Yale Law School Class of 2012

(housing, friendships, future exams, all things 2012)
westbayguy
Posts: 153
Joined: Thu May 22, 2008 6:41 pm

Re: Yale Law School Class of 2012

Postby westbayguy » Thu Mar 26, 2009 5:29 pm

So do you think HLS would consider?

BTW I have reliable report (admittedly a few years old) that YLS once increased an award to match a lesser school (T-10) award (it took a few calls and persistence), so maybe all is not lost.

franfair
Posts: 93
Joined: Wed Dec 03, 2008 2:28 pm

Re: Yale Law School Class of 2012

Postby franfair » Fri Mar 27, 2009 10:49 am

.
Last edited by franfair on Fri Jul 23, 2010 4:36 pm, edited 1 time in total.

masterpinky0509
Posts: 29
Joined: Sat Jun 28, 2008 8:38 pm

Re: Yale Law School Class of 2012

Postby masterpinky0509 » Fri Mar 27, 2009 2:43 pm

I'm sending in my deposit today.

No more uncertainty - time to start hunting for apartments!

ahnielove
Posts: 7
Joined: Mon Dec 29, 2008 4:02 am

Re: Yale Law School Class of 2012

Postby ahnielove » Fri Mar 27, 2009 5:03 pm

westbayguy wrote:Just received YLS "Award" - all loans and Parental contribution, $0 grants.

Parents paid all 160000 for undergrad and aren't really interested in footing LS bill. No, they are not "rich", are nearing retirement, and took big hits in market crash.

Waiting on HLS and SLS awards.

Anybody else in a similar situation?

The reports of "generous" YLS awards certainly make me wonder what's going on.

Anyone have a sense of what is driving these decisions?



I'm in the exact same boat--no grant offered whatsoever. I almost wonder if I filled out my forms wrong. The assessment states I can easily pay the entire $68K for next year (if I spend my entire current annual income plus half my saved assets.) It also assumes contributions from my parents, who are blue collar types with a measly income from their small Mom-and-Pop restaurant, and from whom I've been independent for the last 9 years. I'm a bit disappointed.

Anonymous0L

Re: Yale Law School Class of 2012

Postby Anonymous0L » Fri Mar 27, 2009 5:19 pm

ahnielove wrote:
westbayguy wrote:Just received YLS "Award" - all loans and Parental contribution, $0 grants.

Parents paid all 160000 for undergrad and aren't really interested in footing LS bill. No, they are not "rich", are nearing retirement, and took big hits in market crash.

Waiting on HLS and SLS awards.

Anybody else in a similar situation?

The reports of "generous" YLS awards certainly make me wonder what's going on.

Anyone have a sense of what is driving these decisions?





I'm in the exact same boat--no grant offered whatsoever. I almost wonder if I filled out my forms wrong. The assessment states I can easily pay the entire $68K for next year (if I spend my entire current annual income plus half my saved assets.) It also assumes contributions from my parents, who are blue collar types with a measly income from their small Mom-and-Pop restaurant, and from whom I've been independent for the last 9 years. I'm a bit disappointed.


Obviously your parents are wealthy enough to pay for Yale. Yale is generous for people that actually need the $$. :roll: Just pay up! 8)

shuchong
Posts: 33
Joined: Wed Jan 09, 2008 6:01 pm

Re: Yale Law School Class of 2012

Postby shuchong » Fri Mar 27, 2009 5:30 pm

ahnielove wrote:The assessment states I can easily pay the entire $68K for next year (if I spend my entire current annual income plus half my saved assets.)


