how do we feel about UC Irvine at this point?

(Rankings, Profiles, Tuition, Student Life, . . . )
User avatar
06102016
Posts: 13466
Joined: Tue Oct 25, 2011 1:29 pm

Re: how do we feel about UC Irvine at this point?

Postby 06102016 » Wed Jul 31, 2013 10:20 pm

..

User avatar
MyNameIsFlynn!
Posts: 785
Joined: Wed Apr 03, 2013 10:29 pm

Re: how do we feel about UC Irvine at this point?

Postby MyNameIsFlynn! » Wed Jul 31, 2013 10:23 pm

slack_academic wrote:UCI will be a better school than Penn in the next 5 years. Prove me wrong.

CCNI

wolfgang
Posts: 61
Joined: Tue Jul 30, 2013 8:43 pm

Re: how do we feel about UC Irvine at this point?

Postby wolfgang » Wed Jul 31, 2013 10:53 pm

Monochromatic Oeuvre wrote:
mr.hands wrote:
Monochromatic Oeuvre wrote: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.




Man. I'm glad you're back... I tried to defend the rationale behind someone thinking that the "top 18" could possibly be a thing, and got sucked down into debateland. I hate that place.

slackacademic: I can't tell if you're joking. I kind of hope you're not, because I love it when people go against the conventional wisdom. If you are, in fact, serious and believe that they will be better than Penn, I'd really be interested in hearing more about why you think this. I hope you don't think I'm trying to be "challenging", like, when people say "you think WHAT? Tell me why so I can disprove it".
I'm actually genuinely curious. Can't say for sure that other people won't try to tear you apart, but I'm truly interested...

User avatar
TheThriller
Posts: 2285
Joined: Sun Mar 04, 2012 10:12 pm

Re: how do we feel about UC Irvine at this point?

Postby TheThriller » Wed Jul 31, 2013 11:01 pm

wolfgang wrote:
Monochromatic Oeuvre wrote:
mr.hands wrote:
Monochromatic Oeuvre wrote: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.




Man. I'm glad you're back... I tried to defend the rationale behind someone thinking that the "top 18" could possibly be a thing, and got sucked down into debateland. I hate that place.

slackacademic: I can't tell if you're joking. I kind of hope you're not, because I love it when people go against the conventional wisdom. If you are, in fact, serious and believe that they will be better than Penn, I'd really be interested in hearing more about why you think this. I hope you don't think I'm trying to be "challenging", like, when people say "you think WHAT? Tell me why so I can disprove it".
I'm actually genuinely curious. Can't say for sure that other people won't try to tear you apart, but I'm truly interested...


He's joking.

User avatar
06102016
Posts: 13466
Joined: Tue Oct 25, 2011 1:29 pm

Re: how do we feel about UC Irvine at this point?

Postby 06102016 » Wed Jul 31, 2013 11:09 pm

..

User avatar
sublime
Posts: 15395
Joined: Sun Mar 10, 2013 12:21 pm

Re: how do we feel about UC Irvine at this point?

Postby sublime » Wed Jul 31, 2013 11:47 pm

..

User avatar
06102016
Posts: 13466
Joined: Tue Oct 25, 2011 1:29 pm

Re: how do we feel about UC Irvine at this point?

Postby 06102016 » Wed Jul 31, 2013 11:49 pm

..

User avatar
guano
Posts: 2268
Joined: Mon Feb 18, 2013 9:49 am

Re: how do we feel about UC Irvine at this point?

Postby guano » Wed Jul 31, 2013 11:54 pm

slack_academic wrote:1. Chemerinsky is a chill bro. He's smart AF and knows what he's doing.
2. Great faculty all around.
3. OC is ripe for the picking. The best game in town is Chapman, which is a TTT, so Irvine should make a killing.
4. STACKED clerkship numbers. Clerkships=prestige=biglaw firms taking notice in the years to come. since they've put up bigger clerkship numbers than Penn, it only makes sense that the biglaw numbers will follow.

It's cool that you're not being challenging. Respect.

