UC Regents increase law rates Forum

[safari]

Ouch . I'm hoping my need based grant goes up with the tuition. Ouchie ouchi ouchi boalt

This is the part about outrageous tuition hikes that I don't get...the higher you raise tuition, the more money you have to throw at financial aid...it just seem untenable in the long run...

[heyyitskatie]

Ouch . I'm hoping my need based grant goes up with the tuition. Ouchie ouchi ouchi boalt

This is the part about outrageous tuition hikes that I don't get...the higher you raise tuition, the more money you have to throw at financial aid...it just seem untenable in the long run...

I'm sure they take that into the equation...x$ in tuition hikes will actually result in .yy% *x $ in increased revenue...it's almost like they are raising tuition on a tiered level...kids with rich parents are going to have to fork it over, but kids from poorer families will probably see a substantially less increase in what they have to pay. Maybe they should just advertise tuition rates according to family income on the glossy packets?

[im_blue]

This is the part about outrageous tuition hikes that I don't get...the higher you raise tuition, the more money you have to throw at financial aid...it just seem untenable in the long run...

This makes perfect sense. The "money" that a law school spends on financial aid is nothing more than a discount on tuition, so they can report higher student expenditures for US News, collect more tuition from rich students, and appear to give more financial aid / scholarships to poor / deserving students.

[safari]

Ouch . I'm hoping my need based grant goes up with the tuition. Ouchie ouchi ouchi boalt

This is the part about outrageous tuition hikes that I don't get...the higher you raise tuition, the more money you have to throw at financial aid...it just seem untenable in the long run...

I'm sure they take that into the equation...x$ in tuition hikes will actually result in .yy% *x $ in increased revenue...it's almost like they are raising tuition on a tiered level...kids with rich parents are going to have to fork it over, but kids from poorer families will probably see a substantially less increase in what they have to pay. Maybe they should just advertise tuition rates according to family income on the glossy packets?

But it doesn't seem there are enough rich students out there that can support these tuition levels at schools across the country, and it's not just at law schools. It seems the vast majority of people--for at least graduate/professional school--take out loans...which strikes me as somewhat of a scam, since that money isn't coming from the school anyways--it generally comes from private lenders or the federal gov't. So the schools make out like bandits, getting their tuition up-front, and the lenders bank on the interest payments (or gov't subsidies and/or bailouts). But it's the same system that got us into the mortgage crisis, and can't possibly sustain itself in the long run...

[im_blue]

But it doesn't seem there are enough rich students out there that can support these tuition levels at schools across the country, and it's not just at law schools. It seems the vast majority of people--for at least graduate/professional school--take out loans...which strikes me as somewhat of a scam, since that money isn't coming from the school anyways--it generally comes from private lenders or the federal gov't. So the schools make out like bandits, getting their tuition up-front, and the lenders bank on the interest payments (or gov't subsidies and/or bailouts). But it's the same system that got us into the mortgage crisis, and can't possibly sustain itself in the long run...

Well, as long as there are many more qualified students applying than seats in the class, law schools (and universities in general) can get away with jacking up tuition faster than inflation. They *might* ease up a bit if/when they see student quality start to go down because more people are choosing the local public school to save money or not going to law school altogether.

[lsatbobby]

Just spoke with the admissions and financial aid office at Berkeley, and here's an overview (sorry if this is repetitive):

-The office isn't certain of the exact hike in in-state tuition, but they believe it will be bigger than the normal year to year increase (they said the 41K estimate sounded correct, though)

-Heres the biggie (for next years entering class I guess): they also expect to keep a ~12K difference between instate and out of state tuition. I specifically asked about this since my scholarship offer mentioned I'd get a 12K tuition discount when I gain residency, and they told me that difference would still remain (although, it does seem extremely unlikely that they could get away with setting tuition at 60K)

In conclusion, the major tuition jumps are definitely going to happen at Boalt. I wish this wasn't the case, but I'm glad I found out before making a final decision.

[deadatheist]

i'm trying to keep up with coverage of Hastings's fin situation, so found an article from today "California professional schools face shrinking state subsidies" in the Bee i thought i'd share here:

--LinkRemoved--

don't forget to scroll to comments and enjoy some gems there.

