UCI Ranking prediction Forum

[Dr. Dre]

FWIW, Cali probably didn't need another law school. But I'm from the east so i have no grasp on how big of a market OC is, maybe it's large and in need of lawyers.. But the reality is, for now, they have good job placement (yes i know it's partly cuz their class size was tiny), their medians seem decent, and their faculty is nothing to scoff at. I have no idea on what UCI's actual value is/will be but as far as their first ranking...i don't really see how they won't be T1. I think we can expect them to throw a shit-ton of money to applicants with T20/30 numbers next cycle since they'll be the ones who determine the inaugural rank.

[hamsterdam]

not really relevant but... does UC davis really have a higher peer ranking than USC or BC? also, to try to understand this a little more... are you saying it will fall in the rankings somewhere between 20-29?

edit: wait now i am confused, your data sheet says they don't but your post says they do ._.

UC Davis has a peer ranking of 3.4. USC's is 3.6, BC's is 3.3, and GW's is 3.4. I predicted UCI being rated 3.0. I divided these numbers by 5 (the max score) to get a percentage.

I didn't go so far as to determine exactly where UCI would be ranked because this would require putting in every school from 15-35 or so, which would take a lot of time. But my calculations show UCI being ranked slightly below GW, but above BC and UC Davis. I know my calculations are very basic compared to what US News probably does (which is secret), but my results seem to mirror what US News produced (USC slightly ahead of GW, GW ahead of BC, and BC ahead of Davis) so I think they might be at least somewhat accurate. I should also note that I didn't add per-student expenditures, which count for a significant amount of the score, because I couldn't find that info anywhere.

I posted this because I thought it could be useful for prospective students like myself, who are trying to gauge where UCI might be ranked. Not saying that posting "UCI sucks. don't go there" 50 times a day isn't super constructive and informative, I just thought this might add a quantitative element to the discussion.

[Dmini7]

not really relevant but... does UC davis really have a higher peer ranking than USC or BC? also, to try to understand this a little more... are you saying it will fall in the rankings somewhere between 20-29?

edit: wait now i am confused, your data sheet says they don't but your post says they do ._.

UC Davis has a peer ranking of 3.4. USC's is 3.6, BC's is 3.3, and GW's is 3.4. I predicted UCI being rated 3.0. I divided these numbers by 5 (the max score) to get a percentage.

I didn't go so far as to determine exactly where UCI would be ranked because this would require putting in every school from 15-35 or so, which would take a lot of time. But my calculations show UCI being ranked slightly below GW, but above BC and UC Davis. I know my calculations are very basic compared to what US News probably does (which is secret), but my results seem to mirror what US News produced (USC slightly ahead of GW, GW ahead of BC, and BC ahead of Davis) so I think they might be at least somewhat accurate. I should also note that I didn't add per-student expenditures, which count for a significant amount of the score, because I couldn't find that info anywhere.

I posted this because I thought it could be useful for prospective students like myself, who are trying to gauge where UCI might be ranked. Not saying that posting "UCI sucks. don't go there" 50 times a day isn't super constructive and informative, I just thought this might add a quantitative element to the discussion.

I agree, and I thank you for posting this. I thought it was pretty informative and did have actually provide support rather than say its TTTT. I think it should give a jumping off point for discussion. So thank you.

[06102016]

..

[TheNextAmendment]

I will mirror what everyone else has been saying: it's much easier to get jobs for 50 kids from a new school with professors that haven't exhausted their connections yet.

[Ruxin1]

They have placement numbers and applicant stats to be T30. They'll suffer in their reputation ranking because people don't know them. Then again, a number of people I know who graduated from top schools (a little older than most of the people on here) who ask if I applied to UCI and then go on to talk about what an exciting program it is, how great it is that Erwin Chemerinsky is the Dean, etc. etc.

It'll be a fine school. It won't compete with USC or UCLA, at least in the immediate future, but it might be able to carve out an interesting niche for itself by being the best school in Orange County and having a small enough class size that even that market should be manageable for it. I also think they'll have strong placement into government and public interest based on the faculty they've brought in.

I just really hope they stick to the tiny class size and maybe other schools will follow suit.

