UCI (UC Irvine) c/o 2015 Applicants (2011-2012 cycle) Forum

[hellothisisme]

UCLA offered me a 90k scholarship so yeah, I'm pretty sure you're right and UCLA is clearly the better answer. Which is what everybody already told me in the thread I previously made.

That full ride was just really tempting because I don't like the idea of debt but I need to be reasonable and think long-term. And 90k from UCLA will make my debt load manageable, I think.

So thank you for your input.

[lawgeekgrl]

UCLA offered me a 90k scholarship so yeah, I'm pretty sure you're right and UCLA is clearly the better answer. Which is what everybody already told me in the thread I previously made.

That full ride was just really tempting because I don't like the idea of debt but I need to be reasonable and think long-term. And 90k from UCLA will make my debt load manageable, I think.

So thank you for your input.

I have to disagree a tiny bit here. I hate being so idealistic about it, but the debt will only be manageable as long as you believe it was worth your penny. People go to law school for different reasons. So your reasons, which I'm sure you have many, will have to play a part here.

Let me just throw in some thoughts (unrequested, I know).

UCLA grads will get more jobs than Southwestern grads. Why? You can't just say that this is the case because Southwestern sucks or it's low in the rankings. The reality is that Southwestern admits people with lower LSATs and GPA, like I explained in a previous post, sometimes (BUT NOT ALWAYS) this can be an indication of the kind of student you are. Hence you will find some people at Southwestern that probably should have never gone to law school to begin with. Instead, they go and have a hard time passing the bar.

Also, think about the people who "hustle" for the LSAT. Say you don't have any money to pay for a prep course, yet you go visit every single friend you have, asking for a small donation until you come up with the thousand something dollars. So now this person made up the money, got a 179 and got into UCLA.

Now in another case, you have the shy one who didn't have any money, and even though their aunt happened to be rich, they couldn't muster the confidence to ask for help. Now this person never did a prep course, and they ended up with a 147. But look at that, they made it to Southwestern and they're just happy to be accepted at all. Now let's have these two cases interviewing for jobs. Who do you really think it's more likely to land biglaw? (assuming this is what you're looking for).

Sure, UCLA's name matters. But in California, the University of California carries a big name regardless (unless they are the very small ones every one makes fun of!). Also because of Irvine's mission (to land high in the rankings), the people there have to make jobs possible for their grads. Say Irvine can't make that happen and Dean Chemerinsky gets fired. Do you think he would have risked his tenure job at DUKE! (along as his wife's) to come to the O.C. for a few years and then have nothing left? Highly unlikely. The guy is a hustler, so I personally feel I'm in good hands.

Don't get me wrong though, all of my assumptions could be wrong since, at the end of the day, that's all they are, assumptions. But at least I'll be at peace with the decision I made for myself. This is why asking for opinions is such a tricky thing. You don't want to look back and regret it. I let others tell me why going to UCLA undergrad was better than my other choices, and do I regret that now... The worst part is knowing that I didn't entirely make this decision for myself. But you know, you live and learn as they say.

[splitbrain]

Eh, I'd just go with personal preference. For me, I crave the small school environment (learned that by going to 3 different schools for UG, haha). However, I know another guy who would never apply to UCI Law just because he wants to be another face in the crowd (his words), which I can respect.

[TrojanHopeful]

When it comes to employment, I feel that I will be in VERY good hands at UCI. Irvine's faculty, which is top notch and contains some of the most cited professors/experts in their respective fields, should make up for the lack of alumni. The faculty members obviously have many connections and it is in their best interest to make sure the first few classes are especially placed well in the employment field. I would like to think that we will probably get more attention from the faculty when it comes time for us to start looking for jobs than we would at other schools.

Of course, I am not going to argue w/ UCLA's prospects....they are already very well established. Plus, a $90,000 scholly is not too shabby my friend.

I would expect cost of living to be about the same at UCLA and UCI...both will be expensive as shit.

Some people were talking about class rank and such; if I am not mistaken, UC Irvine does not disclose class rank unless it is for judicial clerkships.

Oh, and one more thing...if you go to Irvine you can tell people, "fuck you, I took con law with Chemerinsky."

[Gleason]

I think the only way UCLA is the obvious choice for hellothisisme is if s/he wants to work Biglaw in LA. If that's your goal, then it's an obvious choice. Otherwise I think it comes down to personal preference. Remember, advice around here often comes with the assumption that everyone wants biglaw in a big city.

