Friday, July 15, 2011

Regents Hike Tuition by 9.6%

This is on top of an 8% hike that was announced in the Spring.

It's not clear how this will affect Boalt students because as the Administration has said they are trying to come up with ways to mitigate the raise, but hasn't specified anything.

The timing of the raise is inappropriate because it has given only a month's notice to students coming back in the Fall and the raise was also made at a time when it is difficult to organize a response from students.

California's budget priorities are completely skewed- the death penalty costs us $184M a year and the prison budget for this year was over 7% of the state's total spending. In fact, in the 2011-12 budget, prison spending increased 2.3% while higher education spending decreased by 11.7%. Total statewide expenditure is down 6.1% over last year.

Of course, there's been no change in California's minimal property taxes.

As we get more information on how this will change Boalt's tuition this year and beyond we'll let you know.



Anonymous Anonymous said...

Glad I got out of there when I did.

7/15/2011 12:11 PM  
Blogger McTwo said...

Maybe we can exceed the 80k of loans for one year of in state school mark. Awesome!

7/15/2011 12:14 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I love how our school claims these tuition hikes are improving our school. At the same time when our ranking and employment statistics are plummeting, we are expected to pay even more to try bail out this sinking ship.

It's crazy how I'm gonna be paying over 70 grand next year for 3L, when law firm jobs outside OCIP, according to conversation with CDO pay 30-40k. I've even started looking at paralegal jobs.

Basically I've gone 200k in the hole to be paid a secretary's salary, but all this is ok because I am receiving "a world class education." It's my fault for thinking this meant something in the real world.

7/15/2011 12:32 PM  
Blogger Slam Master A said...

"the death penalty costs us $184M a year"

That is a remarkably misleading comment; it isn't the death penalty that costs us money, it is the inefficiency of the appeal process. Moreover, what is the difference in cost between the appeal of a person who is convicted and sentenced to life in prison as opposed to a person who is convicted an sentenced to death? Rather than claiming it is the death penalty that is so expensive, why not implement a version of AEDPA in California, which would streamline the enforcement of sentences and reduce the cost of appeals?

7/15/2011 1:17 PM  
Blogger James said...


There's been two separate sets of hikes- the ones imposed by the Regents and the ones particular to Boalt. The hikes imposed by the Regents have nothing to do with the logic you're citing.

7/15/2011 1:21 PM  
Blogger Slam Master A said...

Just to clarify: I'm certain that it costs more to appeal a death penalty case than a life sentence. My comment is more that it is not a problem of the death penalty, it's a problem of the inefficient appeal process.

7/15/2011 1:25 PM  
Blogger Armen said...

If only we could look to history to teach us about states killing efficiently...

7/15/2011 1:29 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

. . . if only Judge Dredd were real.

7/15/2011 4:41 PM  
Blogger Dan said...

Yes, that is the REAL problem with the death penalty: too many chances to prove your innocence! Oh Slam Master A, you are so reliable.

7/15/2011 6:55 PM  
Blogger Carbolic said...

Dan, almost NO death penalty appeals are about actual innocence.

And I'm sure if you were to ask California voters to choose between funding the death penalty and subsidizing law students, I'm pretty sure the former is going to win out.

7/15/2011 7:11 PM  
Blogger Armen said...

And as we all know, California voters consistently make the correct choice.

7/15/2011 7:14 PM  
Blogger Armen said...

Putting snark aside, it really takes some chutzpah to rest an argument on the moral authority of the California voters, when it's actually the folly of the same voters that has exacerbated and strained the state's finances for the past 30+ years.

Yes, free education, 0 crime, and no taxes for all! Why not? It's what California voters would choose.

7/15/2011 7:23 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Slam Master A is spot on. The state Republicans put forward a series of bills to streamline the death penalty appeals process several years ago, including sensible measures like automatically appointing paid appellate counsel and removing mandatory Cal Sup. Ct. review, but they were summarily voted down by the dems. The dems, of course, are the very same people who use the "it's too costly" argument against the death penalty, pretty disingenuous eh? Sadly, par for the course for Democrats.

7/15/2011 9:19 PM  
Blogger Patrick said...