That does seem weird. I got my fin aid decision today, and they had me pay 1/2 of my assets, plus part of my summer earnings (a little strange, since I've been out of school for a few years, but whatever: I just used what I'd be earning in June, July and August to fill out my Need Access forms). Is it the summer earnings category that's equal to your entire current annual income? If so, something is definitely wrong, and you might want to shoot an email to Pat Barnes. I emailed her with a quick question today, and she gave me a reply within half an hour.

carlitos
Posts: 11
Joined: Tue Jan 06, 2009 9:05 pm

Re: Yale Law School Class of 2012

Postby carlitos » Fri Mar 27, 2009 5:32 pm

That's not a very fair thing to say, Jwatson. As I posted above, sometimes the numbers seem to make a family look richer than they really are. And sometimes, unfortunately, people get penalized for saving their money, as the more money you have saved up (instead of spending it on cruises or cars or whatever), the more money it looks like your parents have sitting around and available to pay for schooling.

Anonymous0L

Re: Yale Law School Class of 2012

Postby Anonymous0L » Fri Mar 27, 2009 5:34 pm

carlitos wrote:That's not a very fair thing to say, Jwatson. As I posted above, sometimes the numbers seem to make a family look richer than they really are. And sometimes, unfortunately, people get penalized for saving their money, as the more money you have saved up (instead of spending it on cruises or cars or whatever), the more money it looks like your parents have sitting around and available to pay for schooling.


All I am saying is that some people at Yale can easily afford to pay for LS (hint- legacy folks). It'll be like giving your kids scholarships. :lol:

User avatar
zabagabe
Posts: 340
Joined: Sun Jul 01, 2007 3:48 am

Re: Yale Law School Class of 2012

Postby zabagabe » Fri Mar 27, 2009 6:53 pm

When I talked to Ms. Barnes she said that they expect you to contribute a minimum of $2.5k from your pre-1L summer no matter whether you can make it or not (in my case, my degree goes until August so there's no way I can, but they still expect it anyway).

jubileeez
Posts: 17
Joined: Thu Oct 16, 2008 6:03 pm

Re: Yale Law School Class of 2012

Postby jubileeez » Fri Mar 27, 2009 8:02 pm

anyone else who hasn't gotten their financial aid awards? :(

franfair
Posts: 93
Joined: Wed Dec 03, 2008 2:28 pm

Re: Yale Law School Class of 2012

Postby franfair » Fri Mar 27, 2009 9:05 pm

.
Last edited by franfair on Fri Jul 23, 2010 4:35 pm, edited 1 time in total.

elluchador
Posts: 3
Joined: Mon Oct 15, 2007 9:22 am

Re: Yale Law School Class of 2012

Postby elluchador » Sat Mar 28, 2009 2:29 am

Hey Ahnie, I must admit, your situation does seem a bit odd. Do you think that the value of the restaurant itself plays into the equation at all? I know that aid calculations can get a bit tricky for students whose parents own business(es). Certainly, shoot Pat an email. I did and she got back to me really quickly, was very helpful, and did, in fact, adjust my award in light of new information.

Best of luck with working this out and I hope to meet you at the ASW (I'll be the painfully jet-lagged one).

westbayguy
Posts: 153
Joined: Thu May 22, 2008 6:41 pm

Re: Yale Law School Class of 2012

Postby westbayguy » Sat Mar 28, 2009 2:26 pm

OK at the risk of sounding like a tool, does it strike anyone as really wrong that just because my parents made money on their own I have to start life with 200k in debt and just because your parents are "poor", you get to start YOUR life free of debt, Both the "poor" student and the "rich" student have the same job prospects coming out of school, and both have the same opportunity to have a successful career later.a
Ironically both my parents went to law school, got not 1 dime from their parents because the parents taught self reliance as a good idea, took out loans and paid them back. But we're talking 3000 in debt (it was a long time ago) not 200k.

So they try to teach me the same thing and THE RESULT IS I GET SADDLED WITH 200K.

I can understand undergrad schollys, as full COA loans are not really available for UG, but ANYONE can get a full COA loan for law school. And we All HAVE THE SAME PROSPECTS FOR PAYING IT OFF.

So in a radical move, why not take all that financial aid given to the lucky ones, apply it to lower tuition for everyone, and have a COAP that subsidizes ALL graduates according to thier ability to repay based on their own earnings and success?

