UC Irvine School of Law's 2nd class statistics is out

(Applications Advice, Letters of Recommendation . . . )
ViP
Posts: 419
Joined: Tue Oct 13, 2009 11:53 pm

UC Irvine Law- Class of 2013 numbers revealed...

Postby ViP » Tue May 04, 2010 9:15 pm

I know there has been a lot of speculation with regard to the quality of UCI's second-year class. Dean Chemerinsky promised a second-year class of at least equal caliber to the inaugural class ("top 20").

The school revealed the numbers just yesterday:

Inaugural class: GPA 3.43-3.76, LSAT 164-168
Second class: GPA 3.38-3.79, LSAT 163-169

Yield= 53% (93/174)

http://www.law.uci.edu/press_releases/05-03-10.html


EDIT: Edited to include yield
Last edited by ViP on Tue May 04, 2010 9:30 pm, edited 2 times in total.

User avatar
PhantaManta
Posts: 276
Joined: Sun Sep 21, 2008 4:45 pm

Re: UC Irvine Law- Class of 2013 numbers revealed...

Postby PhantaManta » Tue May 04, 2010 9:22 pm

Well that's a bit surprising.

User avatar
pany1985
Posts: 389
Joined: Wed Jan 28, 2009 9:08 am

Re: UC Irvine Law- Class of 2013 numbers revealed...

Postby pany1985 » Tue May 04, 2010 9:23 pm

This drastic drop in quality is sure to doom UCI. Dean Chemerinsky should just call up the UC Regents and have them shut down the school.

User avatar
General Tso
Posts: 2289
Joined: Sun Dec 07, 2008 6:51 pm

Re: UC Irvine Law- Class of 2013 numbers revealed...

Postby General Tso » Tue May 04, 2010 9:23 pm

nobody give a rat ass

ViP
Posts: 419
Joined: Tue Oct 13, 2009 11:53 pm

Re: UC Irvine Law- Class of 2013 numbers revealed...

Postby ViP » Tue May 04, 2010 9:27 pm

General Tso wrote:nobody give a rat ass


1) You're wrong, considering how much this question is debated on TLS.

2) Is there any good reason for you to be so rude?

User avatar
General Tso
Posts: 2289
Joined: Sun Dec 07, 2008 6:51 pm

Re: UC Irvine Law- Class of 2013 numbers revealed...

Postby General Tso » Tue May 04, 2010 9:29 pm

ViP wrote:
General Tso wrote:nobody give a rat ass


1) You're wrong, considering how much this question is debated on TLS.

2) Is there any good reason for you to be so rude?


just trying to reclaim my trademark...I was almost banned for it yet the mods praise Godspeed for the same catchphrase

User avatar
Tangerine Gleam
Posts: 1349
Joined: Wed Jul 01, 2009 4:50 pm

Re: UC Irvine Law- Class of 2013 numbers revealed...

Postby Tangerine Gleam » Tue May 04, 2010 9:33 pm

Well good for them. I was expecting a dip now that people are getting half-rides instead of full scholarships. Next year, however...

270910
Posts: 2437
Joined: Thu May 21, 2009 9:51 pm

Re: UC Irvine Law- Class of 2013 numbers revealed...

Postby 270910 » Tue May 04, 2010 9:44 pm

The widening gap suggests they may have needed to rely more heavily on splitters this go around

User avatar
A'nold
Posts: 3622
Joined: Sat Oct 04, 2008 9:07 pm

Re: UC Irvine Law- Class of 2013 numbers revealed...

Postby A'nold » Tue May 04, 2010 9:50 pm

.

User avatar
malfurion
Posts: 159
Joined: Sat Mar 06, 2010 5:40 pm

Re: UC Irvine Law- Class of 2013 numbers revealed...

Postby malfurion » Tue May 04, 2010 9:57 pm

Good news to hear. I'm not sure why some people seem to want the school to fail when it has no effect on them (unless they go to Chapman perhaps). Have they given any hints about whether the third class (2014) will all be getting some sort of scholarships? Also will the class size continue to increase at the same rate (to around 120 next year)?

270910
Posts: 2437
Joined: Thu May 21, 2009 9:51 pm

Re: UC Irvine Law- Class of 2013 numbers revealed...

