UW$ vs UCI$$ Forum

[longestroad]

I am in the final stages of making a decision of where I'm attending this fall. I've narrowed it down to two T1 regional schools in areas I wouldn't mind working in.

UCI: 13k / year (living rent free with family member)
UW: 23k / year (partner covering rent)

I will be taking out loans to cover tuition either way, as I have no family to help and no significant savings.
I have been seeing UW as too expensive at 69k total for 3 years, but is that really a lot of debt? Is it feasible that I can pay that off after graduating? It's confusing because some days I'll think that's an insane amount of money and some days it seems ok. For what it's worth, I prefer Seattle over SoCal. I also have ties to SoCal so I don't see getting back here if I end up not liking Seattle as a huge issue.

My long term partner will be staying in San Diego if I go to UCI and I will be living with a family member. It's about an hour and a half drive so it's not a big deal, but I do prefer living with my partner. If I choose Seattle, my partner will move with me, which is something we see as exciting since we love the PNW.

I have only taken the LSAT once, but I studied my ass off for it. I am not totally against retaking but I would very much like to attend this fall. Long term career goals are govt / PI. Of course biglaw would be great to pay off loans but I'm not set on it since I know it's unrealistic at these schools. Like everyone else, I'm planning on going into law school with a crazy strong work ethic and making it my life.

Stats: 165 / 3.7

[UVA2B]

What are you envisioning in government/PI where you like the sound of Biglaw but realize it's unlikely from these schools? If you're cool working in state or local government in Southern California (and probably California generally when we're talking local government and PI), go to UCI since it's cheaper. If you're moving to the PNW, how are you going to pay for the rest of COL? Is your partner going to cover all extraneous costs of your life like books, food, rent, entertainment, etc.? If not, you're looking at easily $100k in debt for UW, which is a ton of debt for someone thinking they'll go into local government or PI.

[longestroad]

What are you envisioning in government/PI where you like the sound of Biglaw but realize it's unlikely from these schools? If you're cool working in state or local government in Southern California (and probably California generally when we're talking local government and PI), go to UCI since it's cheaper. If you're moving to the PNW, how are you going to pay for the rest of COL? Is your partner going to cover all extraneous costs of your life like books, food, rent, entertainment, etc.? If not, you're looking at easily $100k in debt for UW, which is a ton of debt for someone thinking they'll go into local government or PI.

I want state / local govt long term, but I can see myself enjoying biglaw for a couple years straight out of law school. I'm also really interested in clerking.
I guess I should've mentioned that I do have a small amount of support from family, but not to cover tuition. They've agreed to help me pay for living expenses and books but tuition is all on me. They want me to take one of my full rides at a
TT or TTT but I've gone against that idea since I found TLS. Although it is super appealing to graduate debt free.
Anyway, the loans will only be for tuition.

[UVA2B]

I would definitely say stay in CA and go to UCI. Those modest goals should come with attendant modest costs. UCI does well in PI and things of that nature, and just north of $40k debt is totally manageable on the type of income you're likely to have.

This minor long distance will pale in comparison to the reduced debt and similar outcomes in three years from now. I realize some people uniquely love the PNW (or at least the idea of living in the PNW), but the prudent choice here is staying in CA and going to UCI IMO.

[longestroad]

I would definitely say stay in CA and go to UCI. Those modest goals should come with attendant modest costs. UCI does well in PI and things of that nature, and just north of $40k debt is totally manageable on the type of income you're likely to have.

This minor long distance will pale in comparison to the reduced debt and similar outcomes in three years from now. I realize some people uniquely love the PNW (or at least the idea of living in the PNW), but the prudent choice here is staying in CA and going to UCI IMO.

Thanks, I appreciate your honesty. What are your thoughts on UC Davis? I don't like the idea of living there but it would be almost free for me.

[UVA2B]

UCD for free vs. UCI for ~$40k is about a toss-up for me with your goals in mind. I don't really think UCI is worth $40k more for local government and modest PI goals, but UCI is undoubtedly worth $40k more for a lot of other types of more desirable employment. If you want to leave the door open to more hard to get employment, take UCI for $40k.

[Arboreal]

Recent grad headed back to Seattle chiming in.

If your long-term goal is PNW local or state government work, I'd recommend taking the option with the least amount of debt and tailoring your 1l and 2l summer experiences toward those sorts of positions. Hustle for relevant jobs/externships ASAP during 1L. The sorts of internships you'd be looking at in those fields, especially in and around CA/OR/WA aren't likely to be super prestige-conscious, and with the right experience you could head up to the PNW pretty quickly after law school. $69K is a lot of debt on a PI salary, and the freedom and lack of fear that comes with a small debt burden is worth more than you can probably realize as a 0L. Also, big law chances out of any of these schools aren't particularly high, so if that's not something you're into as a long haul career prospect, it wouldn't make sense to take on debt for a marginally better long shot at an outcome you don't care for.

Still, it's probably best to retake that 165. A couple more points and you could be looking at admission to Boalt or UW for free -- didn't UW Law fairly recently get some crazy big donation for schollies?

[Big Dog]

It's about an hour and a half drive so it's not a big deal

That drive will get old really fast. Plus, it's only 90 minutes after say, midnight. Add in parking, walk to class etc, and you are looking at 3-3.5 hours per day of exhausting non-law school time.

Traffic is only getting worse as the economy grows, along with the population in northern San Diego county and southern OC. Commute not recommended.

[dannyswo]

It's about an hour and a half drive so it's not a big deal

That drive will get old really fast. Plus, it's only 90 minutes after say, midnight. Add in parking, walk to class etc, and you are looking at 3-3.5 hours per day of exhausting non-law school time.

Traffic is only getting worse as the economy grows, along with the population in northern San Diego county and southern OC. Commute not recommended.

Same. That drive is hellish. Add in the border check point at San Clemente...

[CPAlawHopefu]

Now that Chemerinsky is confirmed to bail to Berkeley Law, UCI doesn't seem that attractive anymore. I signed myself out of waitlist. GL!

[UVA2B]

Now that Chemerinsky is confirmed to bail to Berkeley Law, UCI doesn't seem that attractive anymore. I signed myself out of waitlist. GL!

If you go to any law school based on who the dean is/is not, you're doing this wrong.

[CPAlawHopefu]

Now that Chemerinsky is confirmed to bail to Berkeley Law, UCI doesn't seem that attractive anymore. I signed myself out of waitlist. GL!

If you go to any law school based on who the dean is/is not, you're doing this wrong.

Employment outcome is the #1 factor for me.

I don't think anyone here will deny that UCI owes it to Chemerinsky for its extraordinary clerkship number compared to its peers. Once he's out, I would guess that the clerkship number will be in free-fall.

[UVA2B]

Now that Chemerinsky is confirmed to bail to Berkeley Law, UCI doesn't seem that attractive anymore. I signed myself out of waitlist. GL!

If you go to any law school based on who the dean is/is not, you're doing this wrong.

Employment outcome is the #1 factor for me.

I don't think anyone here will deny that UCI owes it to Chemerinsky for its extraordinary clerkship number compared to its peers. Once he's out, I would guess that the clerkship number will be in free-fall.

Possibly, but who's to say the types of students who used to get federal clerkships don't just translate to higher percentages going into Biglaw or desirable PI since those federal clerks are also presumably better performing students? Chemerinsky has weight in the legal community and it'd be stupid to contest that, but UCI has established itself in the Southern California market sufficiently that should allow sustainable success in the market where the departure of one person doesn't cause significant changes in their overall employment placement.

But whatever, I'm glad you decided staying on their WL wasn't worth it (mainly because you'd be paying sticker more than likely if you got off of it, which is a giant bowl of yuck in the debt column, not because you avoided a looming tumble down the legal hiring mountain).

[CPAlawHopefu]

Now that Chemerinsky is confirmed to bail to Berkeley Law, UCI doesn't seem that attractive anymore. I signed myself out of waitlist. GL!

If you go to any law school based on who the dean is/is not, you're doing this wrong.

Employment outcome is the #1 factor for me.

I don't think anyone here will deny that UCI owes it to Chemerinsky for its extraordinary clerkship number compared to its peers. Once he's out, I would guess that the clerkship number will be in free-fall.

Possibly, but who's to say the types of students who used to get federal clerkships don't just translate to higher percentages going into Biglaw or desirable PI since those federal clerks are also presumably better performing students? Chemerinsky has weight in the legal community and it'd be stupid to contest that, but UCI has established itself in the Southern California market sufficiently that should allow sustainable success in the market where the departure of one person doesn't cause significant changes in their overall employment placement.

But whatever, I'm glad you decided staying on their WL wasn't worth it (mainly because you'd be paying sticker more than likely if you got off of it, which is a giant bowl of yuck in the debt column, not because you avoided a looming tumble down the legal hiring mountain).

I wouldn't say that UCI is a bad choice but with Chemerinsky gone, it loses its biggest competitive edge to its peer schools. And no, I do not think the students who would get federal clerkship under Chem's tenureship would get biglaw positions or prestigious PI's. UCLA and USC will take those positions, Berkeley gets most of the judicial clerkship positions, and UCI loses out.

[SmokeytheBear]

Now that Chemerinsky is confirmed to bail to Berkeley Law, UCI doesn't seem that attractive anymore. I signed myself out of waitlist. GL!

If you go to any law school based on who the dean is/is not, you're doing this wrong.

Employment outcome is the #1 factor for me.

I don't think anyone here will deny that UCI owes it to Chemerinsky for its extraordinary clerkship number compared to its peers. Once he's out, I would guess that the clerkship number will be in free-fall.

Possibly, but who's to say the types of students who used to get federal clerkships don't just translate to higher percentages going into Biglaw or desirable PI since those federal clerks are also presumably better performing students? Chemerinsky has weight in the legal community and it'd be stupid to contest that, but UCI has established itself in the Southern California market sufficiently that should allow sustainable success in the market where the departure of one person doesn't cause significant changes in their overall employment placement.

But whatever, I'm glad you decided staying on their WL wasn't worth it (mainly because you'd be paying sticker more than likely if you got off of it, which is a giant bowl of yuck in the debt column, not because you avoided a looming tumble down the legal hiring mountain).

I wouldn't say that UCI is a bad choice but with Chemerinsky gone, it loses its biggest competitive edge to its peer schools. And no, I do not think the students who would get federal clerkship under Chem's tenureship would get biglaw positions or prestigious PI's. UCLA and USC will take those positions, Berkeley gets most of the judicial clerkship positions, and UCI loses out.

This is just wrong. I'd love to see some of your IRAC analysis on your exams.

I can promise you, because I work at a very large firm in LA (and lateraled from an even larger LA firm), that both firms have hired from UCI and that neither firms care about whether Chemerinsky is there or not. We'll keep hiring from them.

[UVA2B]

Now that Chemerinsky is confirmed to bail to Berkeley Law, UCI doesn't seem that attractive anymore. I signed myself out of waitlist. GL!

If you go to any law school based on who the dean is/is not, you're doing this wrong.

Employment outcome is the #1 factor for me.

I don't think anyone here will deny that UCI owes it to Chemerinsky for its extraordinary clerkship number compared to its peers. Once he's out, I would guess that the clerkship number will be in free-fall.

Possibly, but who's to say the types of students who used to get federal clerkships don't just translate to higher percentages going into Biglaw or desirable PI since those federal clerks are also presumably better performing students? Chemerinsky has weight in the legal community and it'd be stupid to contest that, but UCI has established itself in the Southern California market sufficiently that should allow sustainable success in the market where the departure of one person doesn't cause significant changes in their overall employment placement.

But whatever, I'm glad you decided staying on their WL wasn't worth it (mainly because you'd be paying sticker more than likely if you got off of it, which is a giant bowl of yuck in the debt column, not because you avoided a looming tumble down the legal hiring mountain).

I wouldn't say that UCI is a bad choice but with Chemerinsky gone, it loses its biggest competitive edge to its peer schools. And no, I do not think the students who would get federal clerkship under Chem's tenureship would get biglaw positions or prestigious PI's. UCLA and USC will take those positions, Berkeley gets most of the judicial clerkship positions, and UCI loses out.

This is just wrong. I'd love to see some of your IRAC analysis on your exams.

I can promise you, because I work at a very large firm in LA (and lateraled from an even larger LA firm), that both firms have hired from UCI and that neither firms care about whether Chemerinsky is there or not. We'll keep hiring from them.

I didn't have enough authority to tell them this is idiotic. Thanks for taking up the slack.

[SmokeytheBear]

Now that Chemerinsky is confirmed to bail to Berkeley Law, UCI doesn't seem that attractive anymore. I signed myself out of waitlist. GL!

If you go to any law school based on who the dean is/is not, you're doing this wrong.

Employment outcome is the #1 factor for me.

I don't think anyone here will deny that UCI owes it to Chemerinsky for its extraordinary clerkship number compared to its peers. Once he's out, I would guess that the clerkship number will be in free-fall.

Possibly, but who's to say the types of students who used to get federal clerkships don't just translate to higher percentages going into Biglaw or desirable PI since those federal clerks are also presumably better performing students? Chemerinsky has weight in the legal community and it'd be stupid to contest that, but UCI has established itself in the Southern California market sufficiently that should allow sustainable success in the market where the departure of one person doesn't cause significant changes in their overall employment placement.

But whatever, I'm glad you decided staying on their WL wasn't worth it (mainly because you'd be paying sticker more than likely if you got off of it, which is a giant bowl of yuck in the debt column, not because you avoided a looming tumble down the legal hiring mountain).

I wouldn't say that UCI is a bad choice but with Chemerinsky gone, it loses its biggest competitive edge to its peer schools. And no, I do not think the students who would get federal clerkship under Chem's tenureship would get biglaw positions or prestigious PI's. UCLA and USC will take those positions, Berkeley gets most of the judicial clerkship positions, and UCI loses out.

This is just wrong. I'd love to see some of your IRAC analysis on your exams.

I can promise you, because I work at a very large firm in LA (and lateraled from an even larger LA firm), that both firms have hired from UCI and that neither firms care about whether Chemerinsky is there or not. We'll keep hiring from them.

I didn't have enough authority to tell them this is idiotic. Thanks for taking up the slack.

Of course.

I should say that when my original firm started hiring from UCI, it was largely based on Chemerinsky. But over the first few years we hired enough UCI alums that the quality of the talent spoke for itself and Chemerinsky was less of a reason and then not part of the reason at all. I did OCI for my former firm at UCI. He might have been a topic of conversation during an interview, but simply because many of us have fond memories of him from BarBri. There were many firms doing OCI at UCI; I suspect their sentiment is the same.

[CPAlawHopefu]

Now that Chemerinsky is confirmed to bail to Berkeley Law, UCI doesn't seem that attractive anymore. I signed myself out of waitlist. GL!

If you go to any law school based on who the dean is/is not, you're doing this wrong.

Employment outcome is the #1 factor for me.

I don't think anyone here will deny that UCI owes it to Chemerinsky for its extraordinary clerkship number compared to its peers. Once he's out, I would guess that the clerkship number will be in free-fall.

Possibly, but who's to say the types of students who used to get federal clerkships don't just translate to higher percentages going into Biglaw or desirable PI since those federal clerks are also presumably better performing students? Chemerinsky has weight in the legal community and it'd be stupid to contest that, but UCI has established itself in the Southern California market sufficiently that should allow sustainable success in the market where the departure of one person doesn't cause significant changes in their overall employment placement.

But whatever, I'm glad you decided staying on their WL wasn't worth it (mainly because you'd be paying sticker more than likely if you got off of it, which is a giant bowl of yuck in the debt column, not because you avoided a looming tumble down the legal hiring mountain).

I wouldn't say that UCI is a bad choice but with Chemerinsky gone, it loses its biggest competitive edge to its peer schools. And no, I do not think the students who would get federal clerkship under Chem's tenureship would get biglaw positions or prestigious PI's. UCLA and USC will take those positions, Berkeley gets most of the judicial clerkship positions, and UCI loses out.

This is just wrong. I'd love to see some of your IRAC analysis on your exams.

I can promise you, because I work at a very large firm in LA (and lateraled from an even larger LA firm), that both firms have hired from UCI and that neither firms care about whether Chemerinsky is there or not. We'll keep hiring from them.

Of course biglaws will hire from UCI. I never said they wont. UCI feeds around 30% of its grads to biglaw and judicial clerkship (15% each). Assuming that the 15% fedclerkship was mostly due to Chem's personal connections, it is naive to say that all of them or even most of them will instead break into biglaw. Biglaw hiring is based largely on the reputation of the school, not the students. It's not like a biglaw firm that originally had 20 spots for UCI students will suddenly double the spots for UCI to 40 after Chemerinsky's departure. Nor do I believe that UCI students will enjoy the same level of clerkship numbers without Chemerinksy's connection. The school is still relatively new and its law alumni base is still tiny compared to its much older peer schools so ultimately they lose out on that end. Chemerinsky is a constitutional lawyer. His strength is in government and PI so it comes as no surprise that UCI's model is centered around those areas. Without him, I am pessimistic of UCI's future. Call me bitter, but it's just my 2 cents.

[SmokeytheBear]

Now that Chemerinsky is confirmed to bail to Berkeley Law, UCI doesn't seem that attractive anymore. I signed myself out of waitlist. GL!

If you go to any law school based on who the dean is/is not, you're doing this wrong.

Employment outcome is the #1 factor for me.

I don't think anyone here will deny that UCI owes it to Chemerinsky for its extraordinary clerkship number compared to its peers. Once he's out, I would guess that the clerkship number will be in free-fall.

Possibly, but who's to say the types of students who used to get federal clerkships don't just translate to higher percentages going into Biglaw or desirable PI since those federal clerks are also presumably better performing students? Chemerinsky has weight in the legal community and it'd be stupid to contest that, but UCI has established itself in the Southern California market sufficiently that should allow sustainable success in the market where the departure of one person doesn't cause significant changes in their overall employment placement.

But whatever, I'm glad you decided staying on their WL wasn't worth it (mainly because you'd be paying sticker more than likely if you got off of it, which is a giant bowl of yuck in the debt column, not because you avoided a looming tumble down the legal hiring mountain).

I wouldn't say that UCI is a bad choice but with Chemerinsky gone, it loses its biggest competitive edge to its peer schools. And no, I do not think the students who would get federal clerkship under Chem's tenureship would get biglaw positions or prestigious PI's. UCLA and USC will take those positions, Berkeley gets most of the judicial clerkship positions, and UCI loses out.

This is just wrong. I'd love to see some of your IRAC analysis on your exams.

I can promise you, because I work at a very large firm in LA (and lateraled from an even larger LA firm), that both firms have hired from UCI and that neither firms care about whether Chemerinsky is there or not. We'll keep hiring from them.

Of course biglaws will hire from UCI. I never said they wont. UCI feeds around 30% of its grads to biglaw and judicial clerkship (15% each). Assuming that the 15% fedclerkship was mostly due to Chem's personal connections, it is naive to say that all of them or even most of them will instead break into biglaw. Biglaw hiring is based largely on the reputation of the school, not the students. It's not like a biglaw firm that originally had 20 spots for UCI students will suddenly double the spots for UCI to 40 after Chemerinsky's departure. Nor do I believe that UCI students will enjoy the same level of clerkship numbers without Chemerinksy's connection. The school is still relatively new and its law alumni base is still tiny compared to its much older peer schools so ultimately they lose out on that end. Chemerinsky is a constitutional lawyer. His strength is in government and PI, and it makes sense that UCI focuses on those same areas during his tenure. Without him, I am pessimistic of UCI's future. Call me bitter, but it's just my 2 cents.

Kid based on your other messages, it looks like you're a 0L going to Illinois for law school--a school which has no pull outside of that part of the midwest? So these experiences make you an expert on the hiring practices of big law firms in southern California? Take a loss and hit the showers. Did you even get into UCI?

You have no idea how hiring works at big law or in California.

Neither firm I have worked at (and I've been involved at recruiting at both), had hard fast targets of "we're going to hire 2 UCLA, 2 USC, 2 UCI, 5 Harvard, 2 Michigan, 5 Boalt." It's "we're shooting for a class of approximately 10-12. These are the schools we are targeting." Then it becomes "let's try to get yield from each of these schools." Then once the first round of offers go out and 'respectfully declines' come back, we start ticking through students who we want the most regardless of which school they went to. Sometimes we end up taking multiple students from certain schools, sometimes we take one student from certain schools. If all of a sudden there are more top UCI students in the OCI pool, we'll take them.

Also, it should be noted that UCI class sizes are much larger now than they were several years ago. Percentages of students going to big law and clerkship will go down if for no reason other than there are more students.

I have no idea why i am defending UCI so much.

[UVA2B]

Now that Chemerinsky is confirmed to bail to Berkeley Law, UCI doesn't seem that attractive anymore. I signed myself out of waitlist. GL!

If you go to any law school based on who the dean is/is not, you're doing this wrong.

Employment outcome is the #1 factor for me.

I don't think anyone here will deny that UCI owes it to Chemerinsky for its extraordinary clerkship number compared to its peers. Once he's out, I would guess that the clerkship number will be in free-fall.

Possibly, but who's to say the types of students who used to get federal clerkships don't just translate to higher percentages going into Biglaw or desirable PI since those federal clerks are also presumably better performing students? Chemerinsky has weight in the legal community and it'd be stupid to contest that, but UCI has established itself in the Southern California market sufficiently that should allow sustainable success in the market where the departure of one person doesn't cause significant changes in their overall employment placement.

But whatever, I'm glad you decided staying on their WL wasn't worth it (mainly because you'd be paying sticker more than likely if you got off of it, which is a giant bowl of yuck in the debt column, not because you avoided a looming tumble down the legal hiring mountain).

I wouldn't say that UCI is a bad choice but with Chemerinsky gone, it loses its biggest competitive edge to its peer schools. And no, I do not think the students who would get federal clerkship under Chem's tenureship would get biglaw positions or prestigious PI's. UCLA and USC will take those positions, Berkeley gets most of the judicial clerkship positions, and UCI loses out.

This is just wrong. I'd love to see some of your IRAC analysis on your exams.

I can promise you, because I work at a very large firm in LA (and lateraled from an even larger LA firm), that both firms have hired from UCI and that neither firms care about whether Chemerinsky is there or not. We'll keep hiring from them.

Of course biglaws will hire from UCI. I never said they wont. UCI feeds around 30% of its grads to biglaw and judicial clerkship (15% each). Assuming that the 15% fedclerkship was mostly due to Chem's personal connections, it is naive to say that all of them or even most of them will instead break into biglaw. Biglaw hiring is based largely on the reputation of the school, not the students. It's not like a biglaw firm that originally had 20 spots for UCI students will suddenly double the spots for UCI to 40 after Chemerinsky's departure. Nor do I believe that UCI students will enjoy the same level of clerkship numbers without Chemerinksy's connection. The school is still relatively new and its law alumni base is still tiny compared to its much older peer schools so ultimately they lose out on that end. Chemerinsky is a constitutional lawyer. His strength is in government and PI so it comes as no surprise that UCI's model is centered around those areas. Without him, I am pessimistic of UCI's future. Call me bitter, but it's just my 2 cents.

It's not bitterness, you're just wrong in how hiring works in the legal industry. If Firm X has 40 SA spots, and they typically take 4 UCI students because that's how many they feel are qualified out of UCI, they could very reasonably take 8 if that many qualified students applied.

Alternatively, if 40 (or 50 or 60 or whatever) UCI students credentials that are strong enough in a given year for Biglaw, and previously 20 of those students did federal clerkships, they don't suddenly become sore out of luck because Dean Chem isn't the one making phone calls anymore. They'll either 1) still get a clerkship because judges have enough of a sample size of UCI clerks to recognize what they're getting with a UCI student with a 3.8 GPA, or those clerks would filter into the other areas of desirable hiring like Biglaw, federal government jobs, etc.

I think you're unnecessarily giving too much weight to the school's age and Dean Chem's influence on all facets of hiring. UCI has produced enough quality grads that big firms can set GPA cutoffs and such (as smokey pointed out to you already) to inform the number of UCI grads who are competitive for those jobs.

UCI could see a slight down tick in hiring based on Dean Chem leaving, but you're probably overestimating the effect pretty drastically.

Edit: scooped

[CPAlawHopefu]

You have no idea how hiring works at big law or in California.

Neither firm I have worked at (and I've been involved at recruiting at both), had hard fast targets of "we're going to hire 2 UCLA, 2 USC, 2 UCI, 5 Harvard, 2 Michigan, 5 Boalt." It's "we're shooting for a class of approximately 10-12. These are the schools we are targeting." Then it becomes "let's try to get yield from each of these schools." Then once the first round of offers go out and 'respectfully declines' come back, we start ticking through students who we want the most regardless of which school they went to. Sometimes we end up taking multiple students from certain schools, sometimes we take one student from certain schools. If all of a sudden there are more top UCI students in the OCI pool, we'll take them.

Also, it should be noted that UCI class sizes are much larger now than they were several years ago. Percentages of students going to big law and clerkship will go down if for no reason other than there are more students.

I have no idea why i am defending UCI so much.

So what you are saying is that there is no comparative advantage between Berkeley/UCLA/USC grads vs UCI/UCDavis/Pepperdine grads since school names don't matter as much as filling up the spots for a class? I'm pretty sure that I'm not the only one dubious about your claim.

[SmokeytheBear]

Really at this point I'm just trying to correct for (1) OL's giving advice on how OCI works (2) correcting for people's incorrect assessments of hiring in SoCal and (3) help people understand that vault rankings should not guide their bid strategy.

DO NOT get me started on the non-use of the oxford comma in corporate drafting. It will not end well.

[UVA2B]

You have no idea how hiring works at big law or in California.

Neither firm I have worked at (and I've been involved at recruiting at both), had hard fast targets of "we're going to hire 2 UCLA, 2 USC, 2 UCI, 5 Harvard, 2 Michigan, 5 Boalt." It's "we're shooting for a class of approximately 10-12. These are the schools we are targeting." Then it becomes "let's try to get yield from each of these schools." Then once the first round of offers go out and 'respectfully declines' come back, we start ticking through students who we want the most regardless of which school they went to. Sometimes we end up taking multiple students from certain schools, sometimes we take one student from certain schools. If all of a sudden there are more top UCI students in the OCI pool, we'll take them.

Also, it should be noted that UCI class sizes are much larger now than they were several years ago. Percentages of students going to big law and clerkship will go down if for no reason other than there are more students.

I have no idea why i am defending UCI so much.

So what you are saying is that there is no comparative advantage between Berkeley/UCLA/USC grads vs UCI/UCDavis/Pepperdine grads since school names don't matter as much as filling up the spots for a class? I'm pretty sure that I'm not the only one dubious about your claim.

Wow, this is what you've gathered from what smokey and I have been saying? Seriously, just stop and take the loss.

[SmokeytheBear]

You have no idea how hiring works at big law or in California.

Neither firm I have worked at (and I've been involved at recruiting at both), had hard fast targets of "we're going to hire 2 UCLA, 2 USC, 2 UCI, 5 Harvard, 2 Michigan, 5 Boalt." It's "we're shooting for a class of approximately 10-12. These are the schools we are targeting." Then it becomes "let's try to get yield from each of these schools." Then once the first round of offers go out and 'respectfully declines' come back, we start ticking through students who we want the most regardless of which school they went to. Sometimes we end up taking multiple students from certain schools, sometimes we take one student from certain schools. If all of a sudden there are more top UCI students in the OCI pool, we'll take them.

Also, it should be noted that UCI class sizes are much larger now than they were several years ago. Percentages of students going to big law and clerkship will go down if for no reason other than there are more students.

I have no idea why i am defending UCI so much.

So what you are saying is that there is no comparative advantage between Berkeley/UCLA/USC grads vs UCI/UCDavis/Pepperdine grads since school names don't matter as much as filling up the spots for a class? I'm pretty sure that I'm not the only one dubious about your claim.

Wow, this is what you've gathered from what smokey and I have been saying? Seriously, just stop and take the loss.

yeah, same. I'm done engaging.

I will say, though, that Pepperdine and UC Davis are not comparable in the SoCal big law market to UCI.

[CPAlawHopefu]

First of all, I'm not a"kid". I'm a 30 year old CPA with more full-time big corporate work experience than most 0Ls. I am open to civil discussions. Just because I hold a contrasting view does not mean I deserve the kind of disrespect that is clearly evident in this thread. So shame on you.

Secondly, this is what you said:

It's "we're shooting for a class of approximately 10-12. These are the schools we are targeting." Then it becomes "let's try to get yield from each of these schools." Then once the first round of offers go out and 'respectfully declines' come back, we start ticking through students who we want the most regardless of which school they went to.

Perhaps it came out the wrong way, but any person would take your statement and interpret it the way I did. Based on your statement, there are no differences in school names as long as they are part of the collective groups that make up the "target schools". Perhaps SoCal hirings are distinct from those of any other region, I don't know. If it is, then so be it. Maybe I should've applied to Pepperdine - I could've easily gotten full-ride and, according to you, have the same chance of getting into BigLaw as UCLA/USC grads. But I won't take that risk because I am skeptical of your claim.

I am unsure why so many people are upset. Nothing I said was particularly offensive to anyone. I wasn't talking down on UCI - I was merely stating my reason on why I took my name off the waitlist. If you disagree with my reasoning, that's fine, pat yourself on the back, you now have one less person to compete with. But it seems that too many people aren't capable of discussing opposing viewpoints without getting hostile.