In at UC Irvine Forum

[ChipJan]

.

[AdHaq]

Adding more fuel to the speculation/false hopes train.

CA applicant here but no rejection letter as of yet despite what seems like a week filled with rejection notices.

Someone posting earlier brought up a good point. Over 2500 rejections to send out, the task is obviously time consuming and one can assume they would not send letters out all at once. Nevertheless, my optimistic side would like to hear more speculation regarding what no rejection letter this week could mean. It calms my soul.

Any CA applicants with rejection notices this week?

[Judge Wapner]

Live in Southern California -

UCI Rejection Letter Mailed Tuesday April 7, Received Wed Apr 8


Same deal "not subject to appeal, dont call or email us". Ahhh, to be on top of the world for one cycle...

[uwdoalt]

Adding more fuel to the speculation/false hopes train.

CA applicant here but no rejection letter as of yet despite what seems like a week filled with rejection notices.

Someone posting earlier brought up a good point. Over 2500 rejections to send out, the task is obviously time consuming and one can assume they would not send letters out all at once. Nevertheless, my optimistic side would like to hear more speculation regarding what no rejection letter this week could mean. It calms my soul.

Any CA applicants with rejection notices this week?

Somebody once said that they already made all the decisions, based on a conversation they had with someone in the admissions office. If that's true, it would seem impossible that there are any acceptances coming (without a WL first), since that could only be if they are waiting until after the deadline for submitting the SIRs. Could be, though, that there are more waitlists. The rejections so far are usually below the range of acceptances, so if you think you might have been an especially strong applicant I do think there is reason to hold out a little hope. Though, perhaps this is just because the rejections are going to be more average on average and we have a small sample of self-reported data on which to base our conjecture.

[ChipJan]

.

[alleycat13]

Okay..so what to make of this: One of my LOR's arrived very very very late (4/3) to LSAC. I emailed admissions when I received the notice from LSAC that it had posted (4/7). They requested the letter the same day. Mail arrived today. No rejection letter.

Did some sleuthing (my specialty - I love love love research) and it would appear that some UCI may have staff friended me at some point on facebook, perhaps to monitor my leadership and check my credentials (I'm super super involved domestically and internationally).

Is it possible that they would request a LOR so late in the cycle if I were not "still under consideration" as veritas suggested earlier?? My LOR's are actually very good, I think, but of course, I have no basis of comparison, so I'm hopefully not tooting my own horn...

I'm somewhere between extremely excited and terrified of heartbreak....

[A'nold]

I have nothing to really offer UCI (compared to the freaks of nature that have been accepted, that is ) but I have yet to receive my rejection as well and I'm in CA.

[ChipJan]

.

[Rocky Estoppel]

I'm out. Rejection today, dated April 7th. I would've loved to go to Irvine...I wish everyone who goes there the best of luck and hope it becomes a great law school!

[alleycat13]

I'm out. Rejection today, dated April 7th. I would've loved to go to Irvine...I wish everyone who goes there the best of luck and hope it becomes a great law school!

I am sorry kak23, best of luck to you otherwise! Stay in touch anyway...we'll all be colleagues regardless!

[annapavlova]

I'm out too!

Did anybody think the really annoying "DONT EVEN THINK ABOUT CONTACTING US OR RISK DEATH!!!!11" paragraph was really rude.

Talk about adding insult to injury. I was totally expecting this (especially since I applied there really late and my LSAT is "eh"), but THAT little diddy is really what got under my skin.

[MightyGolem]

Okay..so what to make of this: One of my LOR's arrived very very very late (4/3) to LSAC. I emailed admissions when I received the notice from LSAC that it had posted (4/7). They requested the letter the same day. Mail arrived today. No rejection letter.

Did some sleuthing (my specialty - I love love love research) and it would appear that some UCI may have staff friended me at some point on facebook, perhaps to monitor my leadership and check my credentials (I'm super super involved domestically and internationally).

Is it possible that they would request a LOR so late in the cycle if I were not "still under consideration" as veritas suggested earlier?? My LOR's are actually very good, I think, but of course, I have no basis of comparison, so I'm hopefully not tooting my own horn...

I'm somewhere between extremely excited and terrified of heartbreak....

Alleycat, I've been lurking on this board for some time and as someone who has been accepted to and will be attending UCI Law I understand why you're re-applying to start law school over from scratch.

However, as I've read your posts over the last months, I've also wondered if you've thought about what your transfer would mean to your 1L classmates. You're not proposing to come in as a transfer student; if I understand your story correctly, you are aspiring for a do-over altogether. While I certainly can appreciate the desire for a reboot every now and again (cf. my application to law school), were we to become classmates at UCI I would be very uncomfortable about the situation.

First of all, you've already endured, and presumably flourished, in your 1l coursework. Setting aside the differences in curriculum, I think it's still fair to say that you would come in to the 1L experience significantly more prepared and warmed up than just about any of the others. Is that fair? I mean, you've already taken torts, contracts, property, civ pro, etc, right? Doesn't that put you at a considerable advantage-- competitively and otherwise-- to the rest of your would-be 1Ls?

On a less immediate/practical level, I question the overall fairness of your enterprise. While I understand the underpinnings completely, it just seems to me that devising a "new path" (re-starting law school instead of transferring, for example) puts those of us who have been walking ON the path at something of a disadvantage.

Look, I get it, and I also know that this isn't really my place to say anything-- it's up to the Admissions Committees to make these determinations. But I also have read that Dean Ortiz reads this board, and I guess I sort of wanted to speak up and say that while I wish you nothing but the best in your career and endeavors (you seem like an interesting person with whom I likely have a great deal in common), I also don't think I would feel comfortable working "side by side" with you as a 1l peer. Clearly your heart is in the right place, but I don't think you have fully examined how your "re-upping" as a 1L might affect the rest of your classmates.

