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

[californiauser]

no, man, you're misinterpreting.

I was saying "in the hypothetical event that they break the top 18, keep their standards high, keep their medians up, get great faculty, etc, etc, EVEN if they do that and are quantitatively (medians, employment, etc) on par with these schools, they're still going to be something positive missing that these others have".

The "they really are on par with these schools" was part of the HYPOTHETICAL, the fulfillment of which STILL wouldn't put them in the same class as those others.

Also, @californiauser: doesn't have to be UCLA. Vanderbilt and texas, who I mentioned all together many times until I got lazy and didn't want to type them all, are well-regarded schools nationally. Why this doesn't translate to national hiring doesn't quite make sense to me but the fact is that these three schools are all great schools, and for some reason seem to be more highly regarded nationally than the rest of the top 20 AND the rest of the first tier.

If I'm wrong, tell me why I'm wrong, but don't take the ONE time where i only mention one school as an example and forget about the other THREE times that I used all three schools together to make a point.

Unless that was a joke. I can never tell with TLS... if i missed the humor, so sorry man!


edit: more likely to be humor now that I'm noticing that nobody called me out for anti-minnesota trolling, which would have been much easier to do, given the post...

UCLA isn't "much, much better" than USC.

[wolfgang]

yeah, that's surprising to hear.

When was this meeting, if I can ask?

@californiauser: yes, you're right. Saying 'much, much better' is probably too strong. But I still maintain that UCLA is better regarded than USC outside of the southern california market, and I'm not sure why this is. They seem so close in terms of... well, everything quantitative. but the difference in reputation is there, and while I'm not prepared to fully accept and disseminate the "t-18" distinction, it does lend some bit of credibility to the idea that the current top 18 schools are in a (at least slightly) different class than #19-TTT. For example, personally, and judging by the number of people I've heard give advice of "go to ucla when given the choice between ucla or usc unless scholarship money is involved" and the lack of the opposite i've seen, a lot of other people feel this way, also. Not defending it. just saying that it seems to be present.

[wolfgang]

@pdaddy:

just read the edit to your post. Definitely one of the more measured opinions I've seen about UCI.

Do you have an opinion on their placement? I mean, there's more to it than simply academic reputation, otherwise davis (with better ranked undergrad/grad programs) wouldn't be so far down in the rankings.... UCI has to keep up their phenomenal placement numbers, AND drag their reputation (of the law school) out of a slight hole they've dug for it, etc. This is all a roundabout way of saying that I'm wanting to hear more of what you have to say on this subject...

[ManoftheHour]

What's more TTT? UCI or UC Hastings?

Just looked at the LST stats for Hastings and man, it's the true definition of a TTT.

[zman]

I dunno... I agree that the rankings can, in a lot of ways, be split into t-14 and non-t-14 schools, there are a few schools that are considered "regional powerhouses" (a phrase I'm stealing from another thread), as opposed to just "regional schools".

Right? I feel like, just as the t-14 is split into some schools that are considerably better (hsy), "the rest" have a small group of schools that are also much better. UCLA, Vanderbilt, and Texas are much, much better than the rest of the non-t-14 schools, more so than minn, wusl, and usc. While I am not as harsh as saying that beyond the t-18 nothing matters, the gap between ucla/vandy/texas and the rest of the non-top-14 schools is pretty significant.

But then again, just because UCI might land there doesn't put it on par with these schools. At the very least, even if their employment numbers are contrived, and their standards stay high, and they really are in all ways on par with these schools, it will probably take time to solidify their place there enough to have the national reputation (note: different from national placement ability! it's just a fact that UCLA is a well regarded school nationally, much more so than, say, minnesota) at the same level as ucla/vandy/texas

come on.. vandy and texas can't place more than 25% in big firms. ignore this guy. He is clueless.

[californiauser]

yeah, that's surprising to hear.

When was this meeting, if I can ask?

