Berkeley 2010

Share Your Experiences, Read About Other Experiences. Please keep posts organized by school and expected year of graduation.
User avatar
irie
Posts: 325
Joined: Sun May 31, 2009 9:50 pm

Re: Berkeley 2010

Postby irie » Fri Nov 20, 2009 1:55 pm

sfdreaming09 wrote:
crackberry wrote:I assume everyone saw that the UC Regents did, in fact, approve the tuition hikes yesterday. Will this make Berkeley THE most expensive school in the country?


For OOS, yes.


the school will also be liquidated when california fails to emerge from bankruptcy.

User avatar
crackberry
Posts: 3252
Joined: Thu Sep 17, 2009 3:23 pm

Re: Berkeley 2010

Postby crackberry » Fri Nov 20, 2009 1:59 pm

sfdreaming09 wrote:
crackberry wrote:I assume everyone saw that the UC Regents did, in fact, approve the tuition hikes yesterday. Will this make Berkeley THE most expensive school in the country?


For OOS, yes.

Isn't it getting up there for in-state as well? I am in-state and am very interested in this.

sfdreaming09
Posts: 273
Joined: Tue Oct 20, 2009 12:54 pm

Re: Berkeley 2010

Postby sfdreaming09 » Fri Nov 20, 2009 2:07 pm

crackberry wrote:
sfdreaming09 wrote:
crackberry wrote:I assume everyone saw that the UC Regents did, in fact, approve the tuition hikes yesterday. Will this make Berkeley THE most expensive school in the country?


For OOS, yes.

Isn't it getting up there for in-state as well? I am in-state and am very interested in this.


Yes, very soon it will be the nation’s highest even for in-state. Right now, in-state tuition stands at 36.5K, in 2010 it will be 44.2K, in 2011 it will be 49.3K, and in 2012 it will be 51.8K.

For OOS, it is currently at 48.7K. It will rise to 52.2K in 2010, 54.8K in 2011, and 57.6K in 2012.

This is truly a shame.

User avatar
crackberry
Posts: 3252
Joined: Thu Sep 17, 2009 3:23 pm

Re: Berkeley 2010

Postby crackberry » Fri Nov 20, 2009 2:13 pm

sfdreaming09 wrote:
crackberry wrote:
sfdreaming09 wrote:
crackberry wrote:I assume everyone saw that the UC Regents did, in fact, approve the tuition hikes yesterday. Will this make Berkeley THE most expensive school in the country?


For OOS, yes.

Isn't it getting up there for in-state as well? I am in-state and am very interested in this.


Yes, very soon it will be the nation’s highest even for in-state. Right now, in-state tuition stands at 36.5K, in 2010 it will be 44.2K, in 2011 it will be 49.3K, and in 2012 it will be 51.8K.

For OOS, it is currently at 48.7K. It will rise to 52.2K in 2010, 54.8K in 2011, and 57.6K in 2012.

This is truly a shame.

Our state is on the brink my fellow Californian.

User avatar
tintin
Posts: 952
Joined: Tue Oct 21, 2008 12:26 am

Re: Berkeley 2010

Postby tintin » Fri Nov 20, 2009 2:19 pm

crackberry wrote:Our state is on the brink my fellow Californian.


+2323452345125546

I'm preparing for my escape from California when it goes under.

sfdreaming09
Posts: 273
Joined: Tue Oct 20, 2009 12:54 pm

Re: Berkeley 2010

Postby sfdreaming09 » Fri Nov 20, 2009 2:23 pm

We can thank all the obstructionist Republicans in the California state legislature for this mess. Their ridiuclous "anti new-tax" pledge is destroying our state.

User avatar
gossipgirl
Posts: 261
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 1:25 am

Re: Berkeley 2010

Postby gossipgirl » Fri Nov 20, 2009 2:28 pm

sfdreaming09 wrote:We can thank all the obstructionist Republicans in the California state legislature for this mess. Their ridiuclous "anti new-tax" pledge is destroying our state.