Seems more rational to me.

franfair
Posts: 93
Joined: Wed Dec 03, 2008 2:28 pm

Re: Yale Law School Class of 2012

Postby franfair » Sat Mar 28, 2009 3:45 pm

.
Last edited by franfair on Fri Jul 23, 2010 4:35 pm, edited 1 time in total.

carlitos
Posts: 11
Joined: Tue Jan 06, 2009 9:05 pm

Re: Yale Law School Class of 2012

Postby carlitos » Sat Mar 28, 2009 3:56 pm

I think he's saying that pretty much ALL of the financial aid offered should be for COAP-type payments (based on after-law-school salaries) instead of lump sums of grants given to students based on their parents' current salaries, since arguably all parents are unwilling to pay for their children's law school tuition and since all of us (whether rich or poor now, before law school) will have the same opportunity to make either tons of money in private practice (and easily pay off our loans) or not so much money in the public interest (and be saddled with debt). I think he was trying to point out that since all of us would generally have the same amount of debt if our parents contributed nothing, it would be fairest to make that financial aid come after graduation and base it on the salary we make then, giving more assistance to those who make less.

He suggests lowering the base cost of tuition for everyone, but I imagine he would also be in favor of increasing the maximum salary for COAP eligibility.

User avatar
Objection
Posts: 1272
Joined: Mon Jul 14, 2008 11:48 am

Re: Yale Law School Class of 2012

Postby Objection » Sat Mar 28, 2009 8:19 pm

westbayguy wrote:OK at the risk of sounding like a tool, does it strike anyone as really wrong that just because my parents made money on their own I have to start life with 200k in debt and just because your parents are "poor", you get to start YOUR life free of debt, Both the "poor" student and the "rich" student have the same job prospects coming out of school, and both have the same opportunity to have a successful career later.a
Ironically both my parents went to law school, got not 1 dime from their parents because the parents taught self reliance as a good idea, took out loans and paid them back. But we're talking 3000 in debt (it was a long time ago) not 200k.

So they try to teach me the same thing and THE RESULT IS I GET SADDLED WITH 200K.

I can understand undergrad schollys, as full COA loans are not really available for UG, but ANYONE can get a full COA loan for law school. And we All HAVE THE SAME PROSPECTS FOR PAYING IT OFF.

So in a radical move, why not take all that financial aid given to the lucky ones, apply it to lower tuition for everyone, and have a COAP that subsidizes ALL graduates according to thier ability to repay based on their own earnings and success?

Seems more rational to me.


TITMFCR

User avatar
Objection
Posts: 1272
Joined: Mon Jul 14, 2008 11:48 am

Re: Yale Law School Class of 2012

Postby Objection » Sat Mar 28, 2009 8:20 pm

Jwatson wrote:
ahnielove wrote:
westbayguy wrote:Just received YLS "Award" - all loans and Parental contribution, $0 grants.

Parents paid all 160000 for undergrad and aren't really interested in footing LS bill. No, they are not "rich", are nearing retirement, and took big hits in market crash.

Waiting on HLS and SLS awards.

Anybody else in a similar situation?

The reports of "generous" YLS awards certainly make me wonder what's going on.

Anyone have a sense of what is driving these decisions?





I'm in the exact same boat--no grant offered whatsoever. I almost wonder if I filled out my forms wrong. The assessment states I can easily pay the entire $68K for next year (if I spend my entire current annual income plus half my saved assets.) It also assumes contributions from my parents, who are blue collar types with a measly income from their small Mom-and-Pop restaurant, and from whom I've been independent for the last 9 years. I'm a bit disappointed.


Obviously your parents are wealthy enough to pay for Yale. Yale is generous for people that actually need the $$. :roll: Just pay up! 8)



Because all parents give their children access to their money :roll:

User avatar
zabagabe
Posts: 340
Joined: Sun Jul 01, 2007 3:48 am

Re: Yale Law School Class of 2012

Postby zabagabe » Sat Mar 28, 2009 8:28 pm

westbayguy, I understand your frustration, but I would point out a couple of counter-arguments to this:

1. There's no way Yale (or any other school) can guarantee that an individual with rich parents won't just "claim" not to support them but then, in actuality, provide assistance. In this case, they are providing money to someone who doesn't need it at the expense of someone who does. As a result, the best they can do is base your level of support on your parent's capacity, in theory, to provide support. (Note that this is a separate discussion from the question as to whether their actual means of making this assessment are either fair or accurate - the basic assumption is that, however they make the calculation, whatever they calculate, a person's parents could, in theory, pay).

