UC Berkeley proposing tuition hike to $75.5k/yr Forum

[kinge]

https://taxprof.typepad.com/taxprof_blo ... ools-.html

This is insane. There's basically 0 chance this won't pass, right?

[Splurgles23]

https://taxprof.typepad.com/taxprof_blo ... ools-.html

This is insane. There's basically 0 chance this won't pass, right?

How is it "insane"? UC schools get less and less contributions from the state (<10%), and have been charging less (~$10k) than peer schools for years now. And comparatively, their tuition raises have historically been flatter. Moreover, most students qualify for the lower in-state rate after 1L. It's not insane, it's the market.

[nealric]

https://taxprof.typepad.com/taxprof_blo ... ools-.html

This is insane. There's basically 0 chance this won't pass, right?

How is it "insane"? UC schools get less and less contributions from the state (<10%), and have been charging less (~$10k) than peer schools for years now. And comparatively, their tuition raises have historically been flatter. Moreover, most students qualify for the lower in-state rate after 1L. It's not insane, it's the market.

The market is insane, however. I can't fathom taking out over $300k for law school unless it's HYS. Consider that it was $26k when I was applying to law school in 2006 (or about $30k in today's dollars). Tuition has more than doubled in real terms in just that time while legal salaries have barely budged. There is no way the inherent cost of providing a legal education has doubled. And this isn't just state funding cuts either. My (private) law school's tuition has nearly doubled as well.

[Splurgles23]

https://taxprof.typepad.com/taxprof_blo ... ools-.html

This is insane. There's basically 0 chance this won't pass, right?

How is it "insane"? UC schools get less and less contributions from the state (<10%), and have been charging less (~$10k) than peer schools for years now. And comparatively, their tuition raises have historically been flatter. Moreover, most students qualify for the lower in-state rate after 1L. It's not insane, it's the market.

The market is insane, however. I can't fathom taking out over $300k for law school unless it's HYS. Consider that it was $26k when I was applying to law school in 2006 (or about $30k in today's dollars). Tuition has more than doubled in real terms in just that time while legal salaries have barely budged. There is no way the inherent cost of providing a legal education has doubled. And this isn't just state funding cuts either. My (private) law school's tuition has nearly doubled as well.

The bolded is definitely true. But it's a predictable consequence of market forces. What are the hikes going towards? The explosion of the administrative state within universities, more generally. A "Dean of X" and a "Dean of Y" and a Dean of Z." There's Deans and Deputy Deans and Special Assistants for every possible thing you can think of, so that schools can tell today's kids they care about the things the kids want the schools to care about: 12 million types of diversity, cultural awareness and celebration, clinics for every possible political/social justice configuration, safe spaces for every modality of social identity, etc. Schools are trying to meet the demand contemporary 23-year olds have for their new home away from home, where they can feel comfortable and not feel too stressed while taking a course on the "Law and Literature of 18th-Century Women Writers from New England." Exam optional, of course.

[nixy]

Lol yes, the explosion of academic administration is entirely the fault of the special snowflakes and nothing to do with the administrators themselves.

[nealric]

https://taxprof.typepad.com/taxprof_blo ... ools-.html

This is insane. There's basically 0 chance this won't pass, right?

How is it "insane"? UC schools get less and less contributions from the state (<10%), and have been charging less (~$10k) than peer schools for years now. And comparatively, their tuition raises have historically been flatter. Moreover, most students qualify for the lower in-state rate after 1L. It's not insane, it's the market.

The market is insane, however. I can't fathom taking out over $300k for law school unless it's HYS. Consider that it was $26k when I was applying to law school in 2006 (or about $30k in today's dollars). Tuition has more than doubled in real terms in just that time while legal salaries have barely budged. There is no way the inherent cost of providing a legal education has doubled. And this isn't just state funding cuts either. My (private) law school's tuition has nearly doubled as well.

