In at UC Irvine

[jacktripper]

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

Did you post this as an attempt at convincing Dean Ortiz not to accept alleycat? Also, are you really that threatened by one person out of sixty being at UCI with more knowledge than you? Are you also threatened by students that have parents that are lawyers?

[jibstir13]

Do schools allow students to redo the fist couple years of law school?

It's probably on a case by case basis...my guess is that it rarely occurs.

[MightyGolem]

Did you post this as an attempt at convincing Dean Ortiz not to accept alleycat? Also, are you really that threatened by one person out of sixty being at UCI with more knowledge than you? Are you also threatened by students that have parents that are lawyers?

Yes, I believe that an anonymous posting on an Internet message board is definitely the best way for me to communicate whatever concerns I might have about another poster on the board to the Dean of students of my future school ... Sorry, I ran out of sufficient sarcasm to finish the sentence.

I'm not threatened by Alleycat, Jack. But I stand by the concerns I expressed in my posts, and am content to leave it at that. You can direct your vitriol elsewhere.

[naivekid1986]

hmm. personally i'd be happy to go to school with alleycat if she and i were both to get in. ...her applying to irvine isn't any more unfair than anyone else applying, imho, and she sure seems a lot nicer than ME.

[jacktripper]

Did you post this as an attempt at convincing Dean Ortiz not to accept alleycat? Also, are you really that threatened by one person out of sixty being at UCI with more knowledge than you? Are you also threatened by students that have parents that are lawyers?

Yes, I believe that an anonymous posting on an Internet message board is definitely the best way for me to communicate whatever concerns I might have about another poster on the board to the Dean of students of my future school ... Sorry, I ran out of sufficient sarcasm to finish the sentence.

I'm not threatened by Alleycat, Jack. But I stand by the concerns I expressed in my posts, and am content to leave it at that. You can direct your vitriol elsewhere.

What I'm saying is that your logic could also be applied to students that know lawyers personally. Are you going to go around during orientation asking students if their parents are lawyers? If some students have family that are lawyers are you going to tell Dean Ortiz that they have an unfair advantage because their parents have been discussing the law with them around the dinner table for years? The truth is some students are going to be more familiar with the law than you and there isn't much you can realistically do about that. Instead of focusing your energy on how it is unfair that someone has an advantage, you should focus on how you can do well in class. I suggest you become friends with students that know more than you so you can learn from them.
Good luck at UCI.

[MightyGolem]

Did you post this as an attempt at convincing Dean Ortiz not to accept alleycat? Also, are you really that threatened by one person out of sixty being at UCI with more knowledge than you? Are you also threatened by students that have parents that are lawyers?

Yes, I believe that an anonymous posting on an Internet message board is definitely the best way for me to communicate whatever concerns I might have about another poster on the board to the Dean of students of my future school ... Sorry, I ran out of sufficient sarcasm to finish the sentence.

I'm not threatened by Alleycat, Jack. But I stand by the concerns I expressed in my posts, and am content to leave it at that. You can direct your vitriol elsewhere.

What I'm saying is that your logic could also be applied to students that know lawyers personally. Are you going to go around during orientation asking students if their parents are lawyers? If some students have family that are lawyers are you going to tell Dean Ortiz that they have an unfair advantage because their parents have been discussing the law with them around the dinner table for years? The truth is some students are going to be more familiar with the law than you and there isn't much you can realistically do about that. Instead of focusing your energy on how it is unfair that someone has an advantage, you should focus on how you can do well in class. I suggest you become friends with students that know more than you so you can learn from them.
Good luck at UCI.

You're playing hypothetical lawyerball, and turning this into a straw man argument instead of acknowledging the specific conversation at hand, which is whether there could be a significant difference between someone in her third year of law school making an attempt to start over as a first year student as opposed to, say, transferring in and resuming studies as a 2/3L. Of course law school draws together classmates with a variety of personal and professional experience, and of course some of those experiences may prepare some individual betters than others. But I'm focusing not on a generic "experience"-I'm asking whether someone who has already completed much of their legal studies is fairly entitled to start over as a "First Year Law Student," and am also quite happy in my trust that (UCI's or any school's) administration can best make that determination.

By stretching the parameters of this conversation, you've derailed it, obfuscated my serious and respectful intentions, and painted me as some sort of tattle tale to boot.

Good luck to you, as well.

[jacktripper]

see post below

[jacktripper]

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

I agree that it is unfair for someone to restart Law School, but your opinion does not matter. As you said, the administration is going to make this decision. My response came as a reaction to you posting your complaint and acknowledging that Ortiz reads this board. Your post that I quoted and bolded above does make you seem like a tattle tale. If this is a decision for the administration to make, then why write such a long explanation about why you believe it would be unfair for Alleycat to be accepted on a board that Ortiz reads? Do you honestly not see how badly you come off in that post?

[necromancer]

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

I agree that it is unfair for someone to restart Law School, but your opinion does not matter. As you said, the administration is going to make this decision. My response came as a reaction to you posting your complaint and acknowledging that Ortiz reads this board. Your post that I quoted and bolded above does make you seem like a tattle tale. If this is a decision for the administration to make, then why write such a long explanation about why you believe it would be unfair for Alleycat to be accepted on a board that Ortiz reads? Do you honestly not see how badly you come off in that post?

Oy gevalt. I think ALL of you make baby Jesus cry.

[uwdoalt]

MG indicates that not everyone at UCI will be mellow, cool type. I suggest we drop the topic. Very unlikely the school will admit someone who is currently in law school. If it were to happen, let's assume it would be for a good reason.

[alleycat13]

Do schools allow students to redo the fist couple years of law school?

It's probably on a case by case basis...my guess is that it rarely occurs.

I just noticed this.

First, I have not completed two years of law school. I have completed 45 of 89 necessary credits to graduate. If I were to transfer somewhere, I would likely lose about 12-14 of those credits. Meaning I am about a second semester 2L.

Secondly, YES you are allowed to start law school over again. Had I not made the cut first year, and been academically disqualified, I would have been able to re-apply to law school after 12 months and start over again. I am not sure if this is "industry/per school standard" in terms of a break students that fail out are "required" to take or imposed by regulation. Of note, all re-ups have already taken every first year class already.

[alleycat13]

MG indicates that not everyone at UCI will be mellow, cool type. I suggest we drop the topic. Very unlikely the school will admit someone who is currently in law school. If it were to happen, let's assume it would be for a good reason.

That makes me sad. Although I must say (sorry - eternal glass half full over here) that I appreciate the value of such a discourse (yes, there is value to this!) and that having a mindset that judges what is fair/unfair not based on experience or with an open mind but on presumptions and preconceived notions is a necessity, and that I hope, that no matter what, people are able to remain level headed when engaging with such persons etc. That was not a slight, but an impartial assessment of how you came to your conclusions MG, sorry, not a judgment in anyway (even though I think my way is right/better. ). Diverse mindsets should be represented, welcomed and by all means encouraged! And by all means, if the admissions committee (or anyone else for that matter) makes a decision that you are completely opposed to then by all means - speak up! There is never a reason to assume something is for a 'good reason' if you are opposed to it. That said, if you want to do that - go ahead and do that too.

The point here is that you get to do what you want. You get to feel, say, speak, think, opine etc...how you want. We don't live in an Orwellian society just yet (okay, okay - can of worms). MG gets to say his piece, I do, ultimately, the Admissions Committee will.

I think there needs to be a fair cross section of all kinds of people at UCI or it could have the potential to become too insulated & too "exclusive" which could/would have the opposite effect of systemic change to the law school experience. In other words, in order to know how to change a kangaroo to koala, we need to have some kangaroos around. Horrible analogy, but I thought the topic might need some levity at this point.

Okay, I'll shut up. I've been accused of being long winded. And now..I will point out the obvious...my love of the "smiley"...

Thanks for weighing in folks. No matter the outcome for me - I am quite certain that UCI will have more than a fair share of passionate, unique individuals that will contribute to the law school education experience and ultimately reflect positively on the legal profession. All I can tell you is that my fingers and toes (and eyes - ouch) are crossed hoping that the admissions committee is ready to think outside the box with me on this one.

Happy Easter, Passover and long-term religious skepticism day do everyone!

[jibstir13]

Do schools allow students to redo the fist couple years of law school?

It's probably on a case by case basis...my guess is that it rarely occurs.

I just noticed this.

First, I have not completed two years of law school. I have completed 45 of 89 necessary credits to graduate. If I were to transfer somewhere, I would likely lose about 12-14 of those credits. Meaning I am about a second semester 2L.

Secondly, YES you are allowed to start law school over again. Had I not made the cut first year, and been academically disqualified, I would have been able to re-apply to law school after 12 months and start over again. I am not sure if this is "industry/per school standard" in terms of a break students that fail out are "required" to take or imposed by regulation. Of note, all re-ups have already taken every first year class already.

So you have completed 3 semesters of law school instead of 4...


The issue remains the same:

Whether someone who has successfully* completed 3 semesters of law school should be allowed to voluntarily restart law school as a 1L.

*success defined as passing a course.


I am with MG on this one and believe the answer should be NO.

The example you give does not apply to you because you were not academically disqualified.

[Rocky Estoppel]

I'm with jacktripper on this...I think everyone should worry about themselves and let the admissions committee do its job. Work hard, do the best you can and things will work out in the end.

[alleycat13]

So you have completed 3 semesters of law school instead of 4...


The issue remains the same:

Whether someone who has successfully* completed 3 semesters of law school should be allowed to voluntarily restart law school as a 1L.

*success defined as passing a course.


I am with MG on this one and believe the answer should be NO.

The example you give does not apply to you because you were not academically disqualified.

*sigh*

If you only knew how many hundreths of a point "success" was defined upon, and how many different "grading scales" there are at every single law school in the country. And just how subjective they are.

But I acknowledge that you can only opine based on your experience in both the world and life, and there is just really know way for you to know how utterly and completely black and white you are both making it.

The only think you need to know going into law school...is that the answer is...."depends/maybe/possibly" and almost never "yes" or "no". And where it is said to be "yes" or "no", with a compelling enough argument, it can be changed.

I think Jack may have been onto something. Are you threatened by me in some way?

Neither one of you have even asked me what law school I go to, what tier it's on, if it's accredited by the ABA or just the Cal Bar, you've made no effort whatsoever to even attempt to figure out whether or not what I've completed is even remotely credible. This is the first mention of even a remote attempt to reach outside of a narrow pathway of thinking at "passed classes".

You've just made assumptions, gathered them along with your preconceived notions and formed an opinion making a definitive statement to the tune of a resounding "NO" based on those factors and those factors alone.

In law, the question always boils down to "what's the harm?" There is simply never a cause of action without a harm. Preventative measures are not taken unless it is to prevent a definitive, tangible harm being caused.

As of yet, I fail to see a harm that would be caused by allowing a current law student to join a new program at the beginning essentially "starting the race over again" as MG put it - other than causing trepidation, some fear and some discomfort in the linear mindsets of some - evidently not all - people involved and perhaps bringing said persons outside of their comfort zones. There is not, in fact or conjecture any actual, tangible or proven harm that it would cause.

Actually, rather than harm, that sounds strangely like true progress to me.

[jacktripper]

As of yet, I fail to see a harm that would be caused by allowing a current law student to join a new program at the beginning essentially "starting the race over again" as MG put it - other than causing trepidation, some fear and some discomfort in the linear mindsets of some - evidently not all - people involved and perhaps bringing said persons outside of their comfort zones. There is not, in fact or conjecture any actual, tangible or proven harm that it would cause.

Actually, rather than harm, that sounds strangely like true progress to me.

I agree. There really is no harm that could come out of you attending UCI. The only way you would affect MG is through the curve, but even in that regard you are only one out of 60 students. So you won't affect the curve that much. If MG and jibstir were smart they would try to ask you for advice on 1L. I'm hoping you are admitted and rub it in their faces.

[LawApp2012]

I don't feel strongly on either side of the argument, but I will say this: At most schools, I can imagine being threatened by someone starting over since it is always easier to grasp material the second time around, even if the course material is slightly different. However, at UCI, I really don't think we will have the same sense of competition that you find at most law schools, so I don't think there's any reason to feel threatened by anyone no matter what their circumstances are. The curve will be recommended, not required, and the faculty intends to help everyone succeed. This will not be a competitive environment, so anyone with previous knowledge should not be feared or resented. We will all do well, a good exam is a good exam, regardless of our peers' exams (at UCI, anyway).

[A'nold]

Did you post this as an attempt at convincing Dean Ortiz not to accept alleycat? Also, are you really that threatened by one person out of sixty being at UCI with more knowledge than you? Are you also threatened by students that have parents that are lawyers?

Yes, I believe that an anonymous posting on an Internet message board is definitely the best way for me to communicate whatever concerns I might have about another poster on the board to the Dean of students of my future school ... Sorry, I ran out of sufficient sarcasm to finish the sentence.

I'm not threatened by Alleycat, Jack. But I stand by the concerns I expressed in my posts, and am content to leave it at that. You can direct your vitriol elsewhere.

What I'm saying is that your logic could also be applied to students that know lawyers personally. Are you going to go around during orientation asking students if their parents are lawyers? If some students have family that are lawyers are you going to tell Dean Ortiz that they have an unfair advantage because their parents have been discussing the law with them around the dinner table for years? The truth is some students are going to be more familiar with the law than you and there isn't much you can realistically do about that. Instead of focusing your energy on how it is unfair that someone has an advantage, you should focus on how you can do well in class. I suggest you become friends with students that know more than you so you can learn from them.
Good luck at UCI.

You're playing hypothetical lawyerball, and turning this into a straw man argument instead of acknowledging the specific conversation at hand, which is whether there could be a significant difference between someone in her third year of law school making an attempt to start over as a first year student as opposed to, say, transferring in and resuming studies as a 2/3L. Of course law school draws together classmates with a variety of personal and professional experience, and of course some of those experiences may prepare some individual betters than others. But I'm focusing not on a generic "experience"-I'm asking whether someone who has already completed much of their legal studies is fairly entitled to start over as a "First Year Law Student," and am also quite happy in my trust that (UCI's or any school's) administration can best make that determination.

By stretching the parameters of this conversation, you've derailed it, obfuscated my serious and respectful intentions, and painted me as some sort of tattle tale to boot.

Good luck to you, as well.

You ARE a tattle tale and obviously someone that takes themselves way too seriously.

[alleycat13]

At most schools, I can imagine being threatened by someone starting over since it is always easier to grasp material the second time around, even if the course material is slightly different. However, at UCI, I really don't think we will have the same sense of competition that you find at most law schools, so I don't think there's any reason to feel threatened by anyone no matter what their circumstances are. We will all do well, a good exam is a good exam, regardless of our peers' exams (at UCI, anyway).

LawApp..thanks for that...I was hoping that I got that across somewhere in the teamwork thing, but you said it quite a bit more succinctly, so thanks.

Now that's teamwork... (I am such a smiley lover...so sorry..okay, not really. You can hate if you want.)

[alleycat13]

I'm hoping you are admitted and rub it in their faces.

Oh. Jaaaack. (yes, that was whiny chrissy snow, lol)

Seriously though, not only would I not rub it in their faces, but I would probably take every opportunity I could to help them succeed if they were open to it. My only intent would not be to "beat 'em" or "rub it in their faces", but instead maybe broaden their horizons a bit...maybe help them to see that what they thought was/is wrong and that no harm came to them by my attending. What they do with it from there, is entirely up to them.

[alleycat13]

You ARE a tattle tale and obviously someone that takes themselves way too seriously.

But a necessary and valued part of the discussion of course. No offense intended A'nold....

[jibstir13]

I am willing to stay in this discussion b/c you seem like a reasonable, mature individual and not the type who will "rub it in our faces".

If you only knew how many hundreths of a point "success" was defined upon, and how many different "grading scales" there are at every single law school in the country. And just how subjective they are.

But I acknowledge that you can only opine based on your experience in both the world and life, and there is just really know way for you to know how utterly and completely black and white you are both making it.

You assume:

1. I do not know anything about law school grading curves.
2. That i don't understand how a minute difference between two scores can make a world of difference.
3. I do not realize there is a subjective element to law school exam grading.

These assumptions are incorrect.

I think Jack may have been onto something. Are you threatened by me in some way?

I am not threatened by you - I am merely giving my opinion regarding the issue we are discussing.

Neither one of you have even asked me what law school I go to, what tier it's on, if it's accredited by the ABA or just the Cal Bar, you've made no effort whatsoever to even attempt to figure out whether or not what I've completed is even remotely credible. This is the first mention of even a remote attempt to reach outside of a narrow pathway of thinking at "passed classes".

How does this matter regarding the issue we are discussing?

You've just made assumptions, gathered them along with your preconceived notions and formed an opinion making a definitive statement to the tune of a resounding "NO" based on those factors and those factors alone.

You should practice what you preach and try understand why I am on this side of the fence rather than make assumptions about me. My opinion is based on what you have shared in previous posts in this thread, not on assumptions and preconceived notions.

In law, the question always boils down to "what's the harm?" There is simply never a cause of action without a harm. Preventative measures are not taken unless it is to prevent a definitive, tangible harm being caused.

As of yet, I fail to see a harm that would be caused by allowing a current law student to join a new program at the beginning essentially "starting the race over again" as MG put it - other than causing trepidation, some fear and some discomfort in the linear mindsets of some - evidently not all - people involved and perhaps bringing said persons outside of their comfort zones. There is not, in fact or conjecture any actual, tangible or proven harm that it would cause.

The harm is you would be at a significant advantage because you are taking the same courses over, albeit with slight differences. You will greatly benefit from your prior law school experience during exams and will undoubtedly do better than you would without such experience. This will influence where you and others rank in the class, in turn influencing what happens during OCI. This is unfair to those who are attending law school for the first time.

From what i understand, UCI will not use a curve but it will be recommended. I don't understand what this really means, so maybe your prior experience as a law student won't matter as much at UCI. I believe what I said holds true at any other law school. Perhaps that is why you would like to attend UCI...Have you spoken to any other schools about voluntarily restarting law school?

As many have said before the decision is up to UCI. I wish you the best of luck and hope you find what you are looking for.

[gyita]

Out. 162/3.46 + 10 years work experience.

Good luck to all who get in - you'll have a great experience.

[AdHaq]

gyita, sorry to hear about that. I wish you luck in your future plans.

If you don't mind me asking, when did you find out and where do you reside?

[gyita]

Southern California. I got the letter on Saturday, but I only get to my mailbox on Saturdays, so that isn't an indication of when it arrived. The letter was dated April 7th.