Again, I hope you're able to find what you're looking for, and hope you understand the spirit in which this post was made.

Thanks,

MG

[2H2G]

Question for admitted students: Is the Statement of Intent to Register binding? If I return it indicating my intent to register at UCI, do I have to withdraw from all other schools? Or can I also return a seat deposit to another school and keep my options open. I am like 85% sure I will go to UCI, but am not ready to rule out this other school. The deadline for returning the form to UCI is only a few days away. I couldn't see anything on the form saying it was binding. Does anyone have a definite answer to this?

[SDGirl]

I'm out too!

Did anybody think the really annoying "DONT EVEN THINK ABOUT CONTACTING US OR RISK DEATH!!!!11" paragraph was really rude.

Talk about adding insult to injury. I was totally expecting this (especially since I applied there really late and my LSAT is "eh"), but THAT little diddy is really what got under my skin.

Yeah, I thought that paragraph was rude as well. It was like pouring salt on the wound. I would have thought the letter would be a little more cordial/understanding since we did go through the trouble of writing 5 essays for their application, and all....

[PublicLaw]

Question for admitted students: Is the Statement of Intent to Register binding? If I return it indicating my intent to register at UCI, do I have to withdraw from all other schools? Or can I also return a seat deposit to another school and keep my options open. I am like 85% sure I will go to UCI, but am not ready to rule out this other school. The deadline for returning the form to UCI is only a few days away. I couldn't see anything on the form saying it was binding. Does anyone have a definite answer to this?

I don't know anything officially, but it does seem dishonest and unfair to the school and other applicants.

[uwdoalt]

Yeah it is an honor system. On the other hand, they don't give you the option of sending a deposit, and should know some will change. I would say you can send it if it is really your intent to register. If you get off the waitlist at Harvard, your intent will change. If you just figure, well, it's free so... then that would be unethical. Haven't actually seen the form so I can't really comment on whether it's binding, but if it doesn't say it is then it seems to me that it isn't.

Question for admitted students: Is the Statement of Intent to Register binding? If I return it indicating my intent to register at UCI, do I have to withdraw from all other schools? Or can I also return a seat deposit to another school and keep my options open. I am like 85% sure I will go to UCI, but am not ready to rule out this other school. The deadline for returning the form to UCI is only a few days away. I couldn't see anything on the form saying it was binding. Does anyone have a definite answer to this?

I don't know anything officially, but it does seem dishonest and unfair to the school and other applicants.

[LawApp2012]

Question for admitted students: Is the Statement of Intent to Register binding? If I return it indicating my intent to register at UCI, do I have to withdraw from all other schools? Or can I also return a seat deposit to another school and keep my options open. I am like 85% sure I will go to UCI, but am not ready to rule out this other school. The deadline for returning the form to UCI is only a few days away. I couldn't see anything on the form saying it was binding. Does anyone have a definite answer to this?

I don't know anything officially, but it does seem dishonest and unfair to the school and other applicants.

Ya, I agree. It's probably not binding and I know people put multiple seat deposits down at other schools, but UCI seems like a different situation to me. If you haven't decided that you definitely want to attend after the ASD and everything else you've seen and heard, it may not be the place for you. I personally feel like people who are waiting for a "better" offer from an established school are not considering UCI for the right reasons. Just my opinion though, good luck making your decision.

[alleycat13]

Okay..so what to make of this: One of my LOR's arrived very very very late (4/3) to LSAC. I emailed admissions when I received the notice from LSAC that it had posted (4/7). They requested the letter the same day. Mail arrived today. No rejection letter.

Did some sleuthing (my specialty - I love love love research) and it would appear that some UCI may have staff friended me at some point on facebook, perhaps to monitor my leadership and check my credentials (I'm super super involved domestically and internationally).

Is it possible that they would request a LOR so late in the cycle if I were not "still under consideration" as veritas suggested earlier?? My LOR's are actually very good, I think, but of course, I have no basis of comparison, so I'm hopefully not tooting my own horn...

I'm somewhere between extremely excited and terrified of heartbreak....

Alleycat, I've been lurking on this board for some time and as someone who has been accepted to and will be attending UCI Law I understand why you're re-applying to start law school over from scratch.

However, as I've read your posts over the last months, I've also wondered if you've thought about what your transfer would mean to your 1L classmates. You're not proposing to come in as a transfer student; if I understand your story correctly, you are aspiring for a do-over altogether. While I certainly can appreciate the desire for a reboot every now and again (cf. my application to law school), were we to become classmates at UCI I would be very uncomfortable about the situation.

First of all, you've already endured, and presumably flourished, in your 1l coursework. Setting aside the differences in curriculum, I think it's still fair to say that you would come in to the 1L experience significantly more prepared and warmed up than just about any of the others. Is that fair? I mean, you've already taken torts, contracts, property, civ pro, etc, right? Doesn't that put you at a considerable advantage-- competitively and otherwise-- to the rest of your would-be 1Ls?

On a less immediate/practical level, I question the overall fairness of your enterprise. While I understand the underpinnings completely, it just seems to me that devising a "new path" (re-starting law school instead of transferring, for example) puts those of us who have been walking ON the path at something of a disadvantage.

Look, I get it, and I also know that this isn't really my place to say anything-- it's up to the Admissions Committees to make these determinations. But I also have read that Dean Ortiz reads this board, and I guess I sort of wanted to speak up and say that while I wish you nothing but the best in your career and endeavors (you seem like an interesting person with whom I likely have a great deal in common), I also don't think I would feel comfortable working "side by side" with you as a 1l peer. Clearly your heart is in the right place, but I don't think you have fully examined how your "re-upping" as a 1L might affect the rest of your classmates.

Again, I hope you're able to find what you're looking for, and hope you understand the spirit in which this post was made.

Thanks,

MG

MG -

Thank you so much for your extremely honest, up-front, no BS post. It was incredibly refreshing to say the least. You raise a number of extremely good issues.