The bolded is definitely true. But it's a predictable consequence of market forces. What are the hikes going towards? The explosion of the administrative state within universities, more generally. A "Dean of X" and a "Dean of Y" and a Dean of Z." There's Deans and Deputy Deans and Special Assistants for every possible thing you can think of, so that schools can tell today's kids they care about the things the kids want the schools to care about: 12 million types of diversity, cultural awareness and celebration, clinics for every possible political/social justice configuration, safe spaces for every modality of social identity, etc. Schools are trying to meet the demand contemporary 23-year olds have for their new home away from home, where they can feel comfortable and not feel too stressed while taking a course on the "Law and Literature of 18th-Century Women Writers from New England." Exam optional, of course.

It's not about politics. You could take plenty of "law and" courses when I went to school and do social justice clinics to your heart's content (those cost almost nothing to run). Somehow they managed to do it with much lower tuition. But I do think the administrative bloat within schools is certainly a problem (which has nothing to do with "safe spaces" or anything like that).

Another driver is increased price discrimination. It used to be that only second and third tier schools gave out "merit" scholarships, and most students were paying sticker at the T14. Now, schools hand out discounts to a huge percentage of incoming students. It's like those discount stores where there's ALWAYS a "huge sale" going on. Problem is, there's going to be some students who are paying sticker.

[Splurgles23]

https://taxprof.typepad.com/taxprof_blo ... ools-.html

This is insane. There's basically 0 chance this won't pass, right?

How is it "insane"? UC schools get less and less contributions from the state (<10%), and have been charging less (~$10k) than peer schools for years now. And comparatively, their tuition raises have historically been flatter. Moreover, most students qualify for the lower in-state rate after 1L. It's not insane, it's the market.

The market is insane, however. I can't fathom taking out over $300k for law school unless it's HYS. Consider that it was $26k when I was applying to law school in 2006 (or about $30k in today's dollars). Tuition has more than doubled in real terms in just that time while legal salaries have barely budged. There is no way the inherent cost of providing a legal education has doubled. And this isn't just state funding cuts either. My (private) law school's tuition has nearly doubled as well.

The bolded is definitely true. But it's a predictable consequence of market forces. What are the hikes going towards? The explosion of the administrative state within universities, more generally. A "Dean of X" and a "Dean of Y" and a Dean of Z." There's Deans and Deputy Deans and Special Assistants for every possible thing you can think of, so that schools can tell today's kids they care about the things the kids want the schools to care about: 12 million types of diversity, cultural awareness and celebration, clinics for every possible political/social justice configuration, safe spaces for every modality of social identity, etc. Schools are trying to meet the demand contemporary 23-year olds have for their new home away from home, where they can feel comfortable and not feel too stressed while taking a course on the "Law and Literature of 18th-Century Women Writers from New England." Exam optional, of course.

It's not about politics. You could take plenty of "law and" courses when I went to school and do social justice clinics to your heart's content (those cost almost nothing to run). Somehow they managed to do it with much lower tuition. But I do think the administrative bloat within schools is certainly a problem (which has nothing to do with "safe spaces" or anything like that).

Another driver is increased price discrimination. It used to be that only second and third tier schools gave out "merit" scholarships, and most students were paying sticker at the T14. Now, schools hand out discounts to a huge percentage of incoming students. It's like those discount stores where there's ALWAYS a "huge sale" going on. Problem is, there's going to be some students who are paying sticker.

If you think administrative bloat has nothing to do with politics(/safe spaces), you haven't spent enough time in/around academia. Just take a look at how many new admin positions exist, their titles, and the descriptions of the jobs. Do you really think all the new Deans and Deputy Deans relative to, say, 20 years ago, has nothing to do with politically-based drivers in students today as opposed to 20 years ago?

[nixy]

If you think administrative bloat has nothing to do with politics(/safe spaces), you haven't spent enough time in/around academia. Just take a look at how many new admin positions exist, their titles, and the descriptions of the jobs. Do you really think all the new Deans and Deputy Deans relative to, say, 20 years ago, has nothing to do with politically-based drivers in students today as opposed to 20 years ago?

Yes. There is a ton of administrative bloat around all elements of academia. (I worked in academia before law school.) Can you give me a list of titles that exist today that didn't exist 20 years ago that are a function of snowflake students?

[Johnnybgoode92]

Good news for the firms. They’ll have associates in debt shackles for a few more years to pay off the debt. Everyone wins!

[Splurgles23]

If you think administrative bloat has nothing to do with politics(/safe spaces), you haven't spent enough time in/around academia. Just take a look at how many new admin positions exist, their titles, and the descriptions of the jobs. Do you really think all the new Deans and Deputy Deans relative to, say, 20 years ago, has nothing to do with politically-based drivers in students today as opposed to 20 years ago?

Yes. There is a ton of administrative bloat around all elements of academia. (I worked in academia before law school.) Can you give me a list of titles that exist today that didn't exist 20 years ago that are a function of snowflake students?

No, I'm not going to find and provide you an entire list -- my dedication to TLS/need to convince you of something that's easily provable isn't quite at that level yet. But here are two, one each from a different band within the wider ladder of law schools so that no one thinks this only occurs in certain types of schools:

NYU Law: "Assistant Dean for Diversity and Inclusion"
Case Western Law: "Associate Dean of Institutional Diversity and Inclusiveness"

Sure, maybe these new positions should exist. But then students can't complain about skyrocketing costs. That was my point. It's a pretty easy one to grasp.

[nixy]

Those positions existed in academia 20 years ago. And the existence of those two positions isn't a great argument for bloat (in that adding one assistant dean to an institution =/= bloat).

[kinge]

Those positions existed in academia 20 years ago. And the existence of those two positions isn't a great argument for bloat (in that adding one assistant dean to an institution =/= bloat).

Any way to find salary data at Berkeley from 20 yrs ago? The UC site only has data going back to 2010. There were 36 people in Berkeley with the word "Dean" in their title in 2010 (includes assoc. deans) and 39 in 2018

[nixy]

I don't know where/how to find that info about salaries, I'm afraid.

But to be clear, I agree that administrative bloat totally exists and is totally a thing that has (unnecessarily) contributed a lot to costs. I just think it has older roots that what Splurgles has identified, and isn't about providing safe spaces/catering to student politics or whatnot.

It is also a much much bigger phenomenon than just in law schools, it's a bloat across entire institutions. The two are related because law school tuition provides funding that goes back to the rest of the university at large; law schools are cash cows that help fund much more expensive programs. A legal education isn't that expensive to provide, even with clinics, compared to, say, med school or the sciences/engineering probably even arts/music (especially digital/electronic stuff).

I would say that a lot of the bloat is about marketing/fundraising, the latter because funding for universities has declined, as well as administration of grants, which is one of the ways that you get funding when the state stops giving you money. There's also probably a much bigger infrastructure around student housing/wellness than at one time, but I don't think that's political so much as covering your ass legally (students committing suicide on campus are not a good look).

tl;dr - I totally agree there's admin bloat, just disagree that it's driven by catering to special snowflakes.

[Johnnybgoode92]

The market is already beginning to correct itself. Average GPA/LSAT has gone down. Law school is far less competitive than before the recession. Undergrads are starting to sense that there are better options than giving away 200-300k in tuition for another liberal arts degree and beginning your career in your late 20s

[nealric]

https://taxprof.typepad.com/taxprof_blo ... ools-.html

This is insane. There's basically 0 chance this won't pass, right?

How is it "insane"? UC schools get less and less contributions from the state (<10%), and have been charging less (~$10k) than peer schools for years now. And comparatively, their tuition raises have historically been flatter. Moreover, most students qualify for the lower in-state rate after 1L. It's not insane, it's the market.