2. It's worth considering that an individual's parents' income factors into more than just law school payment. First, someone with very rich parents presumably had better opportunities before law school (particularly pre-college), more help applying to law schools, easier time pursuing the non-lucrative but resume-building activities in college, etc. If so, perhaps it is fair to consider this when looking at who most deserves assistance. Certainly, they consider it when they ask if you received help with your application or hired a tutor/took a KAPLAN-type class for the LSAT.

3. Along those lines, many people provide for/support their parents in retirement and beyond. If you have parents with very little income of their own, you might be responsible for supporting them at a level that makes the large amounts of debt more cost-prohibitive than someone with very wealthy parents. Just something to consider.

Finally, bare in mind NO ONE is getting a free ride from Yale. They expect, at minimum, that you will assume responsibility for at least (approx) $35k of the cost of your legal education per year. So at most, the difference is between $100k and $200k in debt. I know this is an extraordinarily small consolation, but just remember no one is getting off without assuming a lot of debt (except, of course, for individuals with rich parents who pay for law school).

Again, I totally understand your frustration and sympathize, because if your parents aren't willing to help, you definitely get stuck with the short end of the stick. However, I do think there is some reasonable rationale for how they calculate this.

User avatar
Objection
Posts: 1272
Joined: Mon Jul 14, 2008 11:48 am

Re: Yale Law School Class of 2012

Postby Objection » Sat Mar 28, 2009 8:42 pm

zabagabe wrote:westbayguy, I understand your frustration, but I would point out a couple of counter-arguments to this:

1. There's no way Yale (or any other school) can guarantee that an individual with rich parents won't just "claim" not to support them but then, in actuality, provide assistance. In this case, they are providing money to someone who doesn't need it at the expense of someone who does. As a result, the best they can do is base your level of support on your parent's capacity, in theory, to provide support. (Note that this is a separate discussion from the question as to whether their actual means of making this assessment are either fair or accurate - the basic assumption is that, however they make the calculation, whatever they calculate, a person's parents could, in theory, pay).

2. It's worth considering that an individual's parents' income factors into more than just law school payment. First, someone with very rich parents presumably had better opportunities before law school (particularly pre-college), more help applying to law schools, easier time pursuing the non-lucrative but resume-building activities in college, etc. If so, perhaps it is fair to consider this when looking at who most deserves assistance. Certainly, they consider it when they ask if you received help with your application or hired a tutor/took a KAPLAN-type class for the LSAT.

3. Along those lines, many people provide for/support their parents in retirement and beyond. If you have parents with very little income of their own, you might be responsible for supporting them at a level that makes the large amounts of debt more cost-prohibitive than someone with very wealthy parents. Just something to consider.

Finally, bare in mind NO ONE is getting a free ride from Yale. They expect, at minimum, that you will assume responsibility for at least (approx) $35k of the cost of your legal education per year. So at most, the difference is between $100k and $200k in debt. I know this is an extraordinarily small consolation, but just remember no one is getting off without assuming a lot of debt (except, of course, for individuals with rich parents who pay for law school).

Again, I totally understand your frustration and sympathize, because if your parents aren't willing to help, you definitely get stuck with the short end of the stick. However, I do think there is some reasonable rationale for how they calculate this.



None of these are really counter-arguments to the very good (imo) proposal westbayguy put forth:

So in a radical move, why not take all that financial aid given to the lucky ones, apply it to lower tuition for everyone, and have a COAP that subsidizes ALL graduates according to thier ability to repay based on their own earnings and success?


