cusenation wrote: 99.9luft wrote: sportsaholic763 wrote:
Another positive, with the obvious caveat that this will never hold up, sadly.
what makes you so sure? If they raise and maintain the medians to those of the inaugural class, i can totally see them having a ~20% placement rate.
Not trying to a flame war regarding UCI's legitimacy...but i don't think LSAT medians are how firms determine which grads to hire... Eventually the market will will reach a natural saturation point for UCI grads (as it does with every school). At that point it won't matter how many favors Cheriminsky or other faculty call in. UCI placement will be at the mercy of the market (again, like every other school).
Obviously no one has any idea if UCI's placement will maintain at 20%-ish. But it is clear that placement for that first class was boosted by hardcore gunning by the faculty and tiny class size. 13 out of 56 is impressive only when it's expressed as a percentage. 13 grads is a pretty low number. I'm pretty sure even the current 3L class is bigger than 56..and class sizes will just bigger. Unless market demand for Irvine students shoots up at a faster rate than class increases, expect that placement percentage to drop
you def. make valid points, but let me add/clarify smth. First of all we don't know how many of the 56 wanted biglaw to begin with and, yes, i agree, it is not a representative sample, given that the next class will be 130, with the eventual goal of being about 200.
Of course higher medians don't get you a higher biglaw placement rate directly. However, higher medians demonstrate a higher likelihood of academic success (grades, clerking, etc.), thereby, indirectly increasing the chances of these students to do well at OCI. So, higher medians do matter. For example, in several years, i can potentially see an LA firm taking a UCI student for an SA position with a 3.7 over a UCLA kid with a 3.5. Given how much personal attention the faculty gives to UCI students, maybe there will be more 3.7s thanks to that, as opposed to the less personal enormous 1L sections at UCLA (obv. speculating)
A current UCI student (chase, i think) posted ITT that another UCI class had around 80 students, out of which 30-40 partook in the OCI. So out of those 30-40, 14 got SA positions, which is not bad and even got to penetrate the Bay Area market.
As far as the future trend, obviously none of us know what will happen, but I don't like the determinism that it will be certain that the 23% placement will be unsustainable. Many things can happen - UCI can get a kick-ass top 25 ranking in the first year, thereby, causing CA-wide firms to take notice and come to UCI's OCI IN DROVES (lol just kidding). Your market saturation point is valid, but, again, that's given how small the O.C. market is and that UCI hasn't really expanded itself all over CA. There is little reason to believe that UCI is incapable of consistently breaking (and staying) in SF/SV, for example. SD will be even an easier conquest.
So again, your market saturation point is also right given next year's 130 people class (let's say out of which 65 people decide to do OCI and 20 people get SA positions, which would not be not bad and would be less as a % striking out than at other, higher-ranked schools with big classes). Yet, this doesn't take into account the market expansion into other CA areas, the soon-to-be-published-rankings, and also the links to clerkships already held by UCI students (so it's not all Chem's favors, there will be a gradual positive reputation factor kicking in after a while when judges start remembering UCI kids - assuming they weren't awful, haha).
All in all, yes, i do see that 23% dropping in the next several years, but I believe it will go up again sonner than expected, due to the factors i outlined above.