Post 9/11 GI Benefits for Law School Forum

[MCL Law Dean]

Removed for more research. Apology for any potential errors on my part.

[20141023]

.

[SemperLegal]

I wish more eligible Veterans and their families were aware how valuable the Post 9/11 GI benefits can be for Vets, spouses, and dependents. Just as an example, for applicants interested in practicing in California, the Post 9/11 benefits can pay up to 100% of their tuition, books, and fees at one of the California accredited law schools. $19,200 per year if you qualify for the full benefit.

$19,200 per year may not go very far towards a $50K (per year) typical ABA law school degree, but most of the California accredited have annual tuition at, or below, this amount. These schools are approved for Post 9/11 benefits and many, such as Monterey College of Law (located near Naval Postgraduate School and the Defense Language Institute), are also Yellow Ribbon schools that pick up the difference if your benefits don't cover the entire annual tuition.

. . . and this is for SPOUSES AND DEPENDENTS as well. Many Vets are being bombarded by unaccredited on-line degree offers, but a California accredited law school will be a much better legal education for Vets and their families who wish to practice in California. In addition, law schools such as Monterey College of Law are located in Vet-friendly communities with VA resources, etc.

As a veteran, I am asking you to please stop. A veteran can go to any public law school absolutely for free. The Post 9/11 GI bill covers state school tuition 100%, regardless of level of education.

Don't prey on veterans, people who tend to lack a network of higher-educated friends and family, and who have an inflated sense of value for education are extremely susceptible to being preyed on by for profit institution looking to milk them for all that they have worked for.

People who prey on young service members, be they pawn-brokers, pay day loan agencies, or usurial car dealers are a certain brand of disgusting.

_______________________________
Edited for sentence mismatch

[Cobretti]

I wish more eligible Veterans and their families were aware how valuable the Post 9/11 GI benefits can be for Vets, spouses, and dependents. Just as an example, for applicants interested in practicing in California, the Post 9/11 benefits can pay up to 100% of their tuition, books, and fees at one of the California accredited law schools. $19,200 per year if you qualify for the full benefit.

$19,200 per year may not go very far towards a $50K (per year) typical ABA law school degree, but most of the California accredited have annual tuition at, or below, this amount. These schools are approved for Post 9/11 benefits and many, such as Monterey College of Law (located near Naval Postgraduate School and the Defense Language Institute), are also Yellow Ribbon schools that pick up the difference if your benefits don't cover the entire annual tuition.

. . . and this is for SPOUSES AND DEPENDENTS as well. Many Vets are being bombarded by unaccredited on-line degree offers, but a California accredited law school will be a much better legal education for Vets and their families who wish to practice in California. In addition, law schools such as Monterey College of Law are located in Vet-friendly communities with VA resources, etc.

As a veteran, I am asking you to please stop. A veteran can go to any public law school absolutely for free. The Post 9/11 GI bill covers state school tuition 100%, regardless of level of education.

People who prey on veterans, people who tend to lack a network of higher-educated friends and family, and who have an inflated sense of value for education are extremely susceptible to being preyed on by for profit institution looking to milk them for all that they have worked for.

People who prey on young service members, be they pawn-brokers, pay day loan agencies, or usurial car dealers are a certain brand of disgusting.

+1
Your whole business model is offering a lower cost alternative. Cost is basically irrelevant to those of us with the gi bill, so we should be the last people to attend your school. With that being said, this plea for veterans to apply really is coming across as predatory.

[MCL Law Dean]

I am not sure that you are completely correct on the 100% for all states and certainly not all private law schools, but regardless . . . let me figure out how to delete my posts, because our intent is to distinguish ourselves from the on line schools perceived as preying on Veterans, not be seen as part of them. In addition, I will go back and check my facts before I make any additional comments on this topic.

[MT Cicero]

As a veteran, I am asking you to please stop. A veteran can go to any public law school absolutely for free. The Post 9/11 GI bill covers state school tuition 100%, regardless of level of education.

Don't prey on veterans, people who tend to lack a network of higher-educated friends and family, and who have an inflated sense of value for education are extremely susceptible to being preyed on by for profit institution looking to milk them for all that they have worked for.

People who prey on young service members, be they pawn-brokers, pay day loan agencies, or usurial car dealers are a certain brand of disgusting.

_______________________________
Edited for sentence mismatch

This is very close to accurate. I have a spreadsheet posted in one of the military forums, and I'll be updating it for the 2013-14 school year as well. Bottom line: 100% tuition will be paid at any public institution if you are a resident of that state. If you are not, the GI Bill still pays the in-state tuition at a minimum. Many public schools have their own programs to get you to 100% coverage as well.

Additionally, yellow ribbon is being offered at more and more schools bridging the gap for any coverage missed (including tons of private schools). Stanford and Columbia just announced increased YRP coverage to cover tuition and fees 100%, joining Harvard, NYU, UVA, Berkeley, Michigan, Cornell, UCLA...and many others. Duke, NW, Chicago, Penn, even Yale have YRP matches as well (bringing down their overall cost significantly).

I'll update my spreadsheet when the final YRP numbers are released in mid-June. Suffice it to say that a top-notch legal education, public or private, is available to veterans for little or no cost at TONS of schools.

Any vets reading this feel free to shoot me a message and I'll get some good data out to you. DO NOT MAKE ANY UNINFORMED DECISIONS. I'm deploying in 14 hours (no kidding), but I'll have computer access down range as well. How else will I get all my apps squared away this summer!?

[UVAIce]

Since most of the relevant topics seem to have been hit up, I will just fill you guys in on some of the cool stuff in Virginia. Virginia grants in-state status to all veterans, which is a nice bonus if your benefits are going to run out while you're in law school.

[MCL Law Dean]

As a veteran, I am asking you to please stop. A veteran can go to any public law school absolutely for free. The Post 9/11 GI bill covers state school tuition 100%, regardless of level of education.

Don't prey on veterans, people who tend to lack a network of higher-educated friends and family, and who have an inflated sense of value for education are extremely susceptible to being preyed on by for profit institution looking to milk them for all that they have worked for.

People who prey on young service members, be they pawn-brokers, pay day loan agencies, or usurial car dealers are a certain brand of disgusting.

_______________________________
Edited for sentence mismatch

This is very close to accurate. I have a spreadsheet posted in one of the military forums, and I'll be updating it for the 2013-14 school year as well. Bottom line: 100% tuition will be paid at any public institution if you are a resident of that state. If you are not, the GI Bill still pays the in-state tuition at a minimum. Many public schools have their own programs to get you to 100% coverage as well.

Additionally, yellow ribbon is being offered at more and more schools bridging the gap for any coverage missed (including tons of private schools). Stanford and Columbia just announced increased YRP coverage to cover tuition and fees 100%, joining Harvard, NYU, UVA, Berkeley, Michigan, Cornell, UCLA...and many others. Duke, NW, Chicago, Penn, even Yale have YRP matches as well (bringing down their overall cost significantly).

I'll update my spreadsheet when the final YRP numbers are released in mid-June. Suffice it to say that a top-notch legal education, public or private, is available to veterans for little or no cost at TONS of schools.

Any vets reading this feel free to shoot me a message and I'll get some good data out to you. DO NOT MAKE ANY UNINFORMED DECISIONS. I'm deploying in 14 hours (no kidding), but I'll have computer access down range as well. How else will I get all my apps squared away this summer!?

I now see where I got off track in my original post. You are completely correct that California has 5 public U.C. law schools that provide 100% tuition, books, fees , etc.

In addition there are 16 private ABA and 18 private CBE Law schools that are limited to the $19,200 annual tuition cap.

I should have been much more specific in saying that if a California Veteran, spouse, or dependent doesn't get in to one of the 5 public law schools (all of which have elite, or near-elite admission criteria) . . . or some other ABA school where they get a substantial scholarship, one of the California accredited schools might be a much better financial option as a private law school where the GI benefit pays 100% of their law degree, not $19,200 out of $50K with loans required for the balance.

[Cobretti]

I now see where I got off track in my original post. You are completely correct that California has 5 public U.C. law schools that provide 100% tuition, books, fees , etc.

In addition there are 16 private ABA and 18 private CBE law schools that are limited to the $19,200 annual tuition cap.

I should have been much more specific in saying that if a California Veteran, spouse, or dependent doesn't get in to one of the 5 public law schools (all of which have elite, or near-elite admission criteria) . . . or some other ABA school where they get a substantial scholarship, one of the California accredited schools might be a much better financial option as a private law school where the GI benefit pays 100% of their law degree, not $19,200 out of $50K with loans required for the balance.

http://www.gibill.va.gov/gi_bill_info/c ... tes/ca.htm

Private CA law schools participating in the YRP:
Chapman
Pepperdine
USD
Loyola
Santa Clara
USF
Southwestern

So far the only one I've thought to look up that wasn't listed as a participant was Whittier

ETA: the contributions from santa clara and loyola are pretty minimal so we can probably put an asterix next to them

[MT Cicero]

I now see where I got off track in my original post. You are completely correct that California has 5 public U.C. law schools that provide 100% tuition, books, fees , etc.

In addition there are 16 private ABA and 18 private CBE law schools that are limited to the $19,200 annual tuition cap.

I should have been much more specific in saying that if a California Veteran, spouse, or dependent doesn't get in to one of the 5 public law schools (all of which have elite, or near-elite admission criteria) . . . or some other ABA school where they get a substantial scholarship, one of the California accredited schools might be a much better financial option as a private law school where the GI benefit pays 100% of their law degree, not $19,200 out of $50K with loans required for the balance.

You're still not factoring in Yellow Ribbon, which will exist for anyone with 100% GI Bill benefits. With YRP, realize the following:

Stanford - 100% free with YRP (as of recent announcement)
Pepperdine - 100% free with YRP
USC - 5 YRP slots available for an extra $20K/year (in addition to the $19200)
Loyola - 15 YRP slots available for an extra $4K/year
San Diego - 20 YRP slots available for an extra $10K/year

There are others as well.

So, that's every public institution in CA + Stanford/Pepperdine at 100% and the others as listed. That's if YRP amounts don't increase from 2012-13 (numbers out in mid-June). I'm not advocating attending/not attending any institution. I'm simply putting the facts out there.

Please factor in YRP as it appears you mentioned it in your original post...so you're at least aware of its existence.

[MCL Law Dean]

You are again right on top of this data, and as beneficial and well deserved as these benefits are . . . consider how few of the 1L applications/admissions the YRP in the private schools represent. Also consider that they are most likely distributed to the top candidates that are likely to have also have been eligible for other scholarships . . . and if so, it merely changes who is paying, not who has the opportunity to attend. I am just suggesting that non-traditional students who have a dream of attending law school, but don't get in to one of these programs can still have quality options to consider.

[Cobretti]

You are again right on top of this data, and as beneficial and well deserved as these benefits are . . . consider how few of the 1L applications/admissions the YRP in the private schools represent. Also consider that they are most likely distributed to the top candidates that are likely to have also have been eligible for other scholarships . . . and if so, it merely changes who is paying, not who has the opportunity to attend. I am just suggesting that non-traditional students who have a dream of attending law school, but don't get in to one of these programs can still have quality options to consider.

You mean a small number of eligible veterans actually receive the benefits? While that may be a problem at a few schools located near strong military communities, like USD, that is definitely not the case in general. I can only speak anecdotally, because as far as I know there is no data showing what % of eligible vets get YRP benefits at participating schools, but in my experience dealing with NU they have never ran out of spots. At the very least I'd be willing to say instances where eligible veterans do not get YRP benefits are a small minority. For those veterans I don't see how it would follow that they should attend your school rather than a peer institute that also participates in YRP, since nearly all CA law schools participate.

Also, schools are not allowed to pick and choose who receives benefits:
http://gibill.va.gov/school-certifying- ... agreement/

The Institution of Higher Learning (IHL) must agree to:

Provide contributions to eligible individuals who apply for the Yellow Ribbon Program on a first-come first-served basis, regardless of the rate at which the individual is pursuing training in any given academic year;

[MCL Law Dean]

At the very least I'd be willing to say instances where eligible veterans do not get YRP benefits are a small minority. For those veterans I don't see how it would follow that they should attend your school rather than a peer institute that also participates in YRP, since nearly all CA law schools participate.

I think the number in California may be disproportionately higher than you think and remember the applicant needs to meet the law school's admission UGPA/LSAT criteria or GI/YRP doesn't even come into play. However, your question is the right one . . . why pick one school over another, particularly if you take ranking and cost out of the equation. Our school emphasizes one-on-one academic support programs and small classes (25-30), so it is considerably different than the traditional ABA model and many of the other CBE models. The academic support continues all the way through at least two sessions of the bar exam which explains partly why our California bar pass rates are among the highest of the California accredited law schools. The other intangibles are location . . . Monterey Peninsula . . . and a vet-friendly area with services since the Naval Postgraduate School, Defense Language Institute, and the Defense Manpower Data Center are all here in town.

[20141023]

.

[MCL Law Dean]

School Name US News Ranking Acceptance Rate Med.LSAT Med.GPA

University of California Berkeley........ 7 11% 166 3.79
University of California Los Angeles.....15 17% 168 3.77
University of Southern California.........18 22% 168 3.64
University of California Davis..............29 24% 163 3.69
University of California Hastings..........44 23% 163 3.60

All but one are T30 nationally and other than number 1 Stanford, are numbers 2,3,4,5,6,7 out of 21 in California. For the California market that we are discussing, it certainly would seem to qualify as near-elite.

[20141023]

.

[SemperLegal]

I just want to point out that a Vet at:

Boalt will receive $212,245.50 from the VA if at 100% eligibility.
MCL (~160/3.4) median, will receive $111,840.00 from the VA if at 100% eligibility.
U of Maine, School of Law (worst ranked public law school, 155/3.3 median) $113,706,00 from the VA if at 100% eligibility.

Its a huge sum of money, no matter how you spend it. Choose very wisely.

[MCL Law Dean]

+1 to SemperLegal.

Regulus, I accept the reality of the elite bubble you live in, but in the world of our law school's non-traditional law students, lack of timed standardized testing skills does not equate to "lazy" or "not trying hard enough". We have full-time working adults who are coming back to law school from long deployments, 20+ years from undergraduate school, 1st generation of college . . . let alone graduate school, single parents changing careers, disabled public safety professionals . . . I could on. Your one-dimensional view of who qualifies as "acceptable to attend law school" is not surprising . . . it is merely naive as to what some of us believe can and should be the potential for legal education. I am only surprised that you think your view is somehow new . . . when it really is the underlying premise of 200 years of allowing only the socially acceptable to gain access to the professions.

[Cobretti]

+1 to SemperLegal.

Regulus, I accept the reality of the elite bubble you live in, but in the world of our law school's non-traditional law students, lack of timed standardized testing skills does not equate to "lazy" or "not trying hard enough". We have full-time working adults who are coming back to law school from long deployments, 20+ years from undergraduate school, 1st generation of college . . . let alone graduate school, single parents changing careers, disabled public safety professionals . . . I could on. Your one-dimensional view of who qualifies as "acceptable to attend law school" is not surprising . . . it is merely naive as to what some of us believe can and should be the potential for legal education. I am only surprised that you think your view is somehow new . . . when it really is the underlying premise of 200 years of allowing only the socially acceptable to gain access to the professions.

Remember that the LSAT was introduced in part because the GI Bill was introduced after WW2, and there was a demand for a more objective way to admit those that may have traditionally been deemed socially unacceptable. The GI Bill is a huge opportunity for people to attend schools they would otherwise be unable to attend. Using your GI Bill to go to MCL would be wasting this opportunity to leap frog up in society.

For veterans where MCL is their best option for law school, they would probably be better off saving the GI Bill for their kids or giving it to their spouse. Your niche is for non traditional students that are attracted to a low cost alternative with similarly lower job prospects, but the benefit of being low cost is lost on veterans with the GI Bill. Hence why we are uncomfortable with you targeting veterans.

As you saw in your other thread, people are receptive to your business model and IMO it makes sense to replace the TTTT model that currently offer similar job prospects to MCL at T14 COA. This business model just doesn't make sense for people with the GI Bill.

[20141023]

.

[Homelandsagreatshow]

^owned

[MCL Law Dean]

We actually agree on more than we disagree on all of the big issues. I fully agree and support the efforts to alert potential law students about the huge financial risk/employment issues. The dialogue and raised awareness . . . and hopefully some changed policies are probably the most important change in legal education in 100+ years. I think we also agree that students should aspire to the best school that fits their academic needs . . . and it is not always the highest ranking, most expensive school. I also have given serious thought to the points raised here about vets and think there is real validity to them and have started to rethink my opinions that, frankly, may also have been a bit one-dimensional as well. I have access to our own statistics that consistently show that the LSAT over the past 8 years (our period of study) is a very poor predictor of law school or bar pass results. This clearly influences and creates a bias for my views. So I am a sincere advocate for students who do not have high LSAT scores (for all kinds of reasons . . . laziness and lack of effort not being among them), but otherwise have what are considered excellent "softs" and a real desire to be a lawyer. The GI bill doesn't help these students get the chance to realize this opportunity unless they can get in to a law school. I accept that your view is that the failure to score high on the LSAT is reason enough to refuse access to legal education. On this we will just have to disagree.

However, back to my reconsideration of my own views, I think that the likelihood of most vets with GI benefits being better served at MCL vs. a traditional ABA school is probably very low. In this case we only serve the rare exception, a vet who needs a really small law school environment with one-on-one academic support available. With that said, I agree that I started this thread completely on the wrong foot (now in mouth) . . . however, I hope that the dialogue has at least informed vets on options for using the GI bill effectively.

[chadbrochill]

So I am a sincere advocate for students who do not have high LSAT scores (for all kinds of reasons . . . laziness and lack of effort not being among them), but otherwise have what are considered excellent "softs" and a real desire to be a lawyer. The GI bill doesn't help these students get the chance to realize this opportunity unless they can get in to a law school. I accept that your view is that the failure to score high on the LSAT is reason enough to refuse access to legal education. On this we will just have to disagree.

This was frustrating to read. Regulus wrote a substantial amount about people with low LSAT's being more likely uninformed than lazy. If anything he is suggesting that most people are able to make large gains once they realize the gravity of the situation (himself included, which he wrote about). I am respectfully interested in your views Dean Winnick, but I believe Regulus is making solid points that you are not addressing (your characterization of certain schools as having "elite" or "near-elite" admissions requirements despite being very attainable with dedicated LSAT study), and are instead choosing to focus on an argument he did not make.

[MCL Law Dean]

Employment Rates:
You have been unable to provide any employment data about the graduates of your law school. Although Monterey might be cheaper than other schools from a monetary perspective, the opportunity cost of 3 years is still the same. Accordingly, applicants should at least be informed what kind of post-graduation job prospects they are sacrificing 3 years of their lives (careers) for. From what we've learned in the thread linked above, it is clear that many of your graduates return to their current jobs after graduating, but what isn't clear is what ratio of those graduates wanted to go back to their old jobs or do non-legal work.

As Regulus and I previously discussed on the "Non-ABA" thread, unlike the ABA law schools, California accredited law schools have never been required to collect or post employment data, but MCL thinks the request for the data is reasonable given the current national dialogue on the issue. We have prepared a version of the survey that the ABA uses and will be sending it out to alumni from the past five years (as soon as we finish administering finals this week . . . a temporary distraction). We should have data to report in about a month. I am looking forward to the information, because as is pointed out, even if I know that our graduates are employed, we don't have any data on how their employment relates to their original career goals. The opportunity cost argument is absolutely true . . . and as I have given the veteran issue more thought, it is even MORE true for vets, since the financial issues are less critical. We certainly will have more to discuss after we get our data . . . but I will take the discussion back to the other thread where I think it fits better.

Bar Passage Rates:
All of the bar passage rates for your school are done in cumulative chunks of 5 years. I understand that smaller schools like yours are unique in that graduates might not take the bar immediately following graduation, but again, it is unclear whether this is because they received insufficient instruction or because they didn't intend on taking the bar to begin with / intentionally delayed their test date.

I won't flat out reject the small regional model you've got going on; as opposed to TTTs and the like, information about your institution is almost non-extant, so we can't really say anything - good or bad - about it with confidence. However, your coming onto this board to solicit Monterey makes me wonder if your business model is actually working. The only other school that has come on TLS recently and tried to sell themselves was FIU, and we know they're not the best when it comes to placing students into decent employment. Other schools like Liberty, Michigan State, and Chase have even been calling applicants this year to get them to apply. I suppose that I have trouble believing that a reputable institution with good outcomes would have to stoop so low as to come onto online message boards or call students to get them to apply.

Hey . . . I get it that I started this thread on the wrong note with too much of a "sales" pitch and after seeing the responses . . I fully apologize for the breach in protocol. That said, other than the employment data (see above) . . . MCL has had a history of being the most transparent of the California accredited law schools . . . we advocated publicly in hearings for the new minimum bar pass standards and have been publishing our statistics on our web page for more than the past five years, even though the new rules requiring disclosure do not take effect until next year. We include the link to other state admission requirements so that potential applicants can check whether they can practice in another state with an MCL degree before they even apply. We are the only law school in California (ABA or CBE) that offers a guaranteed tuition rate that does not increase during the students tenure (obviously not a big deal for GI Bill students, but a huge deal for others in the face of 30-35% increases at other ABA law schools), and we do not charge tuition for students to re-take courses if their grade is below what we think represents being "bar ready" on a subject. We are a 501(c)3 non-profit that re-invests our revenue in the program since we have no profit motive to do otherwise. I can't speak to the other schools you mentioned, but it appears that our business model is working just fine.

Anyway, it just kind of turned me off that you're on here telling GIs to take money from the government in order to attend your school instead of doing the "smart" thing and using that money to attend Stanford or Berkeley instead.

As I have stated elsewhere . . . IF a veteran can get accepted to Stanford (6% acceptance rate) or Berkeley (11% acceptance rate) . . . of course you are right. But what about the 94% at Stanford and the 89% at Berkeley who don't get their dream choice? More to the point of our program . . . what about the non-traditional returning adult student who has excellent "softs" but a terrible LSAT that turns out to be caused by PTSD (military and civilian), ADD, ADHD, Dyslexia, anxiety disorder, bi-polar disorder . . . we see it all (Stanford and Berkeley don't because they just reject them out of hand)? Not everybody learns effectively in lecture halls as an anonymous student among 100-200 classmates. About 20% of our students are granted accommodations and get one-on-one tutoring and academic support. Whether it is our school or another of the small California accredited law schools, I am just suggesting that additional research might help a potential law student find the most effective law school model based on more than UGPA and LSAT criteria.

[20141023]

.