Avoid uci (UC Irvine) law Forum

[Big Dog]

If you got into UCI, you got into other schools that will give you better options, even if you're dead set on staying in CA.

not sure that there is any factual evidence that Davis, Hastings or Loyola provide "better options". OTOH, a phone call from Dean Chem extolling the virtues of his students has to go a long way to finding positions, particularly clerkships. Plus, all the law firms in OC have committed to hiring UCI grads.

Unless daddy is covering the bill, why in the world would you choose UCI over Davis, Hastings with $$, or Loyola with $$ (all assuming you're not getting into the better ranked CA schools of course)?

IMO, it would have to be big money to attend any of them, but I like UCI over the others at the same price. (Paying sticker is a sucker's bet.)

[BarbellDreams]

because at least orange county is very excited abt uci law, the faults with uci can be basically said abt any new schools, xcept as uci is starting strong unlike other new schools, it will offer its students much better positions than davis, hasting or loyola, especially in socal, the $$ given by these other schools is not enough to offset better education and career opportunities

Speculation at its finest.

Yes, I can say that about any other new school, you're correct at saying that. Now tell me, how many new schools that have opened in the past decade have succeeded? How many that have opened after the 2008 crash have succeeded? My point exactly. It will offer its students much better positions than Davis/Hastings/Loyola? Why? Based on what? Your entire post is speculating, while providing no data or even any logical reasoning outside of "people in socal are very excited about UCI". If you were at UCI's median's for GPA/LSAT you'd be looking at a halfride at minimum at Davis/Hastings/Loyola. Schools with, you know, an established reputation and thousands of alumni around the area. Making blank statements like you have is nice and all, but when they aren't backed up with anything, they are just that, blank statements.

[BarbellDreams]

If you got into UCI, you got into other schools that will give you better options, even if you're dead set on staying in CA.

not sure that there is any factual evidence that Davis, Hastings or Loyola provide "better options". OTOH, a phone call from Dean Chem extolling the virtues of his students has to go a long way to finding positions, particularly clerkships. Plus, all the law firms in OC have committed to hiring UCI grads.

Unless daddy is covering the bill, why in the world would you choose UCI over Davis, Hastings with $$, or Loyola with $$ (all assuming you're not getting into the better ranked CA schools of course)?

IMO, it would have to be big money to attend any of them, but I like UCI over the others at the same price. (Paying sticker is a sucker's bet.)

"Better options" is a mixture of paying less while having the same or better employment statistics. Dean Chem ain't making a personal phone call for each of his students, so we don't even need to discuss that. Law firms saying they are committed to UCI is likewise irrelevant. What are they gonna say, "No, we won't be hiring from that school."? I'd rather take a school where firms have DEMONSTRATED, for decades and decades, that they will take students. It also helps when you have thousands of alumni helping you out, and you can guarantee that ANY firm you apply to will at least have a couple of grads from your school you can sit down and speak with.

As to your second point: I don't think UCI is a bad option if the CoA is the exact same. Here is the problem: There is basically no scenario where it would be. UCI's median's are the 75th+ percentile for Davis/Hastings/Loyola meaning that you will ALWAYS get much better money to go to any of the latter than UCI, not to mention CoL. UCI will always come out costing 25%+ more, and given all the reasons that make it shaky to attend to begin with that I have already listed, I just don't see the reason to go.

I have no relation to any schools discussed, or any CA schools at all for that matter. I get that confirmation bias reigns supreme with UCI students/0L potential students, so I just wanted to provide an unbiased opinion on the issue from someone who analyzes this market and admission trends much more than I ever should.

[izha]

If you got into UCI, you got into other schools that will give you better options, even if you're dead set on staying in CA.

not sure that there is any factual evidence that Davis, Hastings or Loyola provide "better options". OTOH, a phone call from Dean Chem extolling the virtues of his students has to go a long way to finding positions, particularly clerkships. Plus, all the law firms in OC have committed to hiring UCI grads.

Unless daddy is covering the bill, why in the world would you choose UCI over Davis, Hastings with $$, or Loyola with $$ (all assuming you're not getting into the better ranked CA schools of course)?

IMO, it would have to be big money to attend any of them, but I like UCI over the others at the same price. (Paying sticker is a sucker's bet.)