I can't find average grant numbers for Yale, but let's look at the average number for HLS and do some calculations:

The average grant received by the 52% HLS students who receive grants (approximately 780 students) is $17,500/year

This means HLS is paying $13.6 million in grants per year.

From the rest of the class, HLS brings in $31.6 million (720 students * $43.9k tuition). From the 780 who receive grants, HLS makes $20.6 million (780 * $26.4k). This means that HLS is making $52.2 million/year in tuition while paying $13.6 million in grants for a net profit of $38.6 million.

Now, let's say HLS got out of the grant business altogether. To make the same amount of money - $38.6 million - HLS could lower its tuition to $25,733.

Other costs (books, cost of living, etc, etc) add up to $24,000.

That means that to finance one's HLS education, the worst case scenario is $149k in debt.

Maybe I'm crazy, but that sounds a lot better than the current system, where half the class graduates ~$200,000 in debt while the rest graduate with ~$143,000.

P.S. I suck at math, so if I made a glaring oversight, oops.

User avatar
zabagabe
Posts: 340
Joined: Sun Jul 01, 2007 3:48 am

Re: Yale Law School Class of 2012

Postby zabagabe » Sat Mar 28, 2009 10:19 pm

Obj, those are some interesting calculations and definitely a proposal worth thinking about.

However, I think my first point remains a perfect counter: some people's parents WILL support them for law school. If they do, then it's really not fair that because you were born rich, you graduate with zero debt, and someone else born poor would graduate with tons of debt (and possibly be in greater need to support their parents).

Two, what you're proposing is still grant-making, it's just need-blind grant-making. Harvard's revenue stream for grants is primarily endowed donations. They calculate tuition based on the portion of the revenue stream coming from tuition that is needed to break even on operating expenses. Under your proposed system, one of two things must happen: either they have to convince their donors to stop donating for grant-making purposes and shift their donations toward operating expenses (and thereby reducing tuition as you propose), or they reduce the cost of student tuition by continuing to doll assistance as grant money, and doll it out equally to everyone. Since the former is very unlikely to happen, it would still have to remain grant money.

Third, it's not as black and white as your proposal currently describes it: half of Yale students are not going $200k into debt and the other half going $143k into debt. The purpose of having it individually-tailored is precisely because people's needs vary, and so will their debt.

Fourth, when you get your Yale financial aid package, if you are a recipient of need-based grant money, they ask you to write a profile for donors to see what you have done and what you plan to do with your law degree (I wrote a bunch of these letters for need-based financial aid in undergrad and my recipients were very appreciative). I don't know about you, but if I am one of those donors someday, I would be really irritated if my donation went to someone whose parents are footing the bill anyway. Where's the need here? Definitely not going to encourage me to contribute.

Your proposal works if we assume no one gets support for law school. That simply is not the case, and it's very hard to police. Taking grant money away from those getting no help and shifting it to those who don't need it at all is just as unfair, if not moreso.

edited to add: In addition, unless all of YHS converted to this system, it would have the deleterious effect of pushing rich people toward one school and poor people toward the other. If, for example, HLS switched by Yale didn't, people with high need would be much better served by Yale's funding and, ceteris paribus, would choose Yale. People with little or no need would be much better served by Harvard's funding and, ceteris paribus, choose Harvard. Over time, you would end up with more rich kids at Harvard and more poor ones at Yale. Even worse, Harvard wouldn't have any room to negotiate with students ("We give everyone the same thing"). A number of people on this board have used Stanford offers to improve their Yale offer, and it helps make Yale's financing more equal to Stanford's. Harvard wouldn't be able to compete at the margins in this way.

Baboonis
Posts: 4
Joined: Wed Mar 04, 2009 12:36 pm

Re: Yale Law School Class of 2012

Postby Baboonis » Sun Mar 29, 2009 12:32 am

westbayguy wrote:So in a radical move, why not take all that financial aid given to the lucky ones, apply it to lower tuition for everyone, and have a COAP that subsidizes ALL graduates according to thier ability to repay based on their own earnings and success?

Seems more rational to me.


