UC Regents increase law rates

(Rankings, Profiles, Tuition, Student Life, . . . )
User avatar
im_blue
Posts: 3276
Joined: Sun Apr 12, 2009 3:53 am

Re: UC Regents increase law rates

Postby im_blue » Tue Jun 02, 2009 5:19 pm

OperaSoprano wrote:I would just like to state that Prop 13 was a horrendous idea and should be overturned as quickly as possible. It's not worse than Prop 8 (could anything be?), but it's definitely up there.


I'm not sure you can really compare Prop 13 and Prop 8. While Prop 13 has contributed to California's budget crisis, which affects nearly every household through job losses and service cuts, the vast majority of households will feel no effect from Prop 8. Of course, the ethical/moral debate is another matter entirely.

Bankhead
Posts: 1124
Joined: Mon Apr 07, 2008 11:50 am

Re: UC Regents increase law rates

Postby Bankhead » Wed Jun 03, 2009 10:36 am

I don't think this is so different from tuition increases in other states. Opera, we may see a 45k Fordham this year. :(

User avatar
Detail
Posts: 30
Joined: Sun Apr 12, 2009 7:39 pm

Re: UC Regents increase law rates

Postby Detail » Wed Jun 03, 2009 10:47 am

nitsudrx wrote:I don't think this is so different from tuition increases in other states. Opera, we may see a 45k Fordham this year. :(

I mean, 28k(current in state) -> 47k for Hastings is pretty drastic.

http://www.camajorityreport.com/index.p ... 023&ptid=9

The better private schools will be able to shift money within their sizable endowments to tough through the next year or two.

User avatar
General Tso
Posts: 2289
Joined: Sun Dec 07, 2008 6:51 pm

Re: UC Regents increase law rates

Postby General Tso » Wed Jun 03, 2009 11:13 am

nitsudrx wrote:I don't think this is so different from tuition increases in other states. Opera, we may see a 45k Fordham this year. :(


I think 5-8% yearly increases in tuition are the norm. The UC's are talking about 15-20% increases yearly, and a 3 year increase of 50%+.

Based on the tuition chart here:
--LinkRemoved--

Davis is looking at yearly increases of 19.2%, 17.6%, and 9.3%, with a 3 year total 53.3% increase. And this was the plan BEFORE the talk about the new round of budget cuts.

leron
Posts: 140
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2009 7:22 pm

Re: UC Regents increase law rates

Postby leron » Wed Jun 03, 2009 9:20 pm

just got an email from hastings about the budget situation. here's an excerpt:

"While it is too early to tell what impact this proposal, if passed, will have on this year’s tuition and fees, all financial aid awards, scholarships and grants, will remain intact. In the event that fees need to be increased, the amount of the increase will be added to your student budget, creating additional loan eligibility. At that time you will receive a revised award letter and have the opportunity to accept or decline the additional loan.

We remain confident that we will overcome this proposal by the Governor’s office. We will keep you apprised of any developments."

1. my take from paragraph one - we may see the fee increase affect 09/10 tuition
2. my take from paragraph two - i hope that when they say they remain confident it is because there is a good chance that funding will not be cut

User avatar
law0000
Posts: 13
Joined: Mon Jun 16, 2008 9:09 pm

Re: UC Regents increase law rates

Postby law0000 » Wed Jun 03, 2009 11:53 pm

leron wrote:just got an email from hastings about the budget situation. here's an excerpt:

"While it is too early to tell what impact this proposal, if passed, will have on this year’s tuition and fees, all financial aid awards, scholarships and grants, will remain intact. In the event that fees need to be increased, the amount of the increase will be added to your student budget, creating additional loan eligibility. At that time you will receive a revised award letter and have the opportunity to accept or decline the additional loan.

We remain confident that we will overcome this proposal by the Governor’s office. We will keep you apprised of any developments."

1. my take from paragraph one - we may see the fee increase affect 09/10 tuition
2. my take from paragraph two - i hope that when they say they remain confident it is because there is a good chance that funding will not be cut



My understanding is that cuts are still expected but that Hastings is hoping to be treated the same as all the other UCs. Hastings' relationship with the state is unique among the UCs and that is why the original proposal singled Hastings out for different (in my opinion unfair) treatment. At this point, being treated the same as the other UCs is probably the best case scenario. (hopefully I'm wrong).

