Sigh. California is a big state. MA has Harvard, MIT, Tufts, BC, BU. New York has Cornell, NYU and Columbia. A good chunk of the the top LACs are scattered across the northeast.

UC Davis recently beefed up their LRAP(max salary now 60K): http://www.law.ucdavis.edu/current/fina ... tance.html.

The tuition is still ridiculous, regardless of their solid LRAP. It's depressing when out of state tuition at other public law schools is cheaper than in state at any of the UC's. IBR helps those in the public sector too BTW.

IMO I feel like UCB and UCLA have such prestige and reputation that they won't be too negatively effected by rising tuition, it just seems like even w/ the tuition hike, incoming law students will still be clawing each others eyes out to get in there or any other T20. Especially w/ more people applying for law school than ever before.

I think the schools most hurt are likely Davis and Hastings. While there are far fewer schools as good as or better than UCB and UCLA, Davis and Hastings hover around 40 - CA kids who can get in there are likely to get into many schools slightly better or worse than those schools (ranking-wise) while paying much much less. I know when I applied last cycle, when I got into UCD and UCH, I also got into W&M for example, even back then it was probably a better deal for me to go to W&M even as a CA resident, and w/ these tuition hikes how many more qualified students will choose the more affordable options out of state.

I do wonder how UCI will be effected though... They'll still probably be giving out big scholly's for awhile and that place has all kinds of momentum that I think will keep highly qualified students flocking there for at least a few more years until they get ABA approved and debut on US News. I think most people would predict either way that that their 2nd class will not be as highly qualified as their extremely high caliber Inaugural class of full-scholarship recipients.

The problem is there aren't any choices in that range you're referring to that will place well in CA, so I guess if you don't care if you end up back working in CA at or around graduation, than I guess going to W&M or other cheaper out of state schools is feasible.

If you do want to work in CA after graduation, what are your options outside of the T14+UCLA/USC? You've got Davis and Hastings, following them you can pick from a slew of super regional T2's, the latter having a tuition, as of now, that is slightly higher and soon to be about equal to Davis and Hastings. Sure you may get some scholly money from some of these T2's, assuming you've got the numbers to get into the UC's, but they're usually contingent upon the student falling within the top 1/3(or whatever it may be) of his/her class. That sounds great, but none of us have even the slightest clue as to how we will fare during 1L. Therefore, it's sort of a gamble, take the lower tuition at the CA T2(assuming a partial scholly is offered) and hope you finish in the top 1/3 or go with the UC that will always have better placement in CA then those T2's. If you don't get to keep that T2 scholarship, you will pay full price and have fewer, in numbers and prestige, employment opportunities after and during law school.

I too am considering going to an out of state public law school in an attempt to save money, but I know that this will make securing employment in CA at graduation very difficult, so I'm only applying to schools in a region/city I can see myself working in and hope I can make my way back to CA after a few years. Also, depending on what you want to do, if you're interested in the public sector, IBR really makes the tuition issue a little less scary.

Just received the Berkeley Law Organizing Committee (BLOC)'s Letter to Dean Edley in my inbox. I agree that the tuition rates are insane, but why not just address them head-on as a total ripoff ITE instead of throwing in so much disingenuous BS? Here's an excerpt:

What do these students think made Boalt any different from an "elite private law school" when they chose to go there (for noble reasons that had very little to do with U.S. News rankings, mind you), except that in-staters got a tuition subsidy paid for by a state that couldn't afford it? Out-of-state Boalt students were paying "elite private law school" rates long before these tuition hikes. Allowing a state-funded price cut to solely self-interested Boalt students who did not pledge to work in the public sector (i.e., the vast majority of Boalt students) was totally unjust to the citizens of California. The most objectionable thing about the price increases is how they are being forced onto students who were not expecting them, and who can't just leave because cutting their losses when they are already $60k+ in the hole seems riskier than paying whatever the administrators charge and just praying that the market makes a rebound.

The last bolded sentence just strikes me as totally false, unless it's taken for granted that "#1 public" implies "still very high in the U.S. News rankings."

Agreed, there is something inherently unfair about raising tuition on students already there...you would think they could come up w/ some plan to not screw them over. I guess fee increases happen all the time but what is staggering in this unique UC case is the amount of the increase. I can't even wrap my head around the idea of a UC school charging 50+ and 60+ after for all their history setting the standard in balancing high quality education with reasonable tuition.

Thank you Sacramento for screwing Californian's yet again.

This is starting to affect my thoughts on where I want to go.