The problem with that last bit is that it's a bit of a one-off: high scholarship luring top students, small class size and professors calling in favors give a great short-term boost, but less money, class sizes are growing, admissions standards dropping, and favors have all been called in. No way UCI becomes a top 20 school (maybe one year by gaming the system, but not long term)
They'll be lucky to be consistently top 30 and are unlikely to be top 50. They've got Stanford & Berkeley for best in the state, UCLA/USC best in the region and solid competition from
San Diego and Pepperdine for those who can't get into any of those

User avatar
Dr. Dre
Posts: 2347
Joined: Mon Feb 18, 2013 7:10 pm

Re: how do we feel about UC Irvine at this point?

Postby Dr. Dre » Wed Jul 31, 2013 11:56 pm

lol @ the idea that the legal market will grow in socal enough to help UCI

lol @ investing so much money on a law school during a recession when it's just going to be another one of those california law schools

User avatar
06102016
Posts: 13466
Joined: Tue Oct 25, 2011 1:29 pm

Re: how do we feel about UC Irvine at this point?

Postby 06102016 » Wed Jul 31, 2013 11:59 pm

..

User avatar
guano
Posts: 2268
Joined: Mon Feb 18, 2013 9:49 am

Re: how do we feel about UC Irvine at this point?

Postby guano » Thu Aug 01, 2013 12:08 am

slack_academic wrote:
guano wrote:
slack_academic wrote:1. Chemerinsky is a chill bro. He's smart AF and knows what he's doing.
2. Great faculty all around.
3. OC is ripe for the picking. The best game in town is Chapman, which is a TTT, so Irvine should make a killing.
4. STACKED clerkship numbers. Clerkships=prestige=biglaw firms taking notice in the years to come. since they've put up bigger clerkship numbers than Penn, it only makes sense that the biglaw numbers will follow.

It's cool that you're not being challenging. Respect.

The problem with that last bit is that it's a bit of a one-off: high scholarship luring top students, small class size and professors calling in favors give a great short-term boost, but less money, class sizes are growing, admissions standards dropping, and favors have all been called in. No way UCI becomes a top 20 school (maybe one year by gaming the system, but not long term)
They'll be lucky to be consistently top 30 and are unlikely to be top 50. They've got Stanford & Berkeley for best in the state, UCLA/USC best in the region and solid competition from
San Diego and Pepperdine for those who can't get into any of those

Interesting.

1. You don't know they called in all the favors they can, even if they called in some favors.
2. You can't be sure it's a one-off because if the clerks performed well, it could lead to more offers in the future. There's no promise judges will consider the exceptional nature of the school's inaugural class the same way you have here.
3. San Diego is not really solid competition in Los Angeles/Orange County. At all.

1) I agree, they haven't called in all the favors, but surely they must have less to call in
2) even if every judge hires them back, because of increasing class sizes, the percentage will drop
3) San Diego is not solid for LA, but to say its not solid competition for OC is not fair, considering OC is sandwiched between SD and LA. It's just that SD can't compete with UCLA and USC

User avatar
Monochromatic Oeuvre
Posts: 1929
Joined: Fri May 10, 2013 9:40 pm

Re: how do we feel about UC Irvine at this point?

Postby Monochromatic Oeuvre » Thu Aug 01, 2013 2:15 am

The level of discourse is this thread doesn't do justice to the Who-Gives-A-Fuck-ness of the whole idea.

Do you care if the UC Irvine pile of shit only goes up to the waist instead of the neck? Will it ever at any point be a good life choice to go there? Are you going to have to muffle your laughter any less when someone proudly tells you they go there? Do you see any reason to pay it any more attention than the hundred-some $40k+ shitholes producing equally unqualified lunkheads?

User avatar
Dr. Dre
Posts: 2347
Joined: Mon Feb 18, 2013 7:10 pm

Re: how do we feel about UC Irvine at this point?

Postby Dr. Dre » Thu Aug 01, 2013 2:23 am

Monochromatic Oeuvre wrote:Will it ever at any point be a good life choice to go there?