User avatar
Mr. Matlock
Posts: 1360
Joined: Thu Nov 27, 2008 6:36 pm

Re: UC Regents increase law rates

Postby Mr. Matlock » Thu Jun 04, 2009 12:08 am

law0000 wrote:My understanding is that cuts are still expected but that Hastings is hoping to be treated the same as all the other UCs. Hastings' relationship with the state is unique among the UCs and that is why the original proposal singled Hastings out for different (in my opinion unfair) treatment. At this point, being treated the same as the other UCs is probably the best case scenario. (hopefully I'm wrong).

Do you know what it is about Hastings that makes it unique among the UC's? I haven't heard yet why it was singled out.

User avatar
law0000
Posts: 13
Joined: Mon Jun 16, 2008 9:09 pm

Re: UC Regents increase law rates

Postby law0000 » Thu Jun 04, 2009 12:30 am

Mr. Matlock wrote:
law0000 wrote:My understanding is that cuts are still expected but that Hastings is hoping to be treated the same as all the other UCs. Hastings' relationship with the state is unique among the UCs and that is why the original proposal singled Hastings out for different (in my opinion unfair) treatment. At this point, being treated the same as the other UCs is probably the best case scenario. (hopefully I'm wrong).

Do you know what it is about Hastings that makes it unique among the UC's? I haven't heard yet why it was singled out.


To quote Wikipedia:
1) Hastings has a unique relationship with the University of California. When he [Hastings] gave $100,000 to the University of California to start the law school named after him, Justice Serranus Clinton Hastings imposed two conditions: the school must remain in San Francisco near the courts; and it could not be governed by the Regents of the University of California. Thus, the school's leader (who holds the dual titles of Chancellor and Dean) must directly obtain funds from the California Legislature, not the UC Regents, as other UC chancellors must do.

2) UC Hastings is controlled by a nine-member Board of Directors. The UC Hastings Board of Directors exists independently of, and is not controlled by, the Regents of the University of California. Pursuant to California law, eight of the directors are appointed by the Governor of California. Pursuant to the UC Hastings constitutive documents, the ninth director must be a direct lineal descendant of UC Hastings founder Clinton Serranus Hastings.

3) UC Hastings' detachment from the UC Regents gives it a broad degree of independence in shaping educational and fiscal policies; however, due to a shrinking California education budget, Hastings must also compete for limited educational funds against its fellow UCs. Despite the apparent competition between the UC law schools, Hastings has been able to maintain its traditionally high standards without having to decrease class size or raise tuition prices to higher levels than fellow UC law schools.

User avatar
Mr. Matlock
Posts: 1360
Joined: Thu Nov 27, 2008 6:36 pm

Re: UC Regents increase law rates

Postby Mr. Matlock » Thu Jun 04, 2009 12:44 am

law0000 wrote:To quote Wikipedia:
1) Hastings has a unique relationship with the University of California. When he [Hastings] gave $100,000 to the University of California to start the law school named after him, Justice Serranus Clinton Hastings imposed two conditions: the school must remain in San Francisco near the courts; and it could not be governed by the Regents of the University of California. Thus, the school's leader (who holds the dual titles of Chancellor and Dean) must directly obtain funds from the California Legislature, not the UC Regents, as other UC chancellors must do.

2) UC Hastings is controlled by a nine-member Board of Directors. The UC Hastings Board of Directors exists independently of, and is not controlled by, the Regents of the University of California. Pursuant to California law, eight of the directors are appointed by the Governor of California. Pursuant to the UC Hastings constitutive documents, the ninth director must be a direct lineal descendant of UC Hastings founder Clinton Serranus Hastings.

3) UC Hastings' detachment from the UC Regents gives it a broad degree of independence in shaping educational and fiscal policies; however, due to a shrinking California education budget, Hastings must also compete for limited educational funds against its fellow UCs. Despite the apparent competition between the UC law schools, Hastings has been able to maintain its traditionally high standards without having to decrease class size or raise tuition prices to higher levels than fellow UC law schools.

