Northwestern Law to cut class size by 10% Forum

[rad lulz]

Better than doing nothing I guess

[HawkeyeGirl]

In the long run, however, we will need to pursue ambitiously alternative sources of revenue

I took this to mean they'd increase the size of the AJD program without giving much $ to those folks. Not sure if Kellogg lets the law school have any say in class size of JD/MBA, but that program would also be an alternative source of funding that could bridge the revenue gap.

[fruitoftheloom]

In the long run, however, we will need to pursue ambitiously alternative sources of revenue

I took this to mean they'd increase the size of the AJD program without giving much $ to those folks. Not sure if Kellogg lets the law school have any say in class size of JD/MBA, but that program would also be an alternative source of funding that could bridge the revenue gap.

I don't know - at the AJD open house, the dean said he was committed to funding our program as well. My scholarship was shockingly generous - I think I got significantly more than I would have gotten in the regular program.

[09042014]

In the long run, however, we will need to pursue ambitiously alternative sources of revenue

I took this to mean they'd increase the size of the AJD program without giving much $ to those folks. Not sure if Kellogg lets the law school have any say in class size of JD/MBA, but that program would also be an alternative source of funding that could bridge the revenue gap.

Probably more LLMs. They don't hurt employment stats.

[Samara]

In the long run, however, we will need to pursue ambitiously alternative sources of revenue

I took this to mean they'd increase the size of the AJD program without giving much $ to those folks. Not sure if Kellogg lets the law school have any say in class size of JD/MBA, but that program would also be an alternative source of funding that could bridge the revenue gap.

Probably more LLMs. They don't hurt employment stats.

Yup, they are going HAM with the Tax LLM marketing. Might actually be useful to some people looking to take advantage of the current laterals market.

ETA: Although, maybe tax isn't growing much?

[HawkeyeGirl]

In the long run, however, we will need to pursue ambitiously alternative sources of revenue

I took this to mean they'd increase the size of the AJD program without giving much $ to those folks. Not sure if Kellogg lets the law school have any say in class size of JD/MBA, but that program would also be an alternative source of funding that could bridge the revenue gap.

Probably more LLMs. They don't hurt employment stats.

Ah, that makes sense. As a nervous JD/MBA applicant, I'm just trying to see some silver lining

[justonemoregame]

I hope all law schools follow the Northwestern example of conservative approaches to tuition increases.

[09042014]

I hope all law schools follow the Northwestern example of conservative approaches to tuition increases.

I think they just don't wanna be the first school to blast through 60K.

[Cobretti]

I hope all law schools follow the Northwestern example of conservative approaches to tuition increases.

I think they just don't wanna be the first school to blast through 60K.

if the tuition increases vs inflation gap isn't closed i don't understand how anyone will be able to pay sticker at even HYS in 20 years. even this 3% is twice as much as current inflation.

[jenesaislaw]

Wrote a column for Huffington Post on this: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/kyle-mcen ... 67276.html

Linked to this thread and quoted one of the posts.

[09042014]

Wrote a column for Huffington Post on this: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/kyle-mcen ... 67276.html

Linked to this thread and quoted one of the posts.

Why are you singling out Northwestern? Damn near every school is raising tuition by more than 3%.

[iteachtenthgrade]

Edit: Sorry, wrong thread. Bad multitask.

[Icculus]

Wrote a column for Huffington Post on this: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/kyle-mcen ... 67276.html

Linked to this thread and quoted one of the posts.

Wooooooohooooo!!! I was quoted on huffpo!!

[jenesaislaw]

Wrote a column for Huffington Post on this: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/kyle-mcen ... 67276.html

Linked to this thread and quoted one of the posts.

Why are you singling out Northwestern? Damn near every school is raising tuition by more than 3%.

"In the rest of this post, I respond to three of the solutions adopted by Northwestern to combat the problems facing law students, recent graduates, and the legal profession. However, Dean Rodriguez's letter could have been written by any number of law school deans, faculty members, or trustees."

Additionally, the school made a show of it in the WSJ and has put itself out there for its solutions. It's important that decisions like Northwestern's receive in-depth analysis and be challenged beyond their glossy exterior.

[Cobretti]

Wrote a column for Huffington Post on this: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/kyle-mcen ... 67276.html

Linked to this thread and quoted one of the posts.

Third, we will increase our total investment in need- and merit-based financial aid for entering students and in our LRAP program for graduating students by at least 25% during the next two years. This commitment, along with other measures we will explore, and our conservative approach to tuition increases going forward, are manifest efforts to limit the rising cost of a Northwestern legal education and corresponding burdens of student indebtedness."

Financial aid sounds completely benevolent. After all, it's "aid" that helps all but the very wealthy afford to attend school. The term refers to student loans (at exorbitant rates), as well as merit and need-based scholarships. The latter category is an expenditure like faculty salaries or janitorial services. While scholarship money sometimes comes from limited purpose endowments, they're usually tuition cross subsidies. That is, a scholarship for one student comes from the tuition revenue of all others. Need-based scholarships are scarce, so a huge chunk of scholarship expenditures comes from the tuition revenue from the students least likely to succeed. These students subsidize the students with the best incoming LSAT scores and GPAs (i.e. those most likely to succeed).

You seem to be inferring that NU is going to increase its "cross subsidies" scholarships at the expense of those paying sticker, and people should be wary of increased need and merit aid. This whole argument is silly, and anyone that's taken an accounting class knows how flimsy your argument regarding where the money comes from is. You can call the pile of money whatever you want, be it "sticker students' money" or "foregone tuition revenue" or "endowment funded scholarships"; but any way you look at it, giving 25% more of that money, the law school's money, to students is a good thing.

I'd also like to point out these two sentences of yours, which are separated by only one sentence:

...These students subsidize the students with the best incoming LSAT scores and GPAs (i.e. those most likely to succeed).

Like almost every other law school, the school has chosen to expand its budget to buy credentials to continue its participation in the U.S. News charade.

So are LSAT and GPA indicators that students will "succeed", or are they simply "credentials" for law schools to parade in some "charade"? You acknowledge LSAT/GPA are correlated indicators of incoming students' success when it comes to standing up for the poor kids entering at the bottom quartile of LSAT/GPA, but then dismiss LSAT/GPA's predictive power to to continue your rant against USNWR. You completely ignore the argument that they are focused on maintaining standards in order to have a class that is "most likely to succeed".

The biggest takeaway I have from your article is that you knew how you'd write it before you read what Dean Rodriguez said, which isn't "transparency" because it isn't objective.

[052220151]

Shit just got real. Hold on a second, I need to get my popcorn.

[Ded Precedent]

Wrote a column for Huffington Post on this: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/kyle-mcen ... 67276.html

Linked to this thread and quoted one of the posts.

[mattviphky]

larger transfer class maybe?

[09042014]

larger transfer class maybe?

Dean said no plans it increase the transfer class, but qualified by saying that there isn't a target size of the transfer class.

[Icculus]

Shit just got real. Hold on a second, I need to get my popcorn.

[timbs4339]

So are LSAT and GPA indicators that students will "succeed", or are they simply "credentials" for law schools to parade in some "charade"?

"Can't" they "be" both "?"

[Samara]

You seem to be inferring that NU is going to increase its "cross subsidies" scholarships at the expense of those paying sticker, and people should be wary of increased need and merit aid. This whole argument is silly, and anyone that's taken an accounting class knows how flimsy your argument regarding where the money comes from is. You can call the pile of money whatever you want, be it "sticker students' money" or "foregone tuition revenue" or "endowment funded scholarships"; but any way you look at it, giving 25% more of that money, the law school's money, to students is a good thing.

How is that a good thing for any of the current students that have to pay more or the half that has to pay sticker? This is only "good" for the people receiving scholarships, which, as the article points out, are the people that are statistically more likely to make biglaw and thus more likely to be able to pay back their lower debt loads. You're loading up more debt on the students that are less likely to be able to pay it back. It's okay though, because that's their problem, right? They just didn't work hard enough.

[Cobretti]

You seem to be inferring that NU is going to increase its "cross subsidies" scholarships at the expense of those paying sticker, and people should be wary of increased need and merit aid. This whole argument is silly, and anyone that's taken an accounting class knows how flimsy your argument regarding where the money comes from is. You can call the pile of money whatever you want, be it "sticker students' money" or "foregone tuition revenue" or "endowment funded scholarships"; but any way you look at it, giving 25% more of that money, the law school's money, to students is a good thing.

How is that a good thing for any of the current students that have to pay more or the half that has to pay sticker? This is only "good" for the people receiving scholarships, which, as the article points out, are the people that are statistically more likely to make biglaw and thus more likely to be able to pay back their lower debt loads. You're loading up more debt on the students that are less likely to be able to pay it back. It's okay though, because that's their problem, right? They just didn't work hard enough.

My point is increasing aid by 25% doesn't negatively impact anyone, and clearly helps people that get aid. I wasn't defending the system, I was arguing that it was ridiculous to attack the dean for improving the system. It doesn't help 1Ls, or those that pay sticker, but its still going to help more people than they currently do, which is an objectively good thing. I think the letter directly addressed the arguments LST has been making for years, and while its certainly not a complete fix to everything, its undeniably substantial movement in the right direction.

[pedestrian]

Raising tuition 3% (which, as another poster pointed out, is low compared to most schools) will not fund a 25% increase in scholarships and 10% fewer students. My guess is that NU is pressing alumni for donations.

[Samara]

You seem to be inferring that NU is going to increase its "cross subsidies" scholarships at the expense of those paying sticker, and people should be wary of increased need and merit aid. This whole argument is silly, and anyone that's taken an accounting class knows how flimsy your argument regarding where the money comes from is. You can call the pile of money whatever you want, be it "sticker students' money" or "foregone tuition revenue" or "endowment funded scholarships"; but any way you look at it, giving 25% more of that money, the law school's money, to students is a good thing.

How is that a good thing for any of the current students that have to pay more or the half that has to pay sticker? This is only "good" for the people receiving scholarships, which, as the article points out, are the people that are statistically more likely to make biglaw and thus more likely to be able to pay back their lower debt loads. You're loading up more debt on the students that are less likely to be able to pay it back. It's okay though, because that's their problem, right? They just didn't work hard enough.

My point is increasing aid by 25% doesn't negatively impact anyone, and clearly helps people that get aid. I wasn't defending the system, I was arguing that it was ridiculous to attack the dean for improving the system. It doesn't help 1Ls, or those that pay sticker, but its still going to help more people than they currently do, which is an objectively good thing. I think the letter directly addressed the arguments LST has been making for years, and while its certainly not a complete fix to everything, its undeniably substantial movement in the right direction.

Eh, it's more likely to translate into higher awards for the same batch of people, rather than a broadening. They want to continue aggressively pursuing high-stats applicants.