NO.

BigZuck
Posts: 10851
Joined: Tue Sep 04, 2012 9:53 am

Re: how do we feel about UC Irvine at this point?

Postby BigZuck » Thu Aug 01, 2013 4:18 am

zman wrote:
wolfgang wrote: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.


I just needed to point out how dumb this statement is. Large firm placement + federal clerkship placement duder. Not to mention the fabled midlaw that gets so many UT fans rock hard.

UT/Vandy/UCLA/USC (aka the T18) obviously don't have the placement power of the T14 but they clearly place significantly better than non-T18 schools. I think all this "T-" whatever stuff is kind of silly but mono is correct IMO.

Lots of weird trolling going on in this thread.

User avatar
PDaddy
Posts: 2073
Joined: Sat Jan 16, 2010 4:40 am

Re: how do we feel about UC Irvine at this point?

Postby PDaddy » Thu Aug 01, 2013 6:38 am

wolfgang wrote:@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...


People keep thinking that UCI's new-to-the-game status is a big disadvantage in the reputation department, which is understandable. After all, we assume most law school reputations to be based primarily - if not wholly - on the well-established outcomes of the law schools, as well as the strength of their faculties. But what if this isn't necessarily the case?

First, I tend not to believe that respondents know much about the schools they rate in the USNWR surveys - which means that the lay prestige of entire institutions may affect the graduate schools more than we know. This would seem to favor a fairly prestigious public institution like UCI.

Secondly, we have no idea as to how the metrics will be tweaked by the time UCI is rankings-eligible. Ask yourselves what happens if reputation all surveys are given less weight. Another possibility is that respondents could be given a special instruction to rate UCI as an institution, along with an informational packet trumpeting its faculty. Asking respondents to take the UC system, UCI's UG, and UCI's overall institution into account would be a way to level the playing field.

Thirdly, UCI opponents here have offered a self-defeating argument IMO. If the so-called favors have been called in and UCI's students have come as advertised, the work is done...REPUTATIONAL SEED PLANTED! You can bet that those federal clerkships and thus big law jobs will continue to come UCI's way.

Posters here ask us to make three huge, ungrounded leaps in logic: (1) assume that favors have been called in, (2) assume that those favors have been exhausted, (3) assume that UCI's law students/graduates - the beneficiaries of those calls - have not made good on the promises, and (4) conclude that there has been no reputational boost provided by any of the first three UCI classes.

They further assume, as stated above, that the rankings metrics won't be tweaked, when the recent trends suggest otherwise.

I believe that UCI will maintain strong inputs (i.e. incoming LSAT/GPA's), although there could be a slight drop off as class sizes increase.

My guess is that UCI will not be top-20 but will outperform Davis and Hastings (top 35-25?). After all, how does UCI surpass Notre Dame, GWU or even Fordham, three of the best regional schools in the country?

I see big law firms recruiting there regularly, as there is no reason to think otherwise. UCI's policy of pairing students with mentors is hugely innovative, as is its "niche-law" approach: steering students towards public interest and clerkships. UCI could become a poor man's version of Yale Law, where the students are truly in it for the love of the profession and don't necessarily seek biglaw, yet have every opportunity to do whatever they want because of UCI's educational approach.

Whether UCI grads can make a good overall impression in the field remains to be seen.

User avatar
MyNameIsFlynn!
Posts: 785
Joined: Wed Apr 03, 2013 10:29 pm

Re: how do we feel about UC Irvine at this point?

Postby MyNameIsFlynn! » Thu Aug 01, 2013 8:29 am

el oh el. We have a new submission for dumbest shit said ITT:

PDaddy wrote:UCI could become a poor man's version of Yale Law


Carry on, folks.

timbs4339
Posts: 2733
Joined: Sat Apr 02, 2011 12:19 pm

Re: how do we feel about UC Irvine at this point?

