UC Irvine $$ v. USC Forum

[1800calturk]

I'm at my wits end, so if any of you have valuable insight, please let me know.

*Obviously $ at Irvine, (50% tuition, which is around $54K instate).
*Let's assume sticker at USC.

Some specific info, but you don't necessarily need to factor this in if you'd like to give general opinions that apply to everyone:
- Want to live in SoCal, Orange County would be fine.
- Interested in Private, maybe biglaw

As it stands, I'm very open and I'm visiting both schools to see which one "feels right". However I'm going to assume they will both feel fine.

EDIT: I'm changing the poll, which school would you pick if money was not a consideration at all? You can still factor in the cost of living in the area, but let's say the tuition for both schools was equal.

[ViP]

I'm at my wits end, so if any of you have valuable insight, please let me know.

*Obviously $ at Irvine, (50% tuition, which is around $54K instate).
*Let's assume sticker at USC.

Some specific info, but you don't necessarily need to factor this in if you'd like to give general opinions that apply to everyone:
- Want to live in SoCal, Orange County would be fine.
- Interested in Private, maybe biglaw

As it stands, I'm very open and I'm visiting both schools to see which one "feels right". However I'm going to assume they will both feel fine.

Before this thread even gets rolling, I want to warn you that those TLSers outside of California will predominantly try to make this seem like the easiest decision in the world to make. It's hard to understand the buzz and hype around Irvine unless you're immersed in it.

That being said, if you don't have a preference in specific location, I think you should make your decision based on what kind of law school experience you're looking for.

[1800calturk]

I'm at my wits end, so if any of you have valuable insight, please let me know.

*Obviously $ at Irvine, (50% tuition, which is around $54K instate).
*Let's assume sticker at USC.

Some specific info, but you don't necessarily need to factor this in if you'd like to give general opinions that apply to everyone:
- Want to live in SoCal, Orange County would be fine.
- Interested in Private, maybe biglaw

As it stands, I'm very open and I'm visiting both schools to see which one "feels right". However I'm going to assume they will both feel fine.

Before this thread even gets rolling, I want to warn you that those TLSers outside of California will predominantly try to make this seem like the easiest decision in the world to make. It's hard to understand the buzz and hype around Irvine unless you're immersed in it.

That being said, if you don't have a preference in specific location, I think you should make your decision based on what kind of law school experience you're looking for.

I guess I could see that, but given the generous scholarship, the personal attention you'd get from renown faculty, that they could potentially employ in the same region, I feel like people would understand that UCI is a competitive choice.

What do you mean what kind of law school experience? What do you think the differences are?

[tallboone]

- Interested in Private, maybe biglaw

This is why it actually is an easy decision. Pick USC and don't ever look back. Irvine's whole mission at the point is public service. U$C.

[ViP]

I'm at my wits end, so if any of you have valuable insight, please let me know.

*Obviously $ at Irvine, (50% tuition, which is around $54K instate).
*Let's assume sticker at USC.

Some specific info, but you don't necessarily need to factor this in if you'd like to give general opinions that apply to everyone:
- Want to live in SoCal, Orange County would be fine.
- Interested in Private, maybe biglaw

As it stands, I'm very open and I'm visiting both schools to see which one "feels right". However I'm going to assume they will both feel fine.

Before this thread even gets rolling, I want to warn you that those TLSers outside of California will predominantly try to make this seem like the easiest decision in the world to make. It's hard to understand the buzz and hype around Irvine unless you're immersed in it.

That being said, if you don't have a preference in specific location, I think you should make your decision based on what kind of law school experience you're looking for.

I guess I could see that, but given the generous scholarship, the personal attention you'd get from renown faculty, that they could potentially employ in the same region, I feel like people would understand that UCI is a competitive choice.

What do you mean what kind of law school experience? What do you think the differences are?

At Irvine you'll be building a new school. You'll be actively involved in laying the foundation of the program. That alone guarantees an unconventional law school experience.

As you know, you'll also be spoiled by a ridiculous student-to-faculty ratio (3:1/4:1) and a very personal education led by one of the nation's most prolific and renowned faculties (after only one year in existence). Also, the school has already secured the presence of over 70 employers to recruit the first-year class (which is only 60 students).

Of course, you'd have to accept that the school is unaccredited and unranked. Therefore, you won't be wooing anyone in everyday conversation, and there's no guarantee as to where the school will be in 5, 10, or 50 years (among the top schools in the rankings? Out of existence?). Personally, I think Irvine will make big waves in the coming years.