I am a person who opposes the death penalty (for systemic injustice reasons but maybe not for case-by-case moral reasons) but I have no problem agreeing that IF we are going to have the death penalty, we ought to streamline the state appellate process a great deal. AEDPA and related SCOTUS cases have helped at the federal level (mavericks notwithstanding) but right now we have the worst kind of baby-splitting: a horrendously expensive appellate process almost inevitably affirms initial trial results. The end result is exactly what death penalty opponents and criminal defense attorneys have nightmares about: a judiciary so inundated with frivolous, bullshit death penalty appeals that it approaches each case with an almost irrebuttable presumption of guilt.

As to the last sentence of 9:19's comment. True enough, but that's sort of like saying "all democrats have noses." In other words, good point, but it has nothing to do with them being democrats. That kind of self-serving hypocrisy is par for the course for human beings in general.

7/15/2011 9:33 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Slam Master A --

the HuffPo article is a little confusingly written, but to answer your question, the death penalty costs the state $184 million MORE per year than if death had not been sought in those cases; in other words, $184 more per year than equivalent LWOP cases.

the LA Times article is better:,0,3505671.story

7/16/2011 3:19 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...


7/16/2011 5:57 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I partly also fault ourselves for still selling our schools so hard. At admitted students day, I heard fellow classmates telling admits Boalt grads get the same job as Harvard students, and that any Boalt student can get a high paying job or whatever they want.

We still sell our school like everyone has the world as our oyster. Meanwhile many of our grads will be making min wage at doc review, while others may never have the chance to practice law. The difference in the opportunities presented to students through job stats and word of mouth is so out of touch with reality, its just sad.

Dean Edl*y also keeps saying "hey you guys are all gonna make 160k, stop bitching," I don't know what it will take to get the truth out.

7/16/2011 8:34 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

And what if you're honest?

Me> "[Random number] percent of you won't get jobs that pay 160k even if you want one. Generally it's based on grades but all we can tell you is that unless you're in the top 10-15% you're not guaranteed a biglaw job."

0L> "Oh, it doesn't matter, it'll probably be alright."

Me> "Uh, no, you don't understand. It may not be alright. You may end up making only 30k a year and not get any loan repayment assistance, if you have to work in the low end of the private sector for example."

0L> "But there are a TON of public interest jobs out there. Everyone needs lawyers."

Me> "Yeah, public interest groups need lawyers, but they also need money for your salary. Public interest groups hire sporadically and they've been shrinking the past three years, not growing."

0L> "Could it really be that bad? I never hear about stuff like that at T14 schools... It'll probably be okay by the time I graduate. I could keep going."

Me> "Facepalm. Yes, actually I just SAID 'facepalm' so you know how frustrated I am with you."

7/16/2011 10:58 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

So, I admittedly went the private route, but I'm wondering if it's possible to start your own public interest law practice and receive LRAP that way. I imagine some of you are much more intimately familiar with the rules/requirements than I am, but I would suspect that, to the extent one could do work for low income people or something, even though their "actual income" would be super low, they would likely end up ahead cumulatively if they received LRAP.

7/17/2011 12:01 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Why do people keep claiming we have an LRAP program? We have an IBR-indentured servitude support program, but that's not the same thing. Everyone on "LRAP", the loan REPAYMENT assistance program, (class of 2013 and beyond), is not having their loans repaid, as the balance on their loans is not being reduced.

Oh, and if we have a republican president and 2 red houses in 2 years (very likely given recent polling (god forbid)), IBR could easily be repealed, leaving students with loan balances in the 300-400k range.

We do not have LRAP anymore, just a loan deferral program based on a political gamble.

7/17/2011 2:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

does anyone have a good sense of the extent to which IBR is on the chopping block right now as part of a debt deal? I would think almost anything would come before big cuts to social security and medicare, including IBR, but haven't actually heard it ever mentioned -- maybe because no one knows about it, and maybe because it's sooo much cheaper than social security and medicare (i would think). i would also think obama would kind of fight for this -- he's an education guy, right? -- but i could also see him sacrificing it for a big debt deal that'll position him in the center.

i mean, at this point, they'll probably do a smaller deal or the mcconnell plan anyway, but i wish we could get people as riled up over cutting programs like IBR as seniors are over cutting social security and medicare. or, i wish politicians would be as scared of students in debt as they are of seniors. are they?

7/17/2011 12:19 PM  
Blogger Matt said...

12:19, short answer: students don't vote.

7/17/2011 1:54 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Does LRAP have a plan for when IBR is repealed and students have around 250 thousand in debt?

7/17/2011 4:27 PM  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home