Dean's Lunch -- Liveblog
Sorry guys, running a couple minutes late, here we go
12:49: There are 30 people here, mostly three Ls and professors.
12:49: Dean seems tired, or disappointed with turn out. Still talking about our steady curve of tuition expansion as well as expansion of LRAP and financial aid targeted at need.
12:50: As tuition has been going up, diversity has not gone down. People still like our rank, and that we're "cool," ... and the rankings
12:50: Faculty hires have gone up 35 this past year -- while general faculty on the rest of campus has most definitely NOT been rising.
12:51: Faculty hiring though was getting us out of a hole. 7 years ago we were 128 w/ re student-faculty ratio.
12:52: Other part of investment went to fiscal planning.
12:52 As per KVDH (my hero) email, hallway will be open for new semester
12:53: Long term problems: in 1990, state share of budget was 90%, today it is 25%. This in conjunction with Alums feeling the belief that this was a public school and thus not giving at a rate comparable to other schools.
12:54: The reg and ed fee that we pay to campus is about equal to the amount of state support we now get -- thus, it is kind of a wash. State pays us, we pay the school (instead of the state having to), we raise fees.
12:56: Giving has contracted a bit with the recession but may be picking up
12:57: Currently, we are raising more from Corps and Foundations than we had expected. 40% of budget comes from fees; 30% comes from alumni -- oo, couldn't see that slide good or do other things good either.
12:58: Q: Why are research centers included in student services? A: they are not; neither is library, oddly.
12:59: Tuition this year 44K, 10K to campus, 34K stays. Next year: plan for last several years has been to increase our pro degree fee to 35K, reg ed fee will (assuming the regents vote as expected tomorrow) go up; he's trying to make sure that we get to keep any increase that happens with that general reg-ed fee.
1:00: We have been comparing ourselves to the other "so called publics" in the top 10 (VA and MI). MI has been pegged to 5-10% below average of privates, VA has been slightly below MI. DE advocated for MI tuition or 5-10% under private. The reasoning: be a top 10 law school.
1:02: His strategy has been to keep us T10, give scholarships, and invest in LRAP
1:02: Increase in pro degree fee is going to: 1) cover inflation (things we currently use pro fee to support increase w/ inflation (e.g., salaries), so we have to keep up; 2) 40% back into financial aid; 3) remainder is cost of bonds we got for the reconstruction. NOTE: for the 125 million in construction, the state gave us 1 million. Ten years ago UCLA did a similar thing and it was almost entirely paid for by the state. Now, state only really pays for seismic stuff -- and we are quake-proof already
1:05: Q: is increase in reg ed pushing our overall thing over the planned t-10 minus 5-10%. A: no, we are just making cuts instead -- e.g., teachers.
1:05: Q: Will fees ever go down if recession goes away? A: Probably not. State will not give money to higher ed, just to prisons. Hmm, moral, get arrested?
1:07: Median income for our grads is about 4x median income across state; for SacTown, to fund us is to tax the rest of the state for people who as a general matter will be better off.
1:09: Hey, we'd sell the name of the school for around 9 figures. Google Law at Berkeley?
1:11: Q: how much of the research centers is covered by the general Boalt budget? A: the research centers get about 300K a year out of our 78 million budget -- I think I heard that right
1:13: Q: Where does our money go? A: State money goes almost entirely to pay faculty salaries and librarians -- covers about 60% of faculty salaries; everything else at the school is paid for by us and alums. Much of what we pay could be paid with state or our money, they are fungible.
1:15: People are being really civil, this convo is much better than I'd imagined, kind of a piss poor showing in terms of students though.
1:17: Enter D. Tomi*aga -- how do we compare w/ peers w/ re aid? Other schools are tight lipped (pause) by design (b/c they are tied to admissions).
1:19: Someone is knitting. I used to know how to knit. I used to know how to do a lot of things. Now i just law, and self loath.
1:21: Why do the other law school accept their fees? MI and VA get no help and pay a tax to central campus. They started doing this -- and the alumni fundraising -- in the 80's and 90's. We were flat during that whole time -- kind of our awkward teenage years if you will
1:22: There is literally a 1-1 ratio of faculty to students here. I'm counting the knitting girl as faculty (obviously)
1:23: Edley is getting impassioned. He thinks that there is a reason that there should be a top ten law school at Berkeley and in CA. That the opportunities to work within the UC community deserve a top 10 law school. "We are no longer publicly funded but we can still have a public mission and public values."