Postby 270910 » Tue May 04, 2010 9:58 pm

malfurion wrote:Good news to hear. I'm not sure why some people seem to want the school to fail when it has no effect on them. Have they given any hints about whether the third class (2014) will all be getting some sort of scholarships? Also will the class size continue to increase at the same rate (to around 120 next year)?


There is a difference between 'I want UCI to fail' and 'Oh my God, 50,000 students start law school every year for just over 30,000 jobs, won't somebody please think of the CHILDREN?~!'

User avatar
pany1985
Posts: 389
Joined: Wed Jan 28, 2009 9:08 am

Re: UC Irvine Law- Class of 2013 numbers revealed...

Postby pany1985 » Tue May 04, 2010 10:00 pm

malfurion wrote:Good news to hear. I'm not sure why some people seem to want the school to fail when it has no effect on them (unless they go to Chapman perhaps). Have they given any hints about whether the third class (2014) will all be getting some sort of scholarships? Also will the class size continue to increase at the same rate (to around 120 next year)?


The goal is to still provide some sort of across-the-board scholarship for next year's class. Probably quarter-tuition? Not really sure.

After that I think it'll be a system pretty much like anywhere else, with the top students getting dump trucks full of money and the ones who get in below the medians getting little to none.

I have it on good authority that UCI will still have a lot of money in the long term for those merit scholarships.

User avatar
malfurion
Posts: 159
Joined: Sat Mar 06, 2010 5:40 pm

Re: UC Irvine Law- Class of 2013 numbers revealed...

Postby malfurion » Tue May 04, 2010 10:03 pm

disco_barred wrote:There is a difference between 'I want UCI to fail' and 'Oh my God, 50,000 students start law school every year for just over 30,000 jobs, won't somebody please think of the CHILDREN?~!'


There's a difference between purple and zebras too, and that's about as relevant. :P Whether 93 students are going to UCI or would've gone to some other law school instead doesn't really have an effect one way or the other on how fucked up the legal employment situation is. The only people that are actively hurt by UCI being a success are students at Chapman and other low-ranked SoCal schools who now have to deal with tougher competition in the area.
Last edited by malfurion on Tue May 04, 2010 10:03 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
A'nold
Posts: 3622
Joined: Sat Oct 04, 2008 9:07 pm

Re: UC Irvine Law- Class of 2013 numbers revealed...

Postby A'nold » Tue May 04, 2010 10:03 pm

Do they have to bring it up to a certain size? It seems like they could absolutely crush it in the rankings if they kept each 1L class to like 100 students.

ViP
Posts: 419
Joined: Tue Oct 13, 2009 11:53 pm

Re: UC Irvine Law- Class of 2013 numbers revealed...

Postby ViP » Tue May 04, 2010 10:03 pm

disco_barred wrote:The widening gap suggests they may have needed to rely more heavily on splitters this go around


Possibly, but I think another explanation is simply the larger size of the class (the 2nd class is 50% larger than the 1st class). Hard to substantiate, but seems plausible. The 60-member inaugural class just seems too small to expect a wide range of numbers.

I'm most impressed by the yield rate, to be honest. I believe Harvard and Yale are the only schools with a yield stronger than 53% (Stanford is 43%, Columbia is 35% according to LSN).

Half-tuition is nice, but this is more than money at play.

270910
Posts: 2437
Joined: Thu May 21, 2009 9:51 pm

Re: UC Irvine Law- Class of 2013 numbers revealed...

Postby 270910 » Tue May 04, 2010 10:04 pm

malfurion wrote:
disco_barred wrote:There is a difference between 'I want UCI to fail' and 'Oh my God, 50,000 students start law school every year for just over 30,000 jobs, won't somebody please think of the CHILDREN?~!'


There's a difference between purple and zebras too, and that's about as relevant. :P Whether 93 students are going to UCI or would've gone to some other law school instead doesn't really have an effect one way or the other on how fucked up the legal employment situation is. The only people that are actively hurt by UCI being a success are students at Chapman and other low-ranked SoCal schools.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons

a/k/a Thanks, UC Irvine: You're Helping

HTH

ViP
Posts: 419
Joined: Tue Oct 13, 2009 11:53 pm

Re: UC Irvine Law- Class of 2013 numbers revealed...