To be quite honest, "flourished" is not the term I would use to describe my academic experience as a 1L. Yes, I made it through the dreaded attrition rate (barely). Sitting in contracts class my second week in school, and listening to all the "kids" around me that had time, energy and money to not only read the assignment, but read a treatise cover to cover before class, I knew I could not compete with them academically and I knew that I would not, thus I would have to just "do what it takes to get by" until I could figure something else out. I was pretty sure I wasn't going to make it. I was thinking law school would be a pit stop on the way to grad school. Second year, I did improve, it's true. I may have hit a stride after passing into my 2L year.

Without this turning too much into a sob story, prior to arriving in law school, I was bankrupted after just completing treatment for a serious illness (thus no access to credit based loan $), had an addict family member wipe out my bank account (my only other "family" told me that law school 'does not give a psych test' to signify how much of a non-accomplishment admission to law school is), had my boyfriend of 6 years deported after an administrative error prevented his acceptance of a post-doc position, had to write a (temporarily) rubber check to Uhaul to get here (knowing I'd have $ for it to go through on second presentation when school started), had to use my last $40 to pay day workers to unload my truck and had to stop at the food bank before school started but had overcome two disabilities (one in childhood and one life-long battle) to get through undergrad magna cum laude - albeit in eight years. I am also the single mother of a (high functioning) autistic child.

Why does any of the above matter? Well, for two reasons.

First, "advantage/disadvantage" is more than previous exposure to a subject matter/curriculum & is more than one aspect of a total and overall experience. Meaning: Because I have been exposed to a standard first year curriculum, and a standard law school experience, it does not mean that I have any advantages intellectually, or even with the material because each class in law school has been about figuring out what portion of the material is important to the particular professor - and how to convey that on his or her particular exam - NOT about learning how to actually become a lawyer, nor about mastering all of the material in each class. The "advantages" that each of us possess in particular areas might benefit us all. For instance, Poli Sci majors might be able to help those without out any readily accessible memory on American History succeed in Con Law. I might be able to assist with helping to assist with identifying your learning styles, getting you onto westlaw or lexis, helping you figure out time lines for outlining/countdowns for finals studying for instance. UCI will not have 2L's to mentor incoming 1L's as some law schools do. My experience could be advantageous to you.

Without getting into too much detail with regard to the disadvantages, we each have our own - I'm quite sure; but I also have some limitations academically that mean it's likely that I have to work 5 times as hard as you may to accomplish as much as you could in a standard law school environment. 4 pages of an outline can take up to 15 hours for me if I do it conventionally.

Secondly, being acutely aware of my "situation" (see attempt to avoid sob story, lol), I consciously took a hit academically, believing that it would be more useful to me to have a more "well-rounded" package to present coming out of law school. I wanted more real world experience, more leadership, more innovation, more cutting through the BS, and I wanted my reputation to precede me coming out of law school. I wanted a reputation as the girl that gets things done, the girl that knows the rules but can get around them or change them to affect lasting and meaningful change - and finally as the girl who is a rainmaker. This, I believe I have accomplished in spades.

It may be unusual, unconventional and possibly even suspect to hear, lest fathom the following: I have a compulsion to help. To help to create and feel a part of a team atmosphere. I am the person that provides resources to my classmates, taking into account different learning styles that are not often addressed in a classroom environment. For instance - if I find a particularly good Con Law Flow chart - I will email it to my classmates in the hopes that it will help someone who is a visual learner and is feeling lost in the subject matter to improve their grasp on the material their confidence over all. Confident accomplished law students equate to confident accomplished, happy lawyers and colleagues.

I understand that helping others in this capacity could have a 'negative' effect on my own academic standing, my own academic success and my own "rank" as it were. That paradigm is both shallow, selfish and short-sighted. I don't think "me me me" is the single most important factor to law school, the legal profession or the human race in general. One of the most enjoyable feelings I experience is when someone responds to my assistance with their own successes, with a noticeable increase in confidence/participation or with: "Thank you so much, I didn't even think of that!", or "Thank you so much you are a lifesaver, I don't know if I could have done this/understood this/gotten through this without you." or "Thank you for thinking ahead like that." Yes, I have been met with suspicion, resentment, hostility, cynicism and other forms of negativity in the past, but I choose not to focus on it. I was told recently that "integrity wins out in the end", and while I lost sight of it for a minute, I've regained my confidence in the statement.

In other words - in the event that I have a question, or feel that I can "sum something up in laymens terms" or "reframe something in a way that would make it more intellectually accessible for some/most people", I do not, will not and could not reserve it for a super secret office hours scenario. This is one of the reasons that UCI appeals to me. For the inaugural class, it is this kind of teamwork that will be non-negotiable in order for this program to succeed. Students will need to help each other. Students will need to build each other up, not tear each other down, which is so often found in a 'standard' law school experience. Students will need to come up with creative solutions together. Students will need to create such a strong foundation of accomplishment, camaraderie, leadership, innovation and character that a successful "shake up" of the current law school education experience can take place. Law school has become a breeding ground for the worst kind of nonsensical competition that breeds snakes and feeds into the perception that the legal profession is a cesspool. I cannot play like that. I will not play like that and honestly, though I know this can be perceived as melodramatic, recently sat at a friends kitchen table quite literally crying at the prospect of being fed into that cesspool. UCI, quite literally, has the potential to break this mold and set a new model for what legal education can be. It may be idealistic, but I'm almost 40, been to hell and back - a coupla times - and I still have not lost my idealism, so I know it's possible to maintain it in a world full of cynics/skeptics.

The UCI faculty and staff's vision has been scoffed at. People have expressed doubt with regard to the ability to create a top-notch academic program that actually nurtures people, law students, the legal community, the community at large and the legal profession. I think - no I passionately believe that it can, will and it should be done, but everyone involved has to agree to do it together. A contract to succeed if you will.