1:28: Q: Financial aid: 1) 40% of fee increase back, are we meeting this? 2) Need based financial aid has gone down for most, wtf? 3) Are LRAP commitments sustainable ITE? A: 3) We don't know, we are worried. We think that large firms will pick up (it has dropped 10% over last 2 years). 1) This year: 45%, next year 42%. Hmm, confused Petch. But note, this number may go down if we get a lot of targeted aid donations from alum/corps. 2) We are trying to keep pace. Fin aid pays for: LRAP, ooo shit, I totally spaced out
1:35: Oh, snap. Guy just called Dennis Toma*ga "Dean Tom."
1:36: Reason fin aid isn't all need based is to have diversity of people who are cool and to get navy seals. We don't use matching just to get people with high LSATs.
1:37: Q: Will there be a mid-year fee increase and is this settled? A: He hasn't and won't ask for more than the multi-year plan; the variable is the reg/ed fee. He thinks we should be exempt. Tomorrow they plan an 8% increase in reg/ed. He does not want to do mid-year fee increases. He asked for 1K last year.
1:37-1:48: bicker. bicker.
1:48: What's going on with capital campaign? Things are hopefully picking up! We need for anxiety in legal profession to die down. They want to know where the bottom is (isn't that what grindr is for?).
1:52: Before things started getting better (most.overplayed.expression.of.the.year.) the reading room carpet looked like Jackson Polack, there were 30 types of chairs, and KVDH says that they were all broken. I know I asked this as a 1L, but seriously, how is her hair so perfect and shiny?!
1:53: Why should 3Ls give? It signals to alums that students believe in the school and that they have to step up.
1:56: LAST Q: Will we maintain pace with the other T10 schools? A: Yes. We are getting rockstar faculty (I'm looking at you SM), our students keep getting better (if way more annoying), and we're on good pace (even if this state is broken).
PETCH OUT
12:49: There are 30 people here, mostly three Ls and professors.
12:49: Dean seems tired, or disappointed with turn out. Still talking about our steady curve of tuition expansion as well as expansion of LRAP and financial aid targeted at need.
12:50: As tuition has been going up, diversity has not gone down. People still like our rank, and that we're "cool," ... and the rankings
12:50: Faculty hires have gone up 35 this past year -- while general faculty on the rest of campus has most definitely NOT been rising.
12:51: Faculty hiring though was getting us out of a hole. 7 years ago we were 128 w/ re student-faculty ratio.
12:52: Other part of investment went to fiscal planning.
12:52 As per KVDH (my hero) email, hallway will be open for new semester
12:53: Long term problems: in 1990, state share of budget was 90%, today it is 25%. This in conjunction with Alums feeling the belief that this was a public school and thus not giving at a rate comparable to other schools.
12:54: The reg and ed fee that we pay to campus is about equal to the amount of state support we now get -- thus, it is kind of a wash. State pays us, we pay the school (instead of the state having to), we raise fees.
12:56: Giving has contracted a bit with the recession but may be picking up
12:57: Currently, we are raising more from Corps and Foundations than we had expected. 40% of budget comes from fees; 30% comes from alumni -- oo, couldn't see that slide good or do other things good either.
12:58: Q: Why are research centers included in student services? A: they are not; neither is library, oddly.
12:59: Tuition this year 44K, 10K to campus, 34K stays. Next year: plan for last several years has been to increase our pro degree fee to 35K, reg ed fee will (assuming the regents vote as expected tomorrow) go up; he's trying to make sure that we get to keep any increase that happens with that general reg-ed fee.
1:00: We have been comparing ourselves to the other "so called publics" in the top 10 (VA and MI). MI has been pegged to 5-10% below average of privates, VA has been slightly below MI. DE advocated for MI tuition or 5-10% under private. The reasoning: be a top 10 law school.