Postby ViP » Tue May 04, 2010 10:04 pm

A'nold wrote:Do they have to bring it up to a certain size? It seems like they could absolutely crush it in the rankings if they kept each 1L class to like 100 students.


The eventual goal is 200 students per class.

User avatar
malfurion
Posts: 159
Joined: Sat Mar 06, 2010 5:40 pm

Re: UC Irvine Law- Class of 2013 numbers revealed...

Postby malfurion » Tue May 04, 2010 10:11 pm

disco_barred wrote:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons

a/k/a Thanks, UC Irvine: You're Helping

HTH


Well, yeah, if we were arguing over whether UCI should have opened the law school in the first place, then I could see that. But given that it has opened, I don't see how the caliber of students that attend could have either a positive or negative effect on the overall legal employment problem. The people at UCI would be going to some other roughly equivalent law school if UCI wasn't there. If UCI had shittier students instead, that wouldn't help solve the problem, would it?

270910
Posts: 2437
Joined: Thu May 21, 2009 9:51 pm

Re: UC Irvine Law- Class of 2013 numbers revealed...

Postby 270910 » Tue May 04, 2010 10:16 pm

malfurion wrote:
disco_barred wrote:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons

a/k/a Thanks, UC Irvine: You're Helping

HTH


Well, yeah, if we were arguing over whether UCI should have opened the law school in the first place, then I could see that. But given that it has opened, I don't see how the caliber of students that attend could have either a positive or negative effect on the overall legal employment problem. The people at UCI would be going to some other roughly equivalent law school if UCI wasn't there. If UCI had shittier students instead, that wouldn't help solve the problem, would it?


X = # of seats at law schools

Y = # of jobs available to graduates

Y is dropping like a rock. Several schools on their own are increasing X. UCI is making it harder for you, me, and everyone else to get a legal job. It's a horrible death spiral, and you can't just write it off as "LOOOL ONE SCHOOL NO BIG DEAL." For the majority of law school graduates, the experience was already basically a horrible pyramid scam.

The flip side of the coin is that they're blooming into the shit storm, and firms might favor their connections. I have no doubt UCI will network many people into sweet gigs, especially in the first class(es), but my objective assessment is that when legal employers are cutting back they will be reluctant to go to the new guy.

User avatar
Blindmelon
Posts: 1708
Joined: Thu Mar 26, 2009 11:13 am

Re: UC Irvine Law- Class of 2013 numbers revealed...

Postby Blindmelon » Tue May 04, 2010 10:20 pm

malfurion wrote:
disco_barred wrote:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons

a/k/a Thanks, UC Irvine: You're Helping

HTH


Well, yeah, if we were arguing over whether UCI should have opened the law school in the first place, then I could see that. But given that it has opened, I don't see how the caliber of students that attend could have either a positive or negative effect on the overall legal employment problem. The people at UCI would be going to some other roughly equivalent law school if UCI wasn't there. If UCI had shittier students instead, that wouldn't help solve the problem, would it?


Pretty much. UCI + the new UMass Law + others sure to come = less jobs to go around and more needless competition. The ABA needs to crack down on this - the legal job market is in tatters yet schools continue to open promising great jobs. 1 job going to a new school means 1 less to an established school.

awesomepossum
Posts: 928
Joined: Wed May 02, 2007 12:49 am

Re: UC Irvine Law- Class of 2013 numbers revealed...

Postby awesomepossum » Tue May 04, 2010 10:23 pm

Interesting. Those numbers are much worse than I would have thought...especially the low end LSAT numbers.

ViP
Posts: 419
Joined: Tue Oct 13, 2009 11:53 pm

Re: UC Irvine Law- Class of 2013 numbers revealed...

Postby ViP » Wed May 05, 2010 12:09 am

Blindmelon wrote:
malfurion wrote:
disco_barred wrote:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons

a/k/a Thanks, UC Irvine: You're Helping

HTH


Well, yeah, if we were arguing over whether UCI should have opened the law school in the first place, then I could see that. But given that it has opened, I don't see how the caliber of students that attend could have either a positive or negative effect on the overall legal employment problem. The people at UCI would be going to some other roughly equivalent law school if UCI wasn't there. If UCI had shittier students instead, that wouldn't help solve the problem, would it?


