Northwestern Law School Dean Daniel B. Rodriguez and his claim of Diversity Forum

[Big Dog]

Yes true but it shouldn't be the free ticket to keep raising the tuition. 61k now for a JD. Few years later and it will be 100k.

So what? Less than 30% of students pay sticker at Northwestern. In other words, 70% receive a discount. More importantly, 34% receive more than half tuition off of sticker. (source: the report that you posted.)

btw: many of the full payers come from 1 percenters. Why keep tuition low for these folks?

This is not business 101. This is law school admissions 101.

not even that sophisticated....this is just high school math.

[Bulla]

I was hoping to see what Prof. Paul Campos response would be to this situation since he asked the question.

Who is online Users browsing this forum: Big Dog, Bulla, Mr. Archer, mtf612, Paul Campos, Platopus and 7 guest

Yes true but it shouldn't be the free ticket to keep raising the tuition. 61k now for a JD. Few years later and it will be 100k.

So what? Less than 30% of students pay sticker at Northwestern. In other words, 70% receive a discount. More importantly, 34% receive more than half tuition off of sticker. (source: the report that you posted.)

btw: many of the full payers come from 1 percenters. Why keep tuition low for these folks?

This is not business 101. This is law school admissions 101.

not even that sophisticated....this is just high school math.

Do we know the backgrounds of these applicants ? 70% receiving discounts are these middle class applicants or rich applicants ?

[A. Nony Mouse]

what if down was up and up was down, then your argument would be totally wrong

checkmate, nony

It's true that kind of logic is UNASSAILABLE.

(I am coming around to the AI theory.)

[stego]

This is business 101. Would you rather admit more qualified students with a decent tuition or few with high tuition ? When NU sends out 800+ offers and only matriculate around 200. That means the remaining didn't accept their offer. So you lost more, not gain.

2016 509 report - 823 offer but only 215 matriculated.

http://www.law.northwestern.edu/admissi ... Report.pdf

Why do you keep making things up out of whole cloth when you don't understand what's going on?? Northwestern knows how many offers they need to make to get the class size they want. They have *no intention* of enrolling 800+ people. If they wanted more students (for the tuition), they would...wait for it...admit more students. They *want* the 215 number.

Or for comparison:
- Duke made 1027 offers with 221 matriculating
- UVA made 952 offers with 296 matriculating
- Cornell made 987 offers with 194 matriculating
- Michigan made 1205 offers with 305 matriculating

This is not business 101. This is law school admissions 101.

But if 500 took those offers, then we would have 500 matriculated. The fact that 200 out of 800 took the offer means the remaining of the offers weren't that great and the applicants found better offers somewhere else.

If they knew their class size, they wouldn't keep a huge waitlist pending.

These schools have been admitting classes for a long time. They know the students they admit often have multiple offers from comparable schools and big offers from lower-ranked schools. They know many applicants won't matriculate, so they know how many offers they need to make to get the class size they want.

[cavalier1138]

Do we know the backgrounds of these applicants ? 70% receiving discounts are these middle class applicants or rich applicants ?

You've been making shit up about students' socioeconomic backgrounds since page one of this thread. Ever hear the expression, "Turnabout is fair play?"

[Bulla]

Do we know the backgrounds of these applicants ? 70% receiving discounts are these middle class applicants or rich applicants ?

You've been making shit up about students' socioeconomic backgrounds since page one of this thread. Ever hear the expression, "Turnabout is fair play?"

I've asked a question for those who presume 70% of students receiving schollys are middle to poor class. You don't like that question, better yet go attack the media that say make the rich --> richer with the 100 million donation from Pritzker. #Fakenews?

However, writer Malcolm Gladwell criticized the Harvard gift, saying on Twitter, "It came down to helping the poor or giving the world's richest university $400 mil it doesn't need. Wise choice John!"

Until we know their backgrounds, don't claim otherwise. What we do know is one thing.

The solution to all this is a fair tuition. If you have rich kids --> they will have much more resources to study for the LSAT --> to receive higher scores to justify merit base scholarship.

Different from someone who might be married, having 2 jobs may be and studying for the lsat. Ces la vie, we're not trying to change the norm but that message of "we want diversity, we want easy access to quality education" throw it out the window please.

May be we should see NU offering a free LSAT prep course for those seeking resources. Or may be an online course with free resources and easy access. They're known to be leaders in business and entrepreneurship from kellogg. So offer a solution, Yale, Harvard, Standford, NYU, Colombia and the list goes on and on.

