CLS with $$$ v. Berkeley v. HLS for west coast PI Forum

[irishman86]

But it doesn't have to be a courtesy program. The terms can vary from school to school. Arguing otherwise requires more than using your caps lock.

Agreed, again. Boalt's LRAP is far more discretionary. It sounds like if you meet the most recent requirements for Columbia, you will still be able to use LRAP. LRAP policies at any school can change over time, but it seems that Boalt's LRAP is much more discretionary and that even if you meet the most recent requirements, the school can still deny aid.

BOTH schools can deny aid even if you meet the requirements. That's why Columbia mentions that the "extent of support may vary" just as Berkeley mentions that depending on the state of the program, they may have to shuffle around funds, disperse them pro rata, etc. It's the same thing.

"Extent of support may vary ... in accordance with the rules and policies then applicable" sounds VERY different from
"will select LRAP recipients and determine award levels." Columbia's LRAP suggests that if you meet the most recent requirements ("in accordance with the rules and policies then applicable") you will receive aid, whereas Boalt will "select LRAP recipients" based off whatever, unspecified measure. Boalt's is much more discretionary on an individual, applicant basis.

[Kronk]

From Yale's COAP:

Finally, we ask you to remember that resources for the COAP program are not unlimited. Please help us to conserve and safeguard these resources so that future generations of graduates can benefit from the Program as well.

[Kronk]

"Extent of support may vary ... in accordance with the rules and policies then applicable" sounds VERY different from
"will select LRAP recipients and determine award levels." Columbia's LRAP suggests that if you meet the most recent requirements ("in accordance with the rules and policies then applicable") you will receive aid, whereas Boalt will "select LRAP recipients" based off whatever, unspecified measure. Boalt's is much more discretionary.

You're arguing diction, dude. Call the financial aid office tomorrow and ask for ONE example of an eligible LRAP participant who was turned down on a whim from Berkeley. Seriously, ask them.

[Kronk]

This is wrong. None of them are guaranteed from an 0L's perspective, since CLS and SLS could change their programs in the next couple years and current 0Ls would be stuck with the new programs. But Boalt's isn't guaranteed even once you've started participating. They can modify it at any time.

Even at CLS and SLS, you have to "re-apply" to the program every year. They don't mean when you start your 1L year, they mean when you start the program after graduation. Each new year, you'll have to apply to the program. If they accept you, they will fund you as laid out in their program. They would have to be pretty stupid to accept you without the funds to help you.

[beef wellington]

See, before you were arguing not just that CLS wasn't guaranteed, but that no LRAPs were guaranteed. That's where we took issue and I find it odd you won't concede the point. Also, you keep telling us to do research but you won't share the copious research you've presumably already done. If I say please would you reconsider?

I've talked to financial aid officers as Boalt, NYU, and Chicago about LRAPs and Chicago's HPIP. I haven't called Columbia because I'm not considering it, but it's pretty obvious they share the same caveat as Boalt. None of the programs have ever not given funds to a student that I'm aware of. It's just a safety thing for the schools in case something disastrous occurs and they aren't able to accommodate all requests.

Thank you. So NYU isn't guaranteed either, that's good to know. I must've missed that language too.

[Kronk]

Going to sleep, but I encourage you all to call Boalt's finaid office if you're skeptical and ask them about their LRAP program. Every school has a disclaimer that essentially states that the program funding is not unlimited. Even Yale, which has the biggest endowment / student in the nation. It would be unprofessional to not include a disclaimer. But people aren't rejected on a whim by Berkeley if they meet all eligible criteria. I'm not Boalt-trolling here, I just think that's extremely misleading to say on an internet forum rife with misinformation.

[Kronk]

See, before you were arguing not just that CLS wasn't guaranteed, but that no LRAPs were guaranteed. That's where we took issue and I find it odd you won't concede the point. Also, you keep telling us to do research but you won't share the copious research you've presumably already done. If I say please would you reconsider?

