35. Although it makes sense that their numbers should go down this cycle, I haven't actually seen evidence that this is so. Anecdotaly, I got offered a huge scholarship at a T20 and flat out rejected at UCI. LSN / the UCI thread seems to suggest that this year the students will still be stronger than UCD/UCH students and with such a small class size I think they will probably manage great placement in SOcal.

General Tso wrote:The thing that is going to hurt them are the reputation scores. They will probably do well with the academic community but poorly with the lawyers/judges reputation score.

plus, does anyone really think that they can give half plus scholarships for 3 more years? (because it will be THAT class that will be considered for rankings, NOT the past one or this current one)

They have to if they want to maintain their decent numbers

at some point classes have to get biggers, scholarships have to get smaller.

My guess is 30-50

disco_barred wrote:Their goal was T25, and with their first class they had a shot at it, but they blew their wad.

The problem is that with a full scholarship, tons of people considered picking UCI over T25-T20 schools because of the low downside.

With half scholarship, their numbers will plummet.

Whatever scholy amount they offer in year 3, people will see the plummeting numbers and have no nearly the financial incentive to take the plunge.

Through no fault of their own, they picked a horrible, shitty, miserable fucking time to open a law school. Law firms around the country are cutting hiring and doing their best to maintain relationships with schools, there's no way they will dip deeply into the class at a brand new law school.

I'd guess that when U.S. News gets the data they land somewhere in T2 or very low T1. The enthusiasm of the locals can only carry a law school so far.

Definitely, and the [strike]suckers[/strike] students who turned down T25 or even T14 schools to attend will be screwed.

I think the first class (all 60 of them) will do fine simply because they will be able to get the professors to go to bat for them (as they did with 1L employment this year) and the fact that they have zero debt. However, I think those who plan on attending for 2013+ are really going to get screwed. Don't know where they will rank but it will definitely not be top25. Good luck to those who made the choice to go to Irvine.

I've posted this several times over the last few months. I graduated from the University of California's newest business school at UCSD. They are positioning themselves as a viable alternative to Stanford and MIT. We have nobel laureates on the staff. I took modern portfolio theory from the guy who invented the field back in 1952. UCSD gave Dean Sullivan all the same bells and whistles as UCI has given Dean Chem...I was part of the 2nd full time class to graduate in 2008 and no one has heard of the school. Its a great program academically, some of the best minds in the country attended the school. Its just brand spanking new and can't compete in the hiring market with the likes of MIT or Stanford of any of the other top Business schools because its product hasn't been tested in the market place as of yet. They are starting to make head way, but it will be years until they actually are really knocking on the door of the top business schools. UCI is in the same boat. Not only do they have to establish a top notched program, but the quality of the other schools needs to go down for them to break into T1. The top 14 haven't changed in years, and they are competing directly with USC and UCLA in the LA Orange County Market. Going to UCI is a risk. I took the same one going to UCSD. I ended up getting a job that I was qualified for with connections to my Undergrad program. The MBA was an added bonus for the company. UCI won't crack the T14, and probably won't crack the top 30 for 20 years, let alone when it gets its accrediation

disco_barred wrote:Their goal was T25, and with their first class they had a shot at it, but they blew their wad.

The problem is that with a full scholarship, tons of people considered picking UCI over T25-T20 schools because of the low downside.

With half scholarship, their numbers will plummet.

Whatever scholy amount they offer in year 3, people will see the plummeting numbers and have no nearly the financial incentive to take the plunge.

Through no fault of their own, they picked a horrible, shitty, miserable fucking time to open a law school. Law firms around the country are cutting hiring and doing their best to maintain relationships with schools, there's no way they will dip deeply into the class at a brand new law school.

I'd guess that when U.S. News gets the data they land somewhere in T2 or very low T1. The enthusiasm of the locals can only carry a law school so far.

1) Their goal is and has always been T20.

2) Chemerinsky says that the 2nd year class will have equal or slightly better numbers than the 1st year class. Words like "plummet" and "plunge" are totally unwarranted and indicate your complete lack of knowledge with regard to UCI.

3) The dean of the school is arguably the most famous, accomplished law professor in the country. Their faculty is top-notch, any way you look at it. While they will obviously primarily cater to a local market at first (as any new school would), the buzz around the school has already reached the top schools in the nation.

I was at a T20 ASD a few weeks ago and a popular corporate/tax law professor asked me where I planned to work in the future. I told him socal and he mentioned UC Irvine. A bit surprised that he brought up UCI before I even had a chance, I asked him if he'd heard much about the program. He said he can't speak for law firms, but in terms of the academic world, everyone is looking at UCI with high praise and great expectations, given the pedigree of Chemerinsky and the quality of the faculty and students.

ViP wrote: 2) Chemerinsky says that the 2nd year class will have equal or slightly better numbers than the 1st year class. Words like "plummet" and "plunge" are totally unwarranted and indicate your complete lack of knowledge with regard to UCI.

Id like to hear the rationale for this (other than the 7% average increase in law school apps nationwide), although we will all know if this is true soon enough.

General Tso wrote:The thing that is going to hurt them are the reputation scores. They will probably do well with the academic community but poorly with the lawyers/judges reputation score.

I also think UCI will do very well in peer assessment, which is very important. Peer assessment counts for 25% of the overall ranking, which is actually the same weight given to selectivity (LSAT+ GPA+ acceptance rate). Pretty substantial.

Assessment by lawyers/judges (one of the many jokes of US News) counts for 15% of the overall ranking, and only about 20% of those surveyed respond. An even smaller percentage of them will respond to Irvine, because many of them have never heard of it (negligible effect). Those that have heard of UCI will likely give it strong scores.

For UCI's next class, I would theorize that the lower risk (first class has great stats, now a proven up-and-running entity and not just a "someday" law school) made up for the fact that it won't be free, and that's why the stats won't be plummeting. Every subsequent class that comes in with good stats and then speaks highly of their experience should perpetuate that process.

There's also the issue that UCI will have more money than most law schools and will be able to offer more and higher scholarships than almost anywhere else in the long term... but I'm not sure if that's info I can really go into on TLS.

eth3n wrote:

ViP wrote: 2) Chemerinsky says that the 2nd year class will have equal or slightly better numbers than the 1st year class. Words like "plummet" and "plunge" are totally unwarranted and indicate your complete lack of knowledge with regard to UCI.

Id like to hear the rationale for this (other than the 7% average increase in law school apps nationwide), although we will all know if this is true soon enough.

I'm not sure I understand what you mean... Are you asking how it can be the case that the second-year class could have numbers equal to/higher than the first-year class?

The fact is the first-year class set the bar very high, and the program immediately grabbed everyone's attention in socal (and all of California, I assume). Given the generous 50% scholarship, many prospective students from out-of-state are also drawn to UCI. The package that the school offers is very enticing.

You're very right, though. We'll all soon know the caliber of the second-year class.

disco_barred wrote:Their goal was T25, and with their first class they had a shot at it, but they blew their wad.

The problem is that with a full scholarship, tons of people considered picking UCI over T25-T20 schools because of the low downside.

With half scholarship, their numbers will plummet.

Whatever scholy amount they offer in year 3, people will see the plummeting numbers and have no nearly the financial incentive to take the plunge.

Through no fault of their own, they picked a horrible, shitty, miserable fucking time to open a law school. Law firms around the country are cutting hiring and doing their best to maintain relationships with schools, there's no way they will dip deeply into the class at a brand new law school.

I'd guess that when U.S. News gets the data they land somewhere in T2 or very low T1. The enthusiasm of the locals can only carry a law school so far.

It's not a new school like most new schools are. It's a new UC campus school. There is the difference.

ViP wrote:

disco_barred wrote:Their goal was T25, and with their first class they had a shot at it, but they blew their wad.

The problem is that with a full scholarship, tons of people considered picking UCI over T25-T20 schools because of the low downside.

With half scholarship, their numbers will plummet.

Whatever scholy amount they offer in year 3, people will see the plummeting numbers and have no nearly the financial incentive to take the plunge.

Through no fault of their own, they picked a horrible, shitty, miserable fucking time to open a law school. Law firms around the country are cutting hiring and doing their best to maintain relationships with schools, there's no way they will dip deeply into the class at a brand new law school.

I'd guess that when U.S. News gets the data they land somewhere in T2 or very low T1. The enthusiasm of the locals can only carry a law school so far.

1) Their goal is and has always been T20.

2) Chemerinsky says that the 2nd year class will have equal or slightly better numbers than the 1st year class. Words like "plummet" and "plunge" are totally unwarranted and indicate your complete lack of knowledge with regard to UCI.

3) The dean of the school is arguably the most famous, accomplished law professor in the country. Their faculty is top-notch, any way you look at it. While they will obviously primarily cater to a local market at first (as any new school would), the buzz around the school has already reached the top schools in the nation.

I was at a T20 ASD a few weeks ago and a popular corporate/tax law professor asked me where I planned to work in the future. I told him socal and he mentioned UC Irvine. A bit surprised that he brought up UCI before I even had a chance, I asked him if he'd heard much about the program. He said he can't speak for law firms, but in terms of the academic world, everyone is looking at UCI with high praise and great expectations, given the pedigree of Chemerinsky and the quality of the faculty and students.

Every law school in the country is packed with professors who went to great schools. Employers care about prestige and reputation, and Chemerisnky does not a prestigious school make. Obviously none of us know yet, but I predict rough waters for UCI. We're all so uninformed that we'll just have to wait and see

Basically, the one thing I want to stress is that success and reputation for the people who RUN a school and success for those who GO to a school are hugely different. The crappiest law schools in the country still make mad bank and, as I mentioned, are staved by extraordinarily qualified and talented professors. It's weird like that.

ViP wrote:

eth3n wrote:

ViP wrote: 2) Chemerinsky says that the 2nd year class will have equal or slightly better numbers than the 1st year class. Words like "plummet" and "plunge" are totally unwarranted and indicate your complete lack of knowledge with regard to UCI.

Id like to hear the rationale for this (other than the 7% average increase in law school apps nationwide), although we will all know if this is true soon enough.

I'm not sure I understand what you mean... Are you asking how it can be the case that the second-year class could have numbers equal to/higher than the first-year class?

The fact is the first-year class set the bar very high, and the program immediately grabbed everyone's attention in socal (and all of California, I assume). Given the generous 50% scholarship, many prospective students from out-of-state are also drawn to UCI. The package that the school offers is very enticing.

You're very right, though. We'll all soon know the caliber of the second-year class.

I think he means that last year, with the 3 year full scholly deal, we heard about T14 quality students turning down T14 for Irvine out of debt aversion + cool factor of being the first class (and other intangibles). While a 1/2 scholly deal is still very dangerous, mathematically it should not attract the same calibar of students assuming (and this might be a big assumption in UCI's case) that cost of attendance is a primary consideration of applicants.

This year T14 quality students who are offered a small scholarship or stickered at a T14 will compare that with 1/2 scholly at irvine instead of irvine FREE. So its completely logical to assume some of those students will now stick with the T14 type of schools over UCI - but even though its a logical assumption its far from certain especially with the number of applicants going up so much this year.

Chemerinsky just brought in 20 COA judges to Irvine. Twenty. Judges. Just to meet & greet with the students. All 60 of them. That's a 3:1 of judges to students.

I think UCI is going to do just fine. No students are suffering at UCI.

There is no plummet. Plunge does not apply. If you don't agree, you either don't know anything about their faculty, their funding, or their current status. N=1, but my Yale/biglaw friend on the east coast raves about them - he doesn't have any reason to know about them other than word on the street.

My prediction of their future reputation score: high.

Irvine rocks. You want to hate on them, fine, but they're going to leave some schools in the dust.

Let me preface this by saying I think UCI law is extremely interesting, I have a friend that goes there and have a very high opinion of the law school. But I do want to voice something that occurred to me.

I think one of the best things going for UCI, which I haven't heard raised before, is the very fact that it is unranked. It has boundless possibility! It is "clean and pure", not tainted by US News ridiculous metrics like rep scores and no one can claim that its administration "games" its employment statistics! For optimistic incoming law students, 100% of which plan on being above median or top 10%, and making $160k... they can imaginethat UCI is going to be a T14ish type of school. And hell there not wrong, but that's just it, UCI could be anything at this point.

All us law students can agree on pretty much one thing: that incoming law students have boundless unrealistic expectations about how well they will do and what kind of job they will likely get. UCI being unranked happens to contribute to this thinking. Just as incoming students expect the very best of all possible outcomes, they expect the same of their school. In the case of UCI, uou cannot tell me that many of these same incoming students, who are so optimistic and excited, are not also thinking "we are a pretty-much a lock for T30, but I wonder if we will really be T20 or T14!!!". I don't think these incoming students are seriously considering at all that T30 is a possible ceiling, or the possibility that they might debut much lower. And why should they? There's nothing but great hype for this school; truly awesome PR thus far.

With UCI, the glass is always half-full and will continue to be until it is accredited and ranked. Until it is just another gritty law school fighting for greatness and going through the roller coaster of successes and failures experienced by all but the T3-T14; until they have graduating classes that have to fight and fail against UCLA or USC grads for example. But right now, there's literally nothing bad to say about the school thats actually their fault. The fact that they don't have an alumni base? Or no existing reputation scores? These are not real criticisms of the school, just a footnote all new schools face.

I predict UCI will continue to thrive until US News gets a hold of them, after that, all bets are off; if your a UCI student I would hope to debut in the T30 in order to keep the good press and momentum going; otherwise you may end up the trenches with Loyola-Pepperdine-USD or behind Hastings and Davis; either situation would not be ideal for a UCI student.

disco_barred wrote:

ViP wrote:

disco_barred wrote:Their goal was T25, and with their first class they had a shot at it, but they blew their wad.

The problem is that with a full scholarship, tons of people considered picking UCI over T25-T20 schools because of the low downside.

With half scholarship, their numbers will plummet.

Whatever scholy amount they offer in year 3, people will see the plummeting numbers and have no nearly the financial incentive to take the plunge.

Through no fault of their own, they picked a horrible, shitty, miserable fucking time to open a law school. Law firms around the country are cutting hiring and doing their best to maintain relationships with schools, there's no way they will dip deeply into the class at a brand new law school.

I'd guess that when U.S. News gets the data they land somewhere in T2 or very low T1. The enthusiasm of the locals can only carry a law school so far.

1) Their goal is and has always been T20.

2) Chemerinsky says that the 2nd year class will have equal or slightly better numbers than the 1st year class. Words like "plummet" and "plunge" are totally unwarranted and indicate your complete lack of knowledge with regard to UCI.

3) The dean of the school is arguably the most famous, accomplished law professor in the country. Their faculty is top-notch, any way you look at it. While they will obviously primarily cater to a local market at first (as any new school would), the buzz around the school has already reached the top schools in the nation.

I was at a T20 ASD a few weeks ago and a popular corporate/tax law professor asked me where I planned to work in the future. I told him socal and he mentioned UC Irvine. A bit surprised that he brought up UCI before I even had a chance, I asked him if he'd heard much about the program. He said he can't speak for law firms, but in terms of the academic world, everyone is looking at UCI with high praise and great expectations, given the pedigree of Chemerinsky and the quality of the faculty and students.

Every law school in the country is packed with professors who went to great schools. Employers care about prestige and reputation, and Chemerisnky does not a prestigious school make. Obviously none of us know yet, but I predict rough waters for UCI. We're all so uninformed that we'll just have to wait and see

Basically, the one thing I want to stress is that success and reputation for the people who RUN a school and success for those who GO to a school are hugely different. The crappiest law schools in the country still make mad bank and, as I mentioned, are staved by extraordinarily qualified and talented professors. It's weird like that.

Nobody is saying UCI's faculty is great because they went to great schools...

According to Leiter's calculations, UCI has the 9th most prolific faculty in the country. In other words, they have one of the most accomplished faculties in the country. As a brand new law school, that's a huge deal.

And we're not "all so uninformed." Surely nobody can predict the future, but since UCI is so new and unknown, those that have made a conscious effort to learn about UCI (talking to current students/faculty, visiting, conducting serious research, etc.) are naturally more informed than others.

Also, I think the success and reputation of the people that run a school are more tied to the students' success than you think. Chemerinsky is a big deal, and he certainly does make a school at least somewhat prestigious simply by virtue of his pedigree.

UCI is also actually selecting faculty based on their quality as teachers, not just how many articles they've written (although obviously things are going fine in that category as well). The two new professor hires for next year are fairly young, but they've both won awards for teaching at their previous schools.

What people seem to be missing, in large part, is the fact that the causal link between a school's fancy-pants faculty, teaching, scholarship, etc. and the employment prospects that its students enjoy is tenuous at best.

Nobody hires a T14 student because their professors write a bazillion articles. Nobody.

Put yourself in the shoes of, say, Skadden. Time to hire your summer class! Uh oh, massive recession, no work to go around, what are you going to do! Cut backs every where!

I am asking one and only one question: How many Irvine students is Skadden going to take? Cravath? Davis Polk? Morgan Lewis? Hunton Williams? Irell?

This new school has to come into the fold with A) no alumni going to bat for it and B) firms making massive cuts across the board.

If you're Skadden, and you can only hire 50% the number of associates in the class of 2012 as you did a few years ago, are you really going to stop by the new school and pick up a grad?

Maybe. And if UCI can talk enough firms into doing so, they'll be golden.

But my suspicion is that the first cost cutting measure a firm ITE will adopt is "don't hire any UCI grads". Why be charitable? Why not go with the known quantities? Hire from schools the hiring partners went to, hire from schools with established relations and contacts in career services?

When they broke ground at UCI, the market was so booming that it wouldn't have been but a drop in the bucket to find homes for grads from a new law school with a lot going for it.

But a lot of ESTABLISHED law schools with a lot going for them can't place their grads now.

Nobody debates the magnitude of a man like Chemerinsky. Nobody doubts the strong faculty or vision of UCI. Nobody doubts the eagerness of their students. I grant and concede all of that.

But I really wonder how many firms and judges and agencies, given the enormous strain they are under, will choose to forsake the (over) qualified graduates from top schools begging at their door for the unknown UCI student.

Which - to once again be perfectly clear - is NOT a knock on UCI. I just think it's the epitome of bad timing for a new law school.

TL;DR version: Employers don't hire students because their professors publish a lot of articles, they hire them because of long standing relationships and ideas of institutional reputation. It remains to be seen how Irvine will make the transition.

Talk to any legal employer in Orange County (and there are a lot of legal employers in Orange County) and they say they're very eager to get their hands on some UCI grads. They may be lying. There's no way to know for sure until OCI rolls around. I get the sense things will be fine, though.

pany1985 wrote:Talk to any legal employer in Orange County (and there are a lot of legal employers in Orange County) and they say they're very eager to get their hands on some UCI grads. They may be lying. There's no way to know for sure until OCI rolls around. I get the sense things will be fine, though.

Well at least all those people that could go t10 sticker will be happy to know that they have a good chance at working in Orange County...rofl

pany1985 wrote:Talk to any legal employer in Orange County (and there are a lot of legal employers in Orange County) and they say they're very eager to get their hands on some UCI grads. They may be lying. There's no way to know for sure until OCI rolls around. I get the sense things will be fine, though.

I hope for UCI's sake this turns out to be the case, but if they can't place their grads nationally, their odds of cracking the T20 are basically 0.

In fact, I'll just go out and say it: If UCI doesn't send a good percentage of students to big firms in NYC/DC/Chicago, the school's chances at establishing itself at the top of the law school pecking order are shot. They will never pull a strong student body if the first round of employment prospects show their grads cleaning up at BIG ORANGE COUNTY LAW. Which isn't to marginalize OC or its law, I'm sure it exists - and UCI will thus comfortably establish itself as a regional law school, like most schools in the lower T1 and below.