Some people are most concerned with finding employment after graduation. Others are most concerned with the education they receive. Others are most concerned with the type of law school experience they receive. Others are most concerned with lay-prestige and rankings. Others are most concerned with financial matters (i.e. scholarships). Etc., etc., etc.

If you're most concerned with secure employment prospects, I think you have to accept USC's offer. If not, you have a very personal decision to make.

[ViP]

- Interested in Private, maybe biglaw

This is why it actually is an easy decision. Pick USC and don't ever look back. Irvine's whole mission at the point is public service. U$C.

I don't think it's that simple. There are a number of schools that pride themselves on public interest, but they certainly cater to other markets as well. No school with lofty ambitions (with regard to rankings) such as Irvine's would ever limit itself to a single mission.

Judging by the list of interested and committed employers that will visit Irvine in spring, the school should have no problem matching students with prestigious jobs in the private sector (particularly in SoCal, of course).

As I said earlier, though, I think USC is the better choice if employment prospects are your number-one concern. You can't go wrong.

[ENGINEERD]

I am facing a similar decision. Considering law school is a business, I believe UCI law is going to do everything in their power to place the first few classes in the best firms they possibly can. This will help attract future classes that will not be offered the same scholarships. Although they might be focused on public interest, their goal is to become a national university so I would imagine that means heavy emphasis on big law.

This is going to be a very tough decision and there is no easy answer. There is something very cool about being part of the second class and having a hand in the development of the school. The downside, as someone mentioned earlier, is a possible lack of prestige as the school is yet to establish itself. For me I think it will come down to which campus feels "right".

[1800calturk]

I'm at my wits end, so if any of you have valuable insight, please let me know.

*Obviously $ at Irvine, (50% tuition, which is around $54K instate).
*Let's assume sticker at USC.

Some specific info, but you don't necessarily need to factor this in if you'd like to give general opinions that apply to everyone:
- Want to live in SoCal, Orange County would be fine.
- Interested in Private, maybe biglaw

As it stands, I'm very open and I'm visiting both schools to see which one "feels right". However I'm going to assume they will both feel fine.

Before this thread even gets rolling, I want to warn you that those TLSers outside of California will predominantly try to make this seem like the easiest decision in the world to make. It's hard to understand the buzz and hype around Irvine unless you're immersed in it.

That being said, if you don't have a preference in specific location, I think you should make your decision based on what kind of law school experience you're looking for.

I guess I could see that, but given the generous scholarship, the personal attention you'd get from renown faculty, that they could potentially employ in the same region, I feel like people would understand that UCI is a competitive choice.

What do you mean what kind of law school experience? What do you think the differences are?

At Irvine you'll be building a new school. You'll be actively involved in laying the foundation of the program. That alone guarantees an unconventional law school experience.

As you know, you'll also be spoiled by a ridiculous student-to-faculty ratio (3:1/4:1) and a very personal education led by one of the nation's most prolific and renowned faculties (after only one year in existence). Also, the school has already secured the presence of over 70 employers to recruit the first-year class (which is only 60 students).

Of course, you'd have to accept that the school is unaccredited and unranked. Therefore, you won't be wooing anyone in everyday conversation, and there's no guarantee as to where the school will be in 5, 10, or 50 years (among the top schools in the rankings? Out of existence?). Personally, I think Irvine will make big waves in the coming years.

Some people are most concerned with finding employment after graduation. Others are most concerned with the education they receive. Others are most concerned with the type of law school experience they receive. Others are most concerned with lay-prestige and rankings. Others are most concerned with financial matters (i.e. scholarships). Etc., etc., etc.

If you're most concerned with secure employment prospects, I think you have to accept USC's offer. If not, you have a very personal decision to make.

Really great advice, thank you.

It's not that employment is my only concern, I think that everyone shares all of these concerns in varying degrees. I guess for me, its most important that the school I choose provides and environment most beneficial to my ability to succeed in law school. Since I've never been to law school, I don't know the criteria for that.

Like Engineerd, I hope it'll just become more obvious when I visit both. But then I don't know how many "happiness points" is worth the other criteria. Like if USC's job prospects are way better, and UCI only feels slightly more "right". Also, I'm vain, so lay-perception is of concern to me. That's kind of a wild card right now though with the projected rankings of UCI being all over the place.