Schools probably are hesitant to switch to an entirely back-end scholarship system such as this because a significant amount of the money paid out under such a system would go to third parties as interest.

If a school spends 40K on a particular student in an LRAP-system over the course of 10 years, then only about 27K goes to covering the original cost of tuition. The other 13K goes to paying off interest incurred from the 27K in original loans. So if the school had cut the student's tuition by 27K at the time of attendance, it would have the same effect. Thus grants at the time of attendance are more efficient from the school's perspective, since every dollar goes to meeting the cost of attendance and is not wasted on paying off interest.

(Of course, since scholarships come from endowments, leaving the money in the endowment for a longer period of time means that the school sees some return from investments. This would mitigate the effect described above. I don't know enough about endowments, investing, or math to estimate how much this would set it off).

User avatar
Objection
Posts: 1272
Joined: Mon Jul 14, 2008 11:48 am

Re: Yale Law School Class of 2012

Postby Objection » Sun Mar 29, 2009 1:05 am

However, I think my first point remains a perfect counter: some people's parents WILL support them for law school. If they do, then it's really not fair that because you were born rich, you graduate with zero debt, and someone else born poor would graduate with tons of debt (and possibly be in greater need to support their parents).


Third, it's not as black and white as your proposal currently describes it: half of Yale students are not going $200k into debt and the other half going $143k into debt. The purpose of having it individually-tailored is precisely because people's needs vary, and so will their debt.



The people graduating with 0 debt are going to graduate with 0 debt, regardless of which system we use. The people born poor are going to graduate with tons of debt, regardless of which system we use. Virtually no one is getting 100% in grants. Using the Harvard numbers I posted in the previous thread, people who are poor are still going to graduate with ~105k in debt under the current system.

So under the current system, the extremely poor person will start $105k behind the rich person - about 2 years worth of debt.

Under the proposed system, the extremely poor will graduate with $149k in debt - a bit more than 2.5 years worth of debt.

The average person receiving grants will graduate with $6,000 more in debt under the proposed system. More on this in a second in a second.

In the grand scheme of things, the differences seem to be fairly negligible, even at the most extreme end (is .5 year more of debt really going to drive poor parents into homelessness?) and certainly do not outweigh the benefits of the proposed system.

Also, I don't think the fact that parents might need financial support within 4 years after the student graduates law school (which is the longest it would take someone who is smart with their money to pay off $150k debt) is a serious enough one to justify the current system. That seems to be catering to the most extreme of the extreme circumstances.

I couldn't find Yale's numbers, but using Harvards - if only 52% receive grant money, than the other 48% run the gamut from rich parents, no debt to no parental-support, $200k in debt. The people graduating with 0 debt won't be affected by the new system since they're graduating with no debt anyway (in fact, they'll benefit as well since their parents will be paying less and thus have more money). The entire 48% will benefit significantly. The people in the middle - some parental-support - will benefit because either A) their parents end up contributing to a higher % of their education costs and thus lessening their debt load or B) the parents who only offered to contribute a set % of education will be paying less money, thus saving them money that the student won't need to spend on them down the road.

People in my situation will benefit by graduating with almost $50k less debt.

But at what cost to the grant recipients?

Let's assume that those extremely impoverished people have an assessed parental contribution of $0 and an assessed student contribution of $2500 (which is, I believe, the minimum). And let's be extremely generous and add that entire $12,500 to the HLS grant ($12,500 comes from the average HLS grant recipient which is assessed parental contribution of $10,000 and assessed student contribution of $5,000 - or, $12,500 more than our hypothetical student). That ups the HLS grant to $30,000. The student budget is $65,000. This hypothetical student would still be graduating with $105,000 in debt.

Under the proposed system, he would be graduating with $149k in debt - $44k more. That seems like a significant amount and is a solid counter to the proposed system. But remember - this is the most extreme case. Is it enough to squash the proposed system? I don't think so, particularly when you look at the numbers for the average grant recipient and how much it benefits the other 48%.

The average grant recipient would be $6,000 more in debt/costs to their parents, or ~$468,000 more combined debt in the entire group 780 grant recipients.

On the flip side, the loan only people (48%) would be saving $45,000 in debt/costs to their parents, or $32,400,000 cumulative in debt/costs to their parents.

I know, not all debt is created equal. $1 in debt to a poor person is much more significant than $1 in debt to someone with money, but I offer two counters to this:

1) The poor person doesn't have to be poor anymore when he/she graduates. He will have the same opportunity to make $160,000 base as the guy with money. Therefore, although $1 in debt to a poor person before he gets out of law school, might be much more significant than it would be to someone with money, it strongly moves towards equilibrium upon graduation. Although if the poor person has to take care of their parents, $1 in debt will still be a bit more significant. However, this leads me to counter 2:

2) The cumulative amount in extra debt for grant recipients is $468,000. The cumulative amount saved by everyone else is $32,400,000. Or for every $1 in debt taken on by the average grant recipient, $69 is saved by the other 48%. Upon graduation from a school like HYS, where a $160k job is yours for the taking, is a dollar really 69x more important to the average grant recipient than it is to the loan-only student? I'd answer no.

The two major problems with the proposed system:

1. The extreme cases will have to take on a significantly higher amount in debt.
2. The average grant recipient will be slightly more in debt.

Problem #1 could be addressed by using a small portion of that $13 million that is no longer being spent on grants to reduce the extra debt in the most extreme cases to levels more in line with where they were before the system change. Yes, I am aware that this is a grant, but I'm not interested in arguing the hard-line all-or-nothing stance on switching. Compromise isn't a bad thing, and an "extreme cases only" grant for people whose parental contributions is 0 is fine with me.

Problem #2 is a necessary evil.


Two, what you're proposing is still grant-making, it's just need-blind grant-making. Harvard's revenue stream for grants is primarily endowed donations. They calculate tuition based on the portion of the revenue stream coming from tuition that is needed to break even on operating expenses. Under your proposed system, one of two things must happen: either they have to convince their donors to stop donating for grant-making purposes and shift their donations toward operating expenses (and thereby reducing tuition as you propose), or they reduce the cost of student tuition by continuing to doll assistance as grant money, and doll it out equally to everyone. Since the former is very unlikely to happen, it would still have to remain grant money.


I may not be following you completely here, so correct me if I'm not, but if Harvard is currently making $38.6 million/year, what does it matter how they make that $38.6 million? If it means stopping grants but lowering tuition, what difference does it make? I don't know much how the donation process works, but how many donations are actually conditional upon that money being used for grants only? My very simplistic understanding is people say, "Hey Harvard, here is some money because you're awesome" and Harvard can do what they want with it. Or Harvard says, "Hey guys, love us, we need money" so people love them and give them money. I'm sure there are some cases where donors stipulate what their donations can be used for, but it would seem to be in the minority. If I am correct in my assumption, I fail to see the problem with shifting the $13.6 million in donations previously used for grants to other things.

HLS would still be bringing in $38.6 million and have the $13.6 million that used to be used for grants to do other things. Unless that entire $13.6 million is donated "For Grant Only," what is the problem?

edited to add: In addition, unless all of YHS converted to this system, it would have the deleterious effect of pushing rich people toward one school and poor people toward the other. If, for example, HLS switched by Yale didn't, people with high need would be much better served by Yale's funding and, ceteris paribus, would choose Yale. People with little or no need would be much better served by Harvard's funding and, ceteris paribus, choose Harvard. Over time, you would end up with more rich kids at Harvard and more poor ones at Yale. Even worse, Harvard wouldn't have any room to negotiate with students ("We give everyone the same thing"). A number of people on this board have used Stanford offers to improve their Yale offer, and it helps make Yale's financing more equal to Stanford's. Harvard wouldn't be able to compete at the margins in this way.


In a pure switch, Harvard probably lose those few people on the very extreme end of things. I addressed this concern earlier, however.