1:02: His strategy has been to keep us T10, give scholarships, and invest in LRAP
1:02: Increase in pro degree fee is going to: 1) cover inflation (things we currently use pro fee to support increase w/ inflation (e.g., salaries), so we have to keep up; 2) 40% back into financial aid; 3) remainder is cost of bonds we got for the reconstruction. NOTE: for the 125 million in construction, the state gave us 1 million. Ten years ago UCLA did a similar thing and it was almost entirely paid for by the state. Now, state only really pays for seismic stuff -- and we are quake-proof already
1:05: Q: is increase in reg ed pushing our overall thing over the planned t-10 minus 5-10%. A: no, we are just making cuts instead -- e.g., teachers.
1:05: Q: Will fees ever go down if recession goes away? A: Probably not. State will not give money to higher ed, just to prisons. Hmm, moral, get arrested?
1:07: Median income for our grads is about 4x median income across state; for SacTown, to fund us is to tax the rest of the state for people who as a general matter will be better off.
1:09: Hey, we'd sell the name of the school for around 9 figures. Google Law at Berkeley?
1:11: Q: how much of the research centers is covered by the general Boalt budget? A: the research centers get about 300K a year out of our 78 million budget -- I think I heard that right
1:13: Q: Where does our money go? A: State money goes almost entirely to pay faculty salaries and librarians -- covers about 60% of faculty salaries; everything else at the school is paid for by us and alums. Much of what we pay could be paid with state or our money, they are fungible.
1:15: People are being really civil, this convo is much better than I'd imagined, kind of a piss poor showing in terms of students though.
1:17: Enter D. Tomi*aga -- how do we compare w/ peers w/ re aid? Other schools are tight lipped (pause) by design (b/c they are tied to admissions).
1:19: Someone is knitting. I used to know how to knit. I used to know how to do a lot of things. Now i just law, and self loath.
1:21: Why do the other law school accept their fees? MI and VA get no help and pay a tax to central campus. They started doing this -- and the alumni fundraising -- in the 80's and 90's. We were flat during that whole time -- kind of our awkward teenage years if you will
1:22: There is literally a 1-1 ratio of faculty to students here. I'm counting the knitting girl as faculty (obviously)
1:23: Edley is getting impassioned. He thinks that there is a reason that there should be a top ten law school at Berkeley and in CA. That the opportunities to work within the UC community deserve a top 10 law school. "We are no longer publicly funded but we can still have a public mission and public values."
1:28: Q: Financial aid: 1) 40% of fee increase back, are we meeting this? 2) Need based financial aid has gone down for most, wtf? 3) Are LRAP commitments sustainable ITE? A: 3) We don't know, we are worried. We think that large firms will pick up (it has dropped 10% over last 2 years). 1) This year: 45%, next year 42%. Hmm, confused Petch. But note, this number may go down if we get a lot of targeted aid donations from alum/corps. 2) We are trying to keep pace. Fin aid pays for: LRAP, ooo shit, I totally spaced out
1:35: Oh, snap. Guy just called Dennis Toma*ga "Dean Tom."
1:36: Reason fin aid isn't all need based is to have diversity of people who are cool and to get navy seals. We don't use matching just to get people with high LSATs.
1:37: Q: Will there be a mid-year fee increase and is this settled? A: He hasn't and won't ask for more than the multi-year plan; the variable is the reg/ed fee. He thinks we should be exempt. Tomorrow they plan an 8% increase in reg/ed. He does not want to do mid-year fee increases. He asked for 1K last year.
1:37-1:48: bicker. bicker.
1:48: What's going on with capital campaign? Things are hopefully picking up! We need for anxiety in legal profession to die down. They want to know where the bottom is (isn't that what grindr is for?).
1:52: Before things started getting better (most.overplayed.expression.of.the.year.) the reading room carpet looked like Jackson Polack, there were 30 types of chairs, and KVDH says that they were all broken. I know I asked this as a 1L, but seriously, how is her hair so perfect and shiny?!
1:53: Why should 3Ls give? It signals to alums that students believe in the school and that they have to step up.
1:56: LAST Q: Will we maintain pace with the other T10 schools? A: Yes. We are getting rockstar faculty (I'm looking at you SM), our students keep getting better (if way more annoying), and we're on good pace (even if this state is broken).
PETCH OUT
Labels: DE
posted by Petch at 12:48 PM
70 Comments:
Diversity has not suffered w/ fee increases. Yay! Brown people can have as much debt as I have!
"Median income for our grads is about 4x median income across state."
If that is true, can someone please explain to me why the lack of funding for a professional school is so tragic? Is it only because you don't get handed a job on a silver platter at the end of it?
Simple it's not true.
I find it extremely easy to believe that the graduates of a Top 10 law school are significantly better off than the average Californian.
By the way, I love these live blogs. Easily one of the most useful things on N&B.
RE: 1:22--Because people who don't make that median income make a whole lot less, take on the same loans as the firm kids, and may not get LRAP to pay it back (because there are a lot of contingencies that will get you dropped out of LRAP). That's why the amount of loans you actually take out matters in the end. If you feel that the rich Boalt grads should support the school more, better to advocate for higher/more progressive taxes in CA.
Public interest people need to stop bitching about LRAP. Your loans are forgiven in 10 years by IBR, private sector people are going to be spending the next 25 in financial ruins. The private sector people are way more screwed with an additional 15 years of financial enslavement.
Of course, even if you had higher and more progressive taxes in California, it might still be difficult politically for the CA legislature to devote spending on a group with a higher overall income. It would make more sense for the state to subsidize public interest organizations directly.
@2:05, I don't think the categorizations are that clear cut. A lot of people don't know whether they will be "public interest" or "private interest" people when they graduate law school. Even for people who think they know, their decision may actually be made for them based on what jobs are available. And even after they choose one path, it's not improbable that they will eventually end up on the other one.
In sum, we're all getting screwed. No use turning against each other.
Did Dean Edley seem weak during this town hall or is it just me? "I don't set fees" "its a mess" "the Regents do that"
Do those kind of deflections really excuse the hikes, like the potential mid year increase?
2:14,
Yes.
Hey guys, i could be totally wrong about this, but I'm pretty sure that Berkeley Law Organizing Committee isn't even accredited.
What I don't buy is Dedly's assertion that the fee hikes are necessary to "prevent decline." Even with the Jackson Pollack rug in the Reading Room, we were higher ranked 3y ago (before fee hikes and before "things started getting better") than we are now. Maybe the higher fees will move us above the New York schools and give us a much prettier building, but really, not worth an extra $30K, IMHO.
Kelly, and 3 more years before that Boalt was ranked 14 as a direct result of reduction in state spending (remember $/student spent is one of the factors in US News). Does that alter your assumptions?
Armen: Nope. I wasn't complaining about the tuition I paid 1L year, or our rankings that year. It's the increases in cost that are the problem. Some of that is out of the school's control (thanks, Sacmo), but some of it is part of a very expensive development plan that costs me more than I feel it's worth. And I am not only referring to the tuition increase that I paid this year, but also the slashes to need-based law grants (I lost my grant completely). Between those two factors, this year will cost me nearly as much as the previous two combined. Nothing that will happen at Boalt between now and when I graduate (or afterwards, for that matter) will make that increase worth it to me.
Kelly - re: losing your grant, did your financial situation change? I ask because I lost my grant too, but it's because I worked at a firm last summer. And it seems perfectly appropriate for the school to take away financial aid from a student who made $30k for ten weeks of drinking and attending legal research training.
I haven't heard of anyone losing a grant after spending a summer in public interest. Even if that happened, isn't Boalt a much better deal than comparable schools, considering that your first two years were discounted? And if you're doing public interest, does it really matter for you?
Great grindr reference. Keeping it real Petch. Thanks.
I lost my need-based grant and my financial situation didn't change at all.
Did you see the Dean's face when asked if LRAP's commitments were sustainable? (To quote Peter, "oooh shit.")
Even if LRAP is stable as is, there are lots of reasons why the total amount of loans I take out matters. LRAP is not based on need alone, but need + satisfying the eligibility requirements in terms of the kind of work you do, how long you work there (has to be 10 full, nearly consecutive years), and your spouse's income, if you get married. If you don't satisfy the reqs, the number of zeros in your student loan statements becomes very relevant.
RE: Law grants. The formula for determining who was eligible for the grants, and how much we were eligible for, changed last Spring. Those who did not lose their grants completely saw them cut. Many who were supposed to be eligible (me, for example), lost them. Dedly blamed this on the economy--undoubtedly relevant, so I hope that BigLaw alums reading this are giving back!--but the volatility of the school's balance sheet also has to do with the expenses the school has taken on. I'm looking at you, Student Center (and construction pit). Getting grants during 1L/2L didn't reflect a "discount"--it was the price I was willing and able to pay. 3L feels like extortion.