[cavalier1138]

So what's the rule now? You're the only one who's allowed to make broad, unsupported assertions about students' backgrounds? Is that the rule?

Also, what's your obsession with people who are married with two kids? That has nothing to do with diversity.

[Bulla]

So what's the rule now? You're the only one who's allowed to make broad, unsupported assertions about students' backgrounds? Is that the rule?

Also, what's your obsession with people who are married with two kids? That has nothing to do with diversity.

Rule ? You need solutions. Don't answer the question with a question.

We were talking about applicants socioeconomic that is where the example of married with 2 kids came from. Follow the discussion or you might get lost by diverting it.

[cavalier1138]

So what's the rule now? You're the only one who's allowed to make broad, unsupported assertions about students' backgrounds? Is that the rule?

Also, what's your obsession with people who are married with two kids? That has nothing to do with diversity.

Rule ? You need solutions. Don't answer the question with a question.

We were talking about applicants socioeconomic that is where the ex of married with 2 kids came from. Follow the discussion or you might get lost by diverting it.

Ok, my solution is for you to never, ever work in law school admissions. Now please explain how someone being married with two kids is an indicator of their socioeconomic status, much less of their potential diversity within a law school class.

[Bulla]

So what's the rule now? You're the only one who's allowed to make broad, unsupported assertions about students' backgrounds? Is that the rule?

Also, what's your obsession with people who are married with two kids? That has nothing to do with diversity.

Rule ? You need solutions. Don't answer the question with a question.

We were talking about applicants socioeconomic that is where the ex of married with 2 kids came from. Follow the discussion or you might get lost by diverting it.

Ok, my solution is for you to never, ever work in law school admissions. Now please explain how someone being married with two kids is an indicator of their socioeconomic status, much less of their potential diversity within a law school class.

Is that how we outsmart an argument in a court now day ? You guys don't know what a Jury is, they are simple people, they don't care about complex arguments, that is why you see a drop in plaintiff's winning cases at the trial.

Regular people wants to see the bigger picture and rule on the merit, they're not interested in arguments that outsmart another that many times while could be relevant, it doesn't serve its purpose of convincing.

[cavalier1138]

This is like a drug. I keep thinking that you won't get more entertaining, but every time you respond, your argument actually gets more ridiculous.

[Paul Campos]

Tuition is way too high. That law schools continue to raise it faster than inflation is unconscionable.

Almost all law schools give only "merit aid," whatever their claims to the contrary, and merit aid is on net a wealth transfer from poorer students with worse job prospects to richer students with better job prospects. This is also unconscionable.

The current student loan system is massively dysfunctional, and is a key enabler of both of the above.

Blaming Dan Rodriguez for playing the game as it's currently set up at the same time that he's trying to change it makes no sense. It makes no sense to criticize individuals who are trying to change a structure for behaving in ways that the structure requires them to behave. The deduction on mortgage interest is a terrible public policy, but it doesn't make sense to criticize individuals who believe this from taking the deduction, since not taking the deduction would only harm them individually and do nothing to change the policy. What's needed is collective action, which is what Rodriguez and some other people are trying to bring about.

[Bulla]

Tuition is way too high. That law schools continue to raise it faster than inflation is unconscionable.

Almost all law schools give only "merit aid," whatever their claims to the contrary, and merit aid is on net a wealth transfer from poorer students with worse job prospects to richer students with better job prospects. This is also unconscionable.

The current student loan system is massively dysfunctional, and is a key enabler of both of the above.

Blaming Dan Rodriguez for playing the game as it's currently set up at the same time that he's trying to change it makes no sense. It makes no sense to criticize individuals who are trying to change a structure for behaving in ways that the structure requires them to behave. The deduction on mortgage interest is a terrible public policy, but it doesn't make sense to criticize individuals who believe this from taking the deduction, since not taking the deduction would only harm them individually and do nothing to change the policy. What's needed is collective action, which is what Rodriguez and some other people are trying to bring about.

By raising tuition is he sending a good message or a bad one ?

Tuition is way too high. That law schools continue to raise it faster than inflation is unconscionable.

By raising tution is he helping low income students or the rich ?

Almost all law schools give only "merit aid," whatever their claims to the contrary, and merit aid is on net a wealth transfer from poorer students with worse job prospects to richer students with better job prospects. This is also unconscionable.

By asking to relax ABA standards, will that help or benefit bottom tier law schools making them more predatory ?

The current student loan system is massively dysfunctional, and is a key enabler of both of the above.