My impression is that UCLA's established alumni network is counterbalanced partly by UCI's tiny class sizes and the professors's clear willingness to go to bat for their students. And also, being new, employers in the area are quite eager to get UCI students in. That doesn't make them even, but it comes close.


For me UCI won because of the feel of UCI. It's remarkably different from any law school I visited. And also because I have little interest in living and working in LA. I want to be south of LA--OC/SD. You can't go wrong either way, but I'd reiterate what a couple people have said here: Go where you'd be happiest and most engaged. And also where you want to live. Again, for me, it was really obvious that I'd be way more engaged at UCI.

[USMCMatt]

Oh, and one more thing...if you go to Irvine you can tell people, "fuck you, I took con law with Chemerinsky."

^^^^
THIS

[vkgarrett]

Random... but anyone on the waitlist heard any movement??

[melanne89]

Random... but anyone on the waitlist heard any movement??

Considering the admits do not have to make a final decision until April 13, I wouldn't expect any WL to hear anything until after that date. At least that's what I'm hoping, I just mailed my LOCI yesterday.

[DeusExCyber]

REDACTED

[stvnk]

Hey everyone. I was accepted by email 2/14 and received a bunch of subsequent mailings (including fafsa notice, asw schedule, the law review, etc) but I have yet to hear anything about scholarship info. Does this mean I most likely won't be receiving any merit scholly? Bummed out because I was really hoping for something.. And I'm in LA...

[odetojefferson]

Hey everyone. I was accepted by email 2/14 and received a bunch of subsequent mailings (including fafsa notice, asw schedule, the law review, etc) but I have yet to hear anything about scholarship info. Does this mean I most likely won't be receiving any merit scholly? Bummed out because I was really hoping for something.. And I'm in LA...

For me, I received the acceptance email and within the next 10 days received the financial aid info, scholarship offer, and housing info =(. Maybe wait until you get a financial aid award letter, but it seems like the scholly offers came quickly after acceptance.

[stvnk]

For me, I received the acceptance email and within the next 10 days received the financial aid info, scholarship offer, and housing info =(. Maybe wait until you get a financial aid award letter, but it seems like the scholly offers came quickly after acceptance.

Hmmm.. maybe it was lost or misplaced?? I plan on contacting the finaid office soon. Has anyone had any success negotiating for money?

[PDaddy]

This totally depends. What is the total cost of attendance after scholarship for each? Or you could go by just the difference in tuition as COL will be similar. Graduating from USC/UCLA will give you huge advantages that UCI will not. They are solid programs that are established with not only alumni but attorneys that have proven they can perform well. If you list the total COA for each this would be easier. But If UCLA offered you half tuition, really anything over 10K a year, I dont think this is even a conversation, you need to go to UCLA.

I disagree with this. Did UCI waitlist you this year. Lol. In all seriousness, UCI is being built specifically to compete with UCLA and USC, with an eye towards addressing their deficiencies. Chemerinsky and the gang are in it to win it, and so far they have walked the walk of being a top-20 school. UCI is a small school, which gives it a distinct advantage over USC/UCLA, namely being that it can address the individual needs of each and every student. Secondly, employers know they don't need to do much work to identify and recruit top students from the school, and they will go to UCI at OCI in droves, trust.

[PDaddy]

Interesting fact...the professor teaching sports law at UCI is the guy that the movie Jerry Maguire was based on (Leigh Steinburg).

I know him. He was my future brother-in-law's agent when he played for the Raiders. Great choice for a sports/entertainment law prof.

[005618502]

This totally depends. What is the total cost of attendance after scholarship for each? Or you could go by just the difference in tuition as COL will be similar. Graduating from USC/UCLA will give you huge advantages that UCI will not. They are solid programs that are established with not only alumni but attorneys that have proven they can perform well. If you list the total COA for each this would be easier. But If UCLA offered you half tuition, really anything over 10K a year, I dont think this is even a conversation, you need to go to UCLA.

I disagree with this. Did UCI waitlist you this year. Lol. In all seriousness, UCI is being built specifically to compete with UCLA and USC, with an eye towards addressing their deficiencies. Chemerinsky and the gang are in it to win it, and so far they have walked the walk of being a top-20 school. UCI is a small school, which gives it a distinct advantage over USC/UCLA, namely being that it can address the individual needs of each and every student. Secondly, employers know they don't need to do much work to identify and recruit top students from the school, and they will go to UCI at OCI in droves, trust.