"Better options" is a mixture of paying less while having the same or better employment statistics. Dean Chem ain't making a personal phone call for each of his students, so we don't even need to discuss that. Law firms saying they are committed to UCI is likewise irrelevant. What are they gonna say, "No, we won't be hiring from that school."? I'd rather take a school where firms have DEMONSTRATED, for decades and decades, that they will take students. It also helps when you have thousands of alumni helping you out, and you can guarantee that ANY firm you apply to will at least have a couple of grads from your school you can sit down and speak with.

As to your second point: I don't think UCI is a bad option if the CoA is the exact same. Here is the problem: There is basically no scenario where it would be. UCI's median's are the 75th+ percentile for Davis/Hastings/Loyola meaning that you will ALWAYS get much better money to go to any of the latter than UCI, not to mention CoL. UCI will always come out costing 25%+ more, and given all the reasons that make it shaky to attend to begin with that I have already listed, I just don't see the reason to go.

I have no relation to any schools discussed, or any CA schools at all for that matter. I get that confirmation bias reigns supreme with UCI students/0L potential students, so I just wanted to provide an unbiased opinion on the issue from someone who analyzes this market and admission trends much more than I ever should.

Neither have I. But that's a large state, and I suspect that Davis/Hasting/Loyola are as relevant for OC/SD firms as something like BC/BU. Anybody with some real info?

[dingbat]

Neither have I. But that's a large state, and I suspect that Davis/Hasting/Loyola are as relevant for OC/SD firms as something like BC/BU. Anybody with some real info?

OK, how about USC or UCLA?
What about taking a good scholarship to Pepperdine or San Diego?

[timbs4339]

The problem is that we don't know what the hell the employment situation is going to look like when the class is geared up to 250 and the tuition is 50K per year- what it takes to run a "quality" law school. When you don't know those things, it doesn't make sense to mortgage your future to be the first person in the UCI c/o 250/50K when you have other options like UCLA or USC.

Yes, placement is amazing when you take a class of 60 with T14 numbers and have a dean personally calling judges and reassuring them that the students are of the mold they typically hire clerks from. But there aren't 250 federal judges in the UCI faculty's collective black book and those judges are not only going to hire UCI grads here on out.

How big is the OC market and how many firms pay the kind of salaries that can support a 250K debt? I thought UCI was trying to brand itself as a national school (hence the 50K tuition)- so why so much emphasis on OC?

[Big Dog]

Dean Chem ain't making a personal phone call for each of his students, so we don't even need to discuss that.

He IS making calls for some, and for those (few?) it IS worth discussing. But note, with the smaller classes, he has less calls to make.

Law firms saying they are committed to UCI is likewise irrelevant.

I disagree with this point too. Firms in OC have largely replaced hiring from Hastings with UCI grads, because they committed verbally and financially to help build the school.

here is basically no scenario where it would be. UCI's median's are the 75th+ percentile for Davis/Hastings/Loyola meaning that you will ALWAYS get much better money to go to any of the latter than UCI, not to mention CoL. UCI will always come out costing 25%+ more..

Perhaps, or just pure speculation on your part. Do you have (inside) info on how Hastings/Davis awards merit money? Who knows what $$ UCI will have to come up with this year to keep their numbers where they want them. But, IMO, even a few thousand dolllars cheaper is not a deal-maker. And btw, do you really believe that the COA in San Francisco is less than Irvine/Costa Mesa/Santa Ana?

so I just wanted to provide an unbiased opinion on the issue from someone who analyzes this market and admission trends...

Your fact-free opinion is just as good as anyone else's. But, don't be so dismissive with those who may have another opinion.

[zman]

Avoid uci (Irvine) law, seriously. Teaching quality is horrendous. Many first year teachers have little or no teaching experience. You are paying your tuition to train THEM. The most egregious example is Glater: little law practice or teaching experience, totally incompetent in classroom (absolutely the worst of the worst), yet has the audacity to teach both criminal law and corporations. WTF!!!

Another example: a 1L teacher doesn’t even read the case/notes he assigned, changes his answer each time you ask him, doesn’t even understand the basic doctrines, but tests you on material he NEVER mentioned in class and then throws you a big fat policy question to entertain himself and assigns random scores. HORROR!!!

Very few past exams to prepare yourself. Each class is a gamble.

What about the “innovative” curriculum? The only noticeable difference is a 4 unit letter grade legal ETHICS in first year. You don’t even know the law yet; does ETHICS make any sense??? Sit in the back row and watch what people are doing. This class is a total waste of time. If you have the slightest interest in UCI, you should insist on visiting this class before you decide.