I've talked to financial aid officers as Boalt, NYU, and Chicago about LRAPs and Chicago's HPIP. I haven't called Columbia because I'm not considering it, but it's pretty obvious they share the same caveat as Boalt. None of the programs have ever not given funds to a student that I'm aware of. It's just a safety thing for the schools in case something disastrous occurs and they aren't able to accommodate all requests.

Thank you. So NYU isn't guaranteed either, that's good to know. I must've missed that language too.

I mean, this is a little misleading too, because none of the programs are "not guaranteed." They all fulfill their promises 99.9% of the time. They are guaranteed about as much as a plane is guaranteed to reach it's destination. Something horrible has to happen.

[beef wellington]

This is wrong. None of them are guaranteed from an 0L's perspective, since CLS and SLS could change their programs in the next couple years and current 0Ls would be stuck with the new programs. But Boalt's isn't guaranteed even once you've started participating. They can modify it at any time.

Even at CLS and SLS, you have to "re-apply" to the program every year. They don't mean when you start your 1L year, they mean when you start the program after graduation. Each new year, you'll have to apply to the program. If they accept you, they will fund you as laid out in their program. They would have to be pretty stupid to accept you without the funds to help you.

Right, but once you in enroll in the LRAP after graduating from SLS or CLS they can't worsen the terms on you, even though you have to reapply every year. Boalt can. That doesn't mean they will, or ever have, but they can.

[irishman86]

"Extent of support may vary ... in accordance with the rules and policies then applicable" sounds VERY different from
"will select LRAP recipients and determine award levels." Columbia's LRAP suggests that if you meet the most recent requirements ("in accordance with the rules and policies then applicable") you will receive aid, whereas Boalt will "select LRAP recipients" based off whatever, unspecified measure. Boalt's is much more discretionary.

You're arguing diction, dude. Call the financial aid office tomorrow and ask for ONE example of an eligible LRAP participant who was turned down on a whim from Berkeley. Seriously, ask them.

I will, but I think that the concern that applicants will be turned down has risen since Boalt's funding was decreased by the state and it was forced to increase its tuition to make up for the lack of funding. Because of Boalt's budget problems, it may be more likely that Boalt denies applicants in the future. I put more faith in Columbia's LRAP because I think that it has more consistent funding, Columbia has a much larger endowment, and Columbia did not provide that disclaimer. As for arguing diction, every law school has very carefully chosen words for their LRAP program to decrease potential liability in lawsuits.

[Kronk]

This is wrong. None of them are guaranteed from an 0L's perspective, since CLS and SLS could change their programs in the next couple years and current 0Ls would be stuck with the new programs. But Boalt's isn't guaranteed even once you've started participating. They can modify it at any time.

Even at CLS and SLS, you have to "re-apply" to the program every year. They don't mean when you start your 1L year, they mean when you start the program after graduation. Each new year, you'll have to apply to the program. If they accept you, they will fund you as laid out in their program. They would have to be pretty stupid to accept you without the funds to help you.

Right, but once you in enroll in the LRAP after graduating from SLS or CLS they can't worsen the terms on you, even though you have to reapply every year. Boalt can. That doesn't mean they will, or ever have, but they can.

I believe you're incorrect. You may want to call their offices, but they create a new "program" for every year. Currently, Stanford is using the 2010 "program" but it will change (or at least be updated) for 2011, and applications for 2011 will be to the new standards.

On SLS' site:

The Program operates on a calendar year basis, and loans are made prospectively.

[Kronk]

"Extent of support may vary ... in accordance with the rules and policies then applicable" sounds VERY different from
"will select LRAP recipients and determine award levels." Columbia's LRAP suggests that if you meet the most recent requirements ("in accordance with the rules and policies then applicable") you will receive aid, whereas Boalt will "select LRAP recipients" based off whatever, unspecified measure. Boalt's is much more discretionary.

You're arguing diction, dude. Call the financial aid office tomorrow and ask for ONE example of an eligible LRAP participant who was turned down on a whim from Berkeley. Seriously, ask them.

I will, but I think that the concern that applicants will be turned down has risen since Boalt's funding was decreased by the state and it was forced to increase its tuition to make up for the lack of funding. Because of Boalt's budget problems, it may be more likely that Boalt denies applicants in the future. I put more faith in Columbia's LRAP because I think that it has more consistent funding, Columbia has a much larger endowment, and Columbia did not provide that disclaimer. As for arguing diction, every law school has very carefully chosen words for their LRAP program to decrease potential liability in lawsuits.

That's fine. I mean, LRAP programs and other such luxuries are the first things to go when schools have less money. Harvard did away with their 3rd year tuition waiver for public interest people and schools might have to get rid of their LRAP programs, I suppose. But personally, I find it hard to believe that Berkeley's tuition is skyrocketing and they'll still have to cut anything. In fact, the financial aid officer I spoke with made it sound like they were planning to hire MORE faculty and strengthen their LRAP program rather than cut it.

Also, CLS did provide that disclaimer, and I quoted and underlined it.

[irishman86]

I will, but I think that the concern that applicants will be turned down has risen since Boalt's funding was decreased by the state and it was forced to increase its tuition to make up for the lack of funding. Because of Boalt's budget problems, it may be more likely that Boalt denies applicants in the future. I put more faith in Columbia's LRAP because I think that it has more consistent funding, Columbia has a much larger endowment, and Columbia did not provide that disclaimer. As for arguing diction, every law school has very carefully chosen words for their LRAP program to decrease potential liability in lawsuits.

That's fine. I mean, LRAP programs and other such luxuries are the first things to go when schools have less money. Harvard did away with their 3rd year tuition waiver for public interest people and schools might have to get rid of their LRAP programs, I suppose. But personally, I find it hard to believe that Berkeley's tuition is skyrocketing and they'll still have to cut anything. In fact, the financial aid officer I spoke with made it sound like they were planning to hire MORE faculty and strengthen their LRAP program rather than cut it.

Also, CLS did provide that disclaimer, and I quoted and underlined it.

Again, we already went through that CLS quote. It suggests that the LRAP is guaranteed for those who satisfy the requirements at the time of their application. Boalt's LRAP is far more discretionary.

I agree that LRAP programs are luxury items and I bet that given the recent biglaw implosion more people may try to take advantage of it, so schools may not able to provide funding for the likely influx of applicants and may have to reduce per capita funding in order to provide to more people.

I take what university officials say (that are not written down as policies) with a grain of salt because they are still trying to woo applicants.

[eth3n]

Can you really put a price tag on saying you got your law degree from Harvard?

[$1.99]

Can you really put a price tag on saying you got your law degree from Harvard?

yeah but the OP's goal in life is not to pick up chicks or to impress lay people, it is to do work in public interest while still having a decent living. i think most of us will come out of this harvard fetish once we mature, some of us probably never will.

i say columbia or berkeley depending on how much boalt is willing to give. if they match or come close to cls, i say cls for west coast pi.

[beef wellington]

This is wrong. None of them are guaranteed from an 0L's perspective, since CLS and SLS could change their programs in the next couple years and current 0Ls would be stuck with the new programs. But Boalt's isn't guaranteed even once you've started participating. They can modify it at any time.

Even at CLS and SLS, you have to "re-apply" to the program every year. They don't mean when you start your 1L year, they mean when you start the program after graduation. Each new year, you'll have to apply to the program. If they accept you, they will fund you as laid out in their program. They would have to be pretty stupid to accept you without the funds to help you.

Right, but once you in enroll in the LRAP after graduating from SLS or CLS they can't worsen the terms on you, even though you have to reapply every year. Boalt can. That doesn't mean they will, or ever have, but they can.

I believe you're incorrect. You may want to call their offices, but they create a new "program" for every year. Currently, Stanford is using the 2010 "program" but it will change (or at least be updated) for 2011, and applications for 2011 will be to the new standards.

On SLS' site:

The Program operates on a calendar year basis, and loans are made prospectively.

Yeah, that means they give you a check at the start of the year. They can't worsen the terms on you: "once participation in the Program has begun, benefits will not be cut back in any way." Your interpretation seems to be that they're merely promising to not worsen the terms in the middle of a given year/"program", while reserving the right to worsen the terms for a new "program" a la Boalt. This makes no sense considering they cut you an annual check and would have no opportunity to worsen the program's terms once the checks are sent out. Basically they'd be promising not to do something that they couldn't do anyway.

[Kronk]

Yeah, that means they give you a check at the start of the year. They can't worsen the terms on you: "once participation in the Program has begun, benefits will not be cut back in any way." Your interpretation seems to be that they're merely promising to not worsen the terms in the middle of a given year/"program", while reserving the right to worsen the terms for a new "program" a la Boalt. This makes no sense considering they cut you an annual check and would have no opportunity to worsen the program's terms once the checks are sent out. Basically they'd be promising not to do something that they couldn't do anyway.

How did that contradict what I said? They cut you a different check per year depending on your own situation and the situation of their program. The "program" is yearly, and thus the check may be different. So I think what I said fully makes sense. The last part of your post is why I've been trying to tell you guys that Boalt is the same; they can't "take back" money from you. They just reserve the right to adjust a program and deny applicants at the time of application if their funds aren't sufficient. That is EXACTLY what Columbia's LRAP also says on their website, and I would assume Stanford is no different. As Yale's site says--these funds are not unlimited.

Having a guarantee for LRAP is like having an guarantee for free Chipotle burritos the rest of your life. That's all fine and good, but if Chipotle goes out of business--as unlikely as that may be--you don't get your free burritos anymore.

[keg411]

OP, if you want prestigious PI + Clerking, pick H
If you mostly want West Coast PI and it doesn't need to be ACLU-level, try using the CLS scholarship to get $$ out of Berk.

[chris0805]

Huh. I think I read this differently than you do. It seems to me that the application process is there for the applicant to demonstrate that he or she is in qualifying employment. Surely, all schools--Columbia included--require you to verify that you are actually performing qualifying public interest work. Other schools might not call this process an "application," but the intent is the same.

Looking at the website, I would agree with the above statement. I think it's a poor choice of words on Boalt's part, but it seems you don't really have to "apply" for LRAP benefits. I would check with the finaid office before I decided to attend, but it probably operates the same as the other programs.

In terms of "guaranteed," Kronk is right that none of these programs are guaranteed. However, I would be EXTREMELY surprised if any of these schools cut their programs back. LRAP is actually a relatively small cost for these schools, but it's a huge PR tool. Not only that, the fact that ~40% of admitted students want to pursue public interest and about 5-10 % actually do weighs in favor of keeping LRAP. You're only paying benefits to a small portion of your class, but you're helping attract a much larger to come to your school.

Just as Boalt has done, I expect a lot of schools to start providing an option for students to dovetail LRAP with IBR, so I think we're more likely to see improved LRAPs over the next couple years opposed to reduced ones.

[Kronk]

Huh. I think I read this differently than you do. It seems to me that the application process is there for the applicant to demonstrate that he or she is in qualifying employment. Surely, all schools--Columbia included--require you to verify that you are actually performing qualifying public interest work. Other schools might not call this process an "application," but the intent is the same.

Looking at the website, I would agree with the above statement. I think it's a poor choice of words on Boalt's part, but it seems you don't really have to "apply" for LRAP benefits. I would check with the finaid office before I decided to attend, but it probably operates the same as the other programs.

In terms of "guaranteed," Kronk is right that none of these programs are guaranteed. However, I would be EXTREMELY surprised if any of these schools cut their programs back. LRAP is actually a relatively small cost for these schools, but it's a huge PR tool. Not only that, the fact that ~40% of admitted students want to pursue public interest and about 5-10 % actually do weighs in favor of keeping LRAP. You're only paying benefits to a small portion of your class, but you're helping attract a much larger to come to your school.

