Duragon wrote:What significance are you attaching to the non-profit designation? I'm not sure why you would not still think of law schools as businesses, with many of the same demands and motives as a traditional for-profit business. In my mind, law schools are service providers. A scholarship is a discount on that service, from which the law school and the law student benefit.
How does a law school's non-profit designation legitimize an expectation that a mutually beneficial purchase discount will be reimbursed by the customer?
As a first pass, I would say because of the type of service law schools (and universities in general) provide. Just because a service is provided doesn't mean it has to follow the market like other goods and services private businesses offer.
A legal education is still an education, and I think that is something one should not have deprived of them simply because they can't afford it. But by saying that there seems to be an implicit assumption that there is a socialist aspect to how we view a university's place in society (since an educated populous is for the betterment of society in general, etc.), and if that's true then we do have an obligation to pay back the school that provided us with the opportunities we were given.
Still trying to formulate a coherent response while at work, but I think that's what I'll go with for now.