The school has a few really good teachers. The problem is that you can't choose your teachers and end up paying for egregious incompetence. Overall, not worth it.

It's funny you say this because they do have good teachers, at least that was suppose to be their strength. Many who have had the dean at USC or Duke say he was the best teacher they ever had. But they probably don't have that many and they have had to hire some they perhaps did not want to. Glater is a rookie, he will get better with experience.

[zman]

Dean Chem ain't making a personal phone call for each of his students, so we don't even need to discuss that.

He IS making calls for some, and for those (few?) it IS worth discussing. But note, with the smaller classes, he has less calls to make.

Law firms saying they are committed to UCI is likewise irrelevant.

I disagree with this point too. Firms in OC have largely replaced hiring from Hastings with UCI grads, because they committed verbally and financially to help build the school.

here is basically no scenario where it would be. UCI's median's are the 75th+ percentile for Davis/Hastings/Loyola meaning that you will ALWAYS get much better money to go to any of the latter than UCI, not to mention CoL. UCI will always come out costing 25%+ more..

Perhaps, or just pure speculation on your part. Do you have (inside) info on how Hastings/Davis awards merit money? Who knows what $$ UCI will have to come up with this year to keep their numbers where they want them. But, IMO, even a few thousand dolllars cheaper is not a deal-maker. And btw, do you really believe that the COA in San Francisco is less than Irvine/Costa Mesa/Santa Ana?

so I just wanted to provide an unbiased opinion on the issue from someone who analyzes this market and admission trends...

Your fact-free opinion is just as good as anyone else's. But, don't be so dismissive with those who may have another opinion.

"Firms in OC have largely replaced hiring from Hastings with UCI grads" That's not saying much but there is not much in the OC to be honest.

[mi-chan17]

I have no relation to any schools discussed, or any CA schools at all for that matter. I get that confirmation bias reigns supreme with UCI students/0L potential students, so I just wanted to provide an unbiased opinion on the issue from someone who analyzes this market and admission trends much more than I ever should.

Neither have I. But that's a large state, and I suspect that Davis/Hasting/Loyola are as relevant for OC/SD firms as something like BC/BU. Anybody with some real info?

I'm from a relatively small city in Southern California, and I think comparing Davis/Hastings/Loyola to BC/BU/etc. is not really accurate. I go to a T20 out of state, and the first question lawyers here asked me was, "Well, did you apply to Hastings?"

I'm entirely serious. And we live nowhere near Hastings. A six hour drive south from there, at the very least.

The people in SoCal know the northern schools. Doesn't mean that going to UCI might not be more beneficial than Davis or Hastings in the right circumstances - networking and interning down here will be far easier if you go to school down here - but I don't think that, in terms of hiring, UCI grads are going to be compared as some wholly separate and "better" entity than the people at Davis/Hastings or even Loyola (where a lot of the attorneys were I'm from went to school, as well). Davis/Hastings/Loyola all have a track record; hiring partners know what they're looking for out of those schools (class rank, etc.) unlike UCI, which is still something of an unknown.

So...TL;DR - no, SoCal hiring partners do know Davis/Hastings/Loyola. They are not comparable to some out of state school for SoCal hiring, as they are schools the attorneys in-state are very familiar with. UCI might be helpful in terms of proximity, but I doubt it is considered a "better" school. It's not UCLA/USC, and it's definitely not Boalt or Stanford.

[Big Dog]

The problem is that we don't know what the hell the employment situation is going to look like when the class is geared up to 250 and the tuition is 50K per year- what it takes to run a "quality" law school. When you don't know those things, it doesn't make sense to mortgage your future to be the first person in the UCI c/o 250/50K when you have other options like UCLA or USC.

Personally, I think paying sticker at any of these is not a smart investment.

[BarbellDreams]

Dean Chem ain't making a personal phone call for each of his students, so we don't even need to discuss that.

He IS making calls for some, and for those (few?) it IS worth discussing. But note, with the smaller classes, he has less calls to make.

Law firms saying they are committed to UCI is likewise irrelevant.

I disagree with this point too. Firms in OC have largely replaced hiring from Hastings with UCI grads, because they committed verbally and financially to help build the school.

here is basically no scenario where it would be. UCI's median's are the 75th+ percentile for Davis/Hastings/Loyola meaning that you will ALWAYS get much better money to go to any of the latter than UCI, not to mention CoL. UCI will always come out costing 25%+ more..

Perhaps, or just pure speculation on your part. Do you have (inside) info on how Hastings/Davis awards merit money? Who knows what $$ UCI will have to come up with this year to keep their numbers where they want them. But, IMO, even a few thousand dolllars cheaper is not a deal-maker. And btw, do you really believe that the COA in San Francisco is less than Irvine/Costa Mesa/Santa Ana?

so I just wanted to provide an unbiased opinion on the issue from someone who analyzes this market and admission trends...

Your fact-free opinion is just as good as anyone else's. But, don't be so dismissive with those who may have another opinion.

I lol'ed really hard at this. You're obviously a 0L.

Yes, Chem will make some calls, he won't make calls for everyone. Relying on YOU, as a student, to be one of the one's he makes calls for isn't a very good reason to attend. Likewise, as mentioned earlier, what in the world do you expect firms to say about UCI? That they won't be hiring from there? That would make no sense. Of course they say they'll support the school, but it was also easier to say that when the class numbers were lower. As for the scholly's, inside info? You don't need inside info, just go to law school admit and see what the MEDIAN numbers at UCI are getting at Davis/Hastings/Loyola in terms of money. You haven't been around long enough if you haven't put together that when you're above the 75th percentile at a school they will give you more money than a school where you're at median. As for CoA, San Fran is ONE of the schools I mentioned, not all. The CoL between all of them will however be comparable, but if you wanna cherry pick, then living at Davis will be cheaper than Irvine easily.

Finally, it isn't "fact-free" to say that UCI has no alumni network (thats NONE folks), its not "fact-free" to say that UCI cannot demonstrate hiring for decades and decades in the market like the other schools mentioned, its not "fact free" to say that UCI will offer you less money based on your numbers as their medians are much higher than other schools mentioned, its not "face free" to say that UCI costs an obnoxious amount of money as comapred to some of the other schools, etc, etc, etc.

Lastly, congrats on attending UCI next year BigDog!

[somewhatwayward]

The issue for me with the debate over whether UCI will be T20 is that, even if it does make T20, it'd still be a crappy investment without a large scholarship. There are a certain set of schools for which it makes sense to pay sticker; people have their own opinions, but realistically the objective set is probably either HYS, HYSCCN(P)(N), or perhaps T13. Below that, barring unusual circumstances, you shouldn't be going without a hefty scholarship. T20s are in some ways the biggest ripoff because people are wooed by the siren song of their "prestige" but they barely place better than the rest of the T1, which would be cheaper for the hypothetical law student who has T20 stats.

The people who do get the large scholarships (ie, at minimum 2/3 tuition) to UCI will probably have the stats to have better options: either a much more established higher-ranked school or much more established T1 with a large scholarship. But those aren't the people to worry about; the people to worry about are the ones who squeak into UCI and have to pay full freight but think that UCI's (hypothetical) T20 "prestige" is worth turning down $$$ at a lower-ranked T1 and paying out the ass for.

[Lasers]

i point blank asked a sheppard mullin partner what their cutoff was for uci and was told "top 2%". this seemed ridiculous to me, but this is what i was told.

[bananasplit19]

i point blank asked a sheppard mullin partner what their cutoff was for uci and was told "top 2%". this seemed ridiculous to me, but this is what i was told.

Did you ask about any other schools? Even taken with a grain of salt, that sounds pretty bleak for UCI's prospects. Sheppard Mullin is huge in the LA/OC area, right?

[Lasers]

i point blank asked a sheppard mullin partner what their cutoff was for uci and was told "top 2%". this seemed ridiculous to me, but this is what i was told.

Did you ask about any other schools? Even taken with a grain of salt, that sounds pretty bleak for UCI's prospects. Sheppard Mullin is huge in the LA/OC area, right?

i asked this a couple months ago during a sheppard mullin event held at uc hastings.

i was told hastings' was top 20% (which was most relevant for me at the time). i only asked about irvine because we were talking about the area and i went to uci for undergrad.

