Latest news on UC law school rates Forum

[rondemarino]

So far I like what I'm reading: "Every state system of public education save California manages to sustain (at best) one flagship campus. Many, including such states as New York, New Jersey, and Massachusetts, do not manage even that."

Probably a quirk of history. Those states have a lot of elite private schools, all probably founded before CA was a state. I'm sure if CA was home to Ivy+MIT+NYU+top LACs, there wouldn't have been as compelling a reason to create the massive UC system. Look at other western states - almost no elite private institutions, but strong state systems.

[superflush]

Yes. Ironically, Berkeley was concerned the schools would slip in the ratings if they didn't jack up fees because they wouldn't be able to compete with free cash that other schools have. So essentially as the tuition market was booming, they said, "everyone else is charging 40K+, we should, too."

So they jacked up their tuition when they didn't need to, in order to help their rankings. Is this they "money spent" part of the rankings?

[rondemarino]

Yes. Ironically, Berkeley was concerned the schools would slip in the ratings if they didn't jack up fees because they wouldn't be able to compete with free cash that other schools have. So essentially as the tuition market was booming, they said, "everyone else is charging 40K+, we should, too." Only problem is the market crashed after they decided that. And the very real question now is will this destroy their rankings. Honestly, will USC now climb above UCLA - who will pay almost 60K for UCLA if they can go to USC for less? Even Berkeley, at 60K+ out of state in an economy when people have become debt averse, how could it not hurt. And poor Davis.... 60K out of state? Who on the planet would pay that.

The UC's distinct advantage over the years was having top quality ed at discount rates. Just a few years back, you could get a UCLA Law degree for just above 20K/year. Who wouldn't pick that over others - and so their numbers rose and rose. But with these fees - who knows, they are still obviously top notch programs, but... just a darn shame.

A plan formulated in the boom times sure looks like a disaster waiting to happen now. If need based aid can compensate, assuming sticker shock doesn't keep people away, then there's some hope for avoiding major fall out.

[rondemarino]

Yes. Ironically, Berkeley was concerned the schools would slip in the ratings if they didn't jack up fees because they wouldn't be able to compete with free cash that other schools have. So essentially as the tuition market was booming, they said, "everyone else is charging 40K+, we should, too."

So they jacked up their tuition when they didn't need to, in order to help their rankings. Is this they "money spent" part of the rankings?

Well, they are 2-3 years late to jacking up of tuition game. But th funny thing is, with USNWR, there's no incentive to keep tuition low. If tuition is $20k/year and no receives grant aid, it looks worse than if tuition is $50k/yr and everyone receives a $30k/year grant (financial aid is a part of the spending now). Its pretty fucked up. Between the incentive to YP applicants (acceptance rate used in the rankings) and jack up tuition, I want to light a firecracker up USNWR's ass.

[superflush]

So they jacked up their tuition when they didn't need to, in order to help their rankings. Is this they "money spent" part of the rankings?

Well, they are 2-3 years late to jacking up of tuition game. But th funny thing is, with USNWR, there's no incentive to keep tuition low. If tuition is $20k/year and no receives grant aid, it looks worse than if tuition is $50k/yr and everyone receives a $30k/year grant (financial aid is a part of the spending now). Its pretty fucked up. Between the incentive to YP applicants (acceptance rate used in the rankings) and jack up tuition, I want to light a firecracker up USNWR's ass.

Ah, okay, this makes a lot of sense. That way they are spending more on scholarships, which helps out their rankings.

[rondemarino]

p.s: The out of state tuition rates aren't as bad as they sound. You can, in most cases, become a CA resident after a year.

[superflush]

Yea, but your 3L year with in-state could be just as much as the 1L OOS year.

[ruleser]

Yes. Ironically, Berkeley was concerned the schools would slip in the ratings if they didn't jack up fees because they wouldn't be able to compete with free cash that other schools have. So essentially as the tuition market was booming, they said, "everyone else is charging 40K+, we should, too."

So they jacked up their tuition when they didn't need to, in order to help their rankings. Is this they "money spent" part of the rankings?

Yes, both grant aid and 'money spent' on improvements, etc - this was why Berkeley pushed for it, they wanted to compete with the Harvards, etc. who have a lot of cash to spend on that. They jacked up tuition to do this because people were willing to borrow whatever anyone felt like charging, and so it seemed a good road to rankings climb. Timing is not working out so much.

[ruleser]

Yea, but your 3L year with in-state could be just as much as the 1L OOS year.

Yeah, UC's are no longer a good deal. 2 of them are top schools, but not good deals anymore - and poor Davis. And the main point at this moment is you don't really know what tuition will be for your three years - they want a bigger increase now. Will instate be 55K by your 3L? At the crazy rate they are going, could be even more - they are playing the percentage game - 'we're only raising another 10%' - but raw dollar increases become larger and larger.

If at least they did like VA and kept things actually cheaper for instate and didn't let OOS claim IS for the last two years, the school would be able to hold up better (and be in better financial shape.) Someone said they do this to try and convince people to come to CA/stay there after, but the need for that is way passed. In any case, I don't see how this can not affect attendance/aps.

When did USC become the bargain school in town?

[irishman86]

Yea, but your 3L year with in-state could be just as much as the 1L OOS year.

Bingo. Also, it's almost an unspoken fact that before they decide on/give you in-state residency 2L year, they take away whatever need-based aid they supposedly awarded for your 2L/3L years. (i.e. My friend was awarded 10k per year need-based aid before she started 1L year, but then after 1L year, before they even decided her residency status, they took away her 2L and 3L awards, assuming that she would get in-state, even though she had no idea if she would get in-state at that point. Basically this meant that the 30k they supposedly wanted to award in aid over a period of 3 years turned out only to be 10k. But since the in-state is now really high, it's not actually much of a benefit and she probably would have paid less going to a better school elsewhere.)

It's funny because my mom told me to strongly consider UCLA, thinking it would be a bargain at in-state, not realizing the actual costs. I think it'd be cheaper for me to go to a T10 out of state than to UCLA at this point, not to mention the T10 would offer better job opportunities and far more mobility.

[rondemarino]

^^ If you want CA employment, that's debatable. But yeah, if you're not tied down to CA, stay away from UCLA (heh, almost rhymes).

Still, the only T10s that would be cheaper, compared to in-state rates @ UCLA ($44k/yr over three year period) are maybe Michigan, UVA (low CoL) and MAYBE UoC.

[irishman86]

^^ If you want CA employment, that's debatable. But yeah, if you're not tied down to CA, stay away from UCLA (heh, almost rhymes).

Still, the only T10s that would be cheaper, compared to in-state rates @ UCLA ($44k/yr over three year period) are maybe Michigan, UVA (low CoL) and MAYBE UoC.

Not sure about Los Angeles, but for Northern California I have heard from various sources that employers dig deeper into certain T-10s than UCLA.

The thing is that the 44k is not a for sure thing for 3 years. (I'm pretty sure that 44k is, at this point, already at UVA's OOS rate and very close to Michigan's OOS rate.) I could easily see the UC Regents increase the in-state tuition against next year to something larger than 44k, as they hold a conference to increase tuition rates every year. At this point, it's just hard to predict. Maybe UCLA will cost 48k in-state 2L year instead of just 44k.

[General Tso]

I'd like to think that people are rational and will stay away from law school now that the tuition is insane. But my experience with California is that people here do not care how much something costs as long as they can finance it over 30 years.

[GhostDynasty]

I am hoping to find a good deal on my legal education. I applied to CA schools, but I am sad to say, I don't think I would pay sticker at Boalt.

[worldtraveler]

I'll be honest, the tuition hikes have me worried. However, I wonder if there will be an increase in grant aid to compensate.

[worldtraveler]

http://www.universityofcalifornia.edu/r ... v09/f2.pdf

The law school info starts on page 10. Apparently a lot of the raises at Berkeley and Davis are for financial aid and/or LRAP. I really hope they're serious.
It also seems like the in-state/out-of-state difference is being cut down quite a bit.

[NayBoer]

http://www.universityofcalifornia.edu/r ... v09/f2.pdf

The law school info starts on page 10. Apparently a lot of the raises at Berkeley and Davis are for financial aid and/or LRAP. I really hope they're serious.

"We're charging more tuition so our students don't have to pay as much tuition."

[General Tso]

http://www.universityofcalifornia.edu/r ... v09/f2.pdf

The law school info starts on page 10. Apparently a lot of the raises at Berkeley and Davis are for financial aid and/or LRAP. I really hope they're serious.

"We're charging more tuition so our students don't have to pay as much tuition."

That's what we were told at Hastings as well. They are doing a 20% tuition increase but are increasing the grant and LRAP programs by the same amount. Unfortunately for me, I will not be a beneficiary of either.

[kurama20]

Wow that 52K out of state for Boalt is absolutely phenomenal. Boalt is great but ITE it just isn't worth that kind of money, 5 years ago yeah but not now. And UCLA at 50K out of state, that is just beyond unreal.

[keg411]

So far I like what I'm reading: "Every state system of public education save California manages to sustain (at best) one flagship campus. Many, including such states as New York, New Jersey, and Massachusetts, do not manage even that."

Probably a quirk of history. Those states have a lot of elite private schools, all probably founded before CA was a state. I'm sure if CA was home to Ivy+MIT+NYU+top LACs, there wouldn't have been as compelling a reason to create the massive UC system. Look at other western states - almost no elite private institutions, but strong state systems.

New Jersey has Rutgers and New York has both both State University and City University systems. And they're all cheaper than the UC's. WTF?

[irishman86]

Wow that 52K out of state for Boalt is absolutely phenomenal. Boalt is great but ITE it just isn't worth that kind of money, 5 years ago yeah but not now. And UCLA at 50K out of state, that is just beyond unreal.

I wouldn't pay the in-state rate for UCLA right now and I wouldn't pay Boalt's OOS rate. If the in-state inches even higher, I don't think I'd pay the in-state rate for Boalt either. Both the schools have high COL too, so that makes it worse.

I just can't believe tuition has gone up at such an INSANE rate in the past 2 years. I remember UCLA's old in-state rate was around 31k, just 2 years ago.

[Dialogue]

I really wish we could lock-in tuition for 3 years. It's one thing to go to school knowing that you're going to pay an arm and a leg. However, it's another thing entirely to not know how much one's 3-year degree will cost.

[bilbobaggins]

Part of what's interesting about the UC situation is that because the schools are public all of these decisions are relatively transparent. I would be very surprised if other schools weren't planning on doing the same thing due to endowment considerations.

[rondemarino]

So far I like what I'm reading: "Every state system of public education save California manages to sustain (at best) one flagship campus. Many, including such states as New York, New Jersey, and Massachusetts, do not manage even that."

Probably a quirk of history. Those states have a lot of elite private schools, all probably founded before CA was a state. I'm sure if CA was home to Ivy+MIT+NYU+top LACs, there wouldn't have been as compelling a reason to create the massive UC system. Look at other western states - almost no elite private institutions, but strong state systems.

New Jersey has Rutgers and New York has both both State University and City University systems. And they're all cheaper than the UC's. WTF?

They are also considerably shittier. You get what you pay for.

[rondemarino]

Also, I'd hold off in judging UCs until other schools come out with their tuition rates.