:lol:
Now THAT'S bizarre! "the ninth director must be a direct lineal descendant of UC Hastings founder Clinton Serranus Hastings."

I'm going to check out wiki, but that makes it even stranger that it's able to keep the UC label.

irishman86
Posts: 312
Joined: Sun Feb 01, 2009 7:03 am

Re: UC Regents increase law rates

Postby irishman86 » Fri Oct 23, 2009 6:08 pm

-
Last edited by irishman86 on Sat Jan 02, 2010 7:12 am, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
General Tso
Posts: 2289
Joined: Sun Dec 07, 2008 6:51 pm

Re: UC Regents increase law rates

Postby General Tso » Fri Oct 23, 2009 7:49 pm

irishman86 wrote:Does anyone know if it is really going to be 48k instate for Berkeley next year? What is it going to be the following year?


--ImageRemoved--

User avatar
ruleser
Posts: 870
Joined: Sun Dec 07, 2008 2:41 am

Re: UC Regents increase law rates

Postby ruleser » Fri Oct 23, 2009 8:04 pm

deadatheist wrote:you'll be able to get instate after 1l, fwiw (which may not be enough now)

i swear i remember 3-4 years ago looking at uc tuition rates and they were ~19,000 for instate. that is one helluva jump.

+1 Absolutely incredible - as the debt/credit bubble is popping, they are still jacking up a bubble. To double tuition in about 5 years is insane.

Personally, I think they should just not allow 2L and 3L's to get instate - people who pay the taxes to make the schools/fund them should get the instate break, the point of which was to have affordable quality ed for the people of California.

User avatar
General Tso
Posts: 2289
Joined: Sun Dec 07, 2008 6:51 pm

Re: UC Regents increase law rates

Postby General Tso » Fri Oct 23, 2009 8:06 pm

ruleser wrote:
deadatheist wrote:you'll be able to get instate after 1l, fwiw (which may not be enough now)

i swear i remember 3-4 years ago looking at uc tuition rates and they were ~19,000 for instate. that is one helluva jump.

+1 Absolutely incredible - as the debt/credit bubble is popping, they are still jacking up a bubble. To double tuition in about 5 years is insane.

Personally, I think they should just not allow 2L and 3L's to get instate - people who pay the taxes to make the schools/fund them should get the instate break, the point of which was to have affordable quality ed for the people of California.


You stole your 'tar from xxxxxx oops I mean Helmholtz

User avatar
ruleser
Posts: 870
Joined: Sun Dec 07, 2008 2:41 am

Re: UC Regents increase law rates

Postby ruleser » Fri Oct 23, 2009 8:08 pm

swheat wrote:
ruleser wrote:
deadatheist wrote:you'll be able to get instate after 1l, fwiw (which may not be enough now)

i swear i remember 3-4 years ago looking at uc tuition rates and they were ~19,000 for instate. that is one helluva jump.

+1 Absolutely incredible - as the debt/credit bubble is popping, they are still jacking up a bubble. To double tuition in about 5 years is insane.

Personally, I think they should just not allow 2L and 3L's to get instate - people who pay the taxes to make the schools/fund them should get the instate break, the point of which was to have affordable quality ed for the people of California.


You stole your 'tar from xxxxxx oops I mean Helmholtz

?

User avatar
General Tso
Posts: 2289
Joined: Sun Dec 07, 2008 6:51 pm

Re: UC Regents increase law rates

Postby General Tso » Fri Oct 23, 2009 8:11 pm

xxxxxxxxxxxx used to have the same avatar as you...atticus finch right

before he became Helmholtz and started doing his own james dean-esque self tars.

User avatar
ruleser
Posts: 870
Joined: Sun Dec 07, 2008 2:41 am

Re: UC Regents increase law rates

Postby ruleser » Fri Oct 23, 2009 8:50 pm

swheat wrote:xxxxxxxxxxxxx used to have the same avatar as you...atticus finch right

before he became Helmholtz and started doing his own james dean-esque self tars.