Just as Boalt has done, I expect a lot of schools to start providing an option for students to dovetail LRAP with IBR, so I think we're more likely to see improved LRAPs over the next couple years opposed to reduced ones.

+1. This is what I've been trying to relay for the last few pages. Application just means eligibility. Every LRAP program requires an application. And yes, I agree that no LRAP programs will be cut back or ended--particularly Boalt's, as they are now known for it.

[chris0805]

+1. This is what I've been trying to relay for the last few pages. Application just means eligibility. Every LRAP program requires an application. And yes, I agree that no LRAP programs will be cut back or ended--particularly Boalt's, as they are now known for it.

I will add, FWIW, I'd prefer to be in Harvard's LIPP or Columbia's LRAP opposed to Boalt's. Most public interest students take on significantly more than 100,000 debt and start out making around 40 -50K. In those situations, you're better off in the Harvard or Columbia plan.

I guess it depends on how much debt you have, but at ~45K for tuition alone, I imagine most public interest law students are leaving with at least 130K in debt (and usually more) when you account for living costs, etc. I know Boalt's new IBR track is meant to address this issue, but comparing traditional LRAPs at each school, I think most public interest students at most jobs will pay less at Harvard or Columbia.

[beef wellington]

Yeah, that means they give you a check at the start of the year. They can't worsen the terms on you: "once participation in the Program has begun, benefits will not be cut back in any way." Your interpretation seems to be that they're merely promising to not worsen the terms in the middle of a given year/"program", while reserving the right to worsen the terms for a new "program" a la Boalt. This makes no sense considering they cut you an annual check and would have no opportunity to worsen the program's terms once the checks are sent out. Basically they'd be promising not to do something that they couldn't do anyway.

How did that contradict what I said? They cut you a different check per year depending on your own situation and the situation of their program. The "program" is yearly, and thus the check may be different. So I think what I said fully makes sense. The last part of your post is why I've been trying to tell you guys that Boalt is the same; they can't "take back" money from you. They just reserve the right to adjust a program and deny applicants at the time of application if their funds aren't sufficient. That is EXACTLY what Columbia's LRAP also says on their website, and I would assume Stanford is no different. As Yale's site says--these funds are not unlimited.

Having a guarantee for LRAP is like having an guarantee for free Chipotle burritos the rest of your life. That's all fine and good, but if Chipotle goes out of business--as unlikely as that may be--you don't get your free burritos anymore.

The check may be different. The terms can't be worse. If you disagree, I'd like to know what you think SLS is promising when they say that benefits won't be cut back. I agree with you and Chris that none of these programs are in danger of being cut, so this is a pretty pointless argument. It's just weird that you keep insisting that ALL LRAPs have the exact same reservation as Boalt's when that's clearly not true.

[Kronk]

The check may be different. The terms can't be worse. If you disagree, I'd like to know what you think SLS is promising when they say that benefits won't be cut back. I agree with you and Chris that none of these programs are in danger of being cut, so this is a pretty pointless argument. It's just weird that you keep insisting that ALL LRAPs have the exact same reservation as Boalt's when that's clearly not true.

It is true. Every school has a budget for their LRAP / COAP / HPIP / LIPP, etc. If that budget fails, they simply will not be able to fund a program. Thus every school does have the same reservation as Boalt, and I've shown you that in the language for Columbia's LRAP and Yale's COAP. I feel like I've already explained this thirty times and you seem to ignore it, but here goes again:

Stanford is saying that when you apply to and are accepted as eligible for their program, they will not cut your benefits for that year. Just for that year--that's their guarantee. However, Boalt guarantees the same thing. If you are accepted at a specific rate for their LRAP program, they will not cut their rate for you during the year. It is at the time of application where they can say "Hey, actually our budget is having trouble, so everyone is going to have to take an X% cut this year on LRAP services" or vice versa. Stanford is simply claiming that their benefits will not be removed when you start their program--which lasts for exactly a year. Stanford could give you a certain amount of benefits in 2011, then have a huge budget shortfall, and you would have a weaker LRAP program in 2012 when you applied the second time.

[Kronk]

Yeah, that means they give you a check at the start of the year. They can't worsen the terms on you: "once participation in the Program has begun, benefits will not be cut back in any way." Your interpretation seems to be that they're merely promising to not worsen the terms in the middle of a given year/"program", while reserving the right to worsen the terms for a new "program" a la Boalt. This makes no sense considering they cut you an annual check and would have no opportunity to worsen the program's terms once the checks are sent out. Basically they'd be promising not to do something that they couldn't do anyway.

How did that contradict what I said? They cut you a different check per year depending on your own situation and the situation of their program. The "program" is yearly, and thus the check may be different. So I think what I said fully makes sense. The last part of your post is why I've been trying to tell you guys that Boalt is the same; they can't "take back" money from you. They just reserve the right to adjust a program and deny applicants at the time of application if their funds aren't sufficient. That is EXACTLY what Columbia's LRAP also says on their website, and I would assume Stanford is no different. As Yale's site says--these funds are not unlimited.

Having a guarantee for LRAP is like having an guarantee for free Chipotle burritos the rest of your life. That's all fine and good, but if Chipotle goes out of business--as unlikely as that may be--you don't get your free burritos anymore.

The check may be different. The terms can't be worse. If you disagree, I'd like to know what you think SLS is promising when they say that benefits won't be cut back. I agree with you and Chris that none of these programs are in danger of being cut, so this is a pretty pointless argument. It's just weird that you keep insisting that ALL LRAPs have the exact same reservation as Boalt's when that's clearly not true.

I'd also like to reiterate that Boalt's program doesn't say they can deny you for no reason. It says if they don't have a big enough budget for their LRAP program, they won't be able to fulfill benefits. That seems pretty elementary to me, and true of all schools: If they don't have the money, you can't have the money, either. It won't magically appear. I don't think what they're saying is that revolutionary or should cause much pause. It's essentially like a store saying "We will sell milk at this price--unless we run out." No store can guarantee you they will ALWAYS have milk. What if they don't have it? You expect them to kidnap a cow and milk it so you get your milk at the price you want? It's the same with all these LRAP programs. As long as they have the money, everything is gravy. If they don't have the money, obviously they can't pay you.

[beef wellington]

The check may be different. The terms can't be worse. If you disagree, I'd like to know what you think SLS is promising when they say that benefits won't be cut back. I agree with you and Chris that none of these programs are in danger of being cut, so this is a pretty pointless argument. It's just weird that you keep insisting that ALL LRAPs have the exact same reservation as Boalt's when that's clearly not true.

It is true. Every school has a budget for their LRAP / COAP / HPIP / LIPP, etc. If that budget fails, they simply will not be able to fund a program. Thus every school does have the same reservation as Boalt, and I've shown you that in the language for Columbia's LRAP and Yale's COAP. I feel like I've already explained this thirty times and you seem to ignore it, but here goes again:

Stanford is saying that when you apply to and are accepted as eligible for their program, they will not cut your benefits for that year. Just for that year--that's their guarantee. However, Boalt guarantees the same thing. If you are accepted at a specific rate for their LRAP program, they will not cut their rate for you during the year. It is at the time of application where they can say "Hey, actually our budget is having trouble, so everyone is going to have to take an X% cut this year on LRAP services" or vice versa. Stanford is simply claiming that their benefits will not be removed when you start their program--which lasts for exactly a year. Stanford could give you a certain amount of benefits in 2011, then have a huge budget shortfall, and you would have a weaker LRAP program in 2012 when you applied the second time.

So basically Stanford's promising to not stop payment on the check they mail you. But they could just totally scrap the whole LRAP the next year and not be in violation of their promise to not cut benefits. Got it.

[Kronk]

So basically Stanford's promising to not stop payment on the check they mail you. But they could just totally scrap the whole LRAP the next year and not be in violation of their promise to not cut benefits. Got it.

Exactly. There's a 99.9% chance it will never happen, but that is my understanding.