Was offered a full ride to UCI last year. Turned it down, heading to a T14 in the fall. They admitted people with rediculously low LSATs, there are people with 150-155 being admitted. Does this look like a T20 school to you: http://irvine.lawschoolnumbers.com/applicants
You can do whatever "walking" you want but no way UCI will be a T20 school next year when rankings come out. Taking UCI over UCLA with 90k would be an unwise decision, even 10K a year, which is basically a year free, would not be the best choice. Why do you think firms will come to UCI in droves?? I mean its great to think positive but they barely even go in "droves" to USC and UCLA

[fashiongirl]

I’ll help you out as well. Will pm you. I talked to the Admissions Office and they enjoyed my application. Friends loved my "Why UCI Law" Statement and Personal Statement.

So gracious of you, thank you so much! I am really excited about the small class sizes... had this at my UG and really believe that was what made my experience the best it could have been.

[TrojanHopeful]

This totally depends. What is the total cost of attendance after scholarship for each? Or you could go by just the difference in tuition as COL will be similar. Graduating from USC/UCLA will give you huge advantages that UCI will not. They are solid programs that are established with not only alumni but attorneys that have proven they can perform well. If you list the total COA for each this would be easier. But If UCLA offered you half tuition, really anything over 10K a year, I dont think this is even a conversation, you need to go to UCLA.

I disagree with this. Did UCI waitlist you this year. Lol. In all seriousness, UCI is being built specifically to compete with UCLA and USC, with an eye towards addressing their deficiencies. Chemerinsky and the gang are in it to win it, and so far they have walked the walk of being a top-20 school. UCI is a small school, which gives it a distinct advantage over USC/UCLA, namely being that it can address the individual needs of each and every student. Secondly, employers know they don't need to do much work to identify and recruit top students from the school, and they will go to UCI at OCI in droves, trust.

Was offered a full ride to UCI last year. Turned it down, heading to a T14 in the fall. They admitted people with rediculously low LSATs, there are people with 150-155 being admitted. Does this look like a T20 school to you: http://irvine.lawschoolnumbers.com/applicants
You can do whatever "walking" you want but no way UCI will be a T20 school next year when rankings come out. Taking UCI over UCLA with 90k would be an unwise decision, even 10K a year, which is basically a year free, would not be the best choice. Why do you think firms will come to UCI in droves?? I mean its great to think positive but they barely even go in "droves" to USC and UCLA

Yale admitted someone w/ a 153 a couple of years back...better call US News and let them know to drop them from the T-14. Schools can (and do) admit people way below their 25th and still maintain medians. Before you try to make the argument that just because a school admits people w/ "rediculously" low LSATs, why don't you take a gander at the ABA guide to law schools (there you will see many 150 scores admitted to the T-14). Looks like your assumption was wrong.

PS...you might want to take a spelling class at your T-14.

[005618502]

This totally depends. What is the total cost of attendance after scholarship for each? Or you could go by just the difference in tuition as COL will be similar. Graduating from USC/UCLA will give you huge advantages that UCI will not. They are solid programs that are established with not only alumni but attorneys that have proven they can perform well. If you list the total COA for each this would be easier. But If UCLA offered you half tuition, really anything over 10K a year, I dont think this is even a conversation, you need to go to UCLA.

I disagree with this. Did UCI waitlist you this year. Lol. In all seriousness, UCI is being built specifically to compete with UCLA and USC, with an eye towards addressing their deficiencies. Chemerinsky and the gang are in it to win it, and so far they have walked the walk of being a top-20 school. UCI is a small school, which gives it a distinct advantage over USC/UCLA, namely being that it can address the individual needs of each and every student. Secondly, employers know they don't need to do much work to identify and recruit top students from the school, and they will go to UCI at OCI in droves, trust.

Was offered a full ride to UCI last year. Turned it down, heading to a T14 in the fall. They admitted people with rediculously low LSATs, there are people with 150-155 being admitted. Does this look like a T20 school to you: http://irvine.lawschoolnumbers.com/applicants
You can do whatever "walking" you want but no way UCI will be a T20 school next year when rankings come out. Taking UCI over UCLA with 90k would be an unwise decision, even 10K a year, which is basically a year free, would not be the best choice. Why do you think firms will come to UCI in droves?? I mean its great to think positive but they barely even go in "droves" to USC and UCLA

Yale admitted someone w/ a 153 a couple of years back...better call US News and let them know to drop them from the T-14. Schools can (and do) admit people way below their 25th and still maintain medians. Before you try to make the argument that just because a school admits people w/ "rediculously" low LSATs, why don't you take a gander at the ABA guide to law schools (there you will see many 150 scores admitted to the T-14). Looks like your assumption was wrong.

PS...you might want to take a spelling class at your T-14.

EDIT: Nevermind, you have it in your head that it is a certain way. Thats fine, have fun thinking that schools are not just numbers based. I would love if you could show me the profile of a non urm who got into a T-14 school with an LSAT of 153 or less, mainly because I havent seen anything like this and would love to be wrong on this point.

I am on my phone, sorry if there are typos.

[lawgeekgrl]

Was offered a full ride to UCI last year. Turned it down, heading to a T14 in the fall. They admitted people with rediculously low LSATs, there are people with 150-155 being admitted. Does this look like a T20 school to you: http://irvine.lawschoolnumbers.com/applicants
You can do whatever "walking" you want but no way UCI will be a T20 school next year when rankings come out. Taking UCI over UCLA with 90k would be an unwise decision, even 10K a year, which is basically a year free, would not be the best choice. Why do you think firms will come to UCI in droves?? I mean its great to think positive but they barely even go in "droves" to USC and UCLA

Have you ever taking a statistics class? If so, you'd know that schools have significant wiggle room to take a few students with lower numbers. Also, I'd love to point out that LSN is just a small sample of the applicant pool. Most of the size of applicants in LSN don't even begin to compare to the amount of people who actually apply on any given cycle, AND people do "fudge" their numbers from time to time.

But either way, none of this really matters. All we can do is guess as to what is going to happen in the future.

Oh and I can't wait to tell you in three years that I'll be graduating with a job waiting for me.

[TrojanHopeful]

EDIT: Nevermind, you have it in your head that it is a certain way. Thats fine, have fun thinking that schools are not just numbers based. I would love if you could show me the profile of a non urm who got into a T-14 school with an LSAT of 153 or less, mainly because I havent seen anything like this and would love to be wrong on this point.

I am on my phone, sorry if there are typos.

If schools were just numbers based, then the T-14 schools wouldn't be admitting URMs and people with "amazing softs" with sub-160 LSATs, would they? Like I said, schools have room to deviate from their means. Also, as mentioned above, I hope you don't think that LSN and TLS profiles are fully representative of the entire batch of applicants. Further, who's to say that the sub-160 LSAT UCI admits that are listed on LSN don't have amazing softs?

I'm not arguing with you that UCLA and USC are already well-established; however, if UCI is able to maintain a median of around 167 I believe they have a very good shot at making the top 20. Their faculty is already rated above UCLA and USC. What I think will hurt UCI is the lack of prestige associated with the name (this, obviously, will take years to acquire).

EDIT: I have to mention that from the first pages of this thread, you seem to display some animosity against this school.

[uci2013]

Was offered a full ride to UCI last year. Turned it down, heading to a T14 in the fall. They admitted people with rediculously low LSATs, there are people with 150-155 being admitted. Does this look like a T20 school to you: http://irvine.lawschoolnumbers.com/applicants
You can do whatever "walking" you want but no way UCI will be a T20 school next year when rankings come out. Taking UCI over UCLA with 90k would be an unwise decision, even 10K a year, which is basically a year free, would not be the best choice. Why do you think firms will come to UCI in droves?? I mean its great to think positive but they barely even go in "droves" to USC and UCLA

From what I've heard from the one person admitted with the 150ish LSAT that I am aware of, she seems like a pretty good admit to me. She's already demonstrated characteristics that I consider part of what makes our student body special. LSAT scores aren't everything. And on the whole UCI's numbers are strong - As long as a school's median is high enough, it doesn't matter how far below the median they reach.

A lot of schools accept people within a narrow LSAT band and in general have a fairly homogenous student body. But a lot of schools will also accept students with lower numbers to add to the diversity of the student body. Personally, I want a diverse student body so I am fine with that. We had a speaker at our race and the law symposium last year that said the biggest correlative factor of one's LSAT score was the wealth of the student's grandfathers.

I know from talking to our admissions director that while the numbers are important and the school does want to rank high, the school wants to evaluate applicants holistically as well. Once the person is below the median, the question isn't what number are they but what makes them who they are (IMO).

I am happy that we will have lawgeekgirl in the class of 2016 and personally I would jump on a full ride to UCI, even the half ride our class was offered was a great deal. But I was very debt-averse when deciding where to attend. Congrats on your admission to a T14 - everyone wants and values different things in a law school and you will have a lot of opportunities I am sure at the T14 as well.

But I have to say it isn't as obvious to me whether to choose UCLA over UCI or vice versa. It is an individual choice. I personally prefer a small school atmosphere. I also hate LA and prefer OC to LA. And firms in OC do like to see ties to OC - if you grew up in OC then it probably doesn't matter where you go, but the firm I am at this summer took two UCI students over students who applied from a number of schools, including USC and UCLA, in part because they wanted to see a strong commitment to OC. And for what it is worth my ties to OC are attending UCI Law and having some relatives who live here. I was worried I might not have strong enough ties.

[gregucla10]

Is it not obvious that AssumptionRequired is trying to justify his decision in turning down a full-ride to UCI?
Why else the animosity? haha

[splitbrain]

--ImageRemoved--

Just gonna toss in my $0.02 that I reeeally don't give a crap where UCI ends up in the rankings. I like the size, the professors, the location, and they're having employment results (based on clerkships and 2L SA's) that I am happy with. No need for a USN pissing contest.

[005618502]

Was offered a full ride to UCI last year. Turned it down, heading to a T14 in the fall. They admitted people with rediculously low LSATs, there are people with 150-155 being admitted. Does this look like a T20 school to you: http://irvine.lawschoolnumbers.com/applicants
You can do whatever "walking" you want but no way UCI will be a T20 school next year when rankings come out. Taking UCI over UCLA with 90k would be an unwise decision, even 10K a year, which is basically a year free, would not be the best choice. Why do you think firms will come to UCI in droves?? I mean its great to think positive but they barely even go in "droves" to USC and UCLA

From what I've heard from the one person admitted with the 150ish LSAT that I am aware of, she seems like a pretty good admit to me. She's already demonstrated characteristics that I consider part of what makes our student body special. LSAT scores aren't everything. And on the whole UCI's numbers are strong - As long as a school's median is high enough, it doesn't matter how far below the median they reach.

A lot of schools accept people within a narrow LSAT band and in general have a fairly homogenous student body. But a lot of schools will also accept students with lower numbers to add to the diversity of the student body. Personally, I want a diverse student body so I am fine with that. We had a speaker at our race and the law symposium last year that said the biggest correlative factor of one's LSAT score was the wealth of the student's grandfathers.

I know from talking to our admissions director that while the numbers are important and the school does want to rank high, the school wants to evaluate applicants holistically as well. Once the person is below the median, the question isn't what number are they but what makes them who they are (IMO).

I am happy that we will have lawgeekgirl in the class of 2016 and personally I would jump on a full ride to UCI, even the half ride our class was offered was a great deal. But I was very debt-averse when deciding where to attend. Congrats on your admission to a T14 - everyone wants and values different things in a law school and you will have a lot of opportunities I am sure at the T14 as well.

But I have to say it isn't as obvious to me whether to choose UCLA over UCI or vice versa. It is an individual choice. I personally prefer a small school atmosphere. I also hate LA and prefer OC to LA. And firms in OC do like to see ties to OC - if you grew up in OC then it probably doesn't matter where you go, but the firm I am at this summer took two UCI students over students who applied from a number of schools, including USC and UCLA, in part because they wanted to see a strong commitment to OC. And for what it is worth my ties to OC are attending UCI Law and having some relatives who live here. I was worried I might not have strong enough ties.

This is a good post! I actually agree with almost everything you say. I dont know about once below median it doesnt matter how far below. But I get where you are coming from and agree that it is true a 4.0 165 and a 4.0 145 do the same thing to your medians if they are 168/3.8. But between those 2 applicants one is expected to do well at a school like UCI/UCLA/USC and the other is not. Who knows how it actually plays out for each individual.

I actually have no animosity for UCI. Took a couple classes there over the summer when home from my UG, I grew up 15 minutes from the campus, I enjoyed the time I sent there and in their amazing gym lol. I just dont want people to go there under the assumption it will be a T20. Next year when the rankings come out and they are 35-45 (big IF, they could be number 15 we dont know), will you be happy with your decision? If so, then you made a great choice. Graduating from Law school with less debt than many undergraduates is something many can only dream of. But there is also risk involved.

I have never heard the LSAT correlated to grandfather's income. I do know it is the highest correlation to law school success (although not even close to perfect, at least I hope not with my GPA being the stronger of my numbers).

There will be typos, this is quite long to type on a phone lol

[005618502]

--ImageRemoved--

Just gonna toss in my $0.02 that I reeeally don't give a crap where UCI ends up in the rankings. I like the size, the professors, the location, and they're having employment results (based on clerkships and 2L SA's) that I am happy with. No need for a USN pissing contest.

Is there any data on 2L SA rates and Article III clerkships? That would be interesting to see.