That's all for me for this year's round of answering Anonymous' (and strangers') questions about my finances on N&B. Awesome time management, Kelly.
Dean Edley fundamentally does not understand why people choose to attend Boalt, probably as a self-proclaimed east coaster who came to California.
My and most people's thought processes was this.
1. I want to be on the west coast and stay in Cali
2. I want to go to the best law school I can get in on the west coast.
Things I did not consider
1. Whether we were 6 or 7 or 14,
2. Whether the rug looked clean.
If I wanted to go to a top class facility with the nicest faculty, I could have easily chosen to go to any of the top ten east coast schools. They all have facilities and faculty that are much more impressive than Boalt's.
People are going to come to Boalt regardless of the spending because its comfortably the 2nd best school on the West Coast, and people prefer the better coast.
Boalt's biggest appeal is free, our location, so I don't understand why we are wasting so much money on facilities and faculty which will always lag behind our deep pocket competitors.
I also lost 75% of my financial aid grant after working a summer interest job. Also Financial Aid was SO unhelpful and actually quite rude. = total demoralizing experience. If fees are going to go up that much we should get private school services, or at least competence and customer service.
to 4:53:
I would just add at #3 to your list -- public school price.
now that's gone to shit.
Exactly That's why I didn't put it. We've eliminated one of our top 3 factors.
People come to Boalt because its in California, and in improving all this shit, we've eliminated one of our biggest selling points.
Let me pose this question: Did anyone pick this school for its facilities and faculty?
Facilities and faculty don't improve our employment prospects, we are number 2 west coast school regardless of it.
4:55--Armen's point is that, five years ago, we weren't "comfortably the 2nd best school on the West Coast." We had fallen to being only a few spots above UCLA. A lot of people thought we were going to permanently fall out of the T14 in favor of a bunch of T20 schools.
And while I agree that there's no meaningful difference between being ranked 6 or 7 in the USNWR, there is a big difference if you're ranked 13 or 16 or 21.
Correction: we were tied with UCLA.
Plain and simple, Edley is running a Ponzi scheme. Boalt will have "mid-year increases" every year until the Ponzi collapses. Edley will never show you a line item
review of Boalt's budget and accounting. Edley and the administrator class are trying to get there's while the getting is
good. It will all eventually collapse, but he will have made out like a bandit by then and we'll all be swimming in the debt that funded his and the rest of the admin classes' lavish and extravagant lifestyles.
Pretty please let 6:06 be an actual BLOC member...
Hear, hear, 6:06. And you know who else we should call attention to? The President! With all these tax increases, he is making out like a BANDIT!
Dude, Boalt is top class because of the money being poured into it. If you want a cheap, good public school, with your numbers, you could have probably gotten $$ at UCLA or Hastings, yet, you chose to go to Cal. Why? You're paying to keep it the best school on the West Coast. If you don't care that it is, don't pay.
is the above the law school version of "love it or leave it?"
7:36, Stanford is the best law school on the west coast as much as we may not like to admit it.
The Townhall may also have been poorly attended because there was very little notice given for it in advance - Dean sent out email for the Townhall on Friday afternoon. The Townhall was the following Tuesday. For those of us with prior commitments/appointments/externships/internships, etc., we couldn't have rearranged our schedule at this short notice, so we couldn't have gone even if we wanted to.
Did anyone get a legal at the town hall?
@6:06 I can comment on the line-item review as a BHSA board member. The Dean has actually told BHSA he's willing to let students do a line-by-line review of the budget.
The catch is that he wants it done by a committee of dedicated students, preferably ones with some finance or accounting background. The stated reason is that (1) the budget is very complex and he's worried that it might be more confusing than enlightening for most folks and (2) there may be privacy concerns if all of the data is released publicly.
Take that for what you will. Anyhow, BHSA hasn't figured out yet how to go about picking this committee, but if you're interested in getting in on that, you should contact Cameron Mabr*e (the BHSA treasurer).
Not that it matters, but the knitting girl mentioned is a 2L who decided to get some (rare) knitting time in :) I will finish that sweater if it takes me all year...
I chose Berkeley Law because they offered me the largest grant aid and had a good LRAP program. I'm hoping LRAP doesn't fold under the weight of all the folks who've been rerouted to public interest work by the recession...