Pretty much. UCI + the new UMass Law + others sure to come = less jobs to go around and more needless competition. The ABA needs to crack down on this - the legal job market is in tatters yet schools continue to open promising great jobs. 1 job going to a new school means 1 less to an established school.


Not necessarily (at least in terms of UCI).

As I recently explained in another thread, the general argument against new schools is that they're of garbage quality and they virtually allow any "aspiring lawyer" to enter their doors and submissively write a fat check that all but guarantees a future of fat debt. The point is to disallow the ABA and law schools from immorally baiting weak applicants with the false hope that they will become great lawyers and make tons of money (which also leads to a flood of new lawyers in the market).

UCI is not your typical "new school." As a new school, it's of unprecedented quality. Unlike new schools that are truly crap, UCI attracts students that would otherwise attend other top schools. They're not contributing to the flood of lawyers that critics reference when attacking new schools. The aspiring lawyers that attend UCI Law would've been aspiring lawyers at other T20 schools if they declined UCI's offer.

There are surely some arguments to be made against the creation of UCI law, but the "flooding the market" case doesn't ring true.

270910
Posts: 2437
Joined: Thu May 21, 2009 9:51 pm

Re: UC Irvine Law- Class of 2013 numbers revealed...

Postby 270910 » Wed May 05, 2010 12:18 am

ViP wrote:
Blindmelon wrote:
malfurion wrote:
disco_barred wrote:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons

a/k/a Thanks, UC Irvine: You're Helping

HTH


Well, yeah, if we were arguing over whether UCI should have opened the law school in the first place, then I could see that. But given that it has opened, I don't see how the caliber of students that attend could have either a positive or negative effect on the overall legal employment problem. The people at UCI would be going to some other roughly equivalent law school if UCI wasn't there. If UCI had shittier students instead, that wouldn't help solve the problem, would it?


Pretty much. UCI + the new UMass Law + others sure to come = less jobs to go around and more needless competition. The ABA needs to crack down on this - the legal job market is in tatters yet schools continue to open promising great jobs. 1 job going to a new school means 1 less to an established school.


Not necessarily (at least in terms of UCI).

As I recently explained in another thread, the general argument against new schools is that they're of garbage quality and they virtually allow any "aspiring lawyer" to enter their doors and submissively write a fat check that all but guarantees a future of fat debt. The point is to disallow the ABA and law schools from immorally baiting weak applicants with the false hope that they will become great lawyers and make tons of money (which also leads to a flood of new lawyers in the market).

UCI is not your typical "new school." As a new school, it's of unprecedented quality. Unlike new schools that are truly crap, UCI attracts students that would otherwise attend other top schools. They're not contributing to the flood of lawyers that critics reference when attacking new schools. The aspiring lawyers that attend UCI Law would've been aspiring lawyers at other T20 schools if they declined UCI's offer.

There are surely some arguments to be made against the creation of UCI law, but the "flooding the market" case doesn't ring true.


This is so simple it hurts to explain it.

Back in the day, there were 25* schools in the top 25. Not all of the students could get jobs.

Now there are 26** schools in the top 25. THERE ARE NO MORE JOBS FOR THEM. There may even be fewer. Everyone loses.

Our argument isn't that UCI was going to send its grads straight to debtor's prison. Our argument is that there are now more students competing for a limited and diminishing resource.

Every year, you see ~100K LSAT tests, ~50K law students, and ~45K law graduates. Shifting the number of students up is brutal wherever it happens on the spectrum, since a good year will see ~5K 6 figure paying jobs and <<<<< 45K legal sector jobs.

*Picked a random number. Substitute '25' for 'good' if you'd like.

**See above

09042014
Posts: 18282
Joined: Wed Oct 14, 2009 10:47 pm

Re: UC Irvine Law- Class of 2013 numbers revealed...

Postby 09042014 » Wed May 05, 2010 12:21 am

2013 cycle hasn't even finished yet?

Danteshek
Posts: 2172
Joined: Wed Dec 10, 2008 4:40 pm

Re: UC Irvine Law- Class of 2013 numbers revealed...

Postby Danteshek » Wed May 05, 2010 12:25 am

I think the reason some people want to see UCI fail is simple.
















Hubris




Return to “Law School Admissions Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 7 guests