This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
Messages - Butters Stotch
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5  7 8 9 10 11 ... 77
« on: September 26, 2007, 11:31:44 PM »
I'm not a Floridian...but my husband is from Orlando. We currently live in CA and are thinking about moving back down to FL. We were looking at renting a 2 bedroom condo here in Marin where we work but we have been priced out of that market by dropping home sales. The 2 bedroom we were looking at was 850 sqft and $1900 (water and trash not included). The one bedroom we are living in now is $1250/month and 930 sqft. If we could swing it, we could buy in FL and move there.
Real estate in FL isn't great, either.
« on: September 26, 2007, 03:58:16 AM »
Miami or Nova Southeastern.
Ohhh. well, that's easy. Miami, if those are your only choices.
« on: September 26, 2007, 02:58:32 AM »
::rejects market approach, citing only personal opinion::
There is no market in law schools. It's not an apt metaphor. There may be some indirect competition, but it's not market competition.
You certainly can't deny the "market's" effect on law school tuition though...right?
« on: September 26, 2007, 01:09:37 AM »
« on: September 26, 2007, 01:06:13 AM »
I hear that most admissions deans like thongs, regardless of sex.
« on: September 26, 2007, 01:03:59 AM »
So wait - the invisible hand of the market doesn't/won't self-correct this problem?
I feel like I've been seriously misled....
In this case, the problem is government guaranteeing a boat load in student loans (graduate and undergraduate). The invisible hand fails sometimes, generally when there are non-monetary pressures. Government is one of the classic reasons for such a failure... in this case, it keeps slapping the hand.
I can't really counter this except to say that I prefer it to the alternative.
« on: September 26, 2007, 01:01:55 AM »
Harvard and Yale grads don't suffer so much from the Burden effect. In fact, the top schools could probably get away with charging more than they do at present, and still not overly burden many to most of their graduates.
Oh yeah, I know, and I agree. I guess I'm looking at it from a strictly "is/ought" perspective.
What H4CS is describing is a method to tie tuition and prospects into the accreditation process. In essence, it's a way to make law schools less profitable (or to make profit more dangerous), and thereby disincentivize their overcreation (or modify their business model -- incentive to quality instead of degree factory). I would tend to agree.
Yeah, I get it, and like I said, I like the idea from a theoretical standpoint. It just isn't practical.
I'd like to see a moratorium on law school accreditation across the board, for starters, followed by tougher admissions standards across the board.
I also agree that third year could be replaced with some kind of work program. Most 3Ls I talk to seem to feel the same.
I think schools like Dayton have the right idea on this, only I wish they'd actually give students a break on tuition for finishing in 2 years.
« on: September 26, 2007, 12:12:35 AM »
The ABA ought to bring price pressure through the accrediation process. Create a formula that ties bar passage rates, starting salaries, employment upon graduation, and average debt load together. Schools with low passage rates and high unemployment must reduce tuiition or class size. This will lead to some reduction in resources for schools which already have few, but there are a number of ways to restructure a law school to meet these needs.
Man, I really like your ideas here, but the sad truth is that such action would ONLY lead to even more legal action against the ABA, not lower tuition.
Law schools charge what they do for one reason: they can.
The fact that any and everyone who can fill out a FAFSA form can gain instant access to $150k in federal funds is also a big reason for the proliferation of law schools and skyrocketing tuition rates (and that goes for all colleges and universities, not just law schools). I'm not saying that the alternative is a better idea, but there's no way that arbitrary tuition caps at law schools are ever going to become a reality.
Hell, if anything, schools like Yale and, especially, Harvard (who, IIRC, has $20 billion in endowments and $5 billion in endowments just at the law school) should lower tuition as soon as any school...and we all know THAT will never happen.
« on: September 26, 2007, 12:05:18 AM »
I'm still skeptical. I just don't see how one could be surprised by the recent results of Temple grads, unless they only briefly looked at the information provided by the school, did not look anywhere else, and accepted the one data point uncritically.
To me, the real problem is that law school is too expensive; unjustifiably so.
A lot of people at Temple Law were the kind of people who were the first in their family to go to college or the first to go to law school. They didn't have connections or other people who could tell them the ugly truth about law school and the job market.
At least a lot of us were PA residents getting instate tuition.
Also -- schools are supposed to be non-profit organizations. They are supposed to be institutions of education. Kids don't suspect them as much as they would if they were big bad corporations.
State, out of curiosity, are you practicing now?
« on: September 25, 2007, 03:42:42 PM »
Loyola's Dean Burcham says he wishes he knew who [Loyola 2L] was so he could help the person.
By "help the person" he obviously means "sue the guy until he shuts the f&%k up."
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5  7 8 9 10 11 ... 77