I'd rather not give my exact stats because I don't want to be identified. But I was good enough to get a scholarship, because I got far bigger scholarships from higher-ranked schools than Forhdam gave me.
The root of the problem is: most law students are dumb and choose which school to go to based on bad reasons. (And most law schools are greedy and willing to exploit dumb law students.)
The doubling of tuition was necessary to maintain the same level of education - if Fordham didn't increase its expenses while Cardozo did, then the faculty would go elsewhere.
If the rankings drop (e.g. because part of US News rankings is spending per student) then less (qualified) students will go to Fordham
All a law school is good for is employment placement. So let the ranking drop, because USNWR rankings are not based on employment placement value-added. And let the faculty go elsewhere, because a professor doesn't need to be paid more to grade exams well, and that's all he needs to do to contribute to his school's employment placement value-added.
The reason there isn't any other Fordham-like school in NYC is because attending a Fordham-like school in NYC isn't very profitable (for students). That translates into a tuition that should be lower. You're getting the causation backward. The scarcity of a Fordham-like school in NYC does not lead to a higher value; a lower value leads to its scarcity.
dingbat wrote:It is far better than many of their competitors. (there are 7 law schools in NYC and a few more just outside)
You're getting causation backwards.
Prices shouldn't come down just because value (in your opinion) isn't there
If people stop going, prices will come down.
I wager that people are about to stop going.
You said "prices shouldn't come down just because value isn't there." But yes, they should. They certainly should not keep going up because, as you've put it, students actually choose to go to the school that charges the most for providing the same or lesser value (that seems dumb, like law students.) Just because prices are up does not mean they should be up, because consumers could be irrational.
(And while we're at it, what about those 7+ other schools? It's with their graduates Fordham students who don't make the cut must compete. That's why Fordham's numbers have a "harder bottom," with a higher under-employment rate and a lower employment rate.)
dingbat wrote:This is impossible to debate based on the limited data we have (how many at Fordham self-select into NY? How many at BU/BC tried to get NY but didn't?)
Not entirely impossible: We can assume Fordham is almost 100% NYC Big Law self-selectors, as you've posited. We can also assume that Boston College is partially Boston Big Law self-selectors and NYC Big Law self-selectors. So, the ratio of NYC Big Law self-selectors to NYC Big Law "getters" at Fordham and Boston College is equal only if Fordham gets more NYC Big Law. Fordham is about 33% NYC Big Law (assuming all Fordham's Big Law is NYC) and Boston College is about 35% Big Law in total and about 20% NYC placement. Assuming most Boston College graduates who migrate to NYC do so for Big Law, Boston College's NYC Big Law placement is likely at least half of Fordham's. Given that Fordham is almost 100% NYC Big Law self-selectors, it is almost certain that Boston College has fewer than half the NYC Big Law self-selectors than Fordham. So in this analysis, if you're an NYC Big Law self-selector, go to Boston College.