The market is insane, however. I can't fathom taking out over $300k for law school unless it's HYS. Consider that it was $26k when I was applying to law school in 2006 (or about $30k in today's dollars). Tuition has more than doubled in real terms in just that time while legal salaries have barely budged. There is no way the inherent cost of providing a legal education has doubled. And this isn't just state funding cuts either. My (private) law school's tuition has nearly doubled as well.

The bolded is definitely true. But it's a predictable consequence of market forces. What are the hikes going towards? The explosion of the administrative state within universities, more generally. A "Dean of X" and a "Dean of Y" and a Dean of Z." There's Deans and Deputy Deans and Special Assistants for every possible thing you can think of, so that schools can tell today's kids they care about the things the kids want the schools to care about: 12 million types of diversity, cultural awareness and celebration, clinics for every possible political/social justice configuration, safe spaces for every modality of social identity, etc. Schools are trying to meet the demand contemporary 23-year olds have for their new home away from home, where they can feel comfortable and not feel too stressed while taking a course on the "Law and Literature of 18th-Century Women Writers from New England." Exam optional, of course.

It's not about politics. You could take plenty of "law and" courses when I went to school and do social justice clinics to your heart's content (those cost almost nothing to run). Somehow they managed to do it with much lower tuition. But I do think the administrative bloat within schools is certainly a problem (which has nothing to do with "safe spaces" or anything like that).

Another driver is increased price discrimination. It used to be that only second and third tier schools gave out "merit" scholarships, and most students were paying sticker at the T14. Now, schools hand out discounts to a huge percentage of incoming students. It's like those discount stores where there's ALWAYS a "huge sale" going on. Problem is, there's going to be some students who are paying sticker.

If you think administrative bloat has nothing to do with politics(/safe spaces), you haven't spent enough time in/around academia. Just take a look at how many new admin positions exist, their titles, and the descriptions of the jobs. Do you really think all the new Deans and Deputy Deans relative to, say, 20 years ago, has nothing to do with politically-based drivers in students today as opposed to 20 years ago?

Yes. Because the politics you are talking about also existed 20 years ago in progressive institutions. I attended one for undergrad, and it costs twice as much now. Moreover, there are plenty of very conservative schools without such politics that are still twice what they used to cost (in real terms). Even Regent University nearly doubled its tuition in real terms over the last 20 years.

[cavalier1138]

Yeah, I'm not buying the "snowflake administration" argument. As mentioned, there are just as many superfluous administrators at conservative/religious schools, and schools with and without these positions are all raising tuition.

Maybe treating education as a free market commodity isn't the smartest idea. But hey, you're probably right. It's those pesky libs screwing up glorious capitalism.

[Splurgles23]

Maybe treating education as a free market commodity isn't the smartest idea. But hey, you're probably right. It's those pesky libs screwing up glorious capitalism.

Are you unable to read posts carefully? I noted admin changes in response to student concerns/interests as a prime driver of tuition hikes. I used my own choice phrases/adjectives in characterizing those concerns, but it takes quite a lazy leap to get to "pesky libs screwing up glorious capitalism." I said the hikes were predictable rather than "insane." I didn't even take a position on whether the hikes were bad.

I see that you post your infallible wisdom in every other thread on this site, but try to think through them rather than just going for the snarky internet comeback that seems to be your go-to. On the other hand, if that's all you want to do, get better at it.

[Splurgles23]

Those positions existed in academia 20 years ago. And the existence of those two positions isn't a great argument for bloat (in that adding one assistant dean to an institution =/= bloat).

The one I listed at CW is from a website that literally says, "[name of person] has been named as the school’s inaugural Associate Dean of Institutional Diversity and Inclusiveness."

The website is here: https://thedaily.case.edu/school-of-law ... diversity/

The address itself includes the phrase "first dean of diversity,."

Now I assume you'll say others like that position existed. The argument will become pointless because for every specific fact I cite, with back up, you gesture at some vague personal experience from way back when.

I also never said the creation of one or two positions result in the increased costs. Obviously it's a systemic phenomenon.

[The Lsat Airbender]

Maybe treating education as a free market commodity isn't the smartest idea. But hey, you're probably right. It's those pesky libs screwing up glorious capitalism.

It's the same worst-of-both-worlds problem as healthcare, where we've left supply up to the free market but socialized the demand side.

There's basically no demand pressure to keep costs down when Uncle Sam will happily guarantee (or even just pay, in the case of PSLF as it theoretically works) a quarter-million-dollar loan.

[cavalier1138]

Maybe treating education as a free market commodity isn't the smartest idea. But hey, you're probably right. It's those pesky libs screwing up glorious capitalism.

Are you unable to read posts carefully? I noted admin changes in response to student concerns/interests as a prime driver of tuition hikes. I used my own choice phrases/adjectives in characterizing those concerns, but it takes quite a lazy leap to get to "pesky libs screwing up glorious capitalism." I said the hikes were predictable rather than "insane." I didn't even take a position on whether the hikes were bad.

I see that you post your infallible wisdom in every other thread on this site, but try to think through them rather than just going for the snarky internet comeback that seems to be your go-to. On the other hand, if that's all you want to do, get better at it.

Yes, I saw that you noted that. One might even say that I noted you noting that. How pithy!

You can note pretty much anything you want. Your assertions don't appear to have any basis in reality, and I'll continue to mock them as idiotic clickbait-esque attempts to frame rising tuition costs as the consequence of natural whiny progressive students.

[Splurgles23]

Maybe treating education as a free market commodity isn't the smartest idea. But hey, you're probably right. It's those pesky libs screwing up glorious capitalism.

Are you unable to read posts carefully? I noted admin changes in response to student concerns/interests as a prime driver of tuition hikes. I used my own choice phrases/adjectives in characterizing those concerns, but it takes quite a lazy leap to get to "pesky libs screwing up glorious capitalism." I said the hikes were predictable rather than "insane." I didn't even take a position on whether the hikes were bad.

I see that you post your infallible wisdom in every other thread on this site, but try to think through them rather than just going for the snarky internet comeback that seems to be your go-to. On the other hand, if that's all you want to do, get better at it.

Yes, I saw that you noted that. One might even say that I noted you noting that. How pithy!

You can note pretty much anything you want. Your assertions don't appear to have any basis in reality, and I'll continue to mock them as idiotic clickbait-esque attempts to frame rising tuition costs as the consequence of natural whiny progressive students.

Right, the actual facts (and external links) I've posted in this thread are "idiotic" and have no "basis in reality." I guess your reality is your life on this board. Seems like you've chosen the snarky internet come-back route. Again, if you're going to devote your life to that: get better at it.

[cavalier1138]

Maybe treating education as a free market commodity isn't the smartest idea. But hey, you're probably right. It's those pesky libs screwing up glorious capitalism.

Are you unable to read posts carefully? I noted admin changes in response to student concerns/interests as a prime driver of tuition hikes. I used my own choice phrases/adjectives in characterizing those concerns, but it takes quite a lazy leap to get to "pesky libs screwing up glorious capitalism." I said the hikes were predictable rather than "insane." I didn't even take a position on whether the hikes were bad.

I see that you post your infallible wisdom in every other thread on this site, but try to think through them rather than just going for the snarky internet comeback that seems to be your go-to. On the other hand, if that's all you want to do, get better at it.

Yes, I saw that you noted that. One might even say that I noted you noting that. How pithy!

You can note pretty much anything you want. Your assertions don't appear to have any basis in reality, and I'll continue to mock them as idiotic clickbait-esque attempts to frame rising tuition costs as the consequence of natural whiny progressive students.

Right, the actual facts (and external links) I've posted in this thread are "idiotic" and have no "basis in reality." I guess your reality is your life on this board. Seems like you've chosen the snarky internet come-back route. Again, if you're going to devote your life to that: get better at it.

You and I must have different definitions of facts and substantiation. From what I see, you've made unsupported claims about the reasons for rising tuition costs and provided an external link showing that a single administrative position supporting diversity has recently been established at one school.

In the face of such overwhelming facts, what else can I do but try for internet come-backs?

[nixy]

Those positions existed in academia 20 years ago. And the existence of those two positions isn't a great argument for bloat (in that adding one assistant dean to an institution =/= bloat).

The one I listed at CW is from a website that literally says, "[name of person] has been named as the school’s inaugural Associate Dean of Institutional Diversity and Inclusiveness."

The website is here: https://thedaily.case.edu/school-of-law ... diversity/

The address itself includes the phrase "first dean of diversity,."

Now I assume you'll say others like that position existed. The argument will become pointless because for every specific fact I cite, with back up, you gesture at some vague personal experience from way back when.

I also never said the creation of one or two positions result in the increased costs. Obviously it's a systemic phenomenon.

TBF, I was thinking more broadly than law schools, so it’s possible that law schools are late to this particular administrative party. My experience has been the same as nealric’s, that schools (writ large) were concerned about these issues 20 years ago and had those positions in place then.

When I talk about administrative bloat, I’m talking about positions like the following (from U Michigan’s directory, picked as a random choice):
- Assistant Dean for Student Engagement and Practice (school of public health)
- Special Counsel to the Chancellor for Inclusion [goes to your point but also] and Strategic Projects
- Associate Dean for Academic Initiatives (graduate school)
- Associate Dean for Academic Programs (med school)
- Associate Dean for Full Time and Global MBA
- Associate Dean for Faculty and Faculty Development (med school)
- Associate Dean for Strategic Initiatives (law school)
- Assistant Dean for Administration and Operations (social work)
- Deputy Assistant Dean (student academic affairs)
- Assistant Dean for Advancement
- Associate Dean for Faculty and Research (law school)
- Assistant Dean for Field Instruction (social work)
- Assistant Dean for continuing medical education and life-long learning
- Associate VP and Associate Dean for Health Equity and Inclusion (med school)
- Associate Dean for Academic Programming
- Manager Associate Deans’ Initiative
- Vice Provost for Academic Innovation
Dean’s Special Projects Manager
- Assistant Dean for Research Development and Strategic Initiatives (college of engineering)
- Associate Dean for Strategic Affairs (nursing school)
- a million executive and/or senior and/or deputy assistants to all the deans

...and I gave up before even getting through their list (225 people had “Dean” in their title).

There are 52 people whose titles include “strategic.”

There are 43 people whose titles include “initiatives.”

There are 18 people whose titles include “advancement.”

There are 60 people whose titles include “giving.”

There are 99 people whose titles include “grants.”

There’s probably some overlap in some of the above, but not complete overlap.

For comparison, there are 39 people whose titles include “inclusion” (I didn’t search for diversity separately because those titles all seem to be “diversity and inclusion.”)

So yes, there is a lot of administrative bloat, but it’s not centered on the diversity initiatives. I’d even probably agree that some is driven by a response to student concerns/interests, but I’d also say that student concerns/interests is not at all the same as politically-based/safe spaces, which is how you originally characterized it.

[rwhyAn]

Maybe treating education as a free market commodity isn't the smartest idea. But hey, you're probably right. It's those pesky libs screwing up glorious capitalism.

It's the same worst-of-both-worlds problem as healthcare, where we've left supply up to the free market but socialized the demand side.

There's basically no demand pressure to keep costs down when Uncle Sam will happily guarantee (or even just pay, in the case of PSLF as it theoretically works) a quarter-million-dollar loan.

The bolded is 100% correct.

[iar]

After student protests the Board of Regents did not vote on the tuition hikes. They pushed the vote to some future, unknown date.

It's a little unclear if they pushed the vote for undergrad AND grad tuition, or if they did in fact vote on grad tuition. They were separate items, and whilst it was confirmed that they pushed the undergrad tuition vote, there was no real clarity on grad tuition. I assume that they did, since there's been no announcement.