[guynourmin]

I like how you call for Campos to respond, he does, and you completely ignore what he says. You're ridiculous and I can't believe people have continued to engage you.

[cavalier1138]

Tuition is way too high. That law schools continue to raise it faster than inflation is unconscionable.

Almost all law schools give only "merit aid," whatever their claims to the contrary, and merit aid is on net a wealth transfer from poorer students with worse job prospects to richer students with better job prospects. This is also unconscionable.

The current student loan system is massively dysfunctional, and is a key enabler of both of the above.

Blaming Dan Rodriguez for playing the game as it's currently set up at the same time that he's trying to change it makes no sense. It makes no sense to criticize individuals who are trying to change a structure for behaving in ways that the structure requires them to behave. The deduction on mortgage interest is a terrible public policy, but it doesn't make sense to criticize individuals who believe this from taking the deduction, since not taking the deduction would only harm them individually and do nothing to change the policy. What's needed is collective action, which is what Rodriguez and some other people are trying to bring about.

By raising tuition is he sending a good message or a bad one ?

Tuition is way too high. That law schools continue to raise it faster than inflation is unconscionable.

By raising tution is he helping low income students or the rich ?

Almost all law schools give only "merit aid," whatever their claims to the contrary, and merit aid is on net a wealth transfer from poorer students with worse job prospects to richer students with better job prospects. This is also unconscionable.

By asking to relax ABA standards, will that help or benefit bottom tier law schools making them more predatory ?

The current student loan system is massively dysfunctional, and is a key enabler of both of the above.

Oh, I get it. You think that the dean of a law school does all these things unilaterally. Which is ridiculous.

Also, to respond to Campos (since he actually knows what he's talking about and is worth seriously engaging on the topic): wouldn't altering the loan system to make it more restrictive be worse for low-income students? Presumably the richer students would still be able to pay, while any low-income students who didn't qualify for merit aid would not be able to attend at all. It seems like the better collective action here (aside from freezing/lowering tuition rates) would be to institute a comprehensive need-based aid system like the ones at HYS.

[Bulla]

I like how you call for Campos to respond, he does, and you completely ignore what he says. You're ridiculous and I can't believe people have continued to engage you.

Because you don't get it. You can always go back to your favorite thread --> Northwestern 1L/2L/3L/Grads Taking Questions and Challenges

[Kali the Annihilator]

Hey mods: the fuck?

[cavalier1138]

I like how you call for Campos to respond, he does, and you completely ignore what he says. You're ridiculous and I can't believe people have continued to engage you.

If people didn't keep engaging, we wouldn't have gems like this:

Is that how we outsmart an argument in a court now day ? You guys don't know what a Jury is, they are simple people, they don't care about complex arguments, that is why you see a drop in plaintiff's winning cases at the trial.

The TJ AMA thread died early, so how else am I supposed to get my fix?

[UVA2B]

With ferrisjso riding off into the sunset, bulla was not the on-t poster we needed, but it is the one we all deserved.

[A. Nony Mouse]

Tuition is way too high. That law schools continue to raise it faster than inflation is unconscionable.

Almost all law schools give only "merit aid," whatever their claims to the contrary, and merit aid is on net a wealth transfer from poorer students with worse job prospects to richer students with better job prospects. This is also unconscionable.

The current student loan system is massively dysfunctional, and is a key enabler of both of the above.

Blaming Dan Rodriguez for playing the game as it's currently set up at the same time that he's trying to change it makes no sense. It makes no sense to criticize individuals who are trying to change a structure for behaving in ways that the structure requires them to behave. The deduction on mortgage interest is a terrible public policy, but it doesn't make sense to criticize individuals who believe this from taking the deduction, since not taking the deduction would only harm them individually and do nothing to change the policy. What's needed is collective action, which is what Rodriguez and some other people are trying to bring about.

By raising tuition is he sending a good message or a bad one ?

Tuition is way too high. That law schools continue to raise it faster than inflation is unconscionable.

By raising tution is he helping low income students or the rich ?

Almost all law schools give only "merit aid," whatever their claims to the contrary, and merit aid is on net a wealth transfer from poorer students with worse job prospects to richer students with better job prospects. This is also unconscionable.

By asking to relax ABA standards, will that help or benefit bottom tier law schools making them more predatory ?

The current student loan system is massively dysfunctional, and is a key enabler of both of the above.

Sweetie, you've long ago demonstrated that you don't understand anything anyone is saying here (or about law schools admission), and I should have locked this long ago but I shared cavalier's fascination with what you'd come up with next. But people are right, this has gone on too long, so we're going to stop.