Definitely, let's raise taxes in the middle of a recession. All the waste in spending on corruption shouldn't be dealt with, the problem is clearly the "low" income tax rates in California.

User avatar
Kronk
Posts: 28284
Joined: Sat Dec 27, 2008 9:18 pm

Re: Berkeley 2010

Postby Kronk » Fri Nov 20, 2009 2:35 pm

Yikes. Berkeley was one of my top choices behind Stanford. Don't think I'll be going with the tuition the way it is now, though. Although I guess I would have in-state given that I'll be in California for two years prior to law school. Still, though, Berkeley's in-state might be as much as Stanford's tuition soon.

User avatar
Kronk
Posts: 28284
Joined: Sat Dec 27, 2008 9:18 pm

Re: Berkeley 2010

Postby Kronk » Fri Nov 20, 2009 2:37 pm

gossipgirl wrote:
sfdreaming09 wrote:We can thank all the obstructionist Republicans in the California state legislature for this mess. Their ridiuclous "anti new-tax" pledge is destroying our state.


Definitely, let's raise taxes in the middle of a recession. All the waste in spending on corruption shouldn't be dealt with, the problem is clearly the "low" income tax rates in California.



Yeah. Who would've though the Cali legislature would approve House Bill 0932, permitted the spending of money on "corruption"! DUN DUN DUN!

-What is that small moon hovering above California?
-That's no moon. It's a space station.

User avatar
gossipgirl
Posts: 261
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 1:25 am

Re: Berkeley 2010

Postby gossipgirl » Fri Nov 20, 2009 2:41 pm

VoidSix wrote:
gossipgirl wrote:
sfdreaming09 wrote:We can thank all the obstructionist Republicans in the California state legislature for this mess. Their ridiuclous "anti new-tax" pledge is destroying our state.


Definitely, let's raise taxes in the middle of a recession. All the waste in spending on corruption shouldn't be dealt with, the problem is clearly the "low" income tax rates in California.



Yeah. Who would've though the Cali legislature would approve House Bill 0932, permitted the spending of money on "corruption"! DUN DUN DUN!

-What is that small moon hovering above California?
-That's no moon. It's a space station.


That's so true. The California Govt. has no power to limit corruption and wasteful spending by the California Govt. Thanks for enlightening me.

Kretzy
Posts: 1431
Joined: Tue Jun 30, 2009 5:11 pm

Re: Berkeley 2010

Postby Kretzy » Fri Nov 20, 2009 2:45 pm

gossipgirl wrote:
sfdreaming09 wrote:We can thank all the obstructionist Republicans in the California state legislature for this mess. Their ridiuclous "anti new-tax" pledge is destroying our state.


Definitely, let's raise taxes in the middle of a recession. All the waste in spending on corruption shouldn't be dealt with, the problem is clearly the "low" income tax rates in California.


I've actually spent the last two years working in tax policy, and much data shows that raising taxes during a recession, particularly on upper-income earners, is the most effective and efficient way to combat recession. See: Center on Budget and Policy Priorities data, National Association of State Budget Officers data, and National Association of State Legislatures data, 1999-2003.

The key is disposable income, particularly for low-earners, who spend their money locally and on essential items almost exclusively.

Colorado's higher education system is also getting priced-out for most residents as a result of our TABOR and anti-tax policies over the past 2 decades. We're now 49th in public spending on higher education, and just cut higher-ed budgets by another 20%. California may surpass us at this rate.

User avatar
Kronk
Posts: 28284
Joined: Sat Dec 27, 2008 9:18 pm

Re: Berkeley 2010

Postby Kronk » Fri Nov 20, 2009 2:47 pm

gossipgirl wrote:That's so true. The California Govt. has no power to limit corruption and wasteful spending by the California Govt. Thanks for enlightening me.


No problem. Let me enlighten you some more! "Corruption" is a buzzword, not specific to anything actually happening at all, has nothing to do with Berkeley tuition hikes, and makes you sound like a conspiracy theorist! Yay!

User avatar
bilbobaggins
Posts: 686
Joined: Sat Oct 25, 2008 3:41 pm

Re: Berkeley 2010

Postby bilbobaggins » Fri Nov 20, 2009 2:48 pm

The situation in CA is complex. Part of it has to do with the way the state budget gets passed (2/3rds super majority required).

Another has to do with the fact that Californians can budget via referendum and the legislature is unable to modify or go against these referendums without another referendum to repeal.

Sure, there's waste involved, but no more so than any other state.

With about 10% of the U.S population, a negative flow of federal income tax and the inability to tax at a higher level, the state has a very large burden. When the recession hit and tax income plummeted the state found itself in a shitty situation.

User avatar
gossipgirl
Posts: 261
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 1:25 am

Re: Berkeley 2010

Postby gossipgirl » Fri Nov 20, 2009 2:49 pm

Kretzy wrote:
gossipgirl wrote:
sfdreaming09 wrote:We can thank all the obstructionist Republicans in the California state legislature for this mess. Their ridiuclous "anti new-tax" pledge is destroying our state.


Definitely, let's raise taxes in the middle of a recession. All the waste in spending on corruption shouldn't be dealt with, the problem is clearly the "low" income tax rates in California.


I've actually spent the last two years working in tax policy, and much data shows that raising taxes during a recession, particularly on upper-income earners, is the most effective and efficient way to combat recession. See: Center on Budget and Policy Priorities data, National Association of State Budget Officers data, and National Association of State Legislatures data, 1999-2003.

The key is disposable income, particularly for low-earners, who spend their money locally and on essential items almost exclusively.

Colorado's higher education system is also getting priced-out for most residents as a result of our TABOR and anti-tax policies over the past 2 decades. We're now 49th in public spending on higher education, and just cut higher-ed budgets by another 20%. California may surpass us at this rate.


Very interesting report/article. Thanks for the referral!

User avatar
Kronk
Posts: 28284
Joined: Sat Dec 27, 2008 9:18 pm

Re: Berkeley 2010

Postby Kronk » Fri Nov 20, 2009 2:49 pm

Most of the California budget problems come from the fact that they have a constitution that allows them to spend money before getting it, thus encouraging extremely high deficits. There are many states that have similar state laws, however none of them are home to 35 million people.

User avatar
crackberry
Posts: 3252
Joined: Thu Sep 17, 2009 3:23 pm

Re: Berkeley 2010

Postby crackberry » Fri Nov 20, 2009 2:53 pm

Let me make this simple. Much of California's trouble stems from a ballot measure passed overwhelmingly in 1978: Proposition 13. It capped property taxes at 1 percent of the assessed value, essentially handcuffing local governments and forcing them to rely on Sacramento for assistance. Well, this was fine for the first couple years when California had a huge surplus. Then it got bad in the 80s and early 90s. Then the dot-com bubble happened and everything was okay. Then it burst and now we're fucked. Thank you Prop. 13.

User avatar
crackberry
Posts: 3252
Joined: Thu Sep 17, 2009 3:23 pm

Re: Berkeley 2010

Postby crackberry » Fri Nov 20, 2009 2:54 pm

Also, gossipgirl, it is precisely because California can't impose new taxes that we are so screwed. The state raised income taxes by 10 percent this year because no one in this damn state pays anything in property taxes.

User avatar
Kronk
Posts: 28284
Joined: Sat Dec 27, 2008 9:18 pm

Re: Berkeley 2010

Postby Kronk » Fri Nov 20, 2009 2:56 pm

Very concise. Interesting.


Seriously, though, I would be surprised if Berkeley continues to get the level of students it has with such ridiculous tuition. It would be much cheaper to attend Columbia or NYU at this point. The last two pages of this thread have made me quite sad.

User avatar
crackberry
Posts: 3252
Joined: Thu Sep 17, 2009 3:23 pm

Re: Berkeley 2010

Postby crackberry » Fri Nov 20, 2009 2:57 pm

VoidSix wrote:Very concise. Interesting.


Seriously, though, I would be surprised if Berkeley continues to get the level of students it has with such ridiculous tuition. It would be much cheaper to attend Columbia or NYU at this point. The last two pages of this thread have made me quite sad.