I did not apply to UCI because I want a "do-over". I applied to UCI because cross disciplinary study (particularly the relationship between psychology and criminal law) is something that I have been practically screaming about since I started law school. Because I just cannot understand why the law continues to defy the rules of human nature to hold steadfast to policy and procedure - sometimes defying logic, compassion and what is right to do it. Because I cannot understand why nobody insists that law meet humanity somewhere sometimes and why it is so notable when someone does the right thing nowadays.

I applied to UCI because law school has turned into a churn and burn factory. My school did not even bother to prepare our graduating 3L's for the fact that they would have difficulty getting bar loans - despite my warning them last August. I applied to UCI because I want to do law school right, not necessarily over. The intent is not to re-load or re-do. I've spent over two years in school so far (I'm part time - for financial reasons) and have spent TONS of money. Despite the prospect of a tuition scholarship, there are still expenses - living & books for instance. It is an opportunity, not a do-over, and I'm not afraid to jump on opportunities - even if they involve some kind of practical (time, money, effort) sacrifice.

While I am certain that you have expressed the concerns of many, if not most of the already accepted 1L class pertaining to a situation like this, that if nothing else, you (and others) are open to understanding - if on nothing else than instinct alone - that to me, this is not a contest to gain advantage for myself, but only to put my previous experiences, current talents and passions to their best and highest use. I believe any knowledge etc. that I possess is to be shared for the benefit of others, and for the benefit of what I believe is a long awaited breath of fresh air in the legal education experience as we know it.

I truly appreciate your post, and I appreciate the opportunity to at least attempt to address if not alleviate your concerns. It is in my opinion truly brave to speak up like that, especially to someone that you don't know. You can really never know how someone will react - whether or not they will become defensive, insulted, or even insulting. I hope I've not been any of those things in this response.

On another note: Um, Dean Ortiz reads this forum? Seriously? Then maybe I shouldn't have emailed her last night! lol. Maybe I'm being a pest! Hopefully, it's just perceived as tenacity - but you never know.

[2H2G]

Thanks for the responses y'all. Just to clarify - I'm not waiting to accept my place at Irvine because I'm holding out for another school. I'm just finding it really hard to chose between a couple of schools I've already been accepted at, but I'm almost definitely going to chose Irvine.

[MightyGolem]

Alleycat, I've been lurking on this board for some time and as someone who has been accepted to and will be attending UCI Law I understand why you're re-applying to start law school over from scratch.

However, as I've read your posts over the last months, I've also wondered if you've thought about what your transfer would mean to your 1L classmates. You're not proposing to come in as a transfer student; if I understand your story correctly, you are aspiring for a do-over altogether. While I certainly can appreciate the desire for a reboot every now and again (cf. my application to law school), were we to become classmates at UCI I would be very uncomfortable about the situation.

First of all, you've already endured, and presumably flourished, in your 1l coursework. Setting aside the differences in curriculum, I think it's still fair to say that you would come in to the 1L experience significantly more prepared and warmed up than just about any of the others. Is that fair? I mean, you've already taken torts, contracts, property, civ pro, etc, right? Doesn't that put you at a considerable advantage-- competitively and otherwise-- to the rest of your would-be 1Ls?

On a less immediate/practical level, I question the overall fairness of your enterprise. While I understand the underpinnings completely, it just seems to me that devising a "new path" (re-starting law school instead of transferring, for example) puts those of us who have been walking ON the path at something of a disadvantage.

Look, I get it, and I also know that this isn't really my place to say anything-- it's up to the Admissions Committees to make these determinations. But I also have read that Dean Ortiz reads this board, and I guess I sort of wanted to speak up and say that while I wish you nothing but the best in your career and endeavors (you seem like an interesting person with whom I likely have a great deal in common), I also don't think I would feel comfortable working "side by side" with you as a 1l peer. Clearly your heart is in the right place, but I don't think you have fully examined how your "re-upping" as a 1L might affect the rest of your classmates.

Again, I hope you're able to find what you're looking for, and hope you understand the spirit in which this post was made.

Thanks,

MG

MG -

Thank you so much for your extremely honest, up-front, no BS post. It was incredibly refreshing to say the least. You raise a number of extremely good issues.

To be quite honest, "flourished" is not the term I would use to describe my academic experience as a 1L. Yes, I made it through the dreaded attrition rate (barely). Sitting in contracts class my second week in school, and listening to all the "kids" around me that had time, energy and money to not only read the assignment, but read a treatise cover to cover before class, I knew I could not compete with them academically and I knew that I would not, thus I would have to just "do what it takes to get by" until I could figure something else out. I was pretty sure I wasn't going to make it. I was thinking law school would be a pit stop on the way to grad school. Second year, I did improve, it's true. I may have hit a stride after passing into my 2L year.

Without this turning too much into a sob story, prior to arriving in law school, I was bankrupted after just completing treatment for a serious illness (thus no access to credit based loan $), had an addict family member wipe out my bank account (my only other "family" told me that law school 'does not give a psych test' to signify how much of a non-accomplishment admission to law school is), had my boyfriend of 6 years deported after an administrative error prevented his acceptance of a post-doc position, had to write a (temporarily) rubber check to Uhaul to get here (knowing I'd have $ for it to go through on second presentation when school started), had to use my last $40 to pay day workers to unload my truck and had to stop at the food bank before school started but had overcome two disabilities (one in childhood and one life-long battle) to get through undergrad magna cum laude - albeit in eight years. I am also the single mother of a (high functioning) autistic child.

Why does any of the above matter? Well, for two reasons.

