Northwestern Law to cut class size by 10% Forum

[Samara]

Raising tuition 3% (which, as another poster pointed out, is low compared to most schools) will not fund a 25% increase in scholarships and 10% fewer students. My guess is that NU is pressing alumni for donations.

I think some of it is coming from a big Kirkland donation from last year. They are also looking to expand LLM enrollment, especially with foreign students.

[rinkrat19]

Raising tuition 3% (which, as another poster pointed out, is low compared to most schools) will not fund a 25% increase in scholarships and 10% fewer students. My guess is that NU is pressing alumni for donations.

I think some of it is coming from a big Kirkland donation from last year. They are also looking to expand LLM enrollment, especially with foreign students.

Wasn't the Kirkland donation for the JD/MBA program?

[Samara]

Raising tuition 3% (which, as another poster pointed out, is low compared to most schools) will not fund a 25% increase in scholarships and 10% fewer students. My guess is that NU is pressing alumni for donations.

I think some of it is coming from a big Kirkland donation from last year. They are also looking to expand LLM enrollment, especially with foreign students.

Wasn't the Kirkland donation for the JD/MBA program?

Oh really? Hmmm...I'm not sure. D-Rod didn't mention it, so maybe they aren't using it for schollys. He did talk at length about the executive LLM programs here and overseas. All them ferrnerrs that want to become American lawyers, apparently.

[rinkrat19]

Raising tuition 3% (which, as another poster pointed out, is low compared to most schools) will not fund a 25% increase in scholarships and 10% fewer students. My guess is that NU is pressing alumni for donations.

I think some of it is coming from a big Kirkland donation from last year. They are also looking to expand LLM enrollment, especially with foreign students.

Wasn't the Kirkland donation for the JD/MBA program?

Oh really? Hmmm...I'm not sure. D-Rod didn't mention it, so maybe they aren't using it for schollys. He did talk at length about the executive LLM programs here and overseas. All them ferrnerrs that want to become American lawyers, apparently.

Not ALL for the JD/MBAs, apparently.

The gift will establish the Kirkland & Ellis Scholarship Fund to provide scholarships for students in the law school's JD-MBA program; an annual awards program for high-achieving first- and second-year law students, who will be honored as Kirkland & Ellis Scholars; and a unique, permanent educational program for C-suite executives, members of boards of directors, general counsel and business development executives, as well as students and alumni, called the Kirkland & Ellis Business Law Forum. The forum will be co-sponsored by the law school and the Kellogg School of Management. Much of Kirkland's gift will also provide for unrestricted support of the law school.

[pedestrian]

Raising tuition 3% (which, as another poster pointed out, is low compared to most schools) will not fund a 25% increase in scholarships and 10% fewer students. My guess is that NU is pressing alumni for donations.

I think some of it is coming from a big Kirkland donation from last year. They are also looking to expand LLM enrollment, especially with foreign students.

Wasn't the Kirkland donation for the JD/MBA program?

Oh really? Hmmm...I'm not sure. D-Rod didn't mention it, so maybe they aren't using it for schollys. He did talk at length about the executive LLM programs here and overseas. All them ferrnerrs that want to become American lawyers, apparently.

Foreign governments should really distribute warning pamphlets to their expats.

[09042014]

The foreigner thing was about the two year JD. A foreigner with a degree from notAmerica can come get a US JD in two years. It's better than an LLM IMO.

[jenesaislaw]

I'm glad this has sparked a discussion. Dean Rodriguez has responded to my column on the Law School Cafe, where I cross-posted the HuffPost piece. He said:

Chin firmly out in front, this is what Northwestern is doing.

I hope and expect that Kyle will give the same comprehensive review of the law schools that don't commit to a significant augmentation of financial aid, including need based aid, don't cut their class size, and have a tuition increase at or above 3%.

Dan Rodriguez

I responded:

Dan, thank you for the comment.

I fully intend to review all schools according to at least class size and tuition increases. (Financial aid spending is difficult to obtain unless straight from the horse's mouth.) The method will not be full narrative -- again, I believe that your letter could have been written by any number of legal educators -- but most likely a chart with tuition and enrollment movement.

