BigZuck wrote:How are they proving to be great?
J-e-L-L-o wrote:Clerkships are high, bar passage is 2nd in the state behind Stanford (and higher than UCLA, USC, and gasp even Berkeley), and grads are getting jobs.
Normal anti-UCI counter-argument wrote:But those numbers are of a disproportionately small sample size of the full-scholly first class, so it doesn't prove anything. When the class sizes rise, percentages will fall, Chem's favors will run out, then it'll be TTT.
Normal pro-UCI counter-counter-argument wrote:Well, those numbers are all we have to go on, and while they don't prove UCI is the real deal, they run counter to the "UCI is TTT" argument. Plus, when the percentages drop due to increased class sizes, that doesn't mean it'll fall to TTT level, just from the obviously-unsustainable better-than-Yale level. Percentages dropping and Irvine still being a good school aren't mutually exclusive.
Normal anti-UCI counter-counter-counter-argument wrote:Nuh-uh.
Normal pro-UCI counter-counter-counter-counter-argument wrote:Uh-huh.
And so on and so forth. No one will be convinced because there's no way to prove anything right now. FWIW, all the Irvine folks I've spoken to (even outside of the vaunted first class) are very happy with their school and their prospects, as Jello alluded to. Conversely, all the anti-UCI folks are happy to not go to Irvine. So everyone gets what they want for themselves. Win-win.
Except no one gets to win the internet argument