Hastings was my first choice, and I ED'd there....I'm sure I won't get in through ED, which is good because even if I'm accepted off of the waitlist, paying full tuition of ~$43k a year and COL is not tenable.

Davis is now my first choice, well...it was while I was thinking that their tuition would not jump up.

This is pushing me more toward USF and SCU. Granted, I'm not Boalt material by numbers, but I have a coin flip at Davis and slightly less at Hastings. Even if I get in, lower tuition (summed to 3 years) and some scholarship is going to make all of the difference.

People can whine, but until law students begin to show an aversion to ridiculous tuition rates like these, its almost hard to blame them. They are charging what the market will bear, and the market is full of people who think they'll be making $160k in three years.

As much as you're going to hate hearing this, these hikes (except Hastings') had nothing to do with Sacramento. Check out the link I posted on the first page. Schools did this mostly on their own. Partly motivated by rankings, partly because, well, they could.

EDIT: Ok. They have something to do with Sacramento, but it was the cutting of subsidies way back in 2003 that are the real culprit, not the current clusterfuck.

The fee hikes have EVERYTHING to do with Sacramento.

The fees are an attempt to partially fill the UC budget hole that Sacramento consistently takes out every year. (UC is part of the "general fund" and the shift is mostly to cover the staggering costs of incarceration, which is hurt by staggering prison pop and huge decreases in CA tax revenue)

This is true, but government intervention is also a factor. Making it easier for students to get bigger loans makes it easier for schools to charge more.
Between prisons, schools and public employee benefits, they spend on everything. If spending had been kept to inflation plus population growth the last couple decades, we'd be basically okay.

As someone who applied to Davis and Hastings, and somebody who pays CA taxes, I think asking the professional students to pay fees more commensurate with their costs is pretty reasonable. Why should taxpayers and undergrads have to subsidize my JD or somebody else's MD?

Wow, so if you're an OOS student next year at UCLA and pay (rounded) $50,545 1L year, and $44,500 2L (assuming they get instate) and (say) $45,000 3L, your average is $46,681.

USC is at $44 but 65.6 percent (http://officialguide.lsac.org/SearchRes ... BA4852.pdf) get grants and the smallest grant is $5,000.

Will more people pick USC if the costs are the same? effect on rankings?

missing some relevant information.......

CA Fails:

Reagan + Prop 13 + 3 Strikes + Eron/Edison + High Interest Debt = State budget crisis.

The smallest grant thing is not on there, no, but you can talk to finaid at USC.

Maybe more people will.

Agreed, but this would be a good year for students to start showing an aversion to outrageous tution rates. Far fewer people (esp. people applying to the top schools) are convinced that they'll be making $160k in three years. I would hope this makes people more debt-averse (it certainly has for me). The government money for student loans will keep coming and it definetely inflates tuition to a certain extent, but even so I don't think I'll be able to afford $200k+ in student loans and no guarantee of a $150k+ job. For the record, even though Berkeley has been my hands-down favorite school for the last year, without some financial aid, I doubt I could go. We'll see if I'm just an anomoly or am part of a larger trend in the coming months, but I wouldn't count on demand for top schools being completely inelastic anywhere outside of the super-elite. [e: I phrased that last sentence poorly. I meant to say I don't think demand for any single top law school is extremely inelastic.]

e: Dear Berkeley, please also let me in.

Here's a nice look at a chart: http://taxprof.typepad.com/taxprof_blog ... irst-.html

Meh, who's to say that there won't be many more law schools charging $60k tuition by 2012?

Other schools rates' have been increasing by an annual rate of only 3/4% or so, definitely not at the drastic percentages the UCs have been going (i.e. 20%+ annually in some years). I really do think the CA budget crisis, regardless of what people say, has exacerbated the problem tremendously. Yikes though, Boalt and UCLA are increasing their in-state rates by 42% and 36% over a period of 3 years.

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.

LOL. USC has been caught fudging numbers for the engineering rankings already (link). Take a look at this (link). The only reason they are in spitting distance of UCLA, instead of being behind WashU (which has better reputation scores), is because they apparently spend as much on their overhead as does CCN and Northwestern (z-scores around 0.25). Given that UCLA and USC operate in the same metro, how on earth is their overhead/student drastically higher than UCLA's? If they aren't fudging those numbers, then, Ironically, with more tuition revenue to play with UCLA could keep up with the big boys in overhead/student.

EDIT: Just to give you an idea of how fucked up the rankings are, if a school made tuition $100,000/yr and gave everyone a $60,000/yr need-based grant, that school's overhead/student score would soar.

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?

What does this have to do with anything? Engineering school =/= Law School.