First, "advantage/disadvantage" is more than previous exposure to a subject matter/curriculum & is more than one aspect of a total and overall experience. Meaning: Because I have been exposed to a standard first year curriculum, and a standard law school experience, it does not mean that I have any advantages intellectually, or even with the material because each class in law school has been about figuring out what portion of the material is important to the particular professor - and how to convey that on his or her particular exam - NOT about learning how to actually become a lawyer, nor about mastering all of the material in each class. The "advantages" that each of us possess in particular areas might benefit us all. For instance, Poli Sci majors might be able to help those without out any readily accessible memory on American History succeed in Con Law. I might be able to assist with helping to assist with identifying your learning styles, getting you onto westlaw or lexis, helping you figure out time lines for outlining/countdowns for finals studying for instance. UCI will not have 2L's to mentor incoming 1L's as some law schools do. My experience could be advantageous to you.

Without getting into too much detail with regard to the disadvantages, we each have our own - I'm quite sure; but I also have some limitations academically that mean it's likely that I have to work 5 times as hard as you may to accomplish as much as you could in a standard law school environment. 4 pages of an outline can take up to 15 hours for me if I do it conventionally.

Secondly, being acutely aware of my "situation" (see attempt to avoid sob story, lol), I consciously took a hit academically, believing that it would be more useful to me to have a more "well-rounded" package to present coming out of law school. I wanted more real world experience, more leadership, more innovation, more cutting through the BS, and I wanted my reputation to precede me coming out of law school. I wanted a reputation as the girl that gets things done, the girl that knows the rules but can get around them or change them to affect lasting and meaningful change - and finally as the girl who is a rainmaker. This, I believe I have accomplished in spades.

It may be unusual, unconventional and possibly even suspect to hear, lest fathom the following: I have a compulsion to help. To help to create and feel a part of a team atmosphere. I am the person that provides resources to my classmates, taking into account different learning styles that are not often addressed in a classroom environment. For instance - if I find a particularly good Con Law Flow chart - I will email it to my classmates in the hopes that it will help someone who is a visual learner and is feeling lost in the subject matter to improve their grasp on the material their confidence over all. Confident accomplished law students equate to confident accomplished, happy lawyers and colleagues.

I understand that helping others in this capacity could have a 'negative' effect on my own academic standing, my own academic success and my own "rank" as it were. That paradigm is both shallow, selfish and short-sighted. I don't think "me me me" is the single most important factor to law school, the legal profession or the human race in general. One of the most enjoyable feelings I experience is when someone responds to my assistance with their own successes, with a noticeable increase in confidence/participation or with: "Thank you so much, I didn't even think of that!", or "Thank you so much you are a lifesaver, I don't know if I could have done this/understood this/gotten through this without you." or "Thank you for thinking ahead like that." Yes, I have been met with suspicion, resentment, hostility, cynicism and other forms of negativity in the past, but I choose not to focus on it. I was told recently that "integrity wins out in the end", and while I lost sight of it for a minute, I've regained my confidence in the statement.

In other words - in the event that I have a question, or feel that I can "sum something up in laymens terms" or "reframe something in a way that would make it more intellectually accessible for some/most people", I do not, will not and could not reserve it for a super secret office hours scenario. This is one of the reasons that UCI appeals to me. For the inaugural class, it is this kind of teamwork that will be non-negotiable in order for this program to succeed. Students will need to help each other. Students will need to build each other up, not tear each other down, which is so often found in a 'standard' law school experience. Students will need to come up with creative solutions together. Students will need to create such a strong foundation of accomplishment, camaraderie, leadership, innovation and character that a successful "shake up" of the current law school education experience can take place. Law school has become a breeding ground for the worst kind of nonsensical competition that breeds snakes and feeds into the perception that the legal profession is a cesspool. I cannot play like that. I will not play like that and honestly, though I know this can be perceived as melodramatic, recently sat at a friends kitchen table quite literally crying at the prospect of being fed into that cesspool. UCI, quite literally, has the potential to break this mold and set a new model for what legal education can be. It may be idealistic, but I'm almost 40, been to hell and back - a coupla times - and I still have not lost my idealism, so I know it's possible to maintain it in a world full of cynics/skeptics.

The UCI faculty and staff's vision has been scoffed at. People have expressed doubt with regard to the ability to create a top-notch academic program that actually nurtures people, law students, the legal community, the community at large and the legal profession. I think - no I passionately believe that it can, will and it should be done, but everyone involved has to agree to do it together. A contract to succeed if you will.

I did not apply to UCI because I want a "do-over". I applied to UCI because cross disciplinary study (particularly the relationship between psychology and criminal law) is something that I have been practically screaming about since I started law school. Because I just cannot understand why the law continues to defy the rules of human nature to hold steadfast to policy and procedure - sometimes defying logic, compassion and what is right to do it. Because I cannot understand why nobody insists that law meet humanity somewhere sometimes and why it is so notable when someone does the right thing nowadays.

I applied to UCI because law school has turned into a churn and burn factory. My school did not even bother to prepare our graduating 3L's for the fact that they would have difficulty getting bar loans - despite my warning them last August. I applied to UCI because I want to do law school right, not necessarily over. The intent is not to re-load or re-do. I've spent over two years in school so far (I'm part time - for financial reasons) and have spent TONS of money. Despite the prospect of a tuition scholarship, there are still expenses - living & books for instance. It is an opportunity, not a do-over, and I'm not afraid to jump on opportunities - even if they involve some kind of practical (time, money, effort) sacrifice.

While I am certain that you have expressed the concerns of many, if not most of the already accepted 1L class pertaining to a situation like this, that if nothing else, you (and others) are open to understanding - if on nothing else than instinct alone - that to me, this is not a contest to gain advantage for myself, but only to put my previous experiences, current talents and passions to their best and highest use. I believe any knowledge etc. that I possess is to be shared for the benefit of others, and for the benefit of what I believe is a long awaited breath of fresh air in the legal education experience as we know it.

I truly appreciate your post, and I appreciate the opportunity to at least attempt to address if not alleviate your concerns. It is in my opinion truly brave to speak up like that, especially to someone that you don't know. You can really never know how someone will react - whether or not they will become defensive, insulted, or even insulting. I hope I've not been any of those things in this response.