[BoGuaGua]

i actually personally met a few 3Ls who previously landed summer associate positions with sheppard, so if only top 2% r hired, then there oughta to be a couple hundred 3L students at UCI. i didn't get the gig with sheppard, but at least the interviewing associate seemed to be quite fond of the school and knew it very well

[aarias1]

Yo, you guys have forgotten the true meaning of Christmas we shouldn't be fighting like this


But back to OP. OP calls Glater a bad teacher. Glater is bad alright, but I mean he is bad-ass (as in good teacher). The real issue here is OP, OP mistakenly believes a law school teacher will magically transfuse legal knowledge directly into your brain. OP is obviously some kind of poly sci/ philosophy major, which is a field of study, where knowledge can simply be gained by paying attention in class. OP has forgotten that some classes require text books and actual studying and practicing in order to learn the material. If OP is at UCI then OP probably knows who I am and probably knows I'm not big on B.S., so when I say Glater is not a bad teacher I mean Glater is not a bad teacher.

Conversely, .........Wait A MINUTE! high induced passions, outright shocking comments, posters taking comments on a personal level... Was I just trolled?!??! DAMMIT! Fell for it hook, line, and sinker. I need to step back and think about this whole thread b/c it seems to have all the characteristics of a troll induced discussion, emaright??

[hume85]

Yo, you guys have forgotten the true meaning of Christmas we shouldn't be fighting like this


But back to OP. OP calls Glater a bad teacher. Glater is a bad ass teacher. The real issue here is OP, OP mistakenly believes a law school teacher will magically transfuse legal knowledge directly into your brain. OP is obviously some kind of poly sci/ philosophy major a field of study, where knowledge can simply be gained by paying attention in class. OP has forgotten that some classes require text books and actual studying and practicing in order to learn the material. If OP is at UCI then OP probably knows who I am and probably knows I'm not big on B.S., so when I say Glater is not a bad teacher I mean Glater is not a bad teacher.

Conversely, .........Wait A MINUTE! Was I just trolled?!??! DAMMIT! Fell for it hook, line, and sinker. I need to step back and think about this whole thread it seems to have all the characteristics of a troll induced discussion, emaright??

Emma's always right.

[LSTfan]

.

[zman]

The issue for me with the debate over whether UCI will be T20 is that, even if it does make T20, it'd still be a crappy investment without a large scholarship. There are a certain set of schools for which it makes sense to pay sticker; people have their own opinions, but realistically the objective set is probably either HYS, HYSCCN(P)(N), or perhaps T13. Below that, barring unusual circumstances, you shouldn't be going without a hefty scholarship. T20s are in some ways the biggest ripoff because people are wooed by the siren song of their "prestige" but they barely place better than the rest of the T1, which would be cheaper for the hypothetical law student who has T20 stats.

The people who do get the large scholarships (ie, at minimum 2/3 tuition) to UCI will probably have the stats to have better options: either a much more established higher-ranked school or much more established T1 with a large scholarship. But those aren't the people to worry about; the people to worry about are the ones who squeak into UCI and have to pay full freight but think that UCI's (hypothetical) T20 "prestige" is worth turning down $$$ at a lower-ranked T1 and paying out the ass for.

UCI will be ranked somewhere in the 25-40 range. That's the best case scenario.

[20160810]

T-20 school (because let's be real, T-20 status is why most of us wanted to come to UCI)

Saying you went to UCI because it's a top-20 law school is like saying you bought a Hyundai Genesis because you wanted to drive a luxury car. You're only fooling yourself.

[Lasers]

T-20 school (because let's be real, T-20 status is why most of us wanted to come to UCI)

Saying you went to UCI because it's a top-20 law school is like saying you bought a Hyundai Genesis because you wanted to drive a luxury car. You're only fooling yourself.

that was a perfect analogy.

did it take you awhile or did that gem just come to you?

[Big Dog]

Lastly, congrats on attending UCI next year BigDog

Not me; I ain't goin' to no stinkin' law school. (I don't think any LS ranked that low is worth attending, unless it was free. And even then, I'd have to think long and hard about the opportunity costs of attending.) Much better, IMO, to just go get a job.

And personally, I wouldn't attend Hastings/Davis/Loyola for (close to) free either. The California economy sucks, and there is nothing on the horizon to indicate it will get better any time soon.

Now Boalt on the other hand.....

[20160810]

T-20 school (because let's be real, T-20 status is why most of us wanted to come to UCI)

Saying you went to UCI because it's a top-20 law school is like saying you bought a Hyundai Genesis because you wanted to drive a luxury car. You're only fooling yourself.

that was a perfect analogy.

did it take you awhile or did that gem just come to you?

Took a minute. Thanks bro.