UC Irvine 2013 Forum

[jayare]

There are few things I took away from the day:
1. The faculty is top notch (and students have unparalleled access to them).
2. The students are smart and genuinely nice people who I'd like to be around.
3. The school will be working tirelessly to place students in desirably externships, clerkships and jobs upon graduation since the success of the first few classes will set the pace for the school. I would go as far as saying that job prospects may be better than peer schools due to this.
4. There is a unique sense of community and pioneering spirit that is palpable. I'm sure this exists elsewhere, but after today I feel ready to jump right in and take part in what could be the birth of an exceptional law school and community.
5. The newness factor, although a bit scary, may be much more positive then negative.

At this point I am trying to come up with scenarios in which I won't attend Irvine but Im having trouble.

To play devil's advocate:
1, 2, and 4 have nothing to do with getting jobs, which ought to be the primary consideration for law school.
3) I'm not sure which schools you consider to be their peers (T14? T25? T50?), but every school has experienced career services offices that work tirelessly as well. The bottom line is that good law schools will place well if the economy is doing well, not because of their CSO's efforts.
5) Given that law school placement is almost entirely based on reputation, being a new school is usually a huge negative. If UCI debuts in the T50 as its first ranking, it will be the first school to do so.

#1 may actually have something to do with getting jobs. These faculty are, from what I understand, people who are well established in legal academia and undoubtedly have valuable connections at their previous institutions. Students who want to pursue teaching careers in law might be at an advantage with access to such faculty, no?

I also wouldn't be inclined to think that these professors have been living in a professional vacuum their entire working lives, and thus *might* be willing to help students find jobs through personal connections at law firms, in courts, etc.

Your point no. 5 is well taken, but I just can't help but think that the fact it's a UC brings advantages a private start-up wouldn't have. California has no problem spending itself into oblivion, and if it's going to do so for the sake of UCI then I wouldn't count debuting in the top 50 out.

Incidentally they should change the name to UCNB (Newport Beach), and tap into all that snobby 949 USC-obsessed donor money. Just putting that out there, haha.

[ucilawzot!]

Yes, she does.

for what purpose?

I would assume part if it is natural curiosity. Unless you do something obviously rude or inappropriate (and assuming she can identify you, which is a pretty big "if") I don't think it impacts your admissions prospects -- was this what you were hinting at?

I think she just scans the blogs occasionally to see what people are saying about UCI (like I do...)

i was hinting at the opposite. people saying something obviously positive or good (assuming she can identify us) and how that would impact admissions prospects.

but yea i can definitely understand the natural curiosity to check out the forums and blogs to see people's impressions about UCI Law.

Well... ultimately she doesn't have all the control in admissions. She does a first cut and then faculty review the applications and make selections (I think). I'm sure she'd like to be able to identify those students who would make great admits and who genuinely want to come here, but again, she would have to identify you and you would have to make it through her cut and the admissions committee...

[finalaspects]

Well... ultimately she doesn't have all the control in admissions. She does a first cut and then faculty review the applications and make selections (I think). I'm sure she'd like to be able to identify those students who would make great admits and who genuinely want to come here, but again, she would have to identify you and you would have to make it through her cut and the admissions committee...

very true. then again the chances are that majority of the people who regularly post in this thread genuinely wish to attend UCI Law.

[ViP]

Your points are noted. Thanks for the input.
Although I am going to law school to get a job upon graduation, 1, 2 and 4 will play a part in my decision. i'd like to enjoy my next three years.
3) I guess I would look at schools 30-40 as there peers to be cautious. But my point is that UCI has an incredible incentive to ensure that their students secure employment (not that others don't). And I get the sense that if UCI students struggle to get the jobs they want, it will be as you say, due to the economy, as it would be elsewhere.
4) I would agree on reputation playing a huge role, but it seems to me (and others in the legal profession I've spoken with) that UCI has a significant reputation already, due in large part to being a part of the UC system and having such a highly regarded faculty with Cherminsky at the helm.

Call me crazy, but UCI still seems like a nice option.

Definitely.

I think one of my strongest incentives to attend UCI is that you know you'll be surrounded by intelligent, interesting students. It takes a certain type of person to accept an offer from UCI.

You have to be somewhat of a risk-taker. You have to be genuinely exciting by the prospect of building a new law school and being one of the school's first graduates and representatives. You have to prefer the privilege of joining an exciting place like Irvine to the prestige of attending a law school powerhouse (particularly by US News standards). You have to accept the reality that you'll experience a very unconventional law-school experience (3:1/4:1 student-to-faculty ratio... yeah...).

Everyone always talks about the miserable experience that is law school. Impersonal, routine, cutthroat. Maybe I'm wrong, but I feel like Irvine inevitably offers a very different law school experience.

[ucilawzot!]

Your points are noted. Thanks for the input.
Although I am going to law school to get a job upon graduation, 1, 2 and 4 will play a part in my decision. i'd like to enjoy my next three years.
3) I guess I would look at schools 30-40 as there peers to be cautious. But my point is that UCI has an incredible incentive to ensure that their students secure employment (not that others don't). And I get the sense that if UCI students struggle to get the jobs they want, it will be as you say, due to the economy, as it would be elsewhere.
4) I would agree on reputation playing a huge role, but it seems to me (and others in the legal profession I've spoken with) that UCI has a significant reputation already, due in large part to being a part of the UC system and having such a highly regarded faculty with Cherminsky at the helm.

Call me crazy, but UCI still seems like a nice option.

Definitely.

I think one of my strongest incentives to attend UCI is that you know you'll be surrounded by intelligent, interesting students. It takes a certain type of person to accept an offer from UCI.

You have to be somewhat of a risk-taker. You have to be genuinely exciting by the prospect of building a new law school and being one of the school's first graduates and representatives. You have to prefer the privilege of joining an exciting place like Irvine to the prestige of attending a law school powerhouse (particularly by US News standards). You have to accept the reality that you'll experience a very unconventional law-school experience (3:1/4:1 student-to-faculty ratio... yeah...).

Everyone always talks about the miserable experience that is law school. Impersonal, routine, cutthroat. Maybe I'm wrong, but I feel like Irvine inevitably offers a very different law school experience.

You're not wrong! Most of us love it here. I know a few students who dislike law school, but I think they would dislike it wherever they were. There are hard days and certainly finals are rough, but overall, this is a great environment and my classmates and professors are amazing. I thought I would hate law school, but (as you can probably tell from my postings) I actually really like it!

Ok, time to get back to cases...

[ViP]

To play devil's advocate:
1, 2, and 4 have nothing to do with getting jobs, which ought to be the primary consideration for law school.
3) I'm not sure which schools you consider to be their peers (T14? T25? T50?), but every school has experienced career services offices that work tirelessly as well. The bottom line is that good law schools will place well if the economy is doing well, not because of their CSO's efforts.
5) Given that law school placement is almost entirely based on reputation, being a new school is usually a huge negative. If UCI debuts in the T50 as its first ranking, it will be the first school to do so.

But surely Irvine is the first new school to offer such a ridiculous package off the bat, no? I'd be shocked to find another school that opened its doors with anywhere NEAR the faculty, student quality, and student-to-faculty ratio that Irvine offers.

I wrote the following in another thread a few days ago (with regard to US News rankings):

I should note that US News' "quality assessment" has a "don't know enough to answer" option, which surely pertains to UC Irvine. Such an answer has no impact on ranking, positive or negative.

No lawyers or judges are going to give low grades to Irvine, because there is no basis on which to grade. Same goes for law school deans and faculty (what's known as "peer assessment").

Law school deans and faculty will, however, have a lot of positive things to say about UC Irvine, simply because they're familiar with the pedigree of Chemerinsky and his faculty.

So I don't see reputation being an issue in terms of US News rankings. Furthermore, with the high entering class numbers, the ridiculous faculty, and a 3:1 student-to-faculty ratio, Irvine should fare quite well with US News.

It also seems unreasonably foolish of someone of Dean Chemerinksy's stature and reputation to make bold claims like "top-20" without some basis. Those in the legal world tend to take Chemerinsky's words seriously, and he wouldn't be doing himself any favors by making an unreasonable prediction of UC Irvine's ranking.

[SandyC877]

To play devil's advocate:
1, 2, and 4 have nothing to do with getting jobs, which ought to be the primary consideration for law school.
3) I'm not sure which schools you consider to be their peers (T14? T25? T50?), but every school has experienced career services offices that work tirelessly as well. The bottom line is that good law schools will place well if the economy is doing well, not because of their CSO's efforts.
5) Given that law school placement is almost entirely based on reputation, being a new school is usually a huge negative. If UCI debuts in the T50 as its first ranking, it will be the first school to do so.

But surely Irvine is the first new school to offer such a ridiculous package off the bat, no? I'd be shocked to find another school that opened its doors with anywhere NEAR the faculty, student quality, and student-to-faculty ratio that Irvine offers.

I wrote the following in another thread a few days ago (with regard to US News rankings):

I should note that US News' "quality assessment" has a "don't know enough to answer" option, which surely pertains to UC Irvine. Such an answer has no impact on ranking, positive or negative.

No lawyers or judges are going to give low grades to Irvine, because there is no basis on which to grade. Same goes for law school deans and faculty (what's known as "peer assessment").

Law school deans and faculty will, however, have a lot of positive things to say about UC Irvine, simply because they're familiar with the pedigree of Chemerinsky and his faculty.

So I don't see reputation being an issue in terms of US News rankings. Furthermore, with the high entering class numbers, the ridiculous faculty, and a 3:1 student-to-faculty ratio, Irvine should fare quite well with US News.

It also seems unreasonably foolish of someone of Dean Chemerinksy's stature and reputation to make bold claims like "top-20" without some basis. Those in the legal world tend to take Chemerinsky's words seriously, and he wouldn't be doing himself any favors by making an unreasonable prediction of UC Irvine's ranking.

Prediction is always a gray area, but because it's Dean Chemerinsky, I'd give him the benefit of the doubt.

[msch0i]

I'm really excited about UCI, and half scholarship is really great, but there is one thing that's been burdening my mind--am I the only one playing the comparison game?

I feel like last year's applicants got FULL scholarships, and this years applicants all get half (is that right?) -- yet both classes will take on the same risks and face the same challenges (that come with a budding school).

Has anyone else weighed this in their minds, or am I just being (really) immature? Because half tuition really is still an fantastically generous scholarship and UCI really promising school...

Sorry for the late reply on an old post, but I dont think anyone has addressed it yet...

I think the 50% scholarships this year, as opposed to the full rides given to last year's class, are justified. After reading through some (of the many) UCI threads started by last year's applicants, there were a lot of speculations as to what the medians were going to be since they had no basis to go on. But this year, we have the advantage of knowing that UCI is going to succeed, from the positive reputation they've built in the last year and from the first class's amazing numbers. Sure the 2nd incoming class will be equally taking risks, but I think this year people are definitely more confident about UCI than they were last year, understandably.

[mbv]

I'm really excited about UCI, and half scholarship is really great, but there is one thing that's been burdening my mind--am I the only one playing the comparison game?

I feel like last year's applicants got FULL scholarships, and this years applicants all get half (is that right?) -- yet both classes will take on the same risks and face the same challenges (that come with a budding school).

Has anyone else weighed this in their minds, or am I just being (really) immature? Because half tuition really is still an fantastically generous scholarship and UCI really promising school...

Sorry for the late reply on an old post, but I dont think anyone has addressed it yet...

I think the 50% scholarships this year, as opposed to the full rides given to last year's class, are justified. After reading through some (of the many) UCI threads started by last year's applicants, there were a lot of speculations as to what the medians were going to be since they had no basis to go on. But this year, we have the advantage of knowing that UCI is going to succeed, from the positive reputation they've built in the last year and from the first class's amazing numbers. Sure the 2nd incoming class will be equally taking risks, but I think this year people are definitely more confident about UCI than they were last year, understandably.

Fair answer, thanks Ms. Choi

Also, upon reflection, it really is an immature way to think anyways, since there's noooo going back in time to 2009. Thanks for the reply.

[1800calturk]

For the sake of playing devil's advocate...

The problem with offering a 50% scholarship is that admits with last year's medians (167/3.6) have a lot of other options, including USC and UCLA. UCI has a lot working for it, and the 100% tuition scholarship last year took away a significant financial risk. But when you take away 50% of that financial incentive, it becomes a lot harder to turn down a risk (any law school carries the risk of cost, time, and effort) with a known reward (employment stats), for a slightly less risk ($50K less) with an unknown reward. Also consider that Chemerinsky says they will debut T20, TLS has it at 30, and some debbie downers are skeptical that UCI will crack the T50. Best case scenario, UCI is still ranked under USC, and the worst case scenario is unthinkable (although unlikely). I'd say it's a safe bet to go with TLS's middle ground of #30 which would still be an amazing feat from what i'm told.

So basically the purely objective $/rankings (and thus employment) question becomes this:
- Would you turn down a T20 school for a T30 school, in the same geographic region, for $54K?

I'm worried that having to spend 3 years and $54K for an unknown payoff will cause the number of students turning down an established T20 in favor of UCI to drop significantly, and thus harm UCI's eventual ranking. So even though the rhetoric right now is "it's for risk takers, go getters", it's hard to see how even the best case payoff is worth it.

I know i'm coming off cold and calculating, and I really am attracted to Irvine for a lot of different reasons. But like when the law schools were looking at me, numbers are weighed more heavily than softs.

[DoctorNick189]

.

[DoctorNick189]

.

[ucilawzot!]

Anyone else entertaining the idea of doing JAG after school? Is this possible coming out of UCI, given that it isn't fully accredited yet?

If you're interested in doing JAG coming out of UCI you should speak to Professor Barnes: --LinkRemoved--

[dontstopbelivin]

Anyone else entertaining the idea of doing JAG after school? Is this possible coming out of UCI, given that it isn't fully accredited yet?

If you're interested in doing JAG coming out of UCI you should speak to Professor Barnes: --LinkRemoved--

Awesome! Definitely good to know that option is closed off. ucilawzot, thanks for making UCI look better with every post Getting more and more excited for ASD...

[soccersmo]

UCI seriously seems amazing... I really hope that UCI thinks I'm amazing too

[1800calturk]

Where does the $54k figure come from?

$36K /yr in-state tuition
50% = $18K/yr
x3 yrs = $54K

[wired]

Where does the $54k figure come from?

$36K /yr in-state tuition
50% = $18K/yr
x3 yrs = $54K

Except in-state tuition for 2010-2011 is going to be $40k.

http://www.reg.uci.edu/fees/2010-2011/law.html

Edit: Realized that tuition is $36k and all other fees are $4k.

[DoctorNick189]

.

[1800calturk]

UC tuition is expected to rise a bit more than that over the next five years, no? Further, I'm sure many of us will not be CA residents for 1L. I would be saving way more than $54k, I believe.

Good point, I was being selfish and addressing it more to myself Yes, for an out-of-state student shooting for a UC, I'm sure the scholarship carries significantly more weight.

I'm just trying to assess my options, and all things equal, the scholarship is not enough to get me to flat out turn down T20. That I am willing to consider UCI over T30 options is a testament to UCI's marketing strategy, but at the end of the day it's still a "T30 w/ $54k vs T20" for me.

Without $, the only reason to go to UCI is if the conditions at UCI are more signifiantly more conducive to your personal academic success than the conditions at the higher ranked school you got into. Since I've never been to law school I don't know what these conditions could be. So I guess if you were a UCI 1L, can you answer if you would have chosen UCI over a T20 without a full scholarship? What advantages does UCI have over a T20, and would you not be as happy with law school if you went somewhere else?

[ucilawzot!]

UC tuition is expected to rise a bit more than that over the next five years, no? Further, I'm sure many of us will not be CA residents for 1L. I would be saving way more than $54k, I believe.

Good point, I was being selfish and addressing it more to myself Yes, for an out-of-state student shooting for a UC, I'm sure the scholarship carries significantly more weight.

I'm just trying to assess my options, and all things equal, the scholarship is not enough to get me to flat out turn down T20. That I am willing to consider UCI over T30 options is a testament to UCI's marketing strategy, but at the end of the day it's still a "T30 w/ $54k vs T20" for me.

Without $, the only reason to go to UCI is if the conditions at UCI are more signifiantly more conducive to your personal academic success than the conditions at the higher ranked school you got into. Since I've never been to law school I don't know what these conditions could be. So I guess if you were a UCI 1L, can you answer if you would have chosen UCI over a T20 without a full scholarship? What advantages does UCI have over a T20, and would you not be as happy with law school if you went somewhere else?

Honestly, the scholarship wasn't the deciding factor for me. I applied because I was excited about building a new institution, and I accepted after I met the other admitted students and realized that these were people I wanted to spend three years with. I didn't find that same connection at other schools I had visited. I also wasn't gunning for a T20 school because I didn't want a big law job. I wanted an education that would place me well in public interest or government in southern California where I would also be happy for three years.