Okay, now to try to respond to a few things.

You seem to be inferring that NU is going to increase its "cross subsidies" scholarships at the expense of those paying sticker, and people should be wary of increased need and merit aid. This whole argument is silly, and anyone that's taken an accounting class knows how flimsy your argument regarding where the money comes from is. You can call the pile of money whatever you want, be it "sticker students' money" or "foregone tuition revenue" or "endowment funded scholarships"; but any way you look at it, giving 25% more of that money, the law school's money, to students is a good thing.

I understand the logical hole you found, but my point wasn't about whether they could be doing something different, it was that they were spending marginal tuition revenue on scholarships. Yes, a dollar is a dollar, but budgetary planning means that new dollars spent must come from somewhere, and they're traced even if indistinguishable.

One large point of that section on aid is that, no, it's not a good thing any way you look at it. Samara defended this point well, so I'll leave it at that.

So are LSAT and GPA indicators that students will "succeed", or are they simply "credentials" for law schools to parade in some "charade"? You acknowledge LSAT/GPA are correlated indicators of incoming students' success when it comes to standing up for the poor kids entering at the bottom quartile of LSAT/GPA, but then dismiss LSAT/GPA's predictive power to to continue your rant against USNWR. You completely ignore the argument that they are focused on maintaining standards in order to have a class that is "most likely to succeed".

As somebody said, they are both. And I do not dismiss the predictive power of LSAT/GPA. I'm not sure where you're getting that from.

The biggest takeaway I have from your article is that you knew how you'd write it before you read what Dean Rodriguez said, which isn't "transparency" because it isn't objective.

This is not true how you mean it. However, I know how I respond to certain actions taken by schools, so it probably would be pretty easy to predict what I did write because it is consistent with what I've been saying for years.

[Cobretti]

I understand the logical hole you found, but my point wasn't about whether they could be doing something different, it was that they were spending marginal tuition revenue on scholarships. Yes, a dollar is a dollar, but budgetary planning means that new dollars spent must come from somewhere, and they're traced even if indistinguishable.

One large point of that section on aid is that, no, it's not a good thing any way you look at it. Samara defended this point well, so I'll leave it at that.

Well if we expand on what pedestrian said earlier:

Raising tuition 3% (which, as another poster pointed out, is low compared to most schools) will not fund a 25% increase in scholarships and 10% fewer students. My guess is that NU is pressing alumni for donations.

we should be able to prove that at least a substantial amount of aid is not coming from additional burdens on other students (even if those additional burdens are less than most peer schools).

So first if we're increasing all 811 full time students tuition by 3%, that gives us new revenue of 811*53,468*.03 = $1,300,876.44

Then the lost revenue from cutting class size 20-25 people (we'll use 22): (NPV of c/o 2016 students calculated using 3% annual growth and 4% risk-free rate) =22*157,339.03 = $3,461,458.74

Scholarship expense is a lot harder to guess, so these numbers are likely off... but assuming half the students get some form of scholarship, and the average scholarship is 45,000 total (41,626.37 NPV), that would mean NU should have spent approximately 41,626.37 * 265 / 2 = $5.515M
Increasing that by 25% next year would be an additional $1.379M

So we have a net loss of 1.3M - 3.5M - 1.38M = -$3.58M

So even if we assume 100% of the increased tuition did pay for these new expenses (and in the shared pot accounting I mentioned, we might as well), we can still say 73% of the cost to NU did not come from raising tuition. The K&E gift was $5M spread over 5 years, so that still leaves $2.58M of additional cost for this year alone. The school is clearly jumping through hoops to make these changes with minimal burden to students.

My point was it is misleading for you to argue that because some scholarships are funded by other students' tuition, that the reader should be worried that in fact this new scholarship $ would come at other students' expense. Fundamentally I don't understand how a school can follow your advice from LST so accurately and still have their actions attacked by you. I understand that you'll say you're being objective and providing transparency, but I think you have been misleading enough to call that into question.

As somebody said, they are both. And I do not dismiss the predictive power of LSAT/GPA. I'm not sure where you're getting that from.