@californiauser: yes, you're right. Saying 'much, much better' is probably too strong. But I still maintain that UCLA is better regarded than USC outside of the southern california market, and I'm not sure why this is. They seem so close in terms of... well, everything quantitative. but the difference in reputation is there, and while I'm not prepared to fully accept and disseminate the "t-18" distinction, it does lend some bit of credibility to the idea that the current top 18 schools are in a (at least slightly) different class than #19-TTT. For example, personally, and judging by the number of people I've heard give advice of "go to ucla when given the choice between ucla or usc unless scholarship money is involved" and the lack of the opposite i've seen, a lot of other people feel this way, also. Not defending it. just saying that it seems to be present.

Sounds like boomer babble. UC Hastings has a "great" reputation too, but that isn't relevant for grads ITE.

[wolfgang]

@ zman: Why are people having such a hard time reading today? Reread... I clearly stated that I was NOT talking about placement.

I just meant overall academic reputation. like, nobody would say, "oh, you went to texas? must've been a dummy", but they also probably wouldn't hire you (as you pointed out). Texas has a stellar reputation that for whatever reason doesn't translate to national placement.

@nova: yeah, it was man, i'm glad you posted that. I was freaking out for a sec, I didn't know you could delete posts so I'm going "Oh, sh!t! I swear I saw that somewhere, I must be going crazy!"

[zman]

They get bashed a lot, especially during times around some snafu or another, but I haven't read much about them on here (or anywhere) in a while.

Now that the dust has settled, what does everyone think? They're aiming for the top 20, some people think they're a lock for t-20 and others think they're never even going to make it into the first tier.

Thoughts?

I met with Chemerinsky after a CLE and he talked for an hour about the "vision" of Irvine. He said their aim is top 30, they are initially fine with top 40.
He said they were going to have to open the flood gates to more students because they can't make enough money with such low enrollment. In fact he says he and other faculty have to teach undergraduate classes to help make ends meet.
He says he will be hiring a lot of new faculty but didn't know if the faculty would be adjuncts or not.
He also said their deep pocket donors want a return on their investment and they want it sooner than later. I am not exactly sure what that means.

That's not what they are saying publicly. They have made it clear on their own website and various interviews that they intent to be top 20 right away. They will probably need more students because the 20 million they got from the right wing billionare must be running out.

How will the donors get a return on their investments??

[ManoftheHour]

How will the donors get a return on their investments??

Orange County is a bit snobbish so maybe it's a matter of "pride." Maybe their "investment" is simply being able to say, "We now have a "top" school in Orange County" since the only other schools in this area are TTT Chapman and WhiTTTTier.

[zman]

@ zman: Why are people having such a hard time reading today? Reread... I clearly stated that I was NOT talking about placement.

I just meant overall academic reputation. like, nobody would say, "oh, you went to texas? must've been a dummy", but they also probably wouldn't hire you (as you pointed out). Texas has a stellar reputation that for whatever reason doesn't translate to national placement.

@nova: yeah, it was man, i'm glad you posted that. I was freaking out for a sec, I didn't know you could delete posts so I'm going "Oh, sh!t! I swear I saw that somewhere, I must be going crazy!"

"Texas has a stellar reputation that for whatever reason doesn't translate to national placement."

There you go. They have no competition in state, I guess that's all they got. Texas is just another school, they are not ahead of any in the t-18 based on anything of substance.

[wolfgang]

yeah, that's surprising to hear.

When was this meeting, if I can ask?

@californiauser: yes, you're right. Saying 'much, much better' is probably too strong. But I still maintain that UCLA is better regarded than USC outside of the southern california market, and I'm not sure why this is. They seem so close in terms of... well, everything quantitative. but the difference in reputation is there, and while I'm not prepared to fully accept and disseminate the "t-18" distinction, it does lend some bit of credibility to the idea that the current top 18 schools are in a (at least slightly) different class than #19-TTT. For example, personally, and judging by the number of people I've heard give advice of "go to ucla when given the choice between ucla or usc unless scholarship money is involved" and the lack of the opposite i've seen, a lot of other people feel this way, also. Not defending it. just saying that it seems to be present.

Sounds like boomer babble. UC Hastings has a "great" reputation too, but that isn't relevant for grads ITE.

The difference is that ucla/vandy/tex still have great reputations. hastings has fallen from grace recently, so I would argue that, in fact, it DOESN'T have a great reputation. I'm talking about the current landscape... like, I think nobody would be surprised if ucla/vandy/texas somehow broke into the t-14 (without getting into a debate of what the t-14 actually is, so take it how you will!), but people would be surprised if USC or minnesota did. I think the "distance" between ucla/vandy/texas and the t-14 is smaller than the distance between ucla/vandy/texas and usc/minn.

@zman: right? That's so different from anything I've heard, UCI is definitely telling the public something else, at least as of a few weeks ago. strange...

[wolfgang]

"Texas has a stellar reputation that for whatever reason doesn't translate to national placement."

There you go. They have no competition in state, I guess that's all they got. Texas is just another school, they are not ahead of any in the t-18 based on anything of substance.

Yeah... maybe. I'm not sure I follow entirely, though... can you expand on this point for my slow mind?
I think I see what you're saying, but I want to be sure before I put my foot in my mouth.

[06102016]

..

[zman]

yeah, that's surprising to hear.

When was this meeting, if I can ask?

@californiauser: yes, you're right. Saying 'much, much better' is probably too strong. But I still maintain that UCLA is better regarded than USC outside of the southern california market, and I'm not sure why this is. They seem so close in terms of... well, everything quantitative. but the difference in reputation is there, and while I'm not prepared to fully accept and disseminate the "t-18" distinction, it does lend some bit of credibility to the idea that the current top 18 schools are in a (at least slightly) different class than #19-TTT. For example, personally, and judging by the number of people I've heard give advice of "go to ucla when given the choice between ucla or usc unless scholarship money is involved" and the lack of the opposite i've seen, a lot of other people feel this way, also. Not defending it. just saying that it seems to be present.

Sounds like boomer babble. UC Hastings has a "great" reputation too, but that isn't relevant for grads ITE.

The difference is that ucla/vandy/tex still have great reputations. hastings has fallen from grace recently, so I would argue that, in fact, it DOESN'T have a great reputation. I'm talking about the current landscape... like, I think nobody would be surprised if ucla/vandy/texas somehow broke into the t-14 (without getting into a debate of what the t-14 actually is, so take it how you will!), but people would be surprised if USC or minnesota did. I think the "distance" between ucla/vandy/texas and the t-14 is smaller than the distance between ucla/vandy/texas and usc/minn.

@zman: right? That's so different from anything I've heard, UCI is definitely telling the public something else, at least as of a few weeks ago. strange...

say what?? have they just changed their mind after so many years of going for top 20. I haven't chemerinsky come out and say anything.

The "distance" in job placement( what really counts) between UCLA/vandy/texas and the T-14 is huge. Like I said Vandy and Texas are about 25% in big wfirms which is worse than the LA schools and on par with Fordham.

[wolfgang]

I met with Chemerinsky after a CLE and he talked for an hour about the "vision" of Irvine. He said their aim is top 30, they are initially fine with top 40.
He said they were going to have to open the flood gates to more students because they can't make enough money with such low enrollment. In fact he says he and other faculty have to teach undergraduate classes to help make ends meet.
He says he will be hiring a lot of new faculty but didn't know if the faculty would be adjuncts or not.
He also said their deep pocket donors want a return on their investment and they want it sooner than later. I am not exactly sure what that means.

That's not what they are saying publicly. They have made it clear on their own website and various interviews that they intent to be top 20 right away. They will probably need more students because the 20 million they got from the right wing billionare must be running out.

How will the donors get a return on their investments??

I was just agreeing with you that i've only heard they were gunning for top 20. It's so weird (for me) to hear that they would be happy with top 40. What?

The "That's" in "that's so different" was referring to his entire conversation with Chemerinsky. It's not at all what I've heard from UCI!

[06102016]

..

[zman]

I met with Chemerinsky after a CLE and he talked for an hour about the "vision" of Irvine. He said their aim is top 30, they are initially fine with top 40.
He said they were going to have to open the flood gates to more students because they can't make enough money with such low enrollment. In fact he says he and other faculty have to teach undergraduate classes to help make ends meet.
He says he will be hiring a lot of new faculty but didn't know if the faculty would be adjuncts or not.
He also said their deep pocket donors want a return on their investment and they want it sooner than later. I am not exactly sure what that means.

That's not what they are saying publicly. They have made it clear on their own website and various interviews that they intent to be top 20 right away. They will probably need more students because the 20 million they got from the right wing billionare must be running out.

How will the donors get a return on their investments??

I was just agreeing with you that i've only heard they were gunning for top 20. It's so weird (for me) to hear that they would be happy with top 40. What?

The "That's" in "that's so different" was referring to his entire conversation with Chemerinsky. It's not at all what I've heard from UCI!

Ok.

[twenty]

I don't foresee UCI competing against Chapman and Loyola. I also don't foresee UCI competing against UCLA and USC.

I do, however, see a place for the few grads UCI will churn out every year for the local OC area. OC is slightly more than twice the population of Philadelphia, and is often overlooked due to the insular nature of our economy and location. Though not the case 20 years ago, Los Angeles is becoming "too far" from Orange County due to the massive amount of traffic and shift in culture. Folks used to commute from Downey to Irvine, or from Fullerton to Downtown LA, but not anymore.

I wish UCI would market itself more honestly. The faculty has good connections with the DA's office, local firms -- even large firms, seem interested to go for the new kids, Orange County is actually not the worst place in the world to start a law firm, and I'm sure UCI kids could even extend out to San Diego if Chem wanted to go that direction. But instead they're pushing their federal clerkship numbers, how basically everyone who asks got biglaw in NYC, and how employers are calling up the school begging for new attorneys to handle all their toughest cases; god forbid one of those idiots from Berkeley handle them. That's not going to last, and deep down, everyone knows this. At best, UCI's going to be a decent regional school that places moderately well into the OC area. So it would be nice if the administration would stop selling it like it's going to be H/Y/S/UCI

If you don't go to school at UCI Law you really can't judge it.

This seems stupid.

[06102016]

..

[twenty]

.

[californiauser]

I don't foresee UCI competing against Chapman and Loyola. I also don't foresee UCI competing against UCLA and USC.

I stopped reading here because this is ridiculous.

Pretty sure you're missing the point. But maybe not.

To be more clear, USC/UCLA >>>>>> UCI >>>>>>> Loyola > Chapman.

Are you from the future? Let's see how UCI holds up when they have a full class and real gpa/lsat medians.

[06102016]

..

[twenty]

Are you from the future? Let's see how UCI holds up when they have a full class and real gpa/lsat medians.

I am! In the future, people on TLS apparently care about their likelihood of being employed and their likelihood of retaining scholarships. Maybe you're from that other future where TLSers determine a school's value by its USNWR ranking?

It's just that they're going to fill jobs that are available. It's not as though some tier of employment exists to accommodate the fact that they're in between the other tiers. It's more likely they'll displace Loyola folks (if we assume they're higher than Loyola) than they'll somehow outperform their position lower than USC/UCLA.

And this demonstrates why it's a good idea to read the entire post. It saves you the effort of trying to dig yourself out of a hole later.

At best, UCI's going to be a decent regional school that places moderately well into the OC area

[Monochromatic Oeuvre]

Ranking is completely irrelevant outside of the top 18, so I couldn't give two shits where the formula monkeys at USNWR put them. With the exception of South Florida, SoCal is the most oversaturated region in the country, so I'm guessing employers won't give two shits about this school while they still have their pick of the UCLA/USC students.

Where on earth did you come up with T18?

While 15-18 may be better than 19-140, no one cares about them being ranked in the top 18. They just don't matter

I didn't say anyone necessarily "cared", as it's obvious their prospects are significantly worse than T14. I separate UT, Vandy, UCLA and USC into another category because they're all schools who can place 30-35% into Biglaw and place into two or three markets. Their employment picture is specific and unique compared to any other non-T14 schools. The distinction drawn at 18 is "the line after which job placement no longer correlates best with ranking, but rather with the school's location/primary market. That's why I say ranking is "irrelevant" after that.

[MyNameIsFlynn!]

Just checking in to say this fight is very entertaining thus far. Keep up the mental masturbation, guys.

So far, the award for dumbest shit said ITT goes to...

If you don't go to school at UCI Law you really can't judge it.

Thanks to everyone else for the laughs and please carry on.