Postby timbs4339 » Thu Aug 01, 2013 11:30 am

PDaddy wrote:Thirdly, UCI opponents here have offered a self-defeating argument IMO. If the so-called favors have been called in and UCI's students have come as advertised, the work is done...REPUTATIONAL SEED PLANTED! You can bet that those federal clerkships and thus big law jobs will continue to come UCI's way.

Posters here ask us to make three huge, ungrounded leaps in logic: (1) assume that favors have been called in, (2) assume that those favors have been exhausted, (3) assume that UCI's law students/graduates - the beneficiaries of those calls - have not made good on the promises, and (4) conclude that there has been no reputational boost provided by any of the first three UCI classes.


You're assuming that part of the pitch wasn't "this current crop of UCI students has T14 numbers and you are essentially hiring the same batch of people that I pitched you when I was at [insert T14 here]." If judges and biglaw know that selectivity will decrease when class size increases and schollys decrease, then they aren't going to rush to pick up the phone, nor will they reserve a seat for a UCI student.

Also you don't base "reputation" off of a single class. If all the professors worked their tails off to get clerkships, and UCI then got "reputation," that wouldn't mean those judges would then hire from UCI exclusively. The UCI apps would go into the pile with the other 20 schools that send students to federal clerkships.

User avatar
guano
Posts: 2268
Joined: Mon Feb 18, 2013 9:49 am

Re: how do we feel about UC Irvine at this point?

Postby guano » Thu Aug 01, 2013 11:38 am

Can someone post the numbers for the first incoming class and the most recent?
I'm on my phone so I can't look it up, but if I remember correctly it was a not insignificant drop

wolfgang
Posts: 61
Joined: Tue Jul 30, 2013 8:43 pm

Re: how do we feel about UC Irvine at this point?

Postby wolfgang » Thu Aug 01, 2013 11:43 am

thanks pdaddy.

I get what you're saying, and I appreciate you putting all those thoughts out there when they're clearly the unpopular opinion.

Just a few questions so I can fully understand your point:
To what are you referring when you say "how else does UCi surpass notre dame, fordham, etc"? Are you just talking about stats? Or did you mean to imply something like "how would they surpass these regional powerhouses?" Something isn't clicking in my head.

are you thinking that UCI's relative rank is going to be pretty static? How do you feel about the earlier comment that the dean is fine with top 40, but then wants to move into top 30 and then i assume top 20? And then, i assume, their plan is to just slowly displace yale at number 1... haha


Some of your argument is (possibly) assuming that a reputation can truly be built in three years... do you think this is true? I'm not commenting either way, because I have no idea how law school reputations work, I'm just wondering what you think.

thanks again to everyone who has given information, good and bad!


californiauser
Posts: 1181
Joined: Sun Jul 01, 2012 1:10 am

Re: how do we feel about UC Irvine at this point?

Postby californiauser » Thu Aug 01, 2013 12:02 pm

PDaddy wrote:
wolfgang wrote:First, I tend not to believe that respondents know much about the schools they rate in the USNWR surveys - which means that the lay prestige of entire institutions may affect the graduate schools more than we know. This would seem to favor a fairly prestigious public institution like UCI.

Secondly, we have no idea as to how the metrics will be tweaked by the time UCI is rankings-eligible. Ask yourselves what happens if reputation all surveys are given less weight. Another possibility is that respondents could be given a special instruction to rate UCI as an institution, along with an informational packet trumpeting its faculty. Asking respondents to take the UC system, UCI's UG, and UCI's overall institution into account would be a way to level the playing field. Thirdly, UCI opponents here have offered a self-defeating argument IMO. If the so-called favors have been called in and UCI's students have come as advertised, the work is done...REPUTATIONAL SEED PLANTED! You can bet that those federal clerkships and thus big law jobs will continue to come UCI's way.


I see big law firms recruiting there regularly, as there is no reason to think otherwise. UCI's policy of pairing students with mentors is hugely innovative, as is its "niche-law" approach: steering students towards public interest and clerkships. UCI could become a poor man's version of Yale Law.


LOL JUST LOL

UC Irvine is, what, the 5th best UC in California? Lol @ it being prestigious in any way. I'm going to assume this is all an elaborate flame.