[Blindmelon]

Hmm.. this is a tough decision. A school with a huge CA alumni network, great employment prospects (pre-crash), with a well respected UG and Law name versus a new unaccredited school with almost no alumni base to speak of that is unranked and could crash and burn now that they don't give free rides to everyone anymore, which will probably make their medians tank and even with a lot of optomism still won't push ahead of UCD or UCH give their stronger alumni base and better name in the legal world.

Yes... this is a tough one.

[im_blue]

Hmm.. this is a tough decision. A school with a huge CA alumni network, great employment prospects (pre-crash), with a well respected UG and Law name versus a new unaccredited school with almost no alumni base to speak of that is unranked and could crash and burn now that they don't give free rides to everyone anymore, which will probably make their medians tank and even with a lot of optomism still won't push ahead of UCD or UCH give their stronger alumni base and better name in the legal world.

Yes... this is a tough one.

+1. USC all the way.

[ViP]

Hmm.. this is a tough decision. A school with a huge CA alumni network, great employment prospects (pre-crash), with a well respected UG and Law name versus a new unaccredited school with almost no alumni base to speak of that is unranked and could crash and burn now that they don't give free rides to everyone anymore, which will probably make their medians tank and even with a lot of optomism still won't push ahead of UCD or UCH give their stronger alumni base and better name in the legal world.

Yes... this is a tough one.

I know, right?

A brand new school with arguably one of the top-10 faculties in the country, a dean that is currently the most cited active professor of law in the country, a current student-to-faculty ratio of 3:1, the most intimate legal education found anywhere in the country, incredible hype and excitement in the legal world of Orange County that currently lacks a top-notch law school in the area, a commitment by over 70 employers to visit the first-year class of 60 students, a 50% scholarship over three years for every member of the second-year class, positive words and high-hopes from the likes of Brian Leiter, a commitment by Dean Chemerinsky to keep the median numbers at the same level or higher in the next few years (numbers comparable to Cornell and equal to USC), the fact that Dean Chemerinsky has far too much respect and credibility to make bold statements without some basis (i.e. top-20 school, equal or higher median numbers, etc.), and a quality of life that already appears to be exponentially better than that at most law schools.

Sounds like garbage.

Back to reality, though.

OP says the most important thing to him is the learning environment at the school. Not the alumni base, not the employment prospects, not fears of ranking or accreditation (although they're all legit considerations), but the learning environment at the school.

In that case, while I highly recommend a visit to each school, it sounds like +1 Irvine, to me.

[mhernton]

I've said this before and I'll say it again. UCI Law is a pipe dream and a very good marketing job. Everyone assumes that it will be ranked in the top 30 some time soon. It takes time to develop a reputation. I'm a graduate of a similar MBA program. I'm part of the second graduating class of UCSD's MBA program. The education was top notched, and the school is positioning itself as an alternative to Stanford and MIT. I took a class from a nobel laureate. All of that aside, the economy crashed and reality sunk in. Companies that hire MBA's hire from pipelines. Goldman Sachs loves the Harvard and Wharton types etc. So when applicant is coming from an unknown program, they are an unknown quantity, and therefore not likely to be hired. I got the job I got after graduation because of my work experience, and undergraduate degree. Law Firms are businesses. They hire from pipelines. UCI has no alumni to grease the skids. The OCI process will be polite, but why hire from UCI when UCLA, USC, USD, Boalt, Hastings, Stanford, Loyola have graduates seeking employment. BTW all of those schools and others have alumni pulling for each other. I hope I'm wrong, but when you have a choice between USC and UCI, why take the chance that I am. The other thing is that I'm already experiencing it. Good Luck.

[1800calturk]

I've said this before and I'll say it again. UCI Law is a pipe dream and a very good marketing job. Everyone assumes that it will be ranked in the top 30 some time soon. It takes time to develop a reputation. I'm a graduate of a similar MBA program. I'm part of the second graduating class of UCSD's MBA program. The education was top notched, and the school is positioning itself as an alternative to Stanford and MIT. I took a class from a nobel laureate. All of that aside, the economy crashed and reality sunk in. Companies that hire MBA's hire from pipelines. Goldman Sachs loves the Harvard and Wharton types etc. So when applicant is coming from an unknown program, they are an unknown quantity, and therefore not likely to be hired. I got the job I got after graduation because of my work experience, and undergraduate degree. Law Firms are businesses. They hire from pipelines. UCI has no alumni to grease the skids. The OCI process will be polite, but why hire from UCI when UCLA, USC, USD, Boalt, Hastings, Stanford, Loyola have graduates seeking employment. BTW all of those schools and others have alumni pulling for each other. I hope I'm wrong, but when you have a choice between USC and UCI, why take the chance that I am. The other thing is that I'm already experiencing it. Good Luck.