[General Tso]

i'm trying to keep up with coverage of Hastings's fin situation, so found an article from today "California professional schools face shrinking state subsidies" in the Bee i thought i'd share here:

--LinkRemoved--

don't forget to scroll to comments and enjoy some gems there.

Nice article DA. Those comments give me reason to fear that the cut to Hastings, and eventually cuts to the other UC law schools, will pass. There may be some feeble attempt by the CA legal lobby, but ultimately there probably won't be much public support for subsidizing legal education given the budget crisis. People will say "let's feed and shelter a homeless single mother" etc. and cut out the "future millionaire" lawyers. They don't realize that the legal market isn't what it used to be and that it has been hurt just as much as other sectors.

[deadatheist]

thanks swheat. i know... and have you looked at the gov's actual proposed budget for hastings? i'll post in one of the hastings threads.

[law0000]

Think I can keep a double deposit down until July 1? Prob not...

This is ridiculous. I realize it's not exactly in their control but how does one commit to a school before knowing the price tag associated? It's like signing the papers for a new car and THEN being told what your monthly payments will be.

I'm certain the UC law schools don't want to draw attention to the matter, esp since many students probably have no idea about this, but shouldn't they consider sending out an email of sorts? Even if it doesn't say much (because it can't really), there is something nice about a "we know you're worried" acknowledgment.

[General Tso]

Think I can keep a double deposit down until July 1? Prob not...

This is ridiculous. I realize it's not exactly in their control but how does one commit to a school before knowing the price tag associated? It's like signing the papers for a new car and THEN being told what your monthly payments will be.

I'm certain the UC law schools don't want to draw attention to the matter, esp since many students probably have no idea about this, but shouldn't they consider sending out an email of sorts? Even if it doesn't say much (because it can't really), there is something nice about a "we know you're worried" acknowledgment.

I'd ask for an extension on your double deposit time. They may allow this given the uncertainty

[lsatbobby]

I was a bit put off by this as well. It definitely seemed like the admissions/fin aid office at Berkeley was trying to keep the situation quiet. Granted, they don't know for certain whats going to happen, but it is a shame that the prospective students are being left in the dark.

Think I can keep a double deposit down until July 1? Prob not...

This is ridiculous. I realize it's not exactly in their control but how does one commit to a school before knowing the price tag associated? It's like signing the papers for a new car and THEN being told what your monthly payments will be.

I'm certain the UC law schools don't want to draw attention to the matter, esp since many students probably have no idea about this, but shouldn't they consider sending out an email of sorts? Even if it doesn't say much (because it can't really), there is something nice about a "we know you're worried" acknowledgment.

I'd ask for an extension on your double deposit time. They may allow this given the uncertainty

[deadatheist]

I was a bit put off by this as well. It definitely seemed like the admissions/fin aid office at Berkeley was trying to keep the situation quiet. Granted, they don't know for certain whats going to happen, but it is a shame that the prospective students are being left in the dark.

did you ask berkeley about this? berkeley seems odd with how they handle finaid... didn't they expect students to deposit before they even sent out finaid packets? (this happened for berkeley grad schools)... but all finaid is run through 1 berkeley office, not each school/program, so there is some detachment: who knows how much attention berkeley's law admins are even paying to this.

it's quite diff for the hastings students right now, since hastings finaid and admissions are like... the exact same people/office. now they should be corresponding with their prospective students.

[lsatbobby]

I did, and they were aware of the situation but seemed surprised that I knew about it. I got transferred from one office to the next until finally someone admitted that the in-state tuition hikes (the ones mentioned in the report) were very likely. I definitely wouldn't have known about all of this if I hadn't seen this thread on TLS.

With all that said, the tuition increases are probably a good thing for the school. But for some people, including myself, the uncertainty of it all will influence their decision on where to attend.