User avatar
guano
Posts: 2268
Joined: Mon Feb 18, 2013 9:49 am

Re: how do we feel about UC Irvine at this point?

Postby guano » Thu Aug 01, 2013 12:07 pm

PDaddy wrote:I see big law firms recruiting there regularly, as there is no reason to think otherwise. UCI's policy of pairing students with mentors is hugely innovative, as is its "niche-law" approach: steering students towards public interest and clerkships. UCI could become a poor man's version of Yale Law.
[/quote]
Wait, is UCI attractive to big firms, or is UCI steering students to PI/Clerkship?

Sure, big firms will recruit there. They also recruit at Cardozo in NYC.

User avatar
Monochromatic Oeuvre
Posts: 1929
Joined: Fri May 10, 2013 9:40 pm

Re: how do we feel about UC Irvine at this point?

Postby Monochromatic Oeuvre » Thu Aug 01, 2013 12:56 pm

Okay, I'm only going to bother with this UCI apologist shit because it's easy, not because it's a point that hasn't been made by everyone else in various discussions on TLS, but whatever.

People keep thinking that UCI's new-to-the-game status is a big disadvantage in the reputation department, which is understandable. After all, we assume most law school reputations to be based primarily - if not wholly - on the well-established outcomes of the law schools, as well as the strength of their faculties. But what if this isn't necessarily the case?


Reputation = Well-established outcome of the law schools. Inserting that, we get "We assume most law school reputations to be base primarily--if not wholly--on the reputations of the schools." So yeah, it is the case, because it's a tautology.

First, I tend not to believe that respondents know much about the schools they rate in the USNWR surveys - which means that the lay prestige of entire institutions may affect the graduate schools more than we know.


Which is again self-defining in the context of a USNWR ranking. Perceived reputation --> reputation score --> USNWR rank --> perceived reputation. Positive feedback loop.

This would seem to favor a fairly prestigious public institution like UCI.


Unless UCI merged with Princeton when I wasn't looking, it has a meh reputation as a university and that will in turn beget a meh law school.

Secondly, we have no idea as to how the metrics will be tweaked by the time UCI is rankings-eligible. Ask yourselves what happens if reputation all surveys are given less weight.


Um, employment statistics will be given more weight and UCI will be firmly entrenched in a TTT cesspool?

Another possibility is that respondents could be given a special instruction to rate UCI as an institution, along with an informational packet trumpeting its faculty. Asking respondents to take the UC system, UCI's UG, and UCI's overall institution into account would be a way to level the playing field.


You start out by saying UCI should be given special treatment and coddling in a reputational survey, then proceed to list a bunch of things that won't help it AT ALL in a reputational survey.

Thirdly, UCI opponents here have offered a self-defeating argument IMO. If the so-called favors have been called in and UCI's students have come as advertised, the work is done...REPUTATIONAL SEED PLANTED! You can bet that those federal clerkships and thus big law jobs will continue to come UCI's way.


Reputation = well-established outcome, not how many wheels your dean can grease in a year. You don't gain a reputation until your students continuous place well under their own merit.

Posters here ask us to make three huge, ungrounded leaps in logic: (1) assume that favors have been called in,


Versus assuming a 28% federal clerkship rate is because UCI is just that good. I'll take my chances with the former.

(2) assume that those favors have been exhausted


If something cannot go on forever, it will eventually stop.

Unless..."Come to the UCI Law School of Favors! Chereminsky will personally blow any judge you're trying to get a clerkship with!"

I smell a marketing opportunity.

(3) assume that UCI's law students/graduates - the beneficiaries of those calls - have not made good on the promises


It wasn't a promise, it was more of a "C'mon, do it for your old pal Erwin." No evidence suggests those students are any better than what their GPAs/LSATs would suggest.

and (4) conclude that there has been no reputational boost provided by any of the first three UCI classes.


Because only one class has been employed, and that consisted of twenty-something kids getting a decent job? Again, reputations are built up over years.