On another note: Um, Dean Ortiz reads this forum? Seriously? Then maybe I shouldn't have emailed her last night! lol. Maybe I'm being a pest! Hopefully, it's just perceived as tenacity - but you never know.

Alleycat-
Thank you for taking the time to respond and put forth a little more detail on why you're doing what you are. As I indicated in my first post, your heart is clearly in the right place, and you absolutely seem to have a solid set of reasons for pursuing your course of action.

That said, little of what you mentioned does anything to alleviate my core concerns. In your post, you make repeat mentions to your willingness to serve as a guide, a resource, an enabler (forgive me for not relying on direct quotes here-- I hope you won't think I am putting words in your mouth). While your desire to be a positive force and do good (in both your law school and professional careers) are admirable and sincere, I still think that it would be--to be blunt--inappropriate to attempt to re-start the race at the beginning. Even accepting all of your very valid personal reasons and well-informed perspectives on the "churn and burn" approach of many if not most law schools, the point is that on day 1, you will already be equipped with the mental and intellectual framework that it is the goal of any 1L curriculum to begin to construct, the ability to "think like a lawyer" and about the law. Then there's the black letter factual knowledge...

It just seems to me that while it might be unfair in some respects that UCI wasn't an option available to you when you started down your path, it doesn't make it fair for you to join the class in the manner you want. Believe me, I understand just how refreshing UCI must seem to someone who has felt burned by his or her own institutional experience, but at the end of the day, it's still a community for group instruction, and I don't see how the integrity of that community could go un-compromised with the addition of someone who has been there and done that already.

Again, I really, really feel for you-- and your response to my post made me sympathize with you and your very compelling personal story. I have no doubt that your experiences and evident empathy, warmth, generosity of spirit will make you a fantastic advocate for your clients.

-MG

[alleycat13]

Alleycat-
Thank you for taking the time to respond and put forth a little more detail on why you're doing what you are. As I indicated in my first post, your heart is clearly in the right place, and you absolutely seem to have a solid set of reasons for pursuing your course of action.

That said, little of what you mentioned does anything to alleviate my core concerns. In your post, you make repeat mentions to your willingness to serve as a guide, a resource, an enabler (forgive me for not relying on direct quotes here-- I hope you won't think I am putting words in your mouth). While your desire to be a positive force and do good (in both your law school and professional careers) are admirable and sincere, I still think that it would be--to be blunt--inappropriate to attempt to re-start the race at the beginning. Even accepting all of your very valid personal reasons and well-informed perspectives on the "churn and burn" approach of many if not most law schools, the point is that on day 1, you will already be equipped with the mental and intellectual framework that it is the goal of any 1L curriculum to begin to construct, the ability to "think like a lawyer" and about the law. Then there's the black letter factual knowledge...

It just seems to me that while it might be unfair in some respects that UCI wasn't an option available to you when you started down your path, it doesn't make it fair for you to join the class in the manner you want. Believe me, I understand just how refreshing UCI must seem to someone who has felt burned by his or her own institutional experience, but at the end of the day, it's still a community for group instruction, and I don't see how the integrity of that community could go un-compromised with the addition of someone who has been there and done that already.

Again, I really, really feel for you-- and your response to my post made me sympathize with you and your very compelling personal story. I have no doubt that your experiences and evident empathy, warmth, generosity of spirit will make you a fantastic advocate for your clients.

-MG

MG -

I'm sorry that nothing I've said has served to alleviate any of your concerns. I completely understand your skepticism and reservations. Thank you for the acknowledgment that my heart is in the right place, and the nod toward my positive qualities etc., - the recognition does not go unnoticed. People are often simply accusatory based on suspected subtext (suspicious re motivations) or for reasons that they are not in even in touch with. For these reasons, I understand, accept and acknowledge the ability for your acknowledgment and skepticism to co-exist in this context.

I hope you understand I am not being trite or sarcastic in the least (truly) when I say that I am quite used to hearing that what I would like/plan or wish to do is considered "inappropriate". It comes with the territory of being me, really. I'm sure Dean Chemerinsky was told it would be "inappropriate" to seek an inaugural class with such high numbers given no (even provisional) accreditation. I'm sure he was encouraged to seek a more "reasonable" number for LSAT scores etc., but I'm also sure that he understood that people would see the value of his vision, etc. I am not comparing myself with him by any means, but trailblazing often makes people uncomfortable, and often people don't see the value of something perceived as "inappropriate" until they have the pleasure of experiencing it. Even so, skeptics will remain - and I'm sure some of you are scratching your heads and wondering how anyone in their right mind could possibly pass up Irvine over - well - anywhere else. (You, MG, I am quite sure are thankful they did, because I think you believe they did not see the value in the program and would have attended - with doubts - and for the wrong reasons.) In my case, I believe the value of my experience, character, perceptions, passion and intentions far outweigh any 'inappropriateness' or 'advantage' - real or perceived.

I don't believe that UCI will be providing the standard law school experience in the classroom or outside the classroom. My experience would be just as, pardon the expression, 'virgin' as your experience would be. Getting used to new surroundings, new professors, a new administration, new classroom methods and practices, new approaches to materials - I would be at the same place as the rest of you would be.

With regard to a perceived 'advantage' of black letter law: Each professor is different. For instance, my Torts I professor decided it would be better if he re-wrote restatements of law, and that was what our final exam was based on. His restatements of law. He also tested us on procedural error reversals of torts law cases - before I ever took Civil Procedure. If you think I retained Torts I, I barely got out of that class alive. I had to memorize a completely irrelevant set of re-written restatements of law that have virtually no application to any practice of tort law in the real world. I struggled in Torts II because of it. I believe many of my classmates and friends failed out of law school based on his exam.