I doubt they'd lose the average grant recipient. If $6,000 more in debt in a field that pays $160,000 base is enough to sway someone, they probably weren't big on the school to begin with.

And, of course, none of this takes into consideration the COAP for ALL graduates after graduation.

Now, let me add a disclaimer: I don't mean to disparage or dismiss the people on the extreme end, so if anything like that came across, it was unintentional.

User avatar
zabagabe
Posts: 340
Joined: Sun Jul 01, 2007 3:48 am

Re: Yale Law School Class of 2012

Postby zabagabe » Sun Mar 29, 2009 3:40 am

Haha, this is getting almost too complicated to follow, so I'll just address two things:

If we accept the premise that appears to be the case in your calculations, namely that $50k = 1/2 a year of work (if the difference between paying off $100k and $150k is half a year), then:

-Under the current system, the extremely rich person (with no parental support) will start $200k in debt - a bit more than 3 years worth of debt.

-Under the proposed system, the extremely rich (with no parental support) will graduate with $149k in debt - a bit more than 2.5 years worth of debt.

I guess I don't see why I'm any more concerned about saving the rich kid half a year of paying off debt than saving the poor kid half a year of paying off debt, especially since in this scenario the most poor will still be hurt far more by this system at the expense of the rich kids being supported by their parents. The real winner here is rich but generous parents!

Further, in this scenario if you want to do public interest and use COAP you're looking at many more years in terms of the difference it takes to pay debt off, and I've got a hunch that less well of people are more likely to go into public interest jobs (I can't verify this). In addition, if they have to pay off their debt via COAP over many years, the extra $50k in payments is substantially more than half a year (more like 5 years), and they are going to be less likely to inherit from their parents as a way to build up their own nest egg down the road after spending many years doing public service, having their loans repaid via COAP, and making very little progress toward a retirement account.

To answer your question about donations, a large portion of donations are made with express strings attached, in terms of what it can and cannot be spent on. So this would involve a large effort to get donors to donate to a general fund. And again, as a donor, I, at least, would not be very inclined to donate to help support Westchester bankers paying less money for their kids' law school tuition. ;)

This is definitely interesting to think about, whichever side you fall on.

User avatar
zabagabe
Posts: 340
Joined: Sun Jul 01, 2007 3:48 am

Re: Yale Law School Class of 2012

Postby zabagabe » Sun Mar 29, 2009 3:51 am

There are also a few other things that complicate this formula. For one, students in their 2L summer on need-based aid are expected to contribute to their legal education everything above the $6k threshold (at Yale), so they will be getting substantially less aid (and therefore Yale is getting more tuition money) for the 3L year. Meanwhile, the rich kids who aren't on need-based assistance get to pocket all the money and, if they choose, pay down their debt. If we assume they make $30k in a year and pay it down, then in actuality, the richest kid graduating from Harvard graduates at $175k in debt, so it's not even that much more than the $149k under your proposed system.

I don't think it's very easy to extrapolate out how much Harvard gives in grants to whom over 3 years, because it varies from year to year, especially between 2L and 3L, and also because of their tuition waiver for 3L if you go into public interest.

User avatar
Objection
Posts: 1272
Joined: Mon Jul 14, 2008 11:48 am

Re: Yale Law School Class of 2012

Postby Objection » Sun Mar 29, 2009 3:53 am

-Under the current system, the extremely rich person (with no parental support) will start $200k in debt - a bit more than 3 years worth of debt.

-Under the proposed system, the extremely rich (with no parental support) will graduate with $149k in debt - a bit more than 2.5 years worth of debt.


Well, to be fair, the difference was $44k (105-149), and I said a little more than 2.5. It'd actually probably be closer to 2.75 if you're paying off $53k/year in loans (160k/3)...doing the math now...it'd be 2.81 years under the new system vs 3.77 under the old system :D. Almost a full year off of debt.

However, I think the benefit lies more in how much you'd be reducing the debt overall - over $30 million.

But of course, it's hard to really calculate any of this without specific and detailed information.




Return to “TLS Class of 2012 Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest