how do we feel about UC Irvine at this point? Forum

[cotiger]

USNEWS is to blame. As long as they include "spending per student" there is no incentive to reduce tuition. Any T14 could probably fund their law school without any tuition but then they would fall 20+ points in the rankings.

State subsidies where much higher pre-2008. At the undergrad level, tuition has risen by about 2x what it used to be at community colleges, CSU, and UC. Community colleges were $20/unit, now are ~$50, and now legislature just passed a bill to make them $200. $200/unit at a JC! So the fact that there is any sort is state subsidy at the law schools (even though they are pathetically small) is remarkable, as well as unlikely to ladt much longer.

The fact that the "incentives" are aligned so as to lead to the most money going into the pockets of tenured professors and administrators might clue you in on why USNWR isn't the source of this problem. That's a smokescreen.

The emphasis on reducing tuition to cure the problems in the legal market (ie an excess amount of lawyers) is a little curious to me.

I feel like on a certain level they're just seeking out what the market will bear. The fact of the matter remains that even with the applicant drop, there are still way more people who are willing to shell out $200k than there are jobs available. Wouldn't the natural assumption be that tuition is actually still too low to make the market clear?

Granted, earlier there was an asymmetric information problem that led people to believe that the ROI of law school was much, much higher than it actually was. But at this point I don't get the impression that that exists much any more.

I know that due to the fact that you don't have to pay out right away, you're dealing with optimism bias so the consumer isn't perfectly rational. But the reaction to the employment info/crushing debt load of the last few years has been to drastically reduce the number of people who are willing to pay that much to attend. Don't you think that if tuition everywhere doubled next year, the lawyer glut would end pretty quickly?

On a personal level, of course I would love to see reduced tuition, but I just don't see how that would solve the problem of 55% employment out of law school.

[timbs4339]

USNEWS is to blame. As long as they include "spending per student" there is no incentive to reduce tuition. Any T14 could probably fund their law school without any tuition but then they would fall 20+ points in the rankings.

State subsidies where much higher pre-2008. At the undergrad level, tuition has risen by about 2x what it used to be at community colleges, CSU, and UC. Community colleges were $20/unit, now are ~$50, and now legislature just passed a bill to make them $200. $200/unit at a JC! So the fact that there is any sort is state subsidy at the law schools (even though they are pathetically small) is remarkable, as well as unlikely to ladt much longer.

The fact that the "incentives" are aligned so as to lead to the most money going into the pockets of tenured professors and administrators might clue you in on why USNWR isn't the source of this problem. That's a smokescreen.

The emphasis on reducing tuition to cure the problems in the legal market (ie an excess amount of lawyers) is a little curious to me.

I feel like on a certain level they're just seeking out what the market will bear. The fact of the matter remains that even with the applicant drop, there are still way more people who are willing to shell out $200k than there are jobs available. Wouldn't the natural assumption be that tuition is actually still too low to make the market clear?

Granted, earlier there was an asymmetric information problem that led people to believe that the ROI of law school was much, much higher than it actually was. But at this point I don't get the impression that that exists much any more.

I know that due to the fact that you don't have to pay out right away, you're dealing with optimism bias so the consumer isn't perfectly rational. But the reaction to the employment info/crushing debt load of the last few years has been to drastically reduce the number of people who are willing to pay that much to attend. Don't you think that if tuition everywhere doubled next year, the lawyer glut would end pretty quickly?

On a personal level, of course I would love to see reduced tuition, but I just don't see how that would solve the problem of 55% employment out of law school.

In response to the decrease in applications (which is impressive by any measure) law schools are dipping further and further down into the applicant pool to find people who may not have access to the information, don't come from the kind of background that would clue them in, literally have no other viable options for post-college employment, or are just unable to process the information because of cognitive bias. I think there's even a price where many qualified people wouldn't pay sticker for HYS, but by taking the people that are left you jeopardize the entire point of having a "profession"- to trade cartel pricing for the assumption of quality.

But if the law schools presumably have the willpower to cut tuition in half, then they also have the willpower not to jack up class sizes to fill the demand. The problem is that this would require cuts in expenses, which would hit the pockets of the top dogs at the schools. That's not really surprising, though, everyone knew this was going to come down to the fact that the people who are in power in the law schools want to eat well and think they deserve to eat well, and that what happens to their students is a concern only to the extent that it doesn't jeopardize that.

[cotiger]

In response to the decrease in applications (which is impressive by any measure) law schools are dipping further and further down into the applicant pool to find people who may not have access to the information, don't come from the kind of background that would clue them in, literally have no other viable options for post-college employment, or are just unable to process the information because of cognitive bias. I think there's even a price where many qualified people wouldn't pay sticker for HYS, but by taking the people that are left you jeopardize the entire point of having a "profession"- to trade cartel pricing for the assumption of quality.

But if the law schools presumably have the willpower to cut tuition in half, then they also have the willpower not to jack up class sizes to fill the demand. The problem is that this would require cuts in expenses, which would hit the pockets of the top dogs at the schools. That's not really surprising, though, everyone knew this was going to come down to the fact that the people who are in power in the law schools want to eat well and think they deserve to eat well, and that what happens to their students is a concern only to the extent that it doesn't jeopardize that.

I think I've just internalized the idea that law schools act in the self-interest of their deans, higher ups, etc rather than how they ostensibly should as academic institutions/guardians of a profession. I mean, even the addition of a good school like UCI is completely unnecessary if the goal is to provide students with a good education/career and the profession with high-quality members.

So yeah, ideally they would cut class sizes (and schools!), lower tuition, and raise standards, but I just can't imagine a world in which many schools voluntarily shut themselves down or give up tuition money when they don't have to.

[Otunga]

Is it not hilariously pathetic how many law schools there are given how standard the curriculum is? It's not like these are all interesting, idiosyncratic programs that are trying to break away from the standard. It's just the same old stuff in a different wrapper. I'm not saying it shouldn't be the same old stuff; just that there's seemingly no reasonable basis to keep bringing new law schools in. Even, as you implied, a quality school like Irvine is not necessary given how many schools are already in California.

[zman]

Irvine is marketing itself as a public service school but yet close to no one from their first class went into public service.. ahahah. YOu have to love fat cat deans like chereminsky who made 300L but wanted to make 500K or so from poor misguided students. HE is probably not the worst in Cali though, the crooks who run thomas jefferson,loyola,hastings,pepperdine and so on are probably worse. Hell USC,UCLA and even Berkeley(weak median salary, many low paying jobs) are going in that direction. Stanford is the only sure thing here.

[timbs4339]

Is it not hilariously pathetic how many law schools there are given how standard the curriculum is? It's not like these are all interesting, idiosyncratic programs that are trying to break away from the standard. It's just the same old stuff in a different wrapper. I'm not saying it shouldn't be the same old stuff; just that there's seemingly no reasonable basis to keep bringing new law schools in. Even, as you implied, a quality school like Irvine is not necessary given how many schools are already in California.

No law school really wants to commit to being what most schools actually are, if that makes any sense. Most law schools send students into local and regional jobs doing state law and paying like 40-60K. Nothing the law school will do, short of a massive funding drive like NYU had in the 80s, is ever going to change that. You don't need your law professors to publish great scholarship or have gone to HYS and clerked for 2/7/9/DC. You just need them to teach you the law on the bar, critique and edit your writing, and give you a crash course in logic and analytical reasoning. You can find lawyers who will do that for 75-100K and 4 classes a semester, and you can fund that law school with tuition that's 10K per year.

[jordan15]

Irvine is marketing itself as a public service school but yet close to no one from their first class went into public service.. ahahah. YOu have to love fat cat deans like chereminsky who made 300L but wanted to make 500K or so from poor misguided students. HE is probably not the worst in Cali though, the crooks who run thomas jefferson,loyola,hastings,pepperdine and so on are probably worse. Hell USC,UCLA and even Berkeley(weak median salary, many low paying jobs) are going in that direction. Stanford is the only sure thing here.

The first class only had ~50 grads and a lot of them got clerkships. It's very possible some will go into PI later down the road, considering they have no debt and a very good resume right now.

[john1990]

I think it will be ahead of Davis because it is more selective. The grads might do slightly better.

Probably t25

[ManoftheHour]

I think it will be ahead of Davis because it is more selective. The grads might do slightly better.

Probably t25

Definitely better than UC HasTTTings.

At least Davis cut their class size by 25% and dropped only 1 point on their median. HasTTTTings dropped 3 points and increased their class size. Wtf. A true TTTT.

[Dr. Dre]

I agree with manofthehour

davis, the town, is really nice. Has that small community feeling. The COL is reasonable, unlike (lol) san francisco.

[Dr. Dre]

I think it will be ahead of Davis because it is more selective. The grads might do slightly better.

Probably t25

UCI? as a T25 law school? ljl @ you!!!

[deebanger]

I think it will be ahead of Davis because it is more selective. The grads might do slightly better.

Probably t25

UCI? as a T25 law school? ljl @ you!!!

dre are u bitter that they rejected you? dont be jealous, just let it go

[john1990]

I think it will be ahead of Davis because it is more selective. The grads might do slightly better.

Probably t25

UCI? as a T25 law school? ljl @ you!!!

UCLA 17 164-169
Irvine NA 162-167
Davis 38 160-165
Hastings 48 158-165

The lowest ranked school with a 167 75th% is BU at 29 [BU ranked 20th,22nd,22nd in 2009,2010,2011]

[prāna]

.

[thetruther]

Updated: I turned down WUSTL with $$$ for UCI