This is some great insight, I think I read your past posts about Irvine where you brought up something similar. I would say that no matter how great and educational your law school experience is, obviously we dont go to law school to get our jollies, but to get employed. And I too am suspecting a disjunct between 70 employers agreeing to interview the first class (how about the second class?) and 60 employers wanting to hire from the first class.

If you look at the SoCal market though, would you say that with UCI's stats, employers would be willing to take UCI students over USD, Loyola, etc. ("lower" ranked based on # and estimates), or is the alumni factor a huge deal? How do you think USC fares in the OC, with so many legal employers donating to UCi?

Also, how important IS the fact that a school's product is known? For instance how would an employer stack up a top notch UCi student vs. a middle-of-the-pack USC student? I think what UCI has in its favor (at least in the short term) is that its faculty's own success depends on the students getting good employment stats. I read that Chemerinsky made a personal call to get one of his students a clerkship interview. I doubt Rasmussen make that call for one of his students.

[Quine]

I am facing a similar decision. Considering law school is a business, I believe UCI law is going to do everything in their power to place the first few classes in the best firms they possibly can. This will help attract future classes that will not be offered the same scholarships. Although they might be focused on public interest, their goal is to become a national university so I would imagine that means heavy emphasis on big law.

This is going to be a very tough decision and there is no easy answer. There is something very cool about being part of the second class and having a hand in the development of the school. The downside, as someone mentioned earlier, is a possible lack of prestige as the school is yet to establish itself. For me I think it will come down to which campus feels "right".

Disclaimer: This reply isn't targeted at anyone specific, because I've seen this talk elsewhere.

What does it mean to "have a hand in the development of the school"? I've seen this before, from a few people. It's made to sound as though on the first day of class, the professors will walk in and ask "So what do y'all wanna learn this year!?" These people all have experience doing what they're doing. All of the professors have taught before, and will continue to teach the same way, in all likelihood. Does anyone think that students are going to have a hand in the admissions process? Or maybe get consulted in some administrative capacity?

I could be totally wrong, but I think the whole idea of having some significant influence in the "development" of the school is complete bullshit, peddled by UCI apologists.

[im_blue]

I've said this before and I'll say it again. UCI Law is a pipe dream and a very good marketing job. Everyone assumes that it will be ranked in the top 30 some time soon. It takes time to develop a reputation. I'm a graduate of a similar MBA program. I'm part of the second graduating class of UCSD's MBA program. The education was top notched, and the school is positioning itself as an alternative to Stanford and MIT. I took a class from a nobel laureate. All of that aside, the economy crashed and reality sunk in. Companies that hire MBA's hire from pipelines. Goldman Sachs loves the Harvard and Wharton types etc. So when applicant is coming from an unknown program, they are an unknown quantity, and therefore not likely to be hired. I got the job I got after graduation because of my work experience, and undergraduate degree. Law Firms are businesses. They hire from pipelines. UCI has no alumni to grease the skids. The OCI process will be polite, but why hire from UCI when UCLA, USC, USD, Boalt, Hastings, Stanford, Loyola have graduates seeking employment. BTW all of those schools and others have alumni pulling for each other. I hope I'm wrong, but when you have a choice between USC and UCI, why take the chance that I am. The other thing is that I'm already experiencing it. Good Luck.

+1, not to mention the fact that law school prestige is probably more important than B-school prestige, since MBA hiring also takes into account connections and work experience.

[1800calturk]

I am facing a similar decision. Considering law school is a business, I believe UCI law is going to do everything in their power to place the first few classes in the best firms they possibly can. This will help attract future classes that will not be offered the same scholarships. Although they might be focused on public interest, their goal is to become a national university so I would imagine that means heavy emphasis on big law.

This is going to be a very tough decision and there is no easy answer. There is something very cool about being part of the second class and having a hand in the development of the school. The downside, as someone mentioned earlier, is a possible lack of prestige as the school is yet to establish itself. For me I think it will come down to which campus feels "right".

Disclaimer: This reply isn't targeted at anyone specific, because I've seen this talk elsewhere.

What does it mean to "have a hand in the development of the school"? I've seen this before, from a few people. It's made to sound as though on the first day of class, the professors will walk in and ask "So what do y'all wanna learn this year!?" These people all have experience doing what they're doing. All of the professors have taught before, and will continue to teach the same way, in all likelihood. Does anyone think that students are going to have a hand in the admissions process? Or maybe get consulted in some administrative capacity?

I could be totally wrong, but I think the whole idea of having some significant influence in the "development" of the school is complete bullshit, peddled by UCI apologists.

For arguments sake (because if you guys couldn't tell I'm pretty neutral on this), UCI does allow students to get involved in the process pretty extensively in terms of curriculum, extracurriculars, and culture.

Whether you take these things as benefits or negatives, there is no defined 2L or 3L curriculum. Any class that has more than 5 students interested in it will be offered, and from what I gather, students are regularly consulted on the classes that will be offered in the future, as well as new hires for the next year. Besides that, there's no law review or journals, so students will be founding a law review with the professors, and establishing whatever journals they can/want.

[1800calturk]

+1, not to mention the fact that law school prestige is probably more important than B-school prestige, since MBA hiring also takes into account connections and work experience.

I have a completely distorted perception of the prestige of Irvine. From some people I'm hearing that it has no chance and will eventually land in the T50 if it's lucky, then you have Chemerinsky & Co. assuring us (and putting his reputation on the fact) that it will be a T20 "in any capacity the first time it is ranked". What does the legal community really think? From lay-perspective, USC undergrad is clearly superior to Irvine, does that matter?

[ENGINEERD]

I am facing a similar decision. Considering law school is a business, I believe UCI law is going to do everything in their power to place the first few classes in the best firms they possibly can. This will help attract future classes that will not be offered the same scholarships. Although they might be focused on public interest, their goal is to become a national university so I would imagine that means heavy emphasis on big law.

This is going to be a very tough decision and there is no easy answer. There is something very cool about being part of the second class and having a hand in the development of the school. The downside, as someone mentioned earlier, is a possible lack of prestige as the school is yet to establish itself. For me I think it will come down to which campus feels "right".

Disclaimer: This reply isn't targeted at anyone specific, because I've seen this talk elsewhere.

What does it mean to "have a hand in the development of the school"? I've seen this before, from a few people. It's made to sound as though on the first day of class, the professors will walk in and ask "So what do y'all wanna learn this year!?" These people all have experience doing what they're doing. All of the professors have taught before, and will continue to teach the same way, in all likelihood. Does anyone think that students are going to have a hand in the admissions process? Or maybe get consulted in some administrative capacity?

I could be totally wrong, but I think the whole idea of having some significant influence in the "development" of the school is complete bullshit, peddled by UCI apologists.

Granted this could be advertising BS, but for me this means helping direct the schools path throughout its development. As I stated in my personal statement, I would like to start an intellectual property law society. As a 0L I do not know exactly what this entails but for argument sake, if this society were to become wildly popular and the school became involved in national competitions, this could start a chain of events that will lead to UCI giving more emphasis to IP law.

Obviously this is just a far fetched example, but that is what I meant by "having a hand in its development"

[Blindmelon]

+1, not to mention the fact that law school prestige is probably more important than B-school prestige, since MBA hiring also takes into account connections and work experience.

I have a completely distorted perception of the prestige of Irvine. From some people I'm hearing that it has no chance and will eventually land in the T50 if it's lucky, then you have Chemerinsky & Co. assuring us (and putting his reputation on the fact) that it will be a T20 "in any capacity the first time it is ranked". What does the legal community really think? From lay-perspective, USC undergrad is clearly superior to Irvine, does that matter?

You know that in order to be a T20 it has to overtake well established schools. There is no imaginable way that it could overtake UCLA/USC and extremely doubtful that it could overtake BU, Emory or WUSTL, or even GW, BC or Fordham... schools that have been around for a long time and have a great reputation in the legal field.

[Quine]

I am facing a similar decision. Considering law school is a business, I believe UCI law is going to do everything in their power to place the first few classes in the best firms they possibly can. This will help attract future classes that will not be offered the same scholarships. Although they might be focused on public interest, their goal is to become a national university so I would imagine that means heavy emphasis on big law.

This is going to be a very tough decision and there is no easy answer. There is something very cool about being part of the second class and having a hand in the development of the school. The downside, as someone mentioned earlier, is a possible lack of prestige as the school is yet to establish itself. For me I think it will come down to which campus feels "right".

Disclaimer: This reply isn't targeted at anyone specific, because I've seen this talk elsewhere.

What does it mean to "have a hand in the development of the school"? I've seen this before, from a few people. It's made to sound as though on the first day of class, the professors will walk in and ask "So what do y'all wanna learn this year!?" These people all have experience doing what they're doing. All of the professors have taught before, and will continue to teach the same way, in all likelihood. Does anyone think that students are going to have a hand in the admissions process? Or maybe get consulted in some administrative capacity?

I could be totally wrong, but I think the whole idea of having some significant influence in the "development" of the school is complete bullshit, peddled by UCI apologists.

Granted this could be advertising BS, but for me this means helping direct the schools path throughout its development. As I stated in my personal statement, I would like to start an intellectual property law society. As a 0L I do not know exactly what this entails but for argument sake, if this society were to become wildly popular and the school became involved in national competitions, this could start a chain of events that will lead to UCI giving more emphasis to IP law.

Obviously this is just a far fetched example, but that is what I meant by "having a hand in its development"

No, that's fair. It's very likely they're a little bit more open to things like this, that involve student initiative, than a school that already has established extracurriculars. However, I'm pretty sure you'd have the same opportunity at other schools, it's just not as encouraged.

[ViP]

I am facing a similar decision. Considering law school is a business, I believe UCI law is going to do everything in their power to place the first few classes in the best firms they possibly can. This will help attract future classes that will not be offered the same scholarships. Although they might be focused on public interest, their goal is to become a national university so I would imagine that means heavy emphasis on big law.

This is going to be a very tough decision and there is no easy answer. There is something very cool about being part of the second class and having a hand in the development of the school. The downside, as someone mentioned earlier, is a possible lack of prestige as the school is yet to establish itself. For me I think it will come down to which campus feels "right".

Disclaimer: This reply isn't targeted at anyone specific, because I've seen this talk elsewhere.

What does it mean to "have a hand in the development of the school"? I've seen this before, from a few people. It's made to sound as though on the first day of class, the professors will walk in and ask "So what do y'all wanna learn this year!?" These people all have experience doing what they're doing. All of the professors have taught before, and will continue to teach the same way, in all likelihood. Does anyone think that students are going to have a hand in the admissions process? Or maybe get consulted in some administrative capacity?

I could be totally wrong, but I think the whole idea of having some significant influence in the "development" of the school is complete bullshit, peddled by UCI apologists.

It's not "UCI apologists" that speak of students building the school, but rather the administration. Dean Chemerinsky and Dean Ortiz have repeatedly discussed their desire to work with the faculty and student body to develop the "ideal law school." It's actually inevitable. There's no 2nd or 3rd year curriculum, no student groups, no reviews, etc. But it's not "development" in the sense that you've interpreted it.

FWIW, Dean Ortiz also claims that the faculty largely agreed to join Irvine because of the unique chance to create a vibrant school from the bottom-up. Kinda cool, I think.

[Quine]

I am facing a similar decision. Considering law school is a business, I believe UCI law is going to do everything in their power to place the first few classes in the best firms they possibly can. This will help attract future classes that will not be offered the same scholarships. Although they might be focused on public interest, their goal is to become a national university so I would imagine that means heavy emphasis on big law.

This is going to be a very tough decision and there is no easy answer. There is something very cool about being part of the second class and having a hand in the development of the school. The downside, as someone mentioned earlier, is a possible lack of prestige as the school is yet to establish itself. For me I think it will come down to which campus feels "right".

Disclaimer: This reply isn't targeted at anyone specific, because I've seen this talk elsewhere.

What does it mean to "have a hand in the development of the school"? I've seen this before, from a few people. It's made to sound as though on the first day of class, the professors will walk in and ask "So what do y'all wanna learn this year!?" These people all have experience doing what they're doing. All of the professors have taught before, and will continue to teach the same way, in all likelihood. Does anyone think that students are going to have a hand in the admissions process? Or maybe get consulted in some administrative capacity?

I could be totally wrong, but I think the whole idea of having some significant influence in the "development" of the school is complete bullshit, peddled by UCI apologists.

For arguments sake (because if you guys couldn't tell I'm pretty neutral on this), UCI does allow students to get involved in the process pretty extensively in terms of curriculum, extracurriculars, and culture.

Whether you take these things as benefits or negatives, there is no defined 2L or 3L curriculum. Any class that has more than 5 students interested in it will be offered, and from what I gather, students are regularly consulted on the classes that will be offered in the future, as well as new hires for the next year. Besides that, there's no law review or journals, so students will be founding a law review with the professors, and establishing whatever journals they can/want.

I didn't know this. Perhaps there is more involvement. On the other hand, I suspect the involvement is still limited, and the students' influence is less than great. But I definitely think that's interesting, nevertheless.

As far as founding law reviews and journals, I know very little about that process, but I imagine it has been done at other schools if the students do enough of the legwork on their own. That's likely how schools end up with secondary and tertiary reviews.

[Quine]

I am facing a similar decision. Considering law school is a business, I believe UCI law is going to do everything in their power to place the first few classes in the best firms they possibly can. This will help attract future classes that will not be offered the same scholarships. Although they might be focused on public interest, their goal is to become a national university so I would imagine that means heavy emphasis on big law.

This is going to be a very tough decision and there is no easy answer. There is something very cool about being part of the second class and having a hand in the development of the school. The downside, as someone mentioned earlier, is a possible lack of prestige as the school is yet to establish itself. For me I think it will come down to which campus feels "right".

Disclaimer: This reply isn't targeted at anyone specific, because I've seen this talk elsewhere.

What does it mean to "have a hand in the development of the school"? I've seen this before, from a few people. It's made to sound as though on the first day of class, the professors will walk in and ask "So what do y'all wanna learn this year!?" These people all have experience doing what they're doing. All of the professors have taught before, and will continue to teach the same way, in all likelihood. Does anyone think that students are going to have a hand in the admissions process? Or maybe get consulted in some administrative capacity?

I could be totally wrong, but I think the whole idea of having some significant influence in the "development" of the school is complete bullshit, peddled by UCI apologists.

It's not "UCI apologists" that speak of students building the school, but rather the administration. Dean Chemerinsky and Dean Ortiz have repeatedly discussed their desire to work with the faculty and student body to develop the "ideal law school." It's actually inevitable. There's no 2nd or 3rd year curriculum, no student groups, no reviews, etc. But it's not "development" in the sense that you've interpreted it.

FWIW, Dean Ortiz also claims that the faculty largely agreed to join Irvine because of the unique chance to create a vibrant school from the bottom-up. Kinda cool, I think.

Fair enough. However, I would think the one in charge of the whole operation (and offering arguments in its defense) is, in fact, the school's most ardent apologist.

[jayare]

The only problem with going to USC Law is that you would, presumably, have to work with USC Alumni after you graduate.. and being an OC native I can tell you that's a sentence I wouldn't wish on anybody.

But my personal distaste for all things USC aside, consider the financials. Given that the scholarship to UCI is a percentage, not a straight number, you'll also realize a scholarship increase over your three years as the UC Regents invariably raise tuition. Look at the firms that have agreed to interview, these aren't some bullshit 2-attorney firms with one office in Buena Park. Morrison Foerster comes to mind, who also supplies attorneys to mentor (read: evaluate) UCI law students. You have access to firms from your first year where you have an opportunity to impress them on your own merits, should they not find UCI for all its benefits previously mentioned not impressive enough.

Getting back to the scholarship, you'll have half as much debt (or if you are paying cash will have paid 1/2 less out-of-pocket). So even if all the critics are correct you could very well afford to take a "low paying" job somewhere below the 160k rate.

UCI is not a Chapman, a Whittier, or even a USD. Independently run private colleges are simply at a disadvantage compared to the UC system. The UC system is the best public university system in the world, and frankly I don't believe that the state would permit a UC law school to sink the unemployable depths some critics believe it will as soon as the scholarship funds are exhausted. Donald Bren, Dean Chemerinsky, and the UC Regents have too much to lose. It's an unranked, untested law school, attendance to which necessarily requires thought and discussion (something I'm glad to see here), but if money and educational experience are what your primary concerns are USC is no clear winner.

oh btw USC suxz

[ViP]

Fair enough. However, I would think the one in charge of the whole operation (and offering arguments in its defense) is, in fact, the school's most ardent apologist.

Well sure. What I meant to convey is that the argument is coming from within the school itself, rather than from naive 0L hopefuls.