Cause if you chose GULC or NU, there's a 70% chance you'll get zero grant money, whereas with UCLA, there's only a 35% chance you'll get zero grant money (and now they have tuition revenue to plow into financial aid).papercranes wrote:I predict this. Though there will inevitably be a number of people that blindly follow the rankings and pick the school that is (what, 2 spots?) higher, there will be another, large fraction of people who want the predictability and stability. I'm sure UCLA also used to lure more say, Gtown or Northwestern-accepted students than USC because of cost, but why pick UCLA when you can have a slightly higher ranked school for the same price?ruleser wrote:I would predict USC actually catching UCLA in a couple years - UCLA will be more expensive, and there is less stabillity - USC has a wealthy alum base and it's tuition to support it. The only reason it's been a few points lower I think is UCLA was half the price. That's a huge change, from half the price to more expensive in just a few years.superflush wrote:Maybe more people will.papercranes wrote:Will more people pick USC if the costs are the same? effect on rankings?
Also, LOL @ anyone who think law students, on average, are rational consumers of legal education. This is a profession for status whores. We all wish OTHERS would be scared away by price, but how many of us would actually pass up our dream school for reasons of cost.