[pluto111]

UCI's faculty are not new to the profession, just new to the school, so I don't think there's a legitimate worry that they'll "exhaust their connections." The worry that the percentages won't stay the same is certainly fair, but even if the number of kids getting federal clerkships stays the same and the class size goes up to the anticipated 120, that's still a 13.3% clerkship rate, which is better than most (any?) schools outside of the t14

[062914123]

.

[Dr. Dre]

^ that


it surprises me that some people on TLS actually laude UCI law.

[062914123]

.

[Dr. Dre]

actually it's the other way around.

People from california regard the UC's as equivalent to ivies.


People from the midwest & east coast don't give a shit about the UC's

[jbagelboy]

this.

and UCI, as a whole institution, is not THAT prestigious at all, even in OC. Its med school is OK, its sciences/humanities are OK, PhD programs are MEDIOCRE, and the only thing going for it is the criminal justice/criminology program. And everyone on TLS knows criminology/criminal justice is a JOKE.

IDK why some people treat it as if it was Princeton creating a new law school.

i grew up in socal and know dozens of people who go to uci at the undergrad and grad level. uci is, at best, mediocre. at worst, it's TTT. it engenders 0 respect and is pretty much the dumping ground for people who couldn't get into ucla. the law school may be hyped up right now, but it will eventually settle back down amongst its siblings.

plus, the oc legal market is a joke and it's hard enough to get a job in l.a. coming out at the top of ucla/usc.

In general, these sentiments are credited.

However, the caliber of UCI students has increased over the past 10 years. it has some variety; superbly wealthy korean kids from irvine & newport, lower income vietnamese/latino students commuting from GG/fullerton/ect., and above-average white kids students who missed top 10% of their class in high schools from around southern california. Remember, getting into UCLA or Cal undergrad is a rigorous affair, so some of the "dumping ground" is actually pretty decent.

Lastly, what UCI lacks in student body is made up in part by amazing faculty. many of their departments have leading academics in their field because QOL is fucking unbeatable in irvine/newport. Étienne Balibar, arguably the leading french/francophone philosopher and political theorist of the late 20th century, taught at UCI for many years.

[Dr. Dre]

Étienne Balibar, arguably the leading french/francophone philosopher and political theorist of the late 20th century, taught at UCI for many years.

no one cares

[jbagelboy]

Étienne Balibar, arguably the leading french/francophone philosopher and political theorist of the late 20th century, taught at UCI for many years.

no one cares

actually, a lot of academics do care. say what you want about UCI Law -- and I largely agree with you there, actually -- but you were speaking to UCI's undergraduate and Ph.D departments, which you have demonstrated you know very little about other than a few disparate, anecdotal stereotypes that have been relayed to you by someone else.

[062914123]

.

[Dr. Dre]

Who cares if they have him.


The PhD philosophy department at UCI is only OK

[guano]

They have placement numbers and applicant stats to be T30. They'll suffer in their reputation ranking because people don't know them. Then again, a number of people I know who graduated from top schools (a little older than most of the people on here) who ask if I applied to UCI and then go on to talk about what an exciting program it is, how great it is that Erwin Chemerinsky is the Dean, etc. etc.

It'll be a fine school. It won't compete with USC or UCLA, at least in the immediate future, but it might be able to carve out an interesting niche for itself by being the best school in Orange County and having a small enough class size that even that market should be manageable for it. I also think they'll have strong placement into government and public interest based on the faculty they've brought in.

They won't suffer at all in the reputation rankings, which is indubitably the single worst part of the rankings.

Just to elaborate, other academics are asked their opinions of schools. Non-responses do not get factored into the score, so if only 5 people give UCI a score, but they all give it top marks, the school's reputation score (for rankings purposes) will be through the roof



As for UCI being elite, no, it isn't. Having some obscure philosopher no one ever heard of on your faculty doesn't change that

[jbagelboy]

at the risk of turning this into an off topic circlejerk:

i did my degree in philosophy at a school in california that is remarkably more prestigious in the field than uci, and have always thought/been taught that balibar is an unremarkable marxist. not to mention that, well, he's a political theorist.

You realize this is a very pretentious attitude for an undergraduate to take, right? basically pretentious enough to discredit you? Most elite academic lit departments today are heavily marxist anyway, so I'm not sure if that was intended as a slur or a generalization, but it would fail as a dismissive categorization on both counts. You might have had a particularly reactionary faculty adviser, and of course, as you note students will gather almost all their ideas from their closest professors who all have politically motivated opinions in academia. Suffice to say, that is far from a commonly held view.

[jbagelboy]

As for UCI being elite, no, it isn't. Having some obscure philosopher no one ever heard of on your faculty doesn't change that

I'm not saying UCI is elite. its a mid-tier public school. clearly, its not "elite", but it has strong faculty for said mid-tier school.

And the fact that you and the peers you compare yourself to ("no one has ever heard of") don't recognize names of important scholars points to your own ignorance more than anyone elses. talk to any prof in french/european studies for reference

[guano]

As for UCI being elite, no, it isn't. Having some obscure philosopher no one ever heard of on your faculty doesn't change that

I'm not saying UCI is elite. its a mid-tier public school. clearly, its not "elite", but it has strong faculty for said mid-tier school.

And the fact that you and the peers you compare yourself to ("no one has ever heard of") don't recognize names of important scholars points to your own ignorance more than anyone elses. talk to any prof in french/european studies for reference

Balibar is an expert in Marxism. That makes him somewhat irrelevant.
That being said, even if he were the greatest person in his field, and taught exclusively at one school, that doesn't make said school great, it just means they got one great professor, no more

[062914123]

.

[Dr. Dre]

wow this thread has moved rapidly off-topic. Anyways, I will just like to summarize the main points:


1. UCI law school sucks, so people should not go there
2. UCI overall is not a prestigious institution
3. Having one "known" faculty member at your school means shit

[guano]

wow this thread has moved rapidly off-topic. Anyways, I will just like to summarize the main points:


1. UCI law school sucks, so people should not go there
2. UCI overall is not a prestigious institution
3. Having one "known" faculty member at your school means shit

Great 1000th post

[jbagelboy]

at the risk of turning this into an off topic circlejerk:

i did my degree in philosophy at a school in california that is remarkably more prestigious in the field than uci, and have always thought/been taught that balibar is an unremarkable marxist. not to mention that, well, he's a political theorist.

You realize this is a very pretentious attitude for an undergraduate to take, right? basically pretentious enough to discredit you? Most elite academic lit departments today are heavily marxist anyway, so I'm not sure if that was intended as a slur or a generalization, but it would fail as a dismissive categorization on both counts. You might have had a particularly reactionary faculty adviser, and of course, as you note students will gather almost all their ideas from their closest professors who all have politically motivated opinions in academia. Suffice to say, that is far from a commonly held view.

it may very well be pretentious, but that's the impression i came away with. you rightly point out that i don't have a phd, so maybe i'm just too pleb for this discussion, but you brought up balibar in an attempt to prove uci's "prestige." my point is that, well, uci ain't that prestigious.

even IF balibar was a philosophical demigod, one good professor doesn't make a good department.

As for UCI being elite, no, it isn't. Having some obscure philosopher no one ever heard of on your faculty doesn't change that

I'm not saying UCI is elite. its a mid-tier public school. clearly, its not "elite", but it has strong faculty for said mid-tier school.

And the fact that you and the peers you compare yourself to ("no one has ever heard of") don't recognize names of important scholars points to your own ignorance more than anyone elses. talk to any prof in french/european studies for reference

looking down on people for not having heard of an obscure scholar in an obscure field? that's not pretentious at all.

Come on, you used a comparison in lay prestige between your undergrad and UCI to justify a slant to a world renowned prof. Im sure you're smart -- Even for the internet, you know thats low. And this is coming from a top 5 private college UG here plenty used to intellectually overentitled undergrads.

Cultural Marxism irrelevant? Where are my crit theorists at? Jesus. Clearly too many finance majors on tls

Dre, i agree with you on broad strokes. I was trying to point out other characteristics of irvine as a university. And btw irvine has good faculty everywhere, never claimed 1 known scholar made a university

[gitguy]

wow this thread has moved rapidly off-topic. Anyways, I will just like to summarize the main points:


1. UCI law school sucks, so people should not go there
2. UCI overall is not a prestigious institution
3. Having one "known" faculty member at your school means shit

F. Sherwood Roland. Essentially laid the theory for depletion of the ozone layer while at UCI. One of three nobel laureates from UCI. Since you guys put so much stock in US News to begin with, it is important to note that they rank UCI as #44 out of over 600 undergrad schools (7,000 higher education institutions overall) in the U.S. I don't think that indicates mid-tier status.

Edit