Ah, I forgot that that's who Helm was before - xxxxxx - I remember him from when I first came to the site. I thought his tar back then was a self-tar - No, I didn't copy, someone made a comment the other day calling me a Finch, so I put the tar up. Funny that that's who Helm is, seems like a different guy now. I thought xxxxxx rocked the LSAT last year and moved on...

irishman86
Posts: 312
Joined: Sun Feb 01, 2009 7:03 am

Re: UC Regents increase law rates

Postby irishman86 » Fri Oct 23, 2009 9:00 pm

-
Last edited by irishman86 on Sat Jan 02, 2010 7:20 am, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
ruleser
Posts: 870
Joined: Sun Dec 07, 2008 2:41 am

Re: UC Regents increase law rates

Postby ruleser » Fri Oct 23, 2009 9:05 pm

irishman86 wrote:Thx for the chart. It is pretty scary. I know Berkeley OOS this year was close to 49k. I think it's going to be over 50k next year.

It's sad because the UCs used to be so affordable for in-staters, but I think they're going to cost more than most of the other top schools.

Personally, I think they should just not allow 2L and 3L's to get instate - people who pay the taxes to make the schools/fund them should get the instate break, the point of which was to have affordable quality ed for the people of California.


I think they should do this too. Maybe they can then actually maintain a gap between OOS and in-state. The OOS who didn't pay taxes really shouldn't be getting the benefit Californians pay for.

Imagine how much $$ this would net if they just did this in general across the UC's - lots of students get instate for 3 years undergrad, etc. who wouldn't if it were changed.

Also, I think the UC's may be mistaken in their thinking - they think they need to raise fees to do thiings to maintain rank, but just from what you hear in this thread, I wonder if attendance/aps will decline and so drop them in rank if their fees shoot up this much...

irishman86
Posts: 312
Joined: Sun Feb 01, 2009 7:03 am

Re: UC Regents increase law rates

Postby irishman86 » Thu Jan 21, 2010 6:03 am

have other schools released info yet?

User avatar
Great Satchmo
Posts: 754
Joined: Mon May 04, 2009 2:34 pm

Re: UC Regents increase law rates

Postby Great Satchmo » Thu Jan 21, 2010 2:38 pm

I'm really curious to see what happens as far as acceptances. I imagine that students on the higher end will get enough scholarship to make it worthwhile, or at least even out the future cost with current private school tuition ($35-$40k). However, that middle/lower end student with little or no scholarship will be in a difficult spot when they look at close to $50k a year in tuition, with a relatively high COL.

I guess this will be an exercise in how crazy people are about rankings. I imagine it will only sway a small amount of students to go elsewhere.

I'm especially curious because Hastings/Davis were my top choices before the tuition increases came to light. I'm on the lower end for Hastings, and middle for Davis. If I get accepted to either, it's going to be a tough decision considering I'll likely get little or no scholarship.

irishman86
Posts: 312
Joined: Sun Feb 01, 2009 7:03 am

Re: UC Regents increase law rates

Postby irishman86 » Mon Feb 01, 2010 7:39 pm

irishman86 wrote:have other schools released info yet?


nobody?

User avatar
General Tso
Posts: 2289
Joined: Sun Dec 07, 2008 6:51 pm

Re: UC Regents increase law rates

Postby General Tso » Tue Feb 02, 2010 4:29 pm

irishman86 wrote:
irishman86 wrote:have other schools released info yet?


nobody?


All I know is 39k instate at Hastings, 40.5k at Davis, 42k at Berkeley, and 1/2 tuition (around 20k) for new students at Irvine.

irishman86
Posts: 312
Joined: Sun Feb 01, 2009 7:03 am

Re: UC Regents increase law rates

Postby irishman86 » Tue Mar 16, 2010 11:54 am

.
Last edited by irishman86 on Thu Sep 30, 2010 1:51 am, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Veritas
Posts: 2722
Joined: Fri Oct 24, 2008 11:50 pm

Re: UC Regents increase law rates

Postby Veritas » Tue Mar 16, 2010 12:14 pm

irishman86 wrote:bump any new news

what are you looking for?

the rates haven't changed or anything.....




Return to “Choosing a Law School”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests