First to say California is going to the shiter

Firstovich

Firstovich

first to say:

THIS IS GREAT NEWS FOR LOYOLA LAW SCHOOL!

Screw that. BYU to 8K!

you gotta be nuts to enroll in law school these days. Probably more open jobs in the railroad industry.

BYU? are you serious? why not just go to law school in canada.

Keep in mind that these tuition increases are estimated to still be at least 10% below projected market rates for in-state residents.

stop paying worthless professors 200k and the problem will be solved.

My god...

8 -
No.
-6.

Iron Eagle was an excellent movie.

Holy shit! They are increasing tuition to help increase financial aid?

That's like increasing taxes to pay for tax cuts. Just another good reason to stay the hell out of any Cali law school.

She is a "10," just beautiful:

http://www.runnersworld.com/photo/sarahpalin/slide4.html

And for those "fist of God" wannabees:

http://www.runnersworld.com/photo/sarahpalin/slide2.html

I hate to ask, but with tuition like this for "public law school", I shudder to think what the tuition is for the private schools out in CA.

Fortunately, if you spend your 1L summer in California, it's relatively easy to get instate tuition for your 2L and 3L years.

Those out-of-state numbers aren't quite as scary as they could be if you only have to pay it for one year.

Elie, f*ck you, and your mothaf*ckin mama...

You're telling me it's not worth $40k (resident) / $50k (non-resident) to go to THE UC Hastings School of Law?

Firstly, Hastings is, and has always been, acredited. Secondly, why Hastings Deserves Top 20 Rank:

1) I had 33 BigLaw Interviews during 2L OCI and 8 offers (I graduated in top 25% in 2008)

2) My first year profs all wrote their own text books; Prof. Hazard, my civ pro prof, taught Justice Alito civil procedure at Yale.

Do us all a favor and just freeze out all law schools for three years.

Do us all a favor and just freeze out all law schools for three years.

paying 50k IN STATE to go to UC Davis? come on now, that's just a scam.

I thought BYU was in Canada.

Thank god for new loan repayment programs -- IBR (income-based repayment) and PSLF (Public Service Loan Forgiveness). May big law (no IBR or PSLF) become unaffordable!!!

Thank god for new loan repayment programs -- IBR (income-based repayment) and PSLF (Public Service Loan Forgiveness). May big law (no IBR or PSLF) become unaffordable!!!

Thank god for new loan repayment programs -- IBR (income-based repayment) and PSLF (Public Service Loan Forgiveness). May big law (no IBR or PSLF) become unaffordable!!!

I'm not certain of this, but I believe UC Davis is the most expensive law school not accredited by the American Bar Association.

Congrats, the UC schools pretty much priced themselves out of the market for decent students. If you're going to end up paying that much, might as well go to a higher-ranked private school. By 2012, it'll just be Boalt and UCLA with any sort of respectability -- the others will become even worse TTTs than they are now.

19 - Are you kidding me? Go to UC Hastings right now. See what percent of their 2L class came away from OCI with an offer. Hastings has no business in the top-20, and you know it.

24-26: Exactly, because spending the first 25 years of my career earning virtually nothing is exactly what I want to do to get the government to forgive my loans. Sounds like a great plan!

this is the very definition of a government-sponsored ponzi scheme and we all know the taxpayers will be left holding the bag. uc is increasing tuition on future students to pay for lraps for the unexpectedly high number of current students who cannot find gainful legal employment. guess what will happen when the future students start graduating.

Irvine has to take a big hit from this.

It's bad enough that the school lacks any sort of reputation, though I have to admire the sort of curricular experiment I hear is happening there.

It gets worse when not only is the free tuition offer vanishing for any prospective students going forward, but also that suddenly very not free tuition is getting jacked up even further like some poor guy on the wrong end of a Ray Lewis tackle.

Come to think of it, that might be how to dissuade naive young-uns from going to law school these days. Hire Ray Lewis for a day, have him tackle them all, and let them know that this is what the legal job market feels like these days.

For all of those complaining there are too many lawyers (which there are), too many law schools (there are), and too many law students (clearly), this should come as welcome news. Its simply supply and demand adjusting to its new equilibrium. Previously law school tuition was too low, allowing an arbitrage; BigLaw job paying 100k+ if you simply went to 3 more years of school. Result? Way too many lawyers and law students. Raise the price of tuition (supply) until the number of people (largely idiots) who demand law school falls. Result? Few law students, ergo, fewer lawyers. Additionally, as fewer students can afford to go to law school and fewer firms can afford to hire and pay BigLaw wages, the number of law schools will begin to shrink as they quickly turn from money makers to losers, further shrinking the number of law students and lawyers. Current lawyers and law students should rejoice in this news that tuition is continuing to skyrocket as this will serve as a necessary barrier to entry for the endless masses that see law school as their way out of this recession. And yes, I went to business school instead of law school, used to work at an I-Bank and now work at a hedge fund. No guts, no glory. Best of luck to all of us.

THEY TOOK AWR JOBZ!

i don't know why i read this website it's f*cking depressing!

29 is functionally retarded

Irvine is dead as a doornail from this. The combination of recession, UC funding cutbacks, massive UC tuition increases, no school reputation, no accreditation, etc. is going to be fatal. In this economy, who the hell is going to want to make a $150k gamble on an unaccredited law school that will provide paltry, at best, job prospects because of its non-existent alumni-base?

crazy

I am currently going to UVA rather than Boalt because UVA is far less expensive, even without these tuition increases. And I am a California resident. I was told that the UC law schools are very profitable, but that students' tuition fees are going to subsidize programs that lose money. UVA, on the other hand, does not receive any funding from the state, and therefore does not subsidize other university departments. Good for the law school, bad for the music department.

Way overblown. This is a long overdue rationalization of the public higher education sysem. It merely means that those with the means must pay more (as they should - no more government subsidies) and those without means will pay less. It actually makes a ton of sense.

39: Also, UVA won't indoctrinate you in nutty leftist propaganda -- so a double-win for you really.

Someone would pay $50K for Davis, an unaccreditted TTT, when they could pay $45K or less for any other private school with relatively generous financial aid(including HYS)? What a joke!

- HYS SECURE!

get the fuck out of here 33.

No more government subsidies for the rich.

How is it possible that going to USC would be cheaper than going to UCLA?

40: Yeah, it basically means that the middle class kid whose parents can't afford to help him pay for law school ends up paying $150k-$180k and taking out craploads of loans so that his poorer classmate gets more fellowships and a much smaller debtload at graduation -- real fair.

Note to 40 -- many of us who paid full tuition for law school don't have trust funds, rich parents, etc. -- it doesn't take much family income at all to disqualify you for grants.

I can't believe nobody commented on the sex salve.

I can't believe nobody commented on the sex salve.

I suppose I should know this, but is the University of California Los Angeles School of Law an accredited member of the American Bar Association and a member in good standing of Association of American Law Schools ?

47-48:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3bitxD1H52c

The reason the UC schools are getting more expensive is because the state HAS NO FUCKING MONEY LEFT.

Davis is not unaccredited. It has a provisional accreditation with the ABA and will likely be fully accredited no later than 2015. I know because I have several friends currently attending, but this information is also readily available online.

52, Davis is only provisionally accredited with the California Bar Association. It has no accreditation whatsoever with the ABA.

Must suck to be a Davis, Irvine or Hastings student...

Then again, life sucked for those guys before these announcements. Now life just sucks more.

51: Yeah, because of touchy feely, do-gooder liberals who keep passing stupid referendum shit like funding to save the whales, and bullet trains from LA to SF, but who balk at having to pay for such ridiculous projects with higher taxes.

Walmart should open a law school.

UC Davis is $9 MORE than UCLA. California to Hades Tier Toilet.

56: I bet you Hamburger University is doing very well -- probably even better than before given McDonald's rising profits in the down economy. Can't argue with the $1 menu for cheap eats.

The only school remotely worth this on the list is Cal. Geez. And students that get into Cal get in to Stanford, Harvard etc. Why would you pay that money and not get private school luxaries like your own study cube.

You can buy sex salve for like $7.50.

Davis is fully accredited. You must be thinking of Irvine?

Why not raise tuition even higher. There are suckers born every day, so why not soak them while we can. You dumbass law students don't know shit. You deserve a good fucking.

59: Flagrant Cal troll. Most students that get into Cal have like 163-167 LSAT scores and 3.9-4.0 GPAs on average. Unless we're talking about minorities, that range of LSAT would get you anywhere near Stanford or Harvard. To be fair, maybe you could eke into Cornell, Duke, or Northwestern with a 166-167/4.0, but that's about it for the T14.

I suppose that I should know the answer to this, but is the University of California Berkeley Boalt Hall School of Law fully accredited by the American Bar Association and a member in good standing of the Association of American Law Schools?

Correction: That range of LSAT *wouldn't* get you anywhere near Stanford or Harvard.

I suppose that I should know the answer to this, but is the University of California Berkeley Boalt Hall School of Law fully accredited by the American Bar Association and a member in good standing of the Association of American Law Schools?

This just in....White House Obama was not consulted on California law school tuition hikes.

California can solve its financial problems by auctioning seats in its law school. Leave 100 seats for the underrepresented and give them free tuition. The remaining seats in the state are sold to the highest bidders. The lower the LSAT, the more someone would pay to go to Cal or UCLA...Do I hear one billion dollars for the man in the douchey fidora with the 125 LSAT?

This just in....White House says Obama was not consulted on California law school tuition hikes.

68: Well, frankly, test scores like yours would call for a very generous contribution. For example, a score of 160 would require a donation of new football uniforms, 150, a new dormitory, and in your case, we would need an international airport. Cal could use an international airport, 68.

63/65,

Do really need such high grades to get into T14 schools?A 3.9 seems almost impossibly high.

Close UC Irvine and UC Davis law schools. Too many law schools in California. For that matter close Lincoln Law, Whittier, Western State, Chapman, Cal Western, etc. Antyhing Tier 3 or lower in California should go away, except maybe Southwestern.

Then lower professor salaries, law school tuition, associate billing rates, associate billable requirements and associate salaries. Also make pro bono mandatory, that'll spread some hours around. Prohibit outsourcing.

Also, get rid of Prop 13.

I say looking at those prices Congress should revoke the school's tax exempt status. If you want to run a profit making enterprise, then pay some taxes on your profit. And, no, I don't buy it that you aren't making a profit at those tuition rates.

CALIFORNIAN BITCHES SPREAD THOSE BUTT CHEEKS SO RAY LEWIS, THE GOVUHNATOR, UC-IRVINE & YOURS TRULY CAN SMELL THE JUICY, DELICIOUS INSIDES!!!

If you are a current student at one of the institutes noted in this posting, ask yourself if you really love the law.

@32- Extremely good idea.

71: Usually, you don't, but Cal does things differently because of Prop 209 passing and preventing it from overtly practicing affirmative action. Basically, it overemphasizes GPA and underemphasizes LSAT to the extreme so it can allow more minority students in without running afoul of the law.

If you look at the numbers, Cal's LSAT numbers are significantly lower than any other T14, but its GPA numbers rank up there with Stanford and Yale. So yes, pretty much, if you want Cal, there's no margin of error for GPA, but your LSAT can be pretty mediocre. Also, they ask you tons of invasive questions about your background that don't directly reference race, but could be used as proxies for it. For example, did you have any friends on food stamps, etc. -- basically, it's social engineering to the extreme.

But yes, for other T14 schools sans YHS, you don't need that high of a GPA. Anything 3.6+ generally suffices CCN on down.

70,
The market will set the prices. I don't want to pigeon hole anything. I think an auction would be brilliant. People would pay even higher tuition for the chance to graduate from an accredited university-some even for non-accredited (I'm looking at you People's Republic of Berkley Law). What's stopping them at 55K for non-residents. Let the market dictate the price.

Sincerely,
68.

Thanks 75. Would a 166-7 LSAT work with a 3.6 GPA?

77 - nope

77: It's hard to speak authoritatively, but if you want a better idea, look at the ABA Guide to Law Schools for places you're interested in: http://officialguide.lsac.org/

If you're at / above the median numbers for a school, you probably have a pretty solid shot. Don't put too much stock in the 25% numbers though because those are a lot of the "special" admits -- affirmative action, legacy, people with connections, etc.

Another good site is http://www.lawschoolnumbers.com/ where applicants put up their GPAs & LSATs and what law schools they got into / didn't. It'll give you a good idea of the types of ranges that'll get you admitted, waitlisted, rejected, etc. The same caveat about minority applicants applies -- unless you're a minority, filter out the underrepresented minority profiles or else you'll get an unrealistically optimistic view of your chances.

Just based on glancing quickly, you'd probably be a competitive applicant for Cornell, Texas, maybe UCLA . Duke and Georgetown might be good reaches. Most of the other T14 schools would be much bigger reaches, especially anything in the top 6 and Boalt (because of GPA).

William A. Kennedy-Las Vegas Lawyer

increasing tuition beyond the reach of students - call it unjust vexation or unjust enrichment but law schools will always be able to justify their actions otherwise they will not have enrollees

Thanks 79

END THE SCHTICKS !!!

Elie - Can we place a limit on acceptable schticks? I say once a week we vote a schtick off the island until we reach some arbitrary number like 14.

Certain schitcks are annoying but mainstays: Partner E.;
Others are annoying but possibly helpful: Restatement 90 folks;
Some are timely: the guillotine guy and Michael Ray; and
Others are pure classics: Frat Stud.

However, we have reached saturation and what the hell are the dudes from Spinal Tap and the Aflack duck doing on a legal board?!

Anyone that thinks that a 3.9 is "impossibly high" clearly is a) not very bright, and b) doesn't work very hard. Fulfilling either of those conditions can bag you a 3.9.

83: Completely depends on the school, major, and level of grade inflation.

If we're talking about MIT, Caltech, Swarthmore, impossibly high. If we're talking about a hard science major, impossibly high. But if we're talking about a liberal arts major from an Ivy, not impossible at all.

I love how they say the increase will fund LRAP "and other financial aid programs." Translation: more full rides at the top end, subsidized by idiots who will pay any price to go to "the best school" they get into. It's the latest formula for moving up in the rankings, since below-median admits don't affect rank.

We'll see if the market bears it...

LRAP doesn't fund shit

85: It does at the ugrad level, at least if the school is prestigious enough-- all those Harvard full rides are being paid by the full tuition students. Boalt and UCLA won't have a hard time getting people to pay $55k-$60k, but the lesser UCs like Hastings, Davis, San Diego, Irvine, etc. will have much bigger problems. I predict a "brain drain" where their numbers start stagnating, decreasing because the in-state residents will take a private school if the public school isn't much / at all cheaper.

87 - there is no UC San Diego law school

83 - 3.9 at Naval Academy and Math with Engineering minor equivalent averaging 20 hours a semester exclusive of military credits?

I mean escalating costs, decreasing debt, but more law students taking the LSAT. Nuts.

83 - try a 3.9 at Naval Academy and Math with Engineering minor equivalent averaging 20 hours a semester exclusive of military credits. If you can get that . . . kudos.

89: Law schools love high GPAs in non-fluffy majors (math, science, engineering, etc.), and, Navy will help you out as well. Not being another cookie cutter PoliSci or History major from an Ivy helps you stand out a lot.

what is a sex salve?

90: It's a gamble (justified or not) that the economy will turn around in the next 2-3 years and there will once again be high demand for lawyers. Grad school always becomes a popular option during downturns / recessions -- it's a way of avoiding having to enter the job market / real world when your options might not be that good. Of course, getting stuck with a $150k+ bill after three years of law school isn't a great option either...

92 -- sorry that was a bit of snark for 83.

I went to Navy and had something like 2.9 rounded to 3.0. I matriculated through MVPB.

95: Exactly, the academies do very well in grad school admissions (ranked very highly in the WSJ rankings a couple years ago) because admissions people realize that they weren't coddled like most kids at Ivies were, and that they clearly have a lot more on their plate than just doing well in school.

The converse is, that if you're from a grade inflated school (ex, the Ivies) and are majoring in a heavily represented major like PoliSci or History, you damn well better have at least a 3.7-3.8 to be competitive at the top schools. Either that, or a solid 170+ LSAT.

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_TERROR_TRIAL_LAWYER?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT

1. Quit now.

2. Save 100k get finance degree

3. Pillage the taxpayers

4. Repeat step 3.

33 is more right than you all want to admit. and it is laughable to think that any sort of IBR or LRAP will stick around and/or be solvent for the number of people that will need it if ITE persists.

-not 33

88 - there is, but it's called the University of California Western School of Law.

let me get this straight: they're increasing tuition so that they can increase financial aid.

que?

I would like to recommend Suffolk Law School in Boston.

Tuition is only $39,500 a year.

So, when you have included living expenses, you will graduate with only $190,000 in student loan debt upon graduation!!

100 - from what I can tell, Cal Western is still independent and not affiliated with UC

Why doesn't this blog post anything that is not related only to law students please.

I don't give a shit a lot of kids are taking the LSAT, or tuition increases, or harvard makes you pay for a plastic spoon, or some other retarded story aimed at law students.

Thanks,

A real lawyer

I am going to assume that a sex salve is a sex slave. Then I am going to comment on the irony of a black man quipping that a certain amount of money should allow you to own a slave. Way to go mystal- you continue to set race relations back through your ill thought out posts.

WALRUS SALVE

Thank god for chapter 33 and Sen. James Webb. Hello JD and no debt. Thank you taxpayers of ATL for paying my tuition!

I'm glad others saw the absurdity in increasing tuition in order to increase financial aid. Thanks Cali for the wealth redistribution.

31, LRAP doesn't support unemployed students, it only supports ones that are employed at a non-profit. Be so kind as to check your facts before making another of your silly right-wingnut comments.

77: you're reading ATL before even applying to law school?

No more subsidies to the rich and the advantaged to enable them to obtain degrees that perpetuate their wealth and advantages!

109,

Non-profits or various government positions qualify for LRAPs. My point that more students than expected are failing to obtain GAINFUL employment, thus straining LRAP programs to the breaking point., stands.

-31

Wow. UC Davis to 50k! How can an unaccredited school charge such high tuition?

Who would pay 50k to attend an unaccredited law school? Has the school been re-accredited by the ABA?

I wonder if some day the people making these decisions will realize that education is not a free market good.

There's very little information for the consumer before they buy the product. All you have is rankings, but even those are subjective and clearly wrong in this economy. Very few people know what BigLaw really is before they get to law school. They just think I need to go to make money later, the degree will pay for itself etc.

Most importantly, no one cares about cost because you can get all the loans you want from the government now. The perception that you're paying for it is greatly diminished.

109: Not 31, but the point is that it's making all law students pay more in tuition to order to fund the voluntary career choices of a smaller subset of law students. If you want to do public interest, that's great and I commend your choice. I shouldn't be forced to pay extra tuition to fund that choice though. Different types of careers have advantages and disadvantages -- hours / free time, salary, personal fulfillment, etc. There's no need to put a thumb on the scale to make public interest law more attractive -- if you want to do it, fine, but if you don't, fine as well. I have no problem with law schools soliciting donations to help pay for LRAP expenses, but to "tax" their own students to support the program that doesn't benefit all is a bit ridiculous.

To the poster who said "25 years to pay off", it's 10 years under the Fed program. 10 years isn't that long considering it adds around 30k/yr in "salary" (if a firm paid that, before taxes) for someone who has 200k debt.

101: Yes. Basically they charge the bottom half of the class more, so they can throw more money at the top quarter-half. IOW, if you pay full sticker for law school, you're picking up the tab for the same people who are going to beat you out for the best jobs.

- 85, went to a state school on scholly.

101: Much like Obama wants to increase taxes on the rich and middle class in order to fund social programs and initiatives to help the poor. The parallels are striking -- in both systems, we're eventually going to get two classes -- the "rich / middle class" who pay full tuition / very high taxes and the "poor" who pay no tuition (fellowship!) / pay no tax (and actually receive net money back). Redistribution much?

I want my own sex salve. Davis here I cum!!!

117: Uh, not exactly. Merit-based scholarships are few and far between at the top schools. They might have a few merit-based awards at the top, but most students don't receive them. The overwhelming majority of the redistributed dollars are going to need-based students -- in other words, it doesn't matter if they end up in the top 10% or the bottom 10% -- full tuition students are effectively paying for them to attend law school.

118 = neocon fail.

High LSAT/UGPA? You go for free, or at a discount.

Low numbers? Full freight.

Meritocracy, baby. Anyone who thinks a substantial portion of the tuition hike is going to fund LRAP can see Putin from their porch.

121: You're a fucking moron. The only time law schools will give you a substantial merit-based scholarship is when you could clearly go to a much better law school instead. HYS aren't giving out many non-need based full rides, and the only ones given out at CCN are to students who would otherwise go to HYS. Otherwise, you might get a token $5k-$10k merit scholarship to make you feel better, but that's it. The better the law school, the less they throw around merit aid. I don't care how things worked at your middling law school -- the top schools aren't throwing around tons of merit-based aid. That's just not how the system works.

So go in-state or don't go is no longer a choice in Cali?

And this is just the tuition & fees, kiddies. Don't forget to tack on California COL, especially for UCLA.

122: This thread is about the UC schools, which do not include HYSCCN. Boalt might not give out much merit aid (or it might, I dunno), but the rest most assuredly do.

120: The irony is of course, that everyone should be in the same need based category, since everyone can take out all the loans they need.

Looking at personal assets doesn't make sense since most people are coming directly from undergrad and therefore have never had a job that pays above the poverty line, and the fact that many people have parents/uncles etc footing the bill.

124: I don't think UCLA does either. And honestly, merit-based aid is kind of stupid, because GPA/LSAT numbers aren't necessarily great predictors of law school performance. Many students who "take the money" end up right in the middle of their law school class or worse. Conversely, many of the full tuition students, who may not have the best numbers, end up being the superstars. And yes, you could condition the scholarship aid money on academic performance, but in most cases (at non-Cooley or Florida Int'l schools), the conditions are super wussy like maintain a 3.0. It's basically bribing people with high numbers to matriculate at your law school so you can boost your USNews numbers. The relationship to actual law school performance is very much questionable so to call it a meritocracy would be a huge overstatement.

125: Exactly, instead of leveling the playing field, you leave the previously middle class student with $150k of loans while the previously poor student has no law debt whatsoever. The poor student could have taken out the exact same loans as the middle class student. It's naked wealth distribution because law schools feel bad for the poor and want to give them a leg up.

Unless we're talking about the very wealthy, I don't necessarily think a lot of people have parents, uncles, etc. footing the law school bill though. There are many many more full tuition students taking out $50k / year of loans to pay law tuition off vs. their families paying for it.

Don't go to any of these schools. Actually, don't go to law school at all. The cost, including opportunity cost, is too much now, for speculative returns.

Damn it! 34 is trying to TAKE MY JERB! I don't take kindly to his type around here!

127: While I agree with your point, you sort of missed mine. My point was that it's impossible to tell who is actually "poor."

Virtually everyone should be viewed as poor since almost everyone comes right from undergrad, where they didn't ever make money.

I'm fairly sure that law schools don't look at parents, like colleges do because a 23 year old isn't an 18 year old dependent.

In any case, that's not fair either because a lot more parents are going to refuse to pay for law school than college. Furthermore it's really easy for parents to hide income or assets during the year the student applies.

Trying to figure out who is rich or poor only hurts those people that chose to go work a regular job for a few years before law school because now someone making $45k a year looks like a king compared to everyone else. If that person knew better, they would voluntarily impoverish themselves the year before applying.

The underlying point is still the same though. The reason colleges give financial aid to poor students is because they can't afford to go. In the current regime EVERYONE can afford to go by taking out loans from the government. SO there's no reason to give out "need based" aid.

PATHETIC

The people responsible for making these decisions should be fired - they are destroying life as we know it.

While I understand that there is less and less money coming from the state, what is reprehensible is that the students are getting any more value - what we're really paying for is inflated salaries: http://www.sacbee.com/statepay/

Check out any law professor in the UC system and check out how much they make. While I'm all for getting the best faculty, we're going to be actively scaring away out of state students at close to $60k a year (even if only for the first year). This is going to be a disaster.

UCLA INSECURE

UC Hastings is a great school. The tuition isn't all that different from any of those NYC schools.

UC Hastings is a great school. The tuition isn't all that different from any of those NYC schools.

"are NOT" getting any more value

- 132

UC Hastings is a great school. The tuition isn't all that different from any of those NYC schools.

130: They most certainly do look at parental income unless you're like 5-7 years removed from being on your parents' tax return as an exemption. This basically means that anyone going straight through or not taking 3+ years off will get zero financial aid if their parents are middle class or better.

This is the unfair position that many middle class students end up in -- their parents are too rich for them to get any financial aid from their law school, but their parents are too poor to pay for their law school. The result: the student has to take out $50k+ in loans per year while the student with slightly poorer parents gets a full ride.

Iron Eagle will provide all the answers you all seek.

The public loan forgiveness isn't tax free. If you discharge a 300k loan through that, you better have $150k saved up to pay off your tax bill in year 10.

139: Actually, I recall learning in tax class that the IRS has ruled LRAP forgiven loans are not considered taxable income:

http://www.acslaw.org/node/12506

This is really going to kill Davis, Hastings, and especially Irvine.

The really interesting issue for me is the USC versus UCLA situation. UCLA's marginally better ranking and lower tuition often makes the choice between schools swing towards UCLA. However, with the tuition rates becoming closer -- and USC possibly being cheaper for out of state students -- the decision becomes far more difficult.

Private school perks for a cheaper price and a very similar ranking? Hmmmmm. To bad USC's neighborhood is such a shithole...

This is really going to kill Davis, Hastings, and especially Irvine.

The really interesting issue for me is the USC versus UCLA situation. UCLA's marginally better ranking and lower tuition often makes the choice between schools swing towards UCLA. However, with the tuition rates becoming closer -- and USC possibly being cheaper for out of state students -- the decision becomes far more difficult.

Private school perks for a cheaper price and a very similar ranking? Hmmmmm. To bad USC's neighborhood is such a shithole...

141-142: Also, if USC starts stealing away students who might have otherwise attended UCLA, that could boost its admissions numbers and cause UCLA's to go down. Then, I wouldn't be surprised if USC moves up a little bit in the rankings and UCLA moves down a little bit so that it's really a coin flip between the two schools.

137: I suppose this will vary a lot by school then as to how much "need based" aid they will give out. My parents had an EFC of 0 (I know this because my sister applied to college that year) when I applied and I got nothing.

As to the second paragraph- yeah, or they just refuse to. College is different from law school. Punishing the student because the parents won't pay.

139- I've heard this as well, but it sounds preposterous. I went to an Access group seminar in April and they said the tax implications were unclear at this time (from the language of the bill) but efforts are under way to not count it as taxable income. As a common sense comment, expecting someone who we know is poor to suddenly pay (probably) 2-3x their gross income is ridiculous. Even if they're expected to save over the 10 years for this.

I think at that point I'd consider declaring bankruptcy just to get away from it.

Yep, future students are so hosed. You can thank the left leaning, liberal arts grad students for this. Back in the early 90's as a student at UCLA when you paid $1000 per semester at the law school, they first proposed differential tuition rates for MBA, JD, and MD students at all UC schools since they said they would supposedly make money versus all those who wanted to pursue humanities, social sciences grad degrees and help society. And now some of these same people will argue we are restricting access to law schools or will now have to work for the man because of the cost of law school, boohoo. You should have thought of that when you wanted higher tuition on professional school students back then.

126, I'm an almost full scholarship at a school in the 60ish range, and I turned down paying sticker price at schools in the 10-15 range. I have found, with myself and my friends, that the people on scholarship with high LSAT/UGPA are among the highest in the class. Not to start a debate, just saying it actually is a pretty decent indicator.

146: The lower the rank of the school, the better the indicator GPA/LSAT is for giving out merit aid. At lower ranked schools like yours, there's often a huge difference between some of the merit scholarship kids and the ones paying full tuition. Ex, someone with a 170 LSAT getting a full ride at T50-T60 school with an average LSAT of 150 -- a 20 point difference.

However, the higher you go in the rankings, the more arbitrary scholarship money becomes in terms of LSAT / GPA differences. Ex, someone with a 171-172 LSAT getting a full ride at ex, Cornell, which has an average LSAT of 166-167 -- a 5-6 point difference. In other words, it's much easier to have superstar merit scholarship students at lower ranked schools than higher ranked schools.

Just an observation from the Chicago market place- All the JDs stacking I know work at mid market firms and live in Kenilworth/Winnetka, Illinois. All the attorneys I know at BigLaw live in Naperville and drive Acura SUVS. I would say I know about 4 or 5 in each bucket.

The younger people at BigLaw are making a shit load though, I'll give them that. However, I would rather make $50K less, be able to afford a condo in the same building, have more time to bang chicks and not be that douche bag wearing a blazer outside of Rockit asking me to bum another fucking cigarette.

"Well, he was probably a closet homosexual who did a lot of cocaine. That whole Yale thing."

We need to bomb California back to the stone age.

SMALLAW (SHITLAW) SECURE

There are a lot of good posts here, but people seem to be still stuck with the old numbers. You borrowed 50-55K a year when tuition was 35K (unless you had a part time job that you could live off, side money stashed away, or parents' support). Now, with a 50-55K tuition, you'd have to borrow 70K per year. Subsidized Stafford is only a minor portion of that, so the bulk of it is accumulating interest while you're still in school, resulting in 215+ in three years (and more with tuition hikes). And some people would have to add their undergraduate debt burden to that.

For a debt not dischargeable in bankruptcy, this is completely ruinous financially, especially with a job prospects that a graduate from UC Davis is likely to have.

Quite frankly, law schools should be treated as subprime mortgage brokers at this point - for pushing a "path to wealth" onto poor shmucks (not all of whom are particularly bright, by the way) with misleading information about the full financial consequences of their decisions. Really, with the information they print in their advertising brochures and recruiting materials about "average salary", employment rates, etc. we're rapidly approaching the point where snake oil salesmen look innocent by comparison.

I am going to assume that a sex salve is a sex slave. Then I am going to comment on the irony of a black man quipping that a certain amount of money should allow you to own a slave. Way to go mystal- you continue to set race relations back through your ill thought out posts.

150 has it right on the money, especially thinking of them as subprime mortgages. Except we were trying to better ourselves and sacrificing gratification now for rewards later instead of buying more house than we needed.

Berkeley Law students are very understanding about the fee hikes. That's why law students are walking out tomorrow for the first time at Berkeley Law in... pretty much forever (it must have been "Boalt" the last time this happened).

This worst part of it is that Dean Edley straight-up lied to all of us about it, too. His email was entirely like, "Nothing to see here; this is nothing new, just a little $600 increase." In fact, our tuition next year will be over $8,000 more next year than it is this year.

I'd rather go to the #1 public school in America than the #6 private one...

Berkeley Law students are very understanding about the fee hikes. That's why law students are walking out tomorrow for the first time at Berkeley Law in... pretty much forever (it must have been "Boalt" the last time this happened).

This worst part of it is that Dean Edley straight-up lied to all of us about it, too. His email was entirely like, "Nothing to see here; this is nothing new, just a little $600 increase." In fact, our tuition next year will be over $8,000 more next year than it is this year.

You can see the student response here:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/22674512/BLOC-Open-Letter-Print-Edition

I'd rather go to the #1 public school in America then the #6 private one...

A sub 3.7 GPA from an Ivy, along with a 178 LSAT and some interesting essays, can get you into YLS. At least, it could 10 years ago.

153/154: You'd rather go to Boalt than NYU or Chicago? Well, it obviously depends where you want to practice, but unless it's CA, I'd take NYU or Chicago easily. And, with all these tuition hikes, even if I wanted to practice in CA, I still might take NYU or Chicago.

155: Agreed on Yale, but it's such a wild card that anything is theoretically possible with them if you make the right case. Each year, Yale even takes at least an applicant or two in the mid to high 150s LSAT range with compelling enough of a case (look at the accepted student LSAT range on their admissions site). It's small and exclusive enough that it can do whatever it wants basically.

That having been said, unless you have some ridiculous story or very particularized need for being at Yale -- like being the preeminent young scholar in X area and needing study with a prof there, it's going to be a longshot. However, Yale's emphasis on taking "interesting" people has sometimes backfired -- for example, a certain graduate of the school well-known for writing books in praise of difficult women.

For more info on how crazy Yale is:
http://www.law.yale.edu/admissions/profile.htm

Yale's 25% GPA is 3.81, which means that the sub 3.7 GPA applicant would probably be in the bottom 15%-20% of the class in that category. In other words, not exactly playing the percentages even with the 75%+ LSAT score.

Also interesting is that 80% of YLS admits accept and only 49 turned the offer down, which puts to rest all the "I know dozens of people at my school who got into Yale but turned it down for X" bullshitting by people.

it's worth noting that tuition hikes are across all UC campuses...undergrad tuition is to be raised by 32 % over the next year...Sacramento has lost its mind and the students are striking [at least at Cal] for the next 3 days...

these might as well be private schools now :[

Hastings 3L. Too busy to strike.

I graduated from UC Hastings in 1999. At the time, my annual tuition and fees was approximately $11,000, and my total educational debt was around $50,000 (I attended another California public institution for my undergrad). My starting salary at BigLaw was $85,000 (this was before the Gunderson bump to $125k).

Today, starting salaries at BigLaw are $140k-$160k, less than double what they were in 1999. The UC System, however, is proposing and will likely pass fee increases four-fold from what I paid. The ROI just went down significantly based on this. Add in the fact that most UC law school graduates don't end up in BigLaw, and you have just created a major disincentive to attend law school in California.

I was born in California and have lived here for 40 years. Our state is rapidly going to hell in a handbasket.

This is just sad.

Obviously they are doing this because of state funding cut backs combined with the fact that law schools are viewed by university executives as one of their biggest revenue engines, be damned the fact that the legal industry is imploding and cannot absorb all these graduates. Universities have always been very cavalier about burdening students with debt while concurrently saying their mission is to educate students and not prepare them for the future employment that will help the students service that very debt! Why does anyone assume such a debt if there was not some expectancy of a future ROI?

This time hopefully the lemmings will not blinding go to slaughter and attendance will drop due to such massive price increases. Even the uninformed should pause and try to figure out how they will pay off such a massive debt and discover that the legal profession, unlike medicine, does not have the same certainty of employment, let alone substantial compensation to service the debt.

147, this is 146 again. if you think the schools rank 50-60 have an LSAT of 150... you might want to take a look at some numbers. I don't know anyone who had lower than like a 155, and our average is somewhere around a 163. It's not really that much of a difference than the 167 you mention at Cornell.

33 Would be right but for a single caveat - loans eliminate the price pressure on law school demand. Because student loans are basically given to anyone and everyone with a pulse and an acceptance letter, almost anyone can attend law school regardless the cost.

The law school cost breaking point has not been reached (yet), but what we REALLY need is limited access to loans. That, more than cost, will drive down demand.

boy am I happy that I went to a UC law school when in-state tuition was $1,500 per year!

My friends tell me that unaccredited UC Davis chicks will do almost anything to get a job these days. My guess is that once tuition goes to 50k they'll spend the majority of any interview they're lucky enough to get on their knees giving oral pleasure in the faint hope of getting a callback.

Not going to read through all the comments. Suffice it to say, these hikes are ridiculous. It would be safe to assume that a substantial portion, if not a majority of the tuition paid to most law schools goes to fund money-losing programs at the graduate and undergraduate levels. Unfortunately, some students at GW tried suing over this type of shennanigans in 1997 and lost (with the real boot in the ass being they were required to pay GW's attorneys' fees!)

While I understand education is not business, market forces have always dictated what knowledge is passed on to the next generation. Not too many people can read ancient hieroglyphics these days. Why? Because there is no need. Universities should hit up specific donors for funding less-popular academic areas instead of ass raping law students. As the current market shows, the vast majority of young lawyers aren't making big bucks (and many never will).

You want to reduce the number of lawyers? Simply raise the academic requirements to get in and stay in law school. This will ensure a higher quality law student, and hence, a higher quality lawyer (at least by objective academic standards - capability to practice and generate business can't be measured at the point of admission).

166,

I heard UC Davis guys are doing the same.

LOL at going to Cal Western and thinking it's UC.

150 found an eloquent way to let ya'll know that financing a JD is financial suicide.

156,
You are freakin retard if you pick NYU or Chicago over Boalt if you want to work in Cal. Boalt has great access all over the country so I don't know what the hell your talking about. Last time I checked it was CNBC!

Stop hating, don't hate the player, hate the game....

Sweet, next year's UC Davis OCIs to be held in the nearest Holiday Inn.

The ship be sinking...

@ 164, 33 here. I know (as I took out loans for B-school) that loans are easy to come by, but the tuition increases are forcing people to think about the potential risks/rewards. With tuition at even 25k, the risk/reward probably still favors 3 years of law school right after college without much thought, even with the debt. But with tuition at 50k, now how appealing is it to take on 150k+ of debt, when you may or may not get a BigLaw job with BigLaw pay. Ultimately, its a free society and if people want to go into debt, that they cant discharge, to further their education, then so be it. But with tuition skyrocketing and their potential debt load increasing, it will (or should) make them think more carefully about rushing into a decision that ultimately won't be positive for them or their profession. I did the cost/benefit analysis before I went back to school, of course, it was much easier when I was only making $30k back in 1992 and tuition was $25k, but my salary+bonus after 2 years would be over $100k. If instead of 50k in debt, I would've had closer to $200k, and my future job/salary was much less clear, I'd have thought long and hard before going, and certainly wouldnt have gone to a lower tier school. I still thought about it quite a bit before enrolling in my (Top 3?) B-school program at Chicago

170:

"You are freakin retard if you pick NYU or Chicago over Boalt if you want to work in Cal. Boalt has great access all over the country so I don't know what the hell your talking about. Last time I checked it was CNBC!

Stop hating, don't hate the player, hate the game...."

I assume you are a Boalt student. If so, you are exactly why most would choose NYU or Chi over Boalt.

Let me correct your post:

"156,
You are A freakin retard if you pick NYU or Chicago over Boalt if you want to work in Cal. Boalt has great access all over the country COMMA so I don't know what the hell YOU'RE talking about. [STRIKE LAST SENTENCE IN PARAGRAPH AS COMPLETELY UNINTELLIGIBLE]

[STRIKE LAST SENTENCE IN POST AS MORONIC]"

I'm glad I don't go to Boalt, where I'd be surrounded by idiots who still don't know the difference between YOUR and YOU'RE. What is that, like third grade grammar? You should probably apply for an editor position at ATL.

-HYS SECURE!

170:

"You are freakin retard if you pick NYU or Chicago over Boalt if you want to work in Cal. Boalt has great access all over the country so I don't know what the hell your talking about. Last time I checked it was CNBC!

Stop hating, don't hate the player, hate the game...."

I assume you are a Boalt student. If so, you are exactly why most would choose NYU or Chi over Boalt.

Let me correct your post:

"You are A freakin retard if you pick NYU or Chicago over Boalt if you want to work in Cal. Boalt has great access all over the country COMMA so I don't know what the hell YOU'RE talking about. [STRIKE LAST SENTENCE IN PARAGRAPH AS COMPLETELY UNINTELLIGIBLE]

[STRIKE LAST SENTENCE IN POST AS MORONIC]"

I'm glad I don't go to Boalt, where I'd be surrounded by idiots who still don't know the difference between YOUR and YOU'RE. What is that, like third grade grammar? You should probably apply for an editor position at ATL.

-HYS SECURE!

WTF?! Increase tuition to provide more loan repayment assistance and financial aid?! So basically soak everyone to help out a few? This isn't healthcare or even basic education, regular "tax" and social policy really doesn't apply. How is it even remotely acceptable to put unsurmountable student loan debt on students just to give a hand to a few?!

I applied to both Quinnipiac Law School and Vermont Law School. Both schools have reported great employment figures. According to their respective websites, QLS is going to be charging $40,000 for tuition next year, while VLS' is going to be charging $39,995. Should I take the $5 discount? I could really use a sandwich.

I have the same question as 177

130: UPenn State does, even for 26-year-olds who already have their own careers. hooray for getting to ask my parents for their tax returns, even though they never kicked in a dime for college!

The Regents, but more importantly, the Legislature, are making a joke of the fifty year plan for the UC's. The idea was to create the finest public education institutions and allow anyone who met the academic qualifications to attend. Now, only the very rich or very poor can affford to attend, even at the undergraduate level. But we have only ourselves to blame. It started with Prop 13 thirty years ago, and now we reap the harvest of selfishness and an inability to govern properly.

Twenty years ago, California spent 13% on education and less than 6% on prisons. The numbers are now flipped. The UC's will become privatized in our lifetime, unless we get our house in order.

We need to:

(1) decriminalize all non-violent "victimless" crimes such as drug possession, prostitution, etc. and tax them. The "War on Drugs" has worked as well as Prohibition.

(2) Reorient spending priorities to things that actually pay a benefit in the long run like education, infrastrucure, etc.

(3) Call a constitutional convention to change the California constitution to something manageable, and limit the initiative process''s capability of making constitutional change without the Legislature and the Governor going along.

My seven siblings and I went through the UC's and four of have advanced degrees from their professional schools. We could not do that now with these tuition levels.

People 'fail' in all pursuits. Kids move away from family to train for Olympics. If the athlete does not make team, it sucks life is hard. There is little return on time invested. All industry is full of failure. Most restaurants fail. If you spend major $$ to go to law school and you do not get an associate position, oh well dust yourself. There is so much info on the web about law, law school, the legal industry and job market generally, any person who goes to law school without doing thirty minutes of research gets what they deserve for not making an informed decision. If people are making informed decisions to risk 100k debt to have a shot at 130 -160k at 26 - I understand. Life is not over if you swing and miss, open a bakery you might even get a TV show.

I actually think the BigLaw job market is going to get tighter. There are less private equity firms (hedge funds to a lesser degree etc) for partners and senior associate movement. There will be less firm attrition thus less hiring. There will be pressure for in-house staff to do more work and using less outside counsel. The market WILL respond. In the near future WSJ will have headline 'Law Schools Scrambling to Fill Seats' First Sentence, "While applications to #1 Law School, #2 Law School…etc have remained steady since and in the case of Law School X there has been a slight increase in applications since 2009 Tier II school X has experienced a 25% decrease in applications, with Tier III school X struggling to keep its doors open...

LOL at the Hastings kids trying to rationalize this.....suckers!!!!

@ Anyone who remembers

When I made the serious decision to go to law school back in 2005 and applied in 2006, were there any sites similar to ATL that were exposing the law school scam?

What I am getting at, is that for many of us graduating this year (2010), I don't recall there being gobs of info that would have allowed me to understand the scam that is law school. The only salary info I had access to was the info contained in those glossy brochures. Nor did I know any lawyers at the time (and I still don't know all that many to be honest). Anyone care to chime in on whether the info was available then compared to the amount of info now?

A lot of law school tuition funds crap that is useless. You will pay thousands in extra loan payments for the law school to buy expensive furniture, groundskeeping, throwing lavish receptions, overpaying older professors who are no longer relevant, etc. Also, every law school funds several law review and speciality journals. Most practicing lawyers ignore 99 % of all law review articels b/c most of them are porrly written and have no basis with what the law really is. Law schools could save a lot of money by not buying these rags.

184 - this is all true, but it doesn't matter as long as naive people continue to apply to law school. Vote with your wallet and things will change.

183

There is clearly more info now. Circumstances are different now so the incentive to seek information is greater.

Note: I attended law school before you.
Then - Top Tier Law School JDs were getting stock options at Tech companies even though no one knew how the companies would make money (most did not.)

The trickle down meant firms interviewed deeper at lower ranked schools. Firms also raised salaries for 1st years. I remember a classmate who accepted firm offer receiving notification that firm was raising starting salary. Students at my Tier III school w/ top grades and solid summer work had jobs / clerkships, maybe 5 -7% BigLaw (Journal / Moot court types) a lot of gov't. 2009 lesser Fed agencies are receiving hundreds of resumes for attorney posting with HLS, YALE etc in the applicant pool in greater #s compared to years past.

[URL=http://www.topuggshoes.com/ugg-classic-short-c-63.html] Ugg Classic Short Boots [/URL]

[URL=http://www.topuggshoes.com/ugg-classic-tall-c-46.html] Ugg Classic Tall Boots[/URL]

[URL=http://www.topuggshoes.com/ugg-classic-cardy-c-56.html] UGG Classic Cardy [/URL]

The government should foresee these tuition hikes in a way that the increase will only be that provided by the law.