Despite the fact that I'm in-state, Berkeley has gone from being one of my top choices to don't-even-consider status. $50K in tuition? Are you kidding?

User avatar
tintin
Posts: 952
Joined: Tue Oct 21, 2008 12:26 am

Re: Berkeley 2010

Postby tintin » Fri Nov 20, 2009 2:59 pm

VoidSix wrote:Very concise. Interesting.


Seriously, though, I would be surprised if Berkeley continues to get the level of students it has with such ridiculous tuition. It would be much cheaper to attend Columbia or NYU at this point. The last two pages of this thread have made me quite sad.


I think I calculated that, even being an in-state resident of CA, it would be cheaper for me to attend Michigan and pay out of state tuition there than to go to berkeley.

yikes.

User avatar
bilbobaggins
Posts: 686
Joined: Sat Oct 25, 2008 3:41 pm

Re: Berkeley 2010

Postby bilbobaggins » Fri Nov 20, 2009 2:59 pm

VoidSix wrote:Very concise. Interesting.


Seriously, though, I would be surprised if Berkeley continues to get the level of students it has with such ridiculous tuition. It would be much cheaper to attend Columbia or NYU at this point. The last two pages of this thread have made me quite sad.


I would bet students will continue to pay to go to Boalt. Don't know about the other UCs. There are way more qualified applicants than there are T14 spots.

Also, if you think the other schools are going to keep tuition at current levels you're also probably mistaken.

User avatar
crackberry
Posts: 3252
Joined: Thu Sep 17, 2009 3:23 pm

Re: Berkeley 2010

Postby crackberry » Fri Nov 20, 2009 3:00 pm

bilbobaggins wrote:Also, if you think the other schools are going to keep tuition at current levels you're also probably mistaken.

Sure, but no state is as screwed as California. That is a fact.

Amelie
Posts: 814
Joined: Sun Jul 26, 2009 12:19 pm

Re: Berkeley 2010

Postby Amelie » Fri Nov 20, 2009 3:03 pm

crackberry wrote:
VoidSix wrote:Very concise. Interesting.


Seriously, though, I would be surprised if Berkeley continues to get the level of students it has with such ridiculous tuition. It would be much cheaper to attend Columbia or NYU at this point. The last two pages of this thread have made me quite sad.

Despite the fact that I'm in-state, Berkeley has gone from being one of my top choices to don't-even-consider status. $50K in tuition? Are you kidding?


Same for me (but I'm out of state). For a long time I dreamed of Berkeley Law (I grew up nearby and would still like to live there again)... but the tuition is just too much for me.

0L Hoping for 1
Posts: 1325
Joined: Sun Jan 25, 2009 9:36 pm

Re: Berkeley 2010

Postby 0L Hoping for 1 » Fri Nov 20, 2009 3:05 pm

maggiebre wrote:
crackberry wrote:
VoidSix wrote:Very concise. Interesting.


Seriously, though, I would be surprised if Berkeley continues to get the level of students it has with such ridiculous tuition. It would be much cheaper to attend Columbia or NYU at this point. The last two pages of this thread have made me quite sad.

Despite the fact that I'm in-state, Berkeley has gone from being one of my top choices to don't-even-consider status. $50K in tuition? Are you kidding?


Same for me (but I'm out of state). For a long time I dreamed of Berkeley Law (I grew up nearby and would still like to live there again)... but the tuition is just too much for me.


+1

User avatar
bilbobaggins
Posts: 686
Joined: Sat Oct 25, 2008 3:41 pm

Re: Berkeley 2010

Postby bilbobaggins » Fri Nov 20, 2009 3:05 pm

crackberry wrote:
bilbobaggins wrote:Also, if you think the other schools are going to keep tuition at current levels you're also probably mistaken.

Sure, but no state is as screwed as California. That is a fact.


True, and many private law schools took a 20-30% endowment hit.




Return to “Law School Acceptances, Denials, and Waitlists”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: biglawhopeful18, Bing [Bot] and 1 guest