mctj wrote: jay115 wrote: mctj wrote:
jay115 wrote:Everyone can be paranoid about increasing tuition prices, but no one looks at sticker prices when deciding which law schools to attend - it's price after scholarship/aid, which the tuition increases go towards. Basically, the UCs are raising tuition so that they can fund more scholarships to attract better students. This seems to contradict everyone's prediction that Boalt and UCLA are going to tank off the face of the USWNR.
Did they state that somewhere? In was, and maybe some others as well are, working under the assumption that they are simply trying to become more self-sufficient, and take better advantage of the thousands of people willing to pay higher tuition, given the budget shortfall at the state level.
Could you direct me to whatever source from which you gleaned that information?
Sure: --LinkRemoved--, http://freakonomics.blogs.nytimes.com/2 ... ood-thing/
boilercat wrote:Weather is a really important consideration for me, too. That's one of the reasons I'd probably take UCLA over anything else lower than Duke. I am sick of the Midwestern weather.
It's why I chose to ED to UCLA - when I visited, I had a great time on the beach and met some wayy laid back people at a great school. plus instate tuition.
You said: "fund more scholarships to attract better students."
Articles read: give more money to lower income students, off-setting tuition hikes for the neediest students by giving them the extra money they are taking from the richest students.
I went through the articles quickly, but I saw nothing about trying to attract better students. Presumably, they aren't giving out scholarships to every poor dumbass with a high school diploma. Nevertheless, I'm not seeing anything about merit aid. It looks like they're trying to raise tuition to cover their ass, and simply allocating some of the extra funds to make sure the poor kids aren't excluded by the new price.
If I missed the point where they talked about merit aid (definitely possible), please quote it for me.
Most merit-based aid is distributed as need-based aid. Outgoing Dean Schill acknowledges that aid (merit or need) is a zero-sum game in that a limited amount of resources is distributed to a set amount of individuals: http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2008/07/11/let ... l-tuition/
. Thus, if you take the previous regents' statement that most of the tuition hikes will go to off-setting tuition and Dean Schill stating that that the need-based funds will go to attracting stronger students, I think the inference is rather apparent.
However, an inference is, of course, only an inference. If you received a fee-waiver to UCLA or Berkeley as a competitive student and get accepted, then you could probably figure out in the course of your cycle whether the UC system has become more competitive in its merit-based aid. If MCTJ and other skeptics are right and the UC system has just run out of money and heading over a cliff, then attend a better school or a different school that offers more money. If I and others who believe that the UC system is merely shifting more towards a private-like structure of endowment and finance are right, then you'll receive a competitive scholly comparable to that of UCLA's peers. Everyone wins.