In contracts - we had two professors that used contracts books that they wrote. That nobody else anywhere else uses. I spoke to an alum from our school on a different matter and when I revealed who I had for contracts, was told: "Oh, you won't learn contracts from him - but don't worry, you'll learn what you need to know to pass the bar during bar prep." (As is evidently, often the case in law school - from what I have heard anyway - otherwise bar prep would not be such a monster).

My legal skills class (research and writing): Our legal skills professor insisted that we use the ALLWOOD guide for citation. The entire profession uses the blue book guide. I had an Alternative Dispute Resolution Class First Semester of Second year. I was dinged on a memo for bad citations. Two+ years of law school (PT), and I don't think I know how to cite properly yet.

I am not implying that I did not retain anything, but nearly all of the people that I know that failed out of law school first year, were, notably, the people that had prior experience in the legal profession. By this I only mean to infer that a perceived advantage is often not quite what it seems - and one would think that paralegals, law clerks, etc., would breeze through law school. Not the case from my observations. I hope the analogy is not lost.

Regarding "thinking like a lawyer". G-D FORBID!!!!!!!! Really. There are several arguments with regard to what "thinking like a lawyer" entails, but if you are talking about learning how to write a law school exam - forget it. I was told by a professor recently: "You are very creative in your thinking and see nuances most don't. This will serve you well in practice. It is killing you in law school." I would rather do slightly more poorly on a law school exam and not have my way of thinking beaten out of me. To me, holding on to what will serve me well in practice is what is most important - so if to you, it is your grades that are most important - than you can count me out of the whole thinking like a lawyer business. I won't be a threat to you or to anyone else if it means giving up the best part of me to do it. If "thinking like a lawyer" means hitting the middle of the curve - that's probably where I'll end up.

Since our messages back and forth seem to be getting rather lengthy, I'm happy to discuss this further via PM or email if you would like, but rather than risk further frustrating or annoying the other people that post on this forum, I will only say this in closing:

Each person's law school experience is different, and what each person brings to the table is different. At the moment, I am the only person that has actually revealed a prior experience in law school, but that does not necessarily mean that I am the only person that actually has prior experience in law school. Maybe I am, I don't know. Nevertheless, each person already admitted has life, education, professional, socio-economic, psychological, physical, analytical and temperamental qualities/characteristics (among others) that may or may not place them at an "advantage" over you, or anyone else in the incoming class in some way. People in hard sciences notoriously do better on the LSAT and are better prepared for law school. (--LinkRemoved--) They would have advantage even over me. Should they be precluded from attending because they are 'advantaged' over all of us that don't?

I would hope that everyone's intentions going into this are to share these advantages with one another, recognize how these advantages can contribute to rather than detract from this team effort (because each one of them has the potential to do one or both), and to truly make this the best place and most desirable program in the country - because it really can be. An individual joining the incoming class with previous law school experience can be both as well - whether real or perceived - but in the end, given the hopefully novel program coming up, the 'advantage' factor of having already been in law school is really an unknown variable that cannot even be speculated on. And believe me when I tell you that finals are not any less stressful on me now than they were first semester.

Okay, I'm off my soapbox....I think you get it. I'm passionate. I think I should go to UCI. I don't believe I have anymore advantage than anyone of you already admitted, (probably even less with Hard Science and Philosophy backgrounds) and in fact think my previous experiences and talents will contribute positively to this class. But, as you said MG, it's for the Admissions committee to decide, if they haven't already, and if in fact Dean Ortiz does read these forums, I'm quite sure that in the event that I am still being considered, that your concerns will be taken under advisement in determining which type of letter gets sent out to me.

Cheers,
Alleycat13

[alleycat13]

I guess it's possible, but so many of us have already been communicating on facebook and through an email discussion group, so I'd bet the majority are totally committed.

KP - I saw on LSN that you withdrew from UCI today, and it looks like UVA threw a pile of money at you. Congratulations!

To the rest of us - One more spot is now open!

I imagine there will be more of this.....?

[Danteshek]

Alleycat-
Thank you for taking the time to respond and put forth a little more detail on why you're doing what you are. As I indicated in my first post, your heart is clearly in the right place, and you absolutely seem to have a solid set of reasons for pursuing your course of action.

That said, little of what you mentioned does anything to alleviate my core concerns. In your post, you make repeat mentions to your willingness to serve as a guide, a resource, an enabler (forgive me for not relying on direct quotes here-- I hope you won't think I am putting words in your mouth). While your desire to be a positive force and do good (in both your law school and professional careers) are admirable and sincere, I still think that it would be--to be blunt--inappropriate to attempt to re-start the race at the beginning. Even accepting all of your very valid personal reasons and well-informed perspectives on the "churn and burn" approach of many if not most law schools, the point is that on day 1, you will already be equipped with the mental and intellectual framework that it is the goal of any 1L curriculum to begin to construct, the ability to "think like a lawyer" and about the law. Then there's the black letter factual knowledge...

It just seems to me that while it might be unfair in some respects that UCI wasn't an option available to you when you started down your path, it doesn't make it fair for you to join the class in the manner you want. Believe me, I understand just how refreshing UCI must seem to someone who has felt burned by his or her own institutional experience, but at the end of the day, it's still a community for group instruction, and I don't see how the integrity of that community could go un-compromised with the addition of someone who has been there and done that already.

Again, I really, really feel for you-- and your response to my post made me sympathize with you and your very compelling personal story. I have no doubt that your experiences and evident empathy, warmth, generosity of spirit will make you a fantastic advocate for your clients.

-MG

MG -

I'm sorry that nothing I've said has served to alleviate any of your concerns. I completely understand your skepticism and reservations. Thank you for the acknowledgment that my heart is in the right place, and the nod toward my positive qualities etc., - the recognition does not go unnoticed. People are often simply accusatory based on suspected subtext (suspicious re motivations) or for reasons that they are not in even in touch with. For these reasons, I understand, accept and acknowledge the ability for your acknowledgment and skepticism to co-exist in this context.

I hope you understand I am not being trite or sarcastic in the least (truly) when I say that I am quite used to hearing that what I would like/plan or wish to do is considered "inappropriate". It comes with the territory of being me, really. I'm sure Dean Chemerinsky was told it would be "inappropriate" to seek an inaugural class with such high numbers given no (even provisional) accreditation. I'm sure he was encouraged to seek a more "reasonable" number for LSAT scores etc., but I'm also sure that he understood that people would see the value of his vision, etc. I am not comparing myself with him by any means, but trailblazing often makes people uncomfortable, and often people don't see the value of something perceived as "inappropriate" until they have the pleasure of experiencing it. Even so, skeptics will remain - and I'm sure some of you are scratching your heads and wondering how anyone in their right mind could possibly pass up Irvine over - well - anywhere else. (You, MG, I am quite sure are thankful they did, because I think you believe they did not see the value in the program and would have attended - with doubts - and for the wrong reasons.) In my case, I believe the value of my experience, character, perceptions, passion and intentions far outweigh any 'inappropriateness' or 'advantage' - real or perceived.

I don't believe that UCI will be providing the standard law school experience in the classroom or outside the classroom. My experience would be just as, pardon the expression, 'virgin' as your experience would be. Getting used to new surroundings, new professors, a new administration, new classroom methods and practices, new approaches to materials - I would be at the same place as the rest of you would be.

With regard to a perceived 'advantage' of black letter law: Each professor is different. For instance, my Torts I professor decided it would be better if he re-wrote restatements of law, and that was what our final exam was based on. His restatements of law. He also tested us on procedural error reversals of torts law cases - before I ever took Civil Procedure. If you think I retained Torts I, I barely got out of that class alive. I had to memorize a completely irrelevant set of re-written restatements of law that have virtually no application to any practice of tort law in the real world. I struggled in Torts II because of it. I believe many of my classmates and friends failed out of law school based on his exam.

In contracts - we had two professors that used contracts books that they wrote. That nobody else anywhere else uses. I spoke to an alum from our school on a different matter and when I revealed who I had for contracts, was told: "Oh, you won't learn contracts from him - but don't worry, you'll learn what you need to know to pass the bar during bar prep." (As is evidently, often the case in law school - from what I have heard anyway - otherwise bar prep would not be such a monster).

My legal skills class (research and writing): Our legal skills professor insisted that we use the ALLWOOD guide for citation. The entire profession uses the blue book guide. I had an Alternative Dispute Resolution Class First Semester of Second year. I was dinged on a memo for bad citations. Two+ years of law school (PT), and I don't think I know how to cite properly yet.

I am not implying that I did not retain anything, but nearly all of the people that I know that failed out of law school first year, were, notably, the people that had prior experience in the legal profession. By this I only mean to infer that a perceived advantage is often not quite what it seems - and one would think that paralegals, law clerks, etc., would breeze through law school. Not the case from my observations. I hope the analogy is not lost.

Regarding "thinking like a lawyer". G-D FORBID!!!!!!!! Really. There are several arguments with regard to what "thinking like a lawyer" entails, but if you are talking about learning how to write a law school exam - forget it. I was told by a professor recently: "You are very creative in your thinking and see nuances most don't. This will serve you well in practice. It is killing you in law school." I would rather do slightly more poorly on a law school exam and not have my way of thinking beaten out of me. To me, holding on to what will serve me well in practice is what is most important - so if to you, it is your grades that are most important - than you can count me out of the whole thinking like a lawyer business. I won't be a threat to you or to anyone else if it means giving up the best part of me to do it. If "thinking like a lawyer" means hitting the middle of the curve - that's probably where I'll end up.

Since our messages back and forth seem to be getting rather lengthy, I'm happy to discuss this further via PM or email if you would like, but rather than risk further frustrating or annoying the other people that post on this forum, I will only say this in closing:

Each person's law school experience is different, and what each person brings to the table is different. At the moment, I am the only person that has actually revealed a prior experience in law school, but that does not necessarily mean that I am the only person that actually has prior experience in law school. Maybe I am, I don't know. Nevertheless, each person already admitted has life, education, professional, socio-economic, psychological, physical, analytical and temperamental qualities/characteristics (among others) that may or may not place them at an "advantage" over you, or anyone else in the incoming class in some way. People in hard sciences notoriously do better on the LSAT and are better prepared for law school. (--LinkRemoved--) They would have advantage even over me. Should they be precluded from attending because they are 'advantaged' over all of us that don't?

I would hope that everyone's intentions going into this are to share these advantages with one another, recognize how these advantages can contribute to rather than detract from this team effort (because each one of them has the potential to do one or both), and to truly make this the best place and most desirable program in the country - because it really can be. An individual joining the incoming class with previous law school experience can be both as well - whether real or perceived - but in the end, given the hopefully novel program coming up, the 'advantage' factor of having already been in law school is really an unknown variable that cannot even be speculated on. And believe me when I tell you that finals are not any less stressful on me now than they were first semester.

Okay, I'm off my soapbox....I think you get it. I'm passionate. I think I should go to UCI. I don't believe I have anymore advantage than anyone of you already admitted, (probably even less with Hard Science and Philosophy backgrounds) and in fact think my previous experiences and talents will contribute positively to this class. But, as you said MG, it's for the Admissions committee to decide, if they haven't already, and if in fact Dean Ortiz does read these forums, I'm quite sure that in the event that I am still being considered, that your concerns will be taken under advisement in determining which type of letter gets sent out to me.

Cheers,
Alleycat13

You are long winded.

[alleycat13]

You are long winded.

Sometimes.

[Danteshek]

You are long winded.

Sometimes.

Got my rejection from UCI (and UCH) today. Btw what law school are you currently attending (or attended)? If you don't feel comfortable posting please PM.