UCI (full scholly) vs T14 (sticker) Forum

[odetojefferson]

I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but, unless you plan on staying in California, you really should not go to UCI.
Currently, UCI is not ABA approved, which means that you cannot take the bar in any state other than California.
However, that is not a serious concern, it is highly likely that UCI will be ABA approved in 2014 (the earliest they will be able to get full accreditation). But, do you want to bet your future on this?

The more important concern is that biglaw is unlikely to hire from UCI. Firstly, UCI Law does not have any alumni, so you can't rely on the alumni network. Secondly, Biglaw has never hired from UCI Law, (obviously, as it's a new school). That means it's going to be very difficult to get into biglaw from UCI.

Outside of the T14, biglaw does hire from other schools, but it's already a lot harder - you've got to be in the top 10% if you're from schools in the top 50.
Biglaw does not hire from no-name schools.
Outside of California no one has ever heard of UCI, so not only will you need to prove that you're a good candidate, you'll also need to prove that UCI is a real law school.

I don't want to trash UCI. I seriously considered it. It is the most promising new law school in a long time. However, it is untested. UCI itself has a reasonable reputation in southern california, which might be enough for a job (though, probably not with biglaw), but outside the state, you can forget about finding anything.

UCI 2L here. Just want to correct some misinformation

1. Regarding the bar in other states, UCI has received provisional accreditation, which means you can sit for bars in other states, full accreditation is not needed. We are also eligible for government internships and programs that require attendance at an ABA accredited school. The risk is the tiny possibility we do not receive full accreditation, but that risk is so tiny I don't think it is worth much if any weight when factoring into a decision.

2. Regarding biglaw - First as of next year we will have an alumni network. A small one, but it will exist. I've also found UCI grads who went to other law schools and are now practicing law to be very helpful and open and they serve as an alumni network as well. Second, as already acknowledged, a fair number of 3Ls received offers in big law after their SAs last summer, and I assume most of the 2Ls with SAs will receive offers as well. We have students with offers outside CA as 3Ls, and we have 2Ls who will be SA'ing outside CA as well. And oddly enough, perhaps because my resume didn't show much to demonstrate So Cal ties, I received a number of interviews last year outside of CA (NY and DC were where I applied) and I accepted an offer in NYC last summer as a 1L. Practitioners I met had heard of our school - Dean Chemerinsky's name in particular, helps with that as I would get "that's the school with Erwin Chemerinsky" or something to that effect a fair amount.

For me money did play a role in my picking UCI over other schools, and as the class of 2013, there was even more risk. I do not regret my decision at all and am happy that I will graduate with significantly lower debt. Everyone has to make their own decisions, but I personally would choose a full ride at UCI over pretty much everything at sticker except HYS, although CNC would be tough to turn down, the cost of living in NYC in particular, in addition to the debt means I would probably take Irvine over those schools at sticker, but for CNC I would have to think about it carefully too (that wasn't a choice I had to make). BUT everyone has their own priorities and I could understand if you wanted to enter academia for example, picking any of the T10 at sticker over UCI.

With some money at a T14 it really comes down to personal priorities and preferences, and I would definitely visit the schools and talk to as many students as possible before making a decision.

Could you tell me about UCIs grading curve?

[Errzii]

Because I am in a similar position I'll offer my perspective. It seems to me there are 3 options.

A) full-ride @ UCI
B) sticker @ highest in T14
C) something in between ($$ in T14/UCLA/USC*)

Personally, I think C) would be the best option. T14/UCLA/USC with decent money (100k~) will give you a reasonable shot at big law while providing alternative options in the event that you don't get big law or change your mind. A) is obviously "safer" and preferable if you're debt-averse but I think it would be unrealistic to expect big law out of UCI. I seriously doubt their placement would be better than or can even match Davis/Hastings which is like 10-15% ITE even when being optimistic. B) seems like a huge gamble and I wouldn't recommend it unless you're specifically gunning for big law (which it seems like you aren't) and even then I think the risk of sticker can only be justified by T6 and possibly T10.

HTH

*UCLA/USC because you seem to be interested in SoCal market.

[moneybagsphd]

Slight change of circumstances (will edit into original post): 90k from UCLA. Didn't see this coming! Totally hits my sweet spot.

[moneybagsphd]

Because I am in a similar position I'll offer my perspective. It seems to me there are 3 options.

A) full-ride @ UCI
B) sticker @ highest in T14
C) something in between ($$ in T14/UCLA/USC*)

Personally, I think C) would be the best option. T14/UCLA/USC with decent money (100k~) will give you a reasonable shot at big law while providing alternative options in the event that you don't get big law or change your mind. A) is obviously "safer" and preferable if you're debt-averse but I think it would be unrealistic to expect big law out of UCI. I seriously doubt their placement would be better than or can even match Davis/Hastings which is like 10-15% ITE even when being optimistic. B) seems like a huge gamble and I wouldn't recommend it unless you're specifically gunning for big law (which it seems like you aren't) and even then I think the risk of sticker can only be justified by T6 and possibly T10.

HTH

*UCLA/USC because you seem to be interested in SoCal market.

This I disagree with. I didn't even apply to Davis, and Hastings was a distant second to UCI. Why? UCI is still new, and if they can attract people with great numbers, then they're going to be a force to reckon with. Not to mention the money backing that school. Irvine is rich as fuck.

[Errzii]

This I disagree with. I didn't even apply to Davis, and Hastings was a distant second to UCI. Why? UCI is still new, and if they can attract people with great numbers, then they're going to be a force to reckon with. Not to mention the money backing that school. Irvine is rich as fuck.

If UCI is like every other law school, they grade on a curve. That means regardless of how awesome/amazing/super smart/etc. their incoming classes are, there will inevitably be people at the top of the class, at the median, and of course at the bottom. As far as I know big law cares primarily about how you rank respective to your class, not how smart/brilliant/experienced/etc. you are as an individual. The only difference between the top schools and other schools is how deep a firm is willing to go in the class to recruit. My point is while you might be right that UCI attracts people with great numbers, that itself doesn't change the fact that well, a curve is still a curve. Unless you're disagreeing and saying that employers are willing to reach deeper into UCI's classes in comparison to Davis/Hastings which I find hard to believe without some numbers/data to support it (thus far I have not seen any). Also, I'm not sure the relevance of the last point. I don't see how Irvine being rich helps secure their students big law employment? More resources I guess?

[uci2013]

Could you tell me about UCIs grading curve?

Sure. 1L classes have a mandatory 3.3 curve, the exception is lawyering skills (our LRW class) which is graded but not subject to the curve. For 2L and 3L, classes with over 24 students are subject to the same 3.3 curve. Smaller classes are not curved but are supposed to have a median of somewhere between an A- and a B.

[uci2013]

A) is obviously "safer" and preferable if you're debt-averse but I think it would be unrealistic to expect big law out of UCI. I seriously doubt their placement would be better than or can even match Davis/Hastings which is like 10-15% ITE even when being optimistic.

As of now I think the biglaw placement is more like 20-25% (I could be wrong on this - just guessing based on the 2L SA placement from word of mouth and how 3Ls did last summer. We also had strong COA and fed district court placement as well. But I don't know if a larger class will hurt that percentage or if the percentage will remain stable. Also I am not sure if the number you are citing is going straight into biglaw after graduating, since there is overlap between the 3Ls who received firm offers and those who accepted clerkships.

[Errzii]

A) is obviously "safer" and preferable if you're debt-averse but I think it would be unrealistic to expect big law out of UCI. I seriously doubt their placement would be better than or can even match Davis/Hastings which is like 10-15% ITE even when being optimistic.

As of now I think the biglaw placement is more like 20-25% (I could be wrong on this - just guessing based on the 2L SA placement from word of mouth and how 3Ls did last summer. We also had strong COA and fed district court placement as well. But I don't know if a larger class will hurt that percentage or if the percentage will remain stable. Also I am not sure if the number you are citing is going straight into biglaw after graduating, since there is overlap between the 3Ls who received firm offers and those who accepted clerkships.

In hindsight it was probably inappropriate to compare the schools using percentages as I hadn't realized how ridiculously small the class sizes are at UCI (last year Hastings incoming class size was 414 compared to the 89 that matriculated at UCI. UCI's inaugural class/3Ls is even smaller with only 60 students). My prediction is that increase in class sizes at UCI will be accompanied by a percentage drop in biglaw placement but we'll have to wait and see.

[Boourns76]

A) is obviously "safer" and preferable if you're debt-averse but I think it would be unrealistic to expect big law out of UCI. I seriously doubt their placement would be better than or can even match Davis/Hastings which is like 10-15% ITE even when being optimistic.

As of now I think the biglaw placement is more like 20-25% (I could be wrong on this - just guessing based on the 2L SA placement from word of mouth and how 3Ls did last summer. We also had strong COA and fed district court placement as well. But I don't know if a larger class will hurt that percentage or if the percentage will remain stable. Also I am not sure if the number you are citing is going straight into biglaw after graduating, since there is overlap between the 3Ls who received firm offers and those who accepted clerkships.

In hindsight it was probably inappropriate to compare the schools using percentages as I hadn't realized how ridiculously small the class sizes are at UCI (last year Hastings incoming class size was 414 compared to the 89 that matriculated at UCI. UCI's inaugural class/3Ls is even smaller with only 60 students). My prediction is that increase in class sizes at UCI will be accompanied by a percentage drop in biglaw placement but we'll have to wait and see.

Why the trolling on Irvine? My prediction: if UCI maintains its student body credentials and impressive faculty for the next few years (which are both currently far better than Davis and Hastings), then it will, duh, be ranked higher than Davis and Hastings, and their students will find employment easier than Davis and Hastings. If for some reason (budget pressures seems the most likely candidate) they fall off, they will fall into a Davis/Hastings range, with probably slightly better employment numbers (simply because the faculty is taking an active role in finding their students jobs).

I don't get your hate here, but as an objective observer, I think it's pretty clear that: 1) UCI is, true to Chemerinsky's word, really gunning to be a top 20 school; and 2) if they don't reach that mark, it seems like the worst case scenario now for them is going to be in that 30-40 Davis/Hastings area. They've now got 3 years of momentum with a top faculty and student numbers that remain slightly better than UCLA/USC I believe. And the word is that their incoming class is going to maintain similar #s. Don't you think at some point, if they keep posting top 15-20 stats, they're going to be a top 15-20 school?

[Errzii]

A) is obviously "safer" and preferable if you're debt-averse but I think it would be unrealistic to expect big law out of UCI. I seriously doubt their placement would be better than or can even match Davis/Hastings which is like 10-15% ITE even when being optimistic.

As of now I think the biglaw placement is more like 20-25% (I could be wrong on this - just guessing based on the 2L SA placement from word of mouth and how 3Ls did last summer. We also had strong COA and fed district court placement as well. But I don't know if a larger class will hurt that percentage or if the percentage will remain stable. Also I am not sure if the number you are citing is going straight into biglaw after graduating, since there is overlap between the 3Ls who received firm offers and those who accepted clerkships.

In hindsight it was probably inappropriate to compare the schools using percentages as I hadn't realized how ridiculously small the class sizes are at UCI (last year Hastings incoming class size was 414 compared to the 89 that matriculated at UCI. UCI's inaugural class/3Ls is even smaller with only 60 students). My prediction is that increase in class sizes at UCI will be accompanied by a percentage drop in biglaw placement but we'll have to wait and see.

Why the trolling on Irvine? My prediction: if UCI maintains its student body credentials and impressive faculty for the next few years (which are both currently far better than Davis and Hastings), then it will, duh, be ranked higher than Davis and Hastings, and their students will find employment easier than Davis and Hastings. If for some reason (budget pressures seems the most likely candidate) they fall off, they will fall into a Davis/Hastings range, with probably slightly better employment numbers (simply because the faculty is taking an active role in finding their students jobs).

I don't get your hate here, but as an objective observer, I think it's pretty clear that: 1) UCI is, true to Chemerinsky's word, really gunning to be a top 20 school; and 2) if they don't reach that mark, it seems like the worst case scenario now for them is going to be in that 30-40 Davis/Hastings area. They've now got 3 years of momentum with a top faculty and student numbers that remain slightly better than UCLA/USC I believe. And the word is that their incoming class is going to maintain similar #s. Don't you think at some point, if they keep posting top 15-20 stats, they're going to be a top 15-20 school?

Uh hate? This is not about "hate" and I'm not "trolling on Irvine." Not sure why you're getting so defensive bro. As far as this thread goes I just think some people are being too optimistic about UCI's future and am convinced the OP has better options. As for where UCI will eventually rank and it's quality, this topic has already been "debated" (lol) extensively in the following threads, http://www.top-law-schools.com/forums/v ... 2&t=118066, http://www.top-law-schools.com/forums/v ... 2&t=116757 and a few others. Obviously, TLS seems a bit divided on it and no one can know for sure until it happens so even though I personally disagree with your prediction I don't really care to argue it as it seems like a waste of effort and we'd be beating a dead horse. I'd rather just wait and see.