I was a bit put off by this as well. It definitely seemed like the admissions/fin aid office at Berkeley was trying to keep the situation quiet. Granted, they don't know for certain whats going to happen, but it is a shame that the prospective students are being left in the dark.

did you ask berkeley about this? berkeley seems odd with how they handle finaid... didn't they expect students to deposit before they even sent out finaid packets? (this happened for berkeley grad schools)... but all finaid is run through 1 berkeley office, not each school/program, so there is some detachment: who knows how much attention berkeley's law admins are paying to this right now.

it's quite diff for the hastings students right now, since hastings finaid and admissions are like... the exact same people/office.

[UCInfo]

In the long run and for alumni, it's probably best that the UC schools insulate themselves from California's unpredictable budget situation. But it's completely awful for students in the next few years who have to pay the price in the midst of a bad economy, when law students are already nervous about what kind of jobs are going to be available in a few years.

Unfortunately, law students don't have much choice, and the Regents probably know it. The marketplace for law degrees isn't much of a marketplace because of the role rankings play in determining where students get jobs. A handful of schools have a virtual monopoly on the best California job opportunities - T14/UCs/USC - and in a couple of years they will all be roughly the same sticker price. Most of us could take a hefty scholarship at a lower-ranked school, but most of us don't want to lose the job opportunities, so we'll continue to pay that added premium.

This tuition policy seems to ensure that if you want to be a PI lawyer in California, you have to get a huge scholarship, whether it's at those top schools or at a lower-ranked private. Maybe LRAP can help, but it doesn't seem like those programs are keeping pace with the steep tuition hikes. Given that the tuition hikes are directly offsetting state cutbacks now, I don't know how schools will be able to use them to pump more money into LRAP.

[Detail]

Maybe LRAP can help, but it doesn't seem like those programs are keeping pace with the steep tuition hikes.

Why isn't it?

LRAP pays for 100% of your loans over 10 years, regardless of how much you borrow.

[UCInfo]

Maybe LRAP can help, but it doesn't seem like those programs are keeping pace with the steep tuition hikes.

Why isn't it?

LRAP pays for 100% of your loans over 10 years, regardless of how much you borrow.

I think you're right about the federal loan forgiveness program. Do you have to work for the federal government to qualify or does any nonprofit/local government count?

Within each school's LRAP, there are pretty strict salary requirements. The limits I saw had full forgiveness at less than $40K/year, then proportionate phase-out up to $60K. If schools don't have enough money to fulfill LRAP obligations because they have to use the money to cover state budget cuts, they can just keep the salary structure the same for as long as necessary, thereby offering less LRAP money as PI salaries rise due to inflation. On top of that, if you get married, your spouse's income counts toward the salary formula.

[Detail]

Edit: http://www.finaid.org/loans/publicservice.phtml

[General Tso]

Any news today? I haven't seen much other than this commentary:
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.c ... 17SV73.DTL

[Detail]

as an example, the plan calls for cutting state funding for UC's Hastings College of Law from $10 million to $7,000.

I guess they could still call it a state school?

[law0000]

as an example, the plan calls for cutting state funding for UC's Hastings College of Law from $10 million to $7,000.

I guess they could still call it a state school?

I'll give them $7,000 personally if they replace the "UC" in "UC Hastings" with my initials instead. Oh wait, I'm allready giving them that, several times over

....maybe

[deadatheist]

Any news today? I haven't seen much other than this commentary:
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.c ... 17SV73.DTL

hi all. stories and regurgitated information yes (see below if you'd like), new news, no. there may be more tomorrow... hang in there.

from a ucsd school paper(?) re hastings funding in particular:

State Shouldn't Cut All UC Hastings Funding
By Matthew L’Heureux

2008 Alumnus

Share this article Published: Monday, June 1, 2009

Updated: Monday, June 1, 2009

Dear Editor,

As one of many UCSD alumni who go on to attend UC Hastings College of the Law, I was shocked and dismayed by Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger’s radical proposal to eliminate all state funding for California’s oldest law school.

Hastings is a first-tier law school that has been educating our nation’s top leaders for 131 years. Notable alumni include two California Supreme Court justices; numerous state and federal judges and politicians; and civil-rights leaders such as the assassinated San Francisco Mayor George Moscone and Clara Shortridge Foltz, the first practicing female lawyer in the United States.

Hastings also publishes several acclaimed scholarly journals — including the oldest constitutional law journal in the country — and our Moot Court program is currently ranked second in the nation.

Schwarzenegger’s proposal would single out Hastings for a 100 percent cut in funding, compared to an estimated 18 percent to 22 percent funding reduction to the UC and California State University systems. This decision would eliminate 25 percent of Hastings’ academic budget and could lead to yearly tuition increases of $8,000 per student. Such disproportionate treatment is unjust and alarming. If the public lets Schwarzenegger decide which educational institutions are worthy of state funding, there’s no telling which schools could be on the chopping block.

Cutting $10.3 million from Hastings will barely make a dent in the $24 billion deficit. What it could do, however, is jeopardize the livelihoods of current students and shake public faith in the stability of the otherwise stellar UC system.

I urge members of the UC community to unite against these drastic measures by contacting their state and local representatives. With a strong and united voice, we can show Schwarzenegger that California cannot attain stability by weakening the institutions that produce its political and social leaders.

an article/oped/"report" at the CA Majority Report: http://www.camajorityreport.com/index.p ... 023&ptid=9

and another school paper (ucsb) re general uc cuts: --LinkRemoved--

[Detail]

Raise your hand if you voted against Schwarzenegger's original budget.

[deadatheist]

Raise your hand if you voted against Schwarzenegger's original budget.

oh snap

and bigger snap/news re inquiry above: --LinkRemoved--

i'll quote some here, but read the rest if you'd like...

By turns angry and tearful, hundreds of people testified at the state Capitol on Monday about proposed budget cuts that would fundamentally reshape California’s education system, and not for the better in their opinions.

The daylong hearing before a bipartisan legislative committee brought together an array of Californians, from mothers of disabled kids who said their children would fall behind without state subsidized educational services to the leaders of the state’s three major systems of higher education, who warned of significant student fee hikes, the elimination of scholarships and the turning away of tens of thousands of prospective students.

Speakers said these and other grim outcomes would result from Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger’s proposals to trim billions of dollars in education funding to help offset a $24 billion budget deficit.

The governor told the three higher education leaders in a private meeting Monday that he “regretted” having to seek the cuts, according to Mark Yudof, president of the University of California.

Yudof said that was about all they agreed on.

Charles Reed, chancellor of the 23-campus California State University system, testified that the $481 million in cuts proposed for that system could result in 60,000 fewer students being able to enroll, in addition to fee hikes and an overall reduction in services.

Reed said he is planning to meet with each of the university presidents, including Sonoma State University President Ruben Arminana, on Wednesday to outline a plan.

“Everything is going to be on the table,” Reed said in the hallway outside a Senate conference room where hundreds waited in line to testify. “When you have major reductions, you have to look at everything we can to get through the next three months.”

That includes, he said, not making necessary maintenance repairs. “The roof is gonna leak,” he said.

Assemblywoman Noreen Evans, D-Santa Rosa, is presiding over the 10-member committee of Assembly and Senate Democrats and Republicans that over the past two weeks has taken testimony on the governor’s proposed cuts. Public testimony is scheduled to conclude Wednesday, after which the budget committee is planning to debate its response to the proposals.

California Controller John Chiang urged the governor and legislative leaders in a letter Friday to come up with a plan to fix the budget by June 15. If they do not, he said, it will be difficult to arrange loans before the state runs short of cash two weeks later.

“We have a gun to our head given we’re going to run out of cash in July,” Evans said prior to the start of hearings Monday.

Several speakers supported new taxes to avoid some of the cuts. The suggestions included “progressive taxes” in which those who earn more pay more, and a tax on oil extraction.

The governor’s proposed cuts to higher education garnered the largest crowd of the day. Among the proposals are ending Cal Grant scholarships over a four-year period, virtually eliminating state funding for Hastings, a UC law school in San Francisco, and phasing out support of all UC professional schools, including law, business, dentistry, medicine and veterinary medicine, as well as the CSU business schools.

Taken as a whole, the changes would seriously diminish California’s reputation for providing world-class public education, critics said.

[OperaSoprano]

DA, that is horrifying. I may have picked Fordham, but I'm still- wow, I'm just horrified.