They further assume, as stated above, that the rankings metrics won't be tweaked, when the recent trends suggest otherwise.


What are you expecting USNWR to change that would help UCI? "How oversaturated your market is will now account for 98% of the USNWR score."

I believe that UCI will maintain strong inputs (i.e. incoming LSAT/GPA's), although there could be a slight drop off as class sizes increase.


Fine, say the numbers stabilize at something like Davis numbers (although it's more likely the numbers fall way further as the war chest gets depleted and class size has to double. Then what? What would be any different?

My guess is that UCI will not be top-20 but will outperform Davis and Hastings (top 35-25?).


It won't matter.

After all, how does UCI surpass Notre Dame, GWU or even Fordham, three of the best regional schools in the country?


If your school can't surpass those schools, you don't attend a good school.

I see big law firms recruiting there regularly, as there is no reason to think otherwise.


How about complete and utter apathy towards the school?

UCI's policy of pairing students with mentors is hugely innovative, as is its "niche-law" approach: steering students towards public interest and clerkships.


And this means UCI students won't be lolfucked by debt because...why?

UCI could become a poor man's version of Yale Law, where the students are truly in it for the love of the profession and don't necessarily seek biglaw, yet have every opportunity to do whatever they want because of UCI's educational approach.


Yale students can dick around for $50k/year because each of them is guaranteed a good job just by virtue of graduating. If the UCI students don't go into Biglaw, then it's just going to be a school sucking on the LRAP tit. Regardless, nearly every student will end up poor.
Last edited by Monochromatic Oeuvre on Thu Aug 01, 2013 1:03 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
jbagelboy
Posts: 9635
Joined: Thu Nov 29, 2012 7:57 pm

Re: how do we feel about UC Irvine at this point?

Postby jbagelboy » Thu Aug 01, 2013 1:02 pm

Monochromatic Oeuvre wrote:Okay, I'm only going to bother with this UCI apologist shit because it's easy, not because it's a point that hasn't been made by everyone else in various discussions on TLS, but whatever.

People keep thinking that UCI's new-to-the-game status is a big disadvantage in the reputation department, which is understandable. After all, we assume most law school reputations to be based primarily - if not wholly - on the well-established outcomes of the law schools, as well as the strength of their faculties. But what if this isn't necessarily the case?


Reputation = Well-established outcome of the law schools. Inserting that, we get "We assume most law school reputations to be base primarily--if not wholly--on the reputations of the schools." So yeah, it is the case, because it's a tautology.

First, I tend not to believe that respondents know much about the schools they rate in the USNWR surveys - which means that the lay prestige of entire institutions may affect the graduate schools more than we know.


Which is again self-defining in the context of a USNWR ranking. Perceived reputation --> reputation score --> USNWR rank --> perceived reputatioin. Positive feedback loop.

This would seem to favor a fairly prestigious public institution like UCI.


Unless UCI merged with Princeton when I wasn't looking, it has a meh reputation as a university and that will in turn beget a meh law school.

Secondly, we have no idea as to how the metrics will be tweaked by the time UCI is rankings-eligible. Ask yourselves what happens if reputation all surveys are given less weight.


Um, employment statistics will be given more weight and UCI will be firmly entrenched in a TTT cesspool?

Another possibility is that respondents could be given a special instruction to rate UCI as an institution, along with an informational packet trumpeting its faculty. Asking respondents to take the UC system, UCI's UG, and UCI's overall institution into account would be a way to level the playing field.


You start out by saying UCI should be given special treatment and coddling in a reputational survey, then proceed to list a bunch of things that won't help it AT ALL in a reputational survey.

Thirdly, UCI opponents here have offered a self-defeating argument IMO. If the so-called favors have been called in and UCI's students have come as advertised, the work is done...REPUTATIONAL SEED PLANTED! You can bet that those federal clerkships and thus big law jobs will continue to come UCI's way.


Reputation = well-established outcome, not how many wheels your dean can grease in a year. You don't gain a reputation until your students continuous place well under their own merit.

