Class sizes and medians (c/o 2015) Forum

[Mr. Fancy]

I agree 100% with Wakelaw15. He doesn't owe anyone anything. Everyone should be grateful for the time and effort he has given. If the OP doesn't meet your standards, instead of bitching about it, maybe you should create your own

That is sort of the point. We don't need dozens of these threads around. Don't start one unless you are willing to update it.

My last comment was only to point out that is was ironic that Wake was calling out Madrid, who had himself had the responsibility of updating this thread last year.

Oh common. You cannot honestly expect someone to take on that responsibility just by starting a thread on the topic. Since Wake has done most of the hard work, create your own thread updating his info and you won't have a dozen threads around, but rather only one more.

[Mr. Fancy]

I agree 100% with Wakelaw15. He doesn't owe anyone anything. Everyone should be grateful for the time and effort he has given. If the OP doesn't meet your standards, instead of bitching about it, maybe you should create your own

We don't owe him anything either. But there are tons of volunteers more willing to do what he think we should all be so grateful for.

Cool, then one of 2000+ volunteers should create their own thread using the info here. I am sure a mod won't have a problem locking this thread to limit confusion.

[Wakelaw15]

haha. The reasoning in this page of the thread is so poor. If you can show me one thread like this on TLS which is complete (all schools and all data) I will be STUNNED. otherwise, recognize that the point is the headnote has a ton of info updated periodically and if you want to know about a particular school use the search function or read the thread.

[TheThriller]

[VUSisterRayVU]

@Regarding Barry:
Isn't there a law against defrauding borderline mentally-handicaped people?

I know we like to disparage TTTs, but let's not disparage the students, brother.

My comment was distasteful, but the blame rests on both law students and law schools, and IMO both deserve criticism. Regrettably only law students currently bear the full responsibility.

Eh, I don't know that they can bear the full responsibility, but I agree with your sentiment. But that's neither here nor there. Have all the T14s reported now?

[manofjustice]

Does anyone have (don't laugh) RU-C's numbers?

Chuckle.

[KevinP]

Eh, I don't know that they can bear the full responsibility, but I agree with your sentiment. But that's neither here nor there. Have all the T14s reported now?

I meant that under the current system, law students bear full responsibility (financial risk) for student outcomes. Law schools have bear none of the responsibility (financial risk). Such a system is obviously flawed.

We have a few 25/75 splits from some schools but still no medians from Harvard, Stanford, NYU, Chicago, Penn, Duke, and Northwestern.

[VUSisterRayVU]

Eh, I don't know that they can bear the full responsibility, but I agree with your sentiment. But that's neither here nor there. Have all the T14s reported now?

I meant that under the current system, law students bear full responsibility (financial risk) for student outcomes. Law schools have bear none of the responsibility (financial risk). Such a system is obviously flawed.

We have a few 25/75 splits from some schools but still no medians from Harvard, Stanford, NYU, Chicago, Penn, Duke, and Northwestern.

yeah agreed. is there any reason why schools wouldn't release medians? i think someone posted earlier that P hasn't put them up at the same time as splits, so i dont know that it's any nefarious 'hiding the drop' bidness

[manofjustice]

AU's median really dropped 3 points? Wow...

[manofjustice]

If the 2011 data is right, AU got raped. -3 25th, -3 50th... and this with -72 class size!

[dingbat]

I meant that under the current system, law students bear full responsibility (financial risk) for student outcomes. Law schools have bear none of the responsibility (financial risk). Such a system is obviously flawed.

I do believe Yale is the exception - they will cover loan payments for anyone earning less than $60k, so the risk is on them

[KevinP]

I meant that under the current system, law students bear full responsibility (financial risk) for student outcomes. Law schools have bear none of the responsibility (financial risk). Such a system is obviously flawed.

I do believe Yale is the exception - they will cover loan payments for anyone earning less than $60k, so the risk is on them

They changed it to less than 50k (http://www.yaledailynews.com/news/2012/ ... s-reduced/). But yeah, Yale's LRAP program indirectly bears some risk, but couldn't Yale just shut the program down for grads (I'm not too familiar with LRAPs)? If that's the case, it definitely isn't anything like students who really can't (reasonably) file for bankrupt to get rid of student loans.

[Mr. Fancy]

I meant that under the current system, law students bear full responsibility (financial risk) for student outcomes. Law schools have bear none of the responsibility (financial risk). Such a system is obviously flawed.

Why should law schools have to bear the financial responsibility? The market obviously doesn't require them to do so. People should be held responsible for their own financial decisions and get rid of this nanny state crap.

[VUSisterRayVU]

I meant that under the current system, law students bear full responsibility (financial risk) for student outcomes. Law schools have bear none of the responsibility (financial risk). Such a system is obviously flawed.

Why should law schools have to bear the financial responsibility? The market obviously doesn't require them to do so. People should be held responsible for their own financial decisions and get rid of this nanny state crap.

*obama's america*

[thelawyler]

I meant that under the current system, law students bear full responsibility (financial risk) for student outcomes. Law schools have bear none of the responsibility (financial risk). Such a system is obviously flawed.

Why should law schools have to bear the financial responsibility? The market obviously doesn't require them to do so. People should be held responsible for their own financial decisions and get rid of this nanny state crap.

lol that's not the point. The idea is to create downward pressure on tuition prices. It does society no good to annually have 20k+ of your college educated youth completely fucked for 20 years. It's terrible policy.

[Mr. Fancy]

I meant that under the current system, law students bear full responsibility (financial risk) for student outcomes. Law schools have bear none of the responsibility (financial risk). Such a system is obviously flawed.

Why should law schools have to bear the financial responsibility? The market obviously doesn't require them to do so. People should be held responsible for their own financial decisions and get rid of this nanny state crap.

lol that's not the point. The idea is to create downward pressure on tuition prices. It does society no good to annually have 20k+ of your college educated youth completely fucked for 20 years. It's terrible policy.

You know what creates a downward pressure on tuition prices? People making smart financial decisions about whether or not to go to law school.

[EvilClinton]

You know what creates a downward pressure on tuition prices? People making smart financial decisions about whether or not to go to law school.

That is hard to do when the government subsidizes student loans. There is no real application process. No one has any idea how much tuition is worth because there is literally no qualifications or money down.

Don't get me wrong, I think everyone having access to higher education is extremely important. But it seriously skews the market forces you are depending on. In our situation, I believe more government regulation over the types of institutions they are guaranteeing loans for would be a good thing. If a place like Cooley that is graduating hundreds of people with over 125K in debt and no job prospects, it does not deserve government backed loans.

(obviously there are worse offenders than law schools, U of P etc.)

[Mr. Fancy]

You know what creates a downward pressure on tuition prices? People making smart financial decisions about whether or not to go to law school.

That is hard to do when the government subsidizes student loans. There is no real application process. No one has any idea how much tuition is worth because there is literally no qualifications or money down.

Don't get me wrong, I think everyone having access to higher education is extremely important. But it seriously skews the market forces you are depending on. In our situation, I believe more government regulation over the types of institutions they are guaranteeing loans for would be a good thing. If a place like Cooley that is graduating hundreds of people with over 125K in debt and no job prospects, it does not deserve government backed loans.

(obviously there are worse offenders than law schools, U of P etc.)

The government should also set the price of houses because people can't be trusted to make smart decisions. Lets blame the businesses, not the consumers.

[VUSisterRayVU]

You know what creates a downward pressure on tuition prices? People making smart financial decisions about whether or not to go to law school.

That is hard to do when the government subsidizes student loans. There is no real application process. No one has any idea how much tuition is worth because there is literally no qualifications or money down.

Don't get me wrong, I think everyone having access to higher education is extremely important. But it seriously skews the market forces you are depending on. In our situation, I believe more government regulation over the types of institutions they are guaranteeing loans for would be a good thing. If a place like Cooley that is graduating hundreds of people with over 125K in debt and no job prospects, it does not deserve government backed loans.

(obviously there are worse offenders than law schools, U of P etc.)

The person you are responding to will argue that the government shouldn't give loans to anyone and it should be a pure meritocracy because he's a Paul/Randbot. He's also completely off topic for this thread and should gas the fuck out of himself.

[KevinP]

yeah agreed. is there any reason why schools wouldn't release medians? i think someone posted earlier that P hasn't put them up at the same time as splits, so i dont know that it's any nefarious 'hiding the drop' bidness

Hard to tell why they would delay releasing the medians. The problem with schools such as UVA and Penn is that they use splitters to maintain their numbers. A miscalculation (look at Illinois's report) can drop a school not one but a few median LSAT points. UVA wasn't affected but who knows about Penn.

Why should law schools have to bear the financial responsibility? The market obviously doesn't require them to do so. People should be held responsible for their own financial decisions and get rid of this nanny state crap.

Because law schools provide misleading statistics and because law schools are using government (read tax payer) money.

[Tiago Splitter]

The person you are responding to will argue that the government shouldn't give loans to anyone and it should be a pure meritocracy because he's a Paul/Randbot. He's also completely off topic for this thread and should gas the fuck out of himself.

The true Paul/Randbots take offense.

[EvilClinton]

The government should also set the price of houses because people can't be trusted to make smart decisions. Lets blame the businesses, not the consumers.

Honestly the two can't be compared. But since you decided to...

At least with homes the applicant is required to put down a large deposit. The only time you don't need one is with a government backed FHA loan that only requires a 3% down payment and proof of 3 months of payment in the bank. During the housing boom banks were starting to lend 95 to 100 percent of a homes value (either through 80/20 loans or straight 100 financing loans). These are the loans that fared the worst during the foreclosure crisis. Private lenders no longer offer them (unless it is through a government program).

The market learned that people are a lot less likely to walk away from a debt if they have put some money down (i.e. have skin in the game). Paying with your own money makes everyone a better consumer. You are a lot more likely to consider risk and shop around for better options of you have to put some of your own money into a transaction. But that is not possible with student loans. How do we make for people pay for part of their education if they have no source of income?

So maybe the government shouldn't "set the price of houses" but maybe it should protect consumers that use its special financing from faulty or defective products. OH WAIT it already does that. In order to qualify for an FHA backed mortgages your house has to pass a special home inspection. This inspection is much more thorough than a regular home inspection and involves a through checklist to ensure the home is a good investment (at least the extent that it is valued). If you even miss one thing on the checklist you will be denied financing.

So why not the same with student loans? Why can't the government have a thorough inspection of a student's education prospects at a particular institution and deny them a loan if the inspection is not favorable?

[VUSisterRayVU]

The government should also set the price of houses because people can't be trusted to make smart decisions. Lets blame the businesses, not the consumers.

Honestly the two can't be compared. But since you decided to...

At least with homes the applicant is required to put down a large deposit. The only time you don't need one is with a government backed FHA loan that only requires a 3% down payment and proof of 3 months of payment in the bank. During the housing boom banks were starting to lend 95 to 100 percent of a homes value (either through 80/20 loans or straight 100 financing loans). These are the loans that fared the worst during the foreclosure crisis. Private lenders no longer offer them (unless it is through a government program).

The market learned that people are a lot less likely to walk away from a debt if they have put some money down (i.e. have skin in the game). Paying with your own money makes everyone a better consumer. You are a lot more likely to consider risk and shop around for better options of you have to put some of your own money into a transaction. But that is not possible with student loans. How do we make for people pay for part of their education if they have no source of income?

So maybe the government shouldn't "set the price of houses" but maybe it should protect consumers that use its special financing from faulty or defective products. OH WAIT it already does that. In order to qualify for an FHA backed mortgages your house has to pass a special home inspection. This inspection is much more thorough than a regular home inspection and involves a through checklist to ensure the home is a good investment (at least the extent that it is valued). If you even miss one thing on the checklist you will be denied financing.

So why not the same with student loans? Why can't the government have a thorough inspection of a student's education prospects at a particular institution and deny them a loan if the inspection is not favorable?

don't feed the troll bro

[sunynp]

There is no downward pressure on tuition. Schools have been raising tuition in the face of greatly declining demand. Even schools that lowered class sizes because they couldn't find enough qualified students to admit raised tuition.

It is beyond absurd to say that if students start making smart financial decisions about going to law school, then law schools will reduce tuition. (Many, many students, are in fact making as smart a financial decision as possible given the current climate and information asymmetry.) I know one law school published that due to the tough economic times, they were only raising tuition 4% this year. That is a law school thinking they are responding to the crises in legal employment and the cost of tuition - they think that by only raising tuition by 4% they are fighting a battle and making a difference.

I don't know any other business that continues to raise prices in the face of dropping demand and acts like they are doing everyone a huge favor. I am sure the idea of lowering tuition never crossed the mind of a single law school dean. They are still living in a dream world in an ivory tower; they have a few more years to go until they start believing reality.

I don't think any law school has lowered tuition in any year for the past 20 years. I would bet that no school has lowered tuition since US News started publishing rankings.

edit: to be on topic - I think that for the schools below a certain cutoff, they will have to lose their medians and they will continue to keep losing ground on their medians over the next few years as the smart money continues to flee law school. Dropping medians might put enough of a scare into law school deans to make them consider reducing tuition, not sure.

[BoGuaGua]

UC Hastings/Davis/Irvine/LA please guys?