dissonance1848 wrote:tbf i don't think it's accurate to assume that placement size is halved just cuz the class size doubled, i don't think the relationship is so direct.I understand the caution and agree but the bolded bit is a terrible fallacy. Does that mean a school that halves their class size doubles their employment numbers? Negative
I will obviously grant that my initial statement was hyperbolic, and that there is not a direct linear relationship between class size and placement power.
However, you must get the gist of what I was saying there, as well as that there are additional caveats which I did not mention which obviously will have significant marginal impact on the prospective employment outcomes of UCI's student body, namely the self-selection which occured in the two initial classes which recieved substantial subsidies from the school, as well as the initial deployment of social capital by the Dean and faculty.
The second part cannot be understated. UCI had high AIII clerkship placement. With a strong faculty, this is to be expected, since AIII hiring is generally more dependent on faculty recommendations that any other entry-level legal job by an extremely large margin. But the idea that UCI is going to be the go to school for that many federal judges each year, especially when judges are fielding calls from professors at schools all over the country and getting presented with the top students, is unlikely.
And when you have a well-credentialed faculty, their connections with other types of legal employers are bound to be limited since they did not spend much time in practice. I think one of the major problems with UCI is that their founders really overvalue the impact having a top faculty has on legal hiring.