Now various "committees" are complaining that police wouldn't let them tear down a police barrier and storm the regents' meeting yesterday. Thank God for pepper spray and nightsticks.
The email I received this morning indicates that there is footage showing the officer who drew his gun "without provocation." Why hasn't this been posted on YouTube yet or something?
Probably because that was a lie. The mob tore down a police barrier and was chanting "get his gun, get his gun" to encourage someone to try and snatch the officer's gun away from him.
I watched the video and I don't hear anyone yelling grab his gun or anything similar.
http://www.ktvu.com/video/25828298/index.html
What I do see is a rapidly escalating situation where one officer was confronted with what must have been a rather scary situation. He reacted poorly and in a panic and made a bad situation even worse.
Also, during the pepper spray and baton incident, a number of protesters were throwing things at the police line. Actions like that make the situation extremely dangerous for everyone.
Families earning up to 80k will be exempt from UC tuition.
I'm sorry, but if your family earns 80k or more they can pay for your education or you can take out some loans.
It's extremely selfish to ask taxpayers to fund your education when you are in a better position than them to pay for it and when you will reap most of the rewards of that education.
Those who characterize these protests as "nonviolent" are mistaken at best. When a large group of people shout at police, advance towards them, and try to push past a police barrier and shove against officers, the group has instigated violence. (setting aside the allegations that protesters wrested a baton away from an officer and beat him with it). The police are completely justified in responded with force. I don't see an alternative.
Or maybe BLOC and their ilk would prefer that once a mob reaches some critical mass, the law is suspended, allowing them to overrun police barriers and break into buildings where they are not authorized to be.
Right on, 4:37. Also, just to preempt any ridiculous comparisons to the civil rights movement:
Resistance to the police may be appropriate when the police are enforcing laws which violate constitutional rights. And outrage at police using force against civil rights protesters is proper because in that case the police are engaged in something profoundly unlawful.
This is different. These kids are protesting having to pay 8% more for a UC education. It's hard to think of something more removed from constitutional rights.
"Resistance to the police may be appropriate when the police are enforcing laws which violate constitutional rights."
. . . do constitutional rights in this context include the Second Amendment?
Ok, maybe not all constitutional rights. I did say *may* be appropriate...
"For nearly two years now the University of California has been criminalizing peaceful student protest."
I wouldn't call this protest "peaceful." In fact, I would probably call it frightening mob violence. I saw masked individuals throwing rocks, stones, and water bottles. I also saw large groups "pushing" past police lines and barricades.
If these people tried to enter my house, I would use a lot more than pepper spray. And I'm pretty sure that 10/10 juries in California would back me up.
Oh you conservative motherfuckers. Go be scared and white somewhere else.
Mr. President, that's really an inappropriate way to vent your frustrations.
8:17,
6:47 here. I'm not white, and you're a racist if you think brown people can't hold these views.
You are also an idiot if you think that only conservatives are against mob violence.
And yes, I would be scared if I was confronted with that group of hooligans.
I disagree with 4:11. I don't know why people who come from poor families should pay nothing for professional school, while people who come from what the state believes to be more affluent families have to foot the whole bill. I may as well have come from an impoverished family, because I got no money from my parents for law school. I know very many people in the same situation. I am not my parents, and I can't make them support me.
You may respond, "Well, you reaped the benefits of wealth while you lived with your parents." This is true. But it justifies altering the admissions process to accommodate considerations about poverty, not charging me more, and my poorer peers less, once I get here. We all have the "ability to pay" because the federal government is willing to lend to us, regardless of how poor or rich our parents are.
9:11, I totally understand where you are coming from. But if you get crushed by unforseen life circumstances and your student loans threaten your ability to get by, you have a safety net in your parents. Mine, whose assets total about $23,000 . . . not so much.
I understand where you are coming from, and it's just that I disagree. Student debt has a different bite for me than it does for you.
Just my two cents.
(PS, because for whatever reason it seems to be so relevant, I'm white.)
Mental colonization is a harsh reality. White wasn't meant literally, just culturally.
9:17,
"Mental colonization." Nice!
So your position is that anyone who disagrees with violent protests is either (1) White or (2) Mentally Colonized by white culture. That could be true.
On the other hand, the more likely explanation is that you are mentally colonized by morons.
It's really sad that you didn't even attempt to justify your position. But I guess it's hard to justify sound bites like "mental colonization."
The best thing about this thread so far is that I know for a fact that 8:17 is a white dude.
I'm pretty sure 8:17 was joking... "mental colonization" is a phrase from Juggalo culture. No one intelligent uses it seriously.
Miracles are everywhere up in this bitch.
I think the word 9:17 was trying to find was hegemony.
He's still wrong.
Foucault bitches. Read a big once in a while.
F...kin' Boalt finances--how do they work?!
I don't wanna hear from no financial analyst. Y'all motherfuckers lyin, and gettin me pissed.
I think this summarizes about 40% of recent Berkeley protests.
One thing to consider... Patrick told me a while back that some federal judge said "ef it, I'm going to allow you to bankrupt out of student debt", going against the norm which forbade such debt forgiveness.
If this is the case, the argument that those who come from a more affluent family can use them as a safety net is diminished some. I don't know what ever became of that particular decision though. It probably got a legal.
Michel Foucault was a Juggalo:
“The vain spectacle, the frivolous sounds and the maelstrom of noise and colour that make up the world is only ever the world of madness, and that must be accepted. This artificiality of the world must be welcomed, and the knowledge that shallowness belongs not only to the spectacle but to the spectator as well, and that to appreciate it what is required is not the serious ear reserved for the truth, but that more light hearted form of attention more usually reserved for a fairground spectacle or a circus act.”
-Michel Foucault, History of Madness.
"What about when the world's like fuck us kill us, what will you be? (down)
What about when I'm 103, what will you be? (down, down)
What about when the world's like fuck us kill us, what will you be? (down)
What about when the carnival comes to your town? (i'm a be down with the clown)"
-ICP, "Down with the Clown".
9:17, so you're saying that everyone who comes from a poor family should be entitled to pay less, in the off-chance that they can't pay their loans and don't have parents with deep pockets? That possible scenario justifies aid at the back end (if you hit rough times), not at the front end.
3:37,
You obviously don't understand the concept of deterrence.
11:01, No, you don't. If people from poor families are worried about future instability, then knowing that the system will help them in the event of such a contingency will address that worry.
In addition, I find it extremely hard to believe many Boalt graduates (rich or poor) are thrown back on their family's largess. I bet you could find alums living with their parents, etc., but id also bet that their not doing so out of real desperation.
^
Straight white male privilege I presume?
I disagree that grads wont have to move back in with their parents. If you are making 50k or less (which will be the case for probably at least a third of us), you cannot afford to service loans and pay for food and rent. The choice becomes live with mom and dad or become a 25 year IBR wageslave, which is why I'm probably going to be back with the parents.
Respectfully, 11:52, I'm guessing you have not thoroughly explored the issue. It's easy to say "I can't pay my loans and also my rent." It's harder to prove that is so, because barring truly wacky circumstances there IS a way to make it work. There is a panoply of payment schedules, forbearance plans, and other options to address this problem--which is by no means new.
Student loans suck, and they do limit our freedom in big respects. But (again, respectfully) if you move in with your parents it will be because you want to do so. Not because you have to.
With all due respect 12:10, 40k is not enough to service loans, pay taxes, and live in anything but section 8 housing. I understand that you can just decide to pay the minimum under IBR, but the reverse amortization will basically ensure that the loans cannot be repaid.
You are right, I don't have to make that choice, but I'd like to pay off my debt in sooner than 25 years.
ur all rich... rich motherfuckers. try livin in OAKLAND wit ur GRANDMA an workin at JIFFY LUBE.
With the new library slated to open next year, will there be any changes to library access policy? Not sure where else to post this, but I have a bone to pick.
Frankly, I'm tired to undergraduates taking over our study space, especially during finals period. Yes, I know that they "check" IDs at the door--but we're kidding ourselves if we think this is effective.
I can imagine a setup where the new library would have entry stalls to swipe student IDs that would automatically "read" student status and permit access accordingly. I know many of our peer schools, admittedly many of them private, restrict access particularly during finals.
Anyway, if Edley hasn't talked about this, how do we bring it to the administration's attention? Perhaps a N&B piece on soliciting "comments" might be a good start!
Post a Comment
<< Home