I based this on you saying LSAT/GPA are predicative of performance in LS, then immediately saying the real reason for pursuing students with higher numbers was to further the USNWR charade. I know you value the predictive power of them, I was merely pointing out how you conveniently forgot the merit of #s when you wanted to make a point that was weakened by that fact.

This is not true how you mean it. However, I know how I respond to certain actions taken by schools, so it probably would be pretty easy to predict what I did write because it is consistent with what I've been saying for years.

I was alluding to the fact that despite everything in the dean's letter being in agreement with everything you say at LST, you decided before you read it that you would expose their "lies", and attacked an article you should have praised as proof of LST's effectiveness of spreading its message. I really appreciate your site and think you've fought the good fight, you're just seeming to border on fighting for the sake of fighting instead of fighting for change when you aren't receptive to changes that further your own goals. Also, thanks for responding.

[052220151]

I understand the logical hole you found, but my point wasn't about whether they could be doing something different, it was that they were spending marginal tuition revenue on scholarships. Yes, a dollar is a dollar, but budgetary planning means that new dollars spent must come from somewhere, and they're traced even if indistinguishable.

One large point of that section on aid is that, no, it's not a good thing any way you look at it. Samara defended this point well, so I'll leave it at that.

Well if we expand on what pedestrian said earlier:

Raising tuition 3% (which, as another poster pointed out, is low compared to most schools) will not fund a 25% increase in scholarships and 10% fewer students. My guess is that NU is pressing alumni for donations.

we should be able to prove that at least a substantial amount of aid is not coming from additional burdens on other students (even if those additional burdens are less than most peer schools).

So first if we're increasing all 811 full time students tuition by 3%, that gives us new revenue of 811*53,468*.03 = $1,300,876.44

Then the lost revenue from cutting class size 20-25 people (we'll use 22): (NPV of c/o 2016 students calculated using 3% annual growth and 4% risk-free rate) =22*157,339.03 = $3,461,458.74

Scholarship expense is a lot harder to guess, so these numbers are likely off... but assuming half the students get some form of scholarship, and the average scholarship is 45,000 total (41,626.37 NPV), that would mean NU should have spent approximately 41,626.37 * 265 / 2 = $5.515M
Increasing that by 25% next year would be an additional $1.379M

So we have a net loss of 1.3M - 3.5M - 1.38M = -$3.58M

So even if we assume 100% of the increased tuition did pay for these new expenses (and in the shared pot accounting I mentioned, we might as well), we can still say 73% of the cost to NU did not come from raising tuition. The K&E gift was $5M spread over 5 years, so that still leaves $2.58M of additional cost for this year alone. The school is clearly jumping through hoops to make these changes with minimal burden to students.

My point was it is misleading for you to argue that because some scholarships are funded by other students' tuition, that the reader should be worried that in fact this new scholarship $ would come at other students' expense. Fundamentally I don't understand how a school can follow your advice from LST so accurately and still have their actions attacked by you. I understand that you'll say you're being objective and providing transparency, but I think you have been misleading enough to call that into question.

As somebody said, they are both. And I do not dismiss the predictive power of LSAT/GPA. I'm not sure where you're getting that from.

I based this on you saying LSAT/GPA are predicative of performance in LS, then immediately saying the real reason for pursuing students with higher numbers was to further the USNWR charade. I know you value the predictive power of them, I was merely pointing out how you conveniently forgot the merit of #s when you wanted to make a point that was weakened by that fact.

This is not true how you mean it. However, I know how I respond to certain actions taken by schools, so it probably would be pretty easy to predict what I did write because it is consistent with what I've been saying for years.

I was alluding to the fact that despite everything in the dean's letter being in agreement with everything you say at LST, you decided before you read it that you would expose their "lies", and attacked an article you should have praised as proof of LST's effectiveness of spreading its message. I really appreciate your site and think you've fought the good fight, you're just seeming to border on fighting for the sake of fighting instead of fighting for change when you aren't receptive to changes that further your own goals. Also, thanks for responding.

Oh, snap!

[megagnarley]

Not to break up a good ten pace duel, but should class cuts account for better placement #'s or do larger transfer classes basically nullify this?