Posters here ask us to make three huge, ungrounded leaps in logic: (1) assume that favors have been called in,


Versus assuming a 28% federal clerkship rate is because UCI is just that good. I'll take my chances with the former.

(2) assume that those favors have been exhausted


If something cannot go on forever, it will eventually stop.

Unless..."Come to the UCI Law School of Favors! Chereminsky will personally blow any judge you're trying to get a clerkship with!"

I smell a marketing opportunity.

(3) assume that UCI's law students/graduates - the beneficiaries of those calls - have not made good on the promises


It wasn't a promise, it was more of a "C'mon, do it for your old pal Erwin." No evidence suggests those students are any better than what their GPAs/LSATs would suggest.

and (4) conclude that there has been no reputational boost provided by any of the first three UCI classes.


Because only one class has been employed, and that consisted of twenty-something kids getting a decent job? Again, reputations are built up over years.

They further assume, as stated above, that the rankings metrics won't be tweaked, when the recent trends suggest otherwise.


What are you expecting USNWR to change that would help UCI? "How oversaturated your market is will now account for 98% of the USNWR score."

I believe that UCI will maintain strong inputs (i.e. incoming LSAT/GPA's), although there could be a slight drop off as class sizes increase.


Fine, say the numbers stabilize at something like Davis numbers (although it's more likely the numbers fall way further as the war chest gets depleted and class size has to double. Then what? What would be any different?

My guess is that UCI will not be top-20 but will outperform Davis and Hastings (top 35-25?).


It won't matter.

After all, how does UCI surpass Notre Dame, GWU or even Fordham, three of the best regional schools in the country?


If your school can't surpass those schools, you don't attend a good school.

I see big law firms recruiting there regularly, as there is no reason to think otherwise.


How about complete and utter apathy towards the school?

UCI's policy of pairing students with mentors is hugely innovative, as is its "niche-law" approach: steering students towards public interest and clerkships.


And this means UCI students won't be lolfucked by debt because...why?

UCI could become a poor man's version of Yale Law, where the students are truly in it for the love of the profession and don't necessarily seek biglaw, yet have every opportunity to do whatever they want because of UCI's educational approach.


Yale students can dick around for $50k/year because each of them is guaranteed a good job just by virtue of graduating. If the UCI students don't go into Biglaw, then it's just going to be a school sucking on the LRAP tit. Regardless, nearly every student will end up poor.


Lol.

I enjoyed reading this.

Carry on...

alexeipg
Posts: 13
Joined: Thu Jun 14, 2012 5:05 pm

Re: how do we feel about UC Irvine at this point?

Postby alexeipg » Fri Aug 02, 2013 1:09 am

The comment by MormonChristian is complete BS. Even if Chemerinsky were overhyping his expectations for the school while secretly expecting it to be mediocre, he certainly wouldn't just come out and say it to some random kid. Great marketing strategy.

I think people are also misunderstanding the way favors are "called in" in academia. Chemerinsky is writing strong recommendations for students and personally vouching for them while putting his own credibility on the line, not sending judges suitcases filled with money or something. These recommendations have worked because of Chemerinsky's reputation and his level of involvement with students--hardly a negative. If the students wind up sucking in their clerkships, odds are UCI won't do very well with placing in the future. If the UCI grads do well, then guess what: Those judges will probably be pretty receptive to hiring more UCI grads in the future.

In other words, if UCI does a good job educating its students and preparing them for clerkships and good legal jobs, then the school's clerkship and employment numbers will likely continue to be impressive (though the percentages will almost certainly drop). As a start, it doesn't hurt having a top 10 faculty w/ a student:faculty ratio that rivals any school in the country's). I noticed no one has even mentioned quality of education, which seems like it would be pretty relevant to the discussion. I'm not saying that UCI will definitely succeed in the future, but it's delusional to say that they haven't had a good start or that the school doesn't at least have the potential to continue doing well. Ultimately, it will come down to the quality of teaching and the performance of students.




Return to “Choosing a Law School”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests