UC Irvine School of Law's 2nd class statistics is out Forum

[270910]

I think the reason some people want to see UCI fail is simple.


Hubris

?

[pany1985]

It could also be that some people feel threatened by the competition

[270910]

It could also be that some people feel threatened by the competition

-.-

[Stupendous_Man]

I think the reason some people want to see UCI fail is simple.


Hubris

?

I think it has more to do with the natural instinct for balance. Whenever you have something (especially new and yet to be established) that people hype vehemently, based or baseless, you'll have a backlash of people trying to bring it down a few pegs.

Why did they release 25% and 75% this year instead of medians like they did last year? I'd think people would be interested in comparing the medians.

[ENGINEERD]

The argument that UCI should fail because it adds more lawyers to an already saturated market makes no sense.

The people going to UCI are not TTT quality students and would have gone to T25 (many to USC or UCLA at sticker) if UCI was never created. These students didn't just appear when UCI was created.

If it was a school that attracted uber TTT students that would have otherwise been shutout of the market then I could understand that argument.

I think Danteshek is just pissed because UCI is just another school southwestern must compete with.

[Danteshek]

Well yes, at some level that's true. I'd rather not have the additional competition, especially from the out-of-staters attending UCI who wouldn't have come to California otherwise. But the competition is not why I wouldn't mind seeing UCI fail. It's the arrogance. Call me old fashioned, but I like to see some humility from upstart law schools. Spending millions of dollars to buy yourself into the top is tacky. Pretending to create a new type of law school (for the new millenium, to reshape legal education) is extraordinarily grandiose. I also take exception to UCI Law expropriating the reputation of a state university system it didn't help create.

[pany1985]

I'm curious how a new law school would do if they came out at the beginning and basicaly said "We just want to be okay. It's not like we have any special to offer. We're just like every other law school, so if we can manage to scrape our way into the 2nd tier, we'll be happy. We might not though. Whatever."

[JoyceL1986]

http://www.law.uci.edu/press_releases/05-03-10.html

Looks like they pulled off last year's number with half ride scholarships. Not too shabby.

Median GPA: 3.65-3.7
Median LSAT: 167-168
50% Yield Rate
93 Commits

[pany1985]

http://www.top-law-schools.com/forums/v ... 4&t=116727

[bk1]

Well yes, at some level that's true. I'd rather not have the additional competition, especially from the out-of-staters attending UCI who wouldn't have come to California otherwise. But the competition is not why I wouldn't mind seeing UCI fail. It's the arrogance. Call me old fashioned, but I like to see some humility from upstart law schools. Spending millions of dollars to buy yourself into the top is tacky. Pretending to create a new type of law school (for the new millenium, to reshape legal education) is extraordinarily grandiose. I also take exception to UCI Law expropriating the reputation of a state university system it didn't help create.

Spending millions of dollars to start as a T1 seems better than starting as a TTTT and working your way up. The latter just seems stupid if you want to create a quality institution and have the resources to do the former.

[JoyceL1986]

Well yes, at some level that's true. I'd rather not have the additional competition, especially from the out-of-staters attending UCI who wouldn't have come to California otherwise. But the competition is not why I wouldn't mind seeing UCI fail. It's the arrogance. Call me old fashioned, but I like to see some humility from upstart law schools. Spending millions of dollars to buy yourself into the top is tacky. Pretending to create a new type of law school (for the new millenium, to reshape legal education) is extraordinarily grandiose. I also take exception to UCI Law expropriating the reputation of a state university system it didn't help create.

By your own admission, you want the school to be humble and start at mediocre. That would certainly clog up the job market, which you vehemently opposed.
But a school with this caliber, attracting T20 students, well think about it this way. Applicants have not increased much. So only bodies are shifting around different schools. People who would have gone to UCLA/USC are now going to UCI. Your competition doesn't change much.

UCI students would have been the same USC/UCLA students you had no shot at competing with anyway. Had Irvine been a TT or TTT school instead, then yes you would be losing out on jobs you would have had.

Stop hating dude. It's not their fault you got competition. You should have worked yourself to be placed in a better school.

[Danteshek]

"We will create a law school that will offer a first rate legal education"

See? No tacky pandering to USNWR. Can't you see that the tail (USNWR) is wagging the dog (UCI)? It doesn't have to be like that. UCI could quietly go about building a great school, offer no schlarships, and end up in exactly the same place (a great school).

[JoyceL1986]

"We will create a law school that will offer a first rate legal education"

See? No tacky pandering to USNWR. Can't you see that the tail (USNWR) is wagging the dog (UCI)? It doesn't have to be like that. UCI could quietly go about building a great school, offer no schlarships, and end up in exactly the same place (a great school).

Says who? and Why?

[Teoeo]

"We will create a law school that will offer a first rate legal education"

See? No tacky pandering to USNWR. Can't you see that the tail (USNWR) is wagging the dog (UCI)? It doesn't have to be like that. UCI could quietly go about building a great school, offer no schlarships, and end up in exactly the same place (a great school).

Maybe I am dense, but that doesn't seem tacky at all to me. What exactly about that quote do you object to? o_O

[ViP]

"We will create a law school that will offer a first rate legal education"

See? No tacky pandering to USNWR. Can't you see that the tail (USNWR) is wagging the dog (UCI)? It doesn't have to be like that. UCI could quietly go about building a great school, offer no schlarships, and end up in exactly the same place (a great school).

This is so incredibly bogus.

A first rate legal education= top professors, top students, amazing student-faculty ratio.

In what universe does "first rate legal education" equate to "US News domination"?

[romothesavior]

"We will create a law school that will offer a first rate legal education"

See? No tacky pandering to USNWR. Can't you see that the tail (USNWR) is wagging the dog (UCI)? It doesn't have to be like that. UCI could quietly go about building a great school, offer no schlarships, and end up in exactly the same place (a great school).

No. If UCI was some T3 with a bunch of low-mid 150 LSAT kids, there is no way employers would look at them as having any credibility. No one would look at UCI and be like, "Wow they have great professors and a great building and blah blah blah..." We would just see another piss poor TTT with poor student caliber and poor employment prospects.

I think if UCI actually places well, it will be some evidence that the rankings do matter. I'm not saying that hiring partners give a shit about the minor fluctuations among schools, but it will at least prove that they use the rankings as a general metric in determining a school's quality.

[romothesavior]

"We will create a law school that will offer a first rate legal education"

See? No tacky pandering to USNWR. Can't you see that the tail (USNWR) is wagging the dog (UCI)? It doesn't have to be like that. UCI could quietly go about building a great school, offer no schlarships, and end up in exactly the same place (a great school).

This is so incredibly bogus.

A first rate legal education= top professors, top students, amazing student-faculty ratio.

In what universe does "first rate legal education" equate to "US News domination"?

I think we're just talking past each other here or something.

I could give two shits about getting a "first rate legal education." I want a first rate job. Fostering my passion for the law and developing as an intellectual is nice and all, but law school is a professional school first and foremost.

Even the lowest ranked schools have good professors, good facilities, and even some decently bright students.Whittier and Cooley and Detroit Mercy probably have great professors and good classroom experiences, but I don't think people should go there.

[Danteshek]

"We will create a law school that will offer a first rate legal education"

See? No tacky pandering to USNWR. Can't you see that the tail (USNWR) is wagging the dog (UCI)? It doesn't have to be like that. UCI could quietly go about building a great school, offer no schlarships, and end up in exactly the same place (a great school).

Says who? and Why?

Because, genius, the quality of a school does not depend on its ranking in USNWR. UCI is already a great school, and it isn't even ranked (isn't that amazing)?!

[09042014]

"We will create a law school that will offer a first rate legal education"

See? No tacky pandering to USNWR. Can't you see that the tail (USNWR) is wagging the dog (UCI)? It doesn't have to be like that. UCI could quietly go about building a great school, offer no schlarships, and end up in exactly the same place (a great school).

No. If UCI was some T3 with a bunch of low-mid 150 LSAT kids, there is no way employers would look at them as having any credibility. No one would look at UCI and be like, "Wow they have great professors and a great building and blah blah blah..." We would just see another piss poor TTT with poor student caliber and poor employment prospects.

I think if UCI actually places well, it will be some evidence that the rankings do matter. I'm not saying that hiring partners give a shit about the minor fluctuations among schools, but it will at least prove that they use the rankings as a general metric in determining a school's quality.

I don't think it'd prove rankings matter at all. In fact it might prove they don't matter at all. Since UCI won't be ranked until UCI places a class or two.

The main factors in USNWR rankings are prestige (in the form of rep scores, money spent, etc etc) and student quality. These are the factors that drives hiring as well.

[ViP]

I think the reason some people want to see UCI fail is simple.


Hubris

?

I think it has more to do with the natural instinct for balance. Whenever you have something (especially new and yet to be established) that people hype vehemently, based or baseless, you'll have a backlash of people trying to bring it down a few pegs.

Why did they release 25% and 75% this year instead of medians like they did last year? I'd think people would be interested in comparing the medians.

When only the medians were released last year everyone was demanding the 25th and 75th numbers because they didn't trust the medians .

Not sure why the medians haven't been released yet, but the release of the 25th and 75th makes sense simply because they're the numbers used by US News, and that's what people will use as a source of reference and comparison to "top 20" schools.

[JoyceL1986]

"We will create a law school that will offer a first rate legal education"

See? No tacky pandering to USNWR. Can't you see that the tail (USNWR) is wagging the dog (UCI)? It doesn't have to be like that. UCI could quietly go about building a great school, offer no schlarships, and end up in exactly the same place (a great school).

Says who? and Why?

Because, genius, the quality of a school does not depend on its ranking in USNWR. UCI is already a great school, and it isn't even ranked (isn't that amazing)?!

Sure, but you haven't answered the question. Why should UCI just go quietly along with its awesome faculty and students rather than appealing to the general public and the rankings?

[stratocophic]

"We will create a law school that will offer a first rate legal education"

See? No tacky pandering to USNWR. Can't you see that the tail (USNWR) is wagging the dog (UCI)? It doesn't have to be like that. UCI could quietly go about building a great school, offer no schlarships, and end up in exactly the same place (a great school).

This is so incredibly bogus.

A first rate legal education= top professors, top students, amazing student-faculty ratio.

In what universe does "first rate legal education" equate to "US News domination"?

I think we're just talking past each other here or something.

I could give two shits about getting a "first rate legal education." I want a first rate job. Fostering my passion for the law and developing as an intellectual is nice and all, but law school is a professional school first and foremost.

Even the lowest ranked schools have good professors, good facilities, and even some decently bright students.Whittier and Cooley and Detroit Mercy probably have great professors and good classroom experiences, but I don't think people should go there.

I see two ways to look at this. As future WUSTLers, we should be trolling for UCI how hard? Sofa king hard. Poaching students from USC and UCLA + limited threat level due to unsustainable class strength as a result of a limited number of 167+ West Coasters = dilution of Californian T18 overlords.

Alternate view:

and therefore they must perish.

[ENGINEERD]

"We will create a law school that will offer a first rate legal education"

See? No tacky pandering to USNWR. Can't you see that the tail (USNWR) is wagging the dog (UCI)? It doesn't have to be like that. UCI could quietly go about building a great school, offer no schlarships, and end up in exactly the same place (a great school).

This is so incredibly bogus.

A first rate legal education= top professors, top students, amazing student-faculty ratio.

In what universe does "first rate legal education" equate to "US News domination"?

I think we're just talking past each other here or something.

I could give two shits about getting a "first rate legal education." I want a first rate job. Fostering my passion for the law and developing as an intellectual is nice and all, but law school is a professional school first and foremost.

Even the lowest ranked schools have good professors, good facilities, and even some decently bright students.Whittier and Cooley and Detroit Mercy probably have great professors and good classroom experiences, but I don't think people should go there.

I see two ways to look at this. As future WUSTLers, we should be trolling for UCI how hard? Sofa king hard. Poaching students from USC and UCLA + limited threat level due to unsustainable class strength as a result of a limited number of 167+ West Coasters = dilution of Californian T18 overlords.

Alternate view:

and therefore they must perish.

Good point lol.

What is the deal with TLS eliminating the UCI estimated ranking?

[doomed123]

Well yes, at some level that's true. I'd rather not have the additional competition, especially from the out-of-staters attending UCI who wouldn't have come to California otherwise. But the competition is not why I wouldn't mind seeing UCI fail. It's the arrogance. Call me old fashioned, but I like to see some humility from upstart law schools. Spending millions of dollars to buy yourself into the top is tacky. Pretending to create a new type of law school (for the new millenium, to reshape legal education) is extraordinarily grandiose. I also take exception to UCI Law expropriating the reputation of a state university system it didn't help create.

Yeah, there's nothing more tacky or reprehensible than ambition.

"Aim low. Aim so low, no one will even care if you succeed."
-Marge Simpson

[Borhas]

It could also be that some people feel threatened by the competition

yes, that and the self-entitled attitude are probably #1 and #2 behind it.

I mean, does California or even America need another law school? probably not
Is there a shortage of good law schools in this country? probably not
Is the OC some weird anomaly where there is a higher demand for lawyers than supply? probably not

and yeah all of the above is part of the fear of competition angle. There is already so much god damn competition, that even more doesn't make sense.

I'm curious how a new law school would do if they came out at the beginning and basicaly said "We just want to be okay. It's not like we have any special to offer. We're just like every other law school, so if we can manage to scrape our way into the 2nd tier, we'll be happy. We might not though. Whatever."

people say UCI is acting like a douche
you are basically arguing that acting like a douche is necessary for success (as far as law schools go)

that might be true, but that doesn't change the douchiness of it either

What is the deal with TLS eliminating the UCI estimated ranking?

estimated ranking is obvious pandering