Its kind of hard to reply to UCI's advantages over other T20 schools since I haven't been a 1L anywhere else. But, frankly, I don't think I would be this happy anywhere else. The quality of life here is wonderful. When I applied to law school I didn't envision I would like it. I don't like ruthless competition; or competition just for the sake of competition -- at least not in my learning environment. I was going for the training and so that I could practice when I finished. I love UCI because the culture we are trying to build here is collaborative more than competitive. There is always healthy competition of course, but people aren't here to sabotage you or to try to push you down to get a better grade for themselves. I also find my classmates to be very distinctive people. They have each led interesting past lives that really add to our classroom discussion and make hanging out with them every day a lot of fun. I also like the easy access to the professors and faculty. There is an open-door policy here that is truly open-door. Professors are always accessible and enjoy spending time with students. Finally, this is a school built on entrepreneurial principles and this is certainly part of the student culture. We like to try out different ways of doing things and taking risks. I don't think other more established schools allow students this flexibility.

[RickyMack]

They have each led interesting past lives that really add to our classroom discussion and make hanging out with them every day a lot of fun.

Man I hope my past life is interesting enough to get me admitted. I'm definitely envious of the folks getting those phone calls, 50% scholarship or not I'd go in a heartbeat even if i got a full ride to a T14

[ViP]

I visited UCI today, sat in on a couple classes and met with some current students. I am a recent admit and although I have some decent acceptances already and though I have yet to hear from some attractive schools like USC, Vandy, UCLA and Georgetown, I am pretty impressed and heavily leaning towards Irvine.

After sitting on Dean Cherminsky's conlaw class I managed to chat with him about some of the future plans for the law school facilities, prospective faculty hires and the solid LSAT and GPA median of those admitted so far (both being higher than last year apparently).


......

Really? He actually said that? Apparently last year the administration was pretty hush-hush about revealing too much info about the profile of the entering class at this point in the admissions process.

[ctaylor21]

I visited UCI today, sat in on a couple classes and met with some current students. I am a recent admit and although I have some decent acceptances already and though I have yet to hear from some attractive schools like USC, Vandy, UCLA and Georgetown, I am pretty impressed and heavily leaning towards Irvine.

After sitting on Dean Cherminsky's conlaw class I managed to chat with him about some of the future plans for the law school facilities, prospective faculty hires and the solid LSAT and GPA median of those admitted so far (both being higher than last year apparently).


......

Really? He actually said that? Apparently last year the administration was pretty hush-hush about revealing too much info about the profile of the entering class at this point in the admissions process.

Yes he did. Hope I didn't say too much myself.

[im_blue]

I visited UCI today, sat in on a couple classes and met with some current students. I am a recent admit and although I have some decent acceptances already and though I have yet to hear from some attractive schools like USC, Vandy, UCLA and Georgetown, I am pretty impressed and heavily leaning towards Irvine.

After sitting on Dean Cherminsky's conlaw class I managed to chat with him about some of the future plans for the law school facilities, prospective faculty hires and the solid LSAT and GPA median of those admitted so far (both being higher than last year apparently).


......

Really? He actually said that? Apparently last year the administration was pretty hush-hush about revealing too much info about the profile of the entering class at this point in the admissions process.

The admitted stats don't matter, since it's the enrolled stats that count. It remains to be seen where their medians end up, since they're only giving out half tuition this year. I think they'll still end up being competitive with T20 schools, though.

[1800calturk]

I visited UCI today, sat in on a couple classes and met with some current students. I am a recent admit and although I have some decent acceptances already and though I have yet to hear from some attractive schools like USC, Vandy, UCLA and Georgetown, I am pretty impressed and heavily leaning towards Irvine.

After sitting on Dean Cherminsky's conlaw class I managed to chat with him about some of the future plans for the law school facilities, prospective faculty hires and the solid LSAT and GPA median of those admitted so far (both being higher than last year apparently).


......

Really? He actually said that? Apparently last year the administration was pretty hush-hush about revealing too much info about the profile of the entering class at this point in the admissions process.

The admitted stats don't matter, since it's the enrolled stats that count. It remains to be seen where their medians end up, since they're only giving out half tuition this year. I think they'll still end up being competitive with T20 schools, though.

QFT. Except I think the medians will be lower than last year's.