Let's give grants to the [poor] rich
Just as our Dean is celebrating his recent win to raise our tuition (err- the UC calls it "student fees" because the state supposedly doesn't charge "tuition" - but that's a long story), I see Harvard's recent announcement.
I'm not offering any solutions with this post, and I know there will come a time I need to put my money where my mouth is (when DE comes calling). I'm just evoking discussion among those who seek to procrastinate (as I am).
My take: Call it envy, call it frustration, call it a huge "motha-*#*$&@$@" debt load, but I'm hoping that those elected to be in charge of this state (and the university) are taking notice. There's something fundamentally wrong with the notion that a private school is performing the task of providing education second-to-none at a price that remains affordable (laughably so - capping at 10% of family income for even those making $180k?!) and our public school system cannot.
The consensus in previous discussions regarding our raise in tuition was that the extra cost would be worth ensuring our place among the best universities. The problem with that line of thinking (in light of new developments) is that those higher fees could hinder our ability to fill the seats with the type of students who would have their choice among those best universities. If any further evidence were needed, see here.
PS: good luck on [remaining] finals everyone...
I'm not offering any solutions with this post, and I know there will come a time I need to put my money where my mouth is (when DE comes calling). I'm just evoking discussion among those who seek to procrastinate (as I am).
My take: Call it envy, call it frustration, call it a huge "motha-*#*$&@$@" debt load, but I'm hoping that those elected to be in charge of this state (and the university) are taking notice. There's something fundamentally wrong with the notion that a private school is performing the task of providing education second-to-none at a price that remains affordable (laughably so - capping at 10% of family income for even those making $180k?!) and our public school system cannot.
The consensus in previous discussions regarding our raise in tuition was that the extra cost would be worth ensuring our place among the best universities. The problem with that line of thinking (in light of new developments) is that those higher fees could hinder our ability to fill the seats with the type of students who would have their choice among those best universities. If any further evidence were needed, see here.
PS: good luck on [remaining] finals everyone...
Labels: DE, Legal Education Costs
posted by tj at 7:01 PM
15 Comments:
It's a tough balancing act--to raise funds, to raise standards, and to attract good people who might not have the cash on hand to pay for all of the above.
However, there are a few things to keep in mind. First, the articles focus mainly on undergraduate education. In that respect, the UC system is still a very good deal--and appears to cost far less than most state universities. While we may not have gobs of cash on hand to put to all number of useful or profligate uses, UC continues to invest and seek private donations and public/private partnerships. Sure, it would be nice to have Harvard's endowment, but I think UC makes progress with what it has. Like many institutions, it underinvested for many years, and only reversed the trend about 10 years ago.
Second, Ivies & their ilk have very few students from diverse socio-economic backgronds compared to non-elite universities. The only 'elite' universities which show a large quotient of such diversity at the undergraduate level are UCLA and Berkeley (I believe Armen linked to an article stating as much recently). So maybe Harvard is trying to solve a problem that Cal and UCLA don't face to the same extent.
Third, the incentives of undergraduate and law education are different. A fancy dining area probably would not sway many future law students to attend a school. Moreover, law students are generally less reliant on their families for support and may be less concerned by the prospect of incurring debt (given high salaries and LRAP)--thus the price tag might not be such a deterrent. The articles also don't say that Harvard's grant policy will extend to law students.
TJ, I appreciate your willingness to put your money where your mouth is. Say, do you know when you're going to be able to get around to writing that $30 billion check to match Harvard's endowment?
Harvard could abolish tuition completely if it wanted to. But that's not because it's offering better value for the money. Far from it! It's just supplementing student costs with its massive 400 year old endowment. And everybody knows the easiest way to grow an endowment--accept a lot of "legacies" and the offspring of wealthy of obscenely rich families.
I'm amazed at how low my tuition is, now that I'm a California resident. And I don't really think any Boalt student can really complain about tuition increases when the starting salary for many firms is now $160K per year. (Don't forget the LRAP program, Edley's Trojan horse for the tuition hike).
Berkeley doesn't have a lot of rich alumni contributing to the costs of education--just the people of California. And quite frankly, I'm not sure I can really justify asking Californians to pay to subsidize my law school education any more, given that most 2Ls will make more this summer than the median individual in California makes all year long.
I agree that the people of California shouldn't be expected to further subsidize the UC law schools, but the definitely need to step it up for the undergrads.
Over my four years as a UC undergrad, I saw tuition hikes every year, sometimes more than once in the same year, and drastic cuts to student services programs. The only real investment I saw at my school (concededly not one of the "big 3" came from private corporate gifts to very specific mainly graduate programs which affected very few undergrads.
I didn't have to pay tuition, but still came out of college with $60k in cost of living student debt, which could have been a bit much to manage if I hadn't gone straight to Boalt given So.Cal's cost of living and the much lower salary I would have earned.
Solution? Repeal prop. 13. The repeal the CA ballot initiative system.
Good idea, Boris. A massive property tax hike in the middle of the housing downturn. Then dismantle the state constitution. All because you don't want to pay more tuition. Keep those simplistic one-liners a' coming.
Actually, Prop 13 mainly works to the disadvantage of recent homeowners -- precisely the people who are watching their variable-rate mortgages shoot up. That's because Prop 13 capped the annual valuation increase on existing homes to 2% (no matter how much their houses actually rise in value), while allowing the state to assess the full, fair-market value on new home purchases. In effect, the tax represents a giant subsidy from middle-class 30-somethings trying to purchase their first home to upper-class 60-somethings who have lived in the same place for 30 years. A more equitable distribution of taxes in contravention of Prop 13 would ease the burden on new homeowners, generate a lot more money for the state, and *still* represent a pretty generous deal for older homeowners who are sitting on literally billions of dollars of untaxed equity. But, yes, your grandparents with their $1.8 million house in Arcadia that they bought for 160k in 1975 would have to pay a little more than $800 a year in property taxes. That's why it'll never change.
Prop. 13 is never going to be repealed. Even if it was, the money would not go to lowering law school/B-School/Medical School tuition at UC.
Can we please get back to meaningful discussion about the cost of higher education?
3 dumb questions for EW, from a non-homeowner: does "existing home" mean existing ownership, or existing structures? Inversely, does "new" mean new purchase, or new structure? Or, if I inherit your grandparents 1.8 million dollar house (it will have to be your family -- mine doesn't have squat) will MY taxes shoot up?
In anticipation of the usual "I'm-not-an-attorney-the-real-issues-are-much-more-complicated-and-nuanced" line, yeah, I know. I'm not an attorney (yet) either. And I'm not seeking legal advice.
Everything is related to ownership. The tax liabilities are reassessed whenever title passes.
Yeah, as far as I know, it's all about ownership, not the actual building. So if you buy your grandparent's home, the taxes on it will shoot up. So whether you buy a "new" house or a "used" house, it's the purchasing that kills you on the taxes. Conversely, it's sitting on anything and not selling that helps. I'm not sure about inheritance, but I've learned to trust Armen on these matters.
Incidentally, this also applies to commercial property and lots. So Prop 13 further discourages the most economically productive use of land, by creating tax incentives that work against the rapid turnover of property. (It is *slightly* more permissible in California politics to support tweaking the commercial valuation rules (as opposed to the residential ones) for this reason. But that doesn't mean it's any more likely to happen. Prop 13 is still the kiss of political death in California. Remember how Arnold made Warren Buffet do push-ups for even daring to acknowledge there's a problem?)
I believe it was 500 situps.
Also, in case anyone was wondering what my favorite Arnold movie quote was. "The breeeedge is oooooouuuuut! Get to tha chaapa now"
Well, that seals the deal. After my first semester of law school, I (2:19) have concluded that there are no loopholes in the law for people like me.
If I only were in international corporation, a nut case, or a battered woman...
Well its not too late to become a celebrity.
As far as the money situation, anyone else think the highest paid professors at Boalt are the ones that really don't care if you learn anything? A certain class this fall (that was billed as a once in a life time opportunity) rings a bell.
http://www.law.com/jsp/dc/PubArticleDC.jsp?id=1196849068428&hub=TopStories
12:51:
You need to go for the junior faculty .While I loved my civ pro II and evidence professors, the overall quality of the new (mostly female) professors here is off the charts.
Post a Comment
<< Home