Law School Discussion

Nine Years of Discussion
;

Author Topic: UVA IN-STATE  (Read 1371 times)

uvawannabe

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 24
    • View Profile
    • Email
UVA IN-STATE
« on: March 05, 2008, 01:07:22 AM »
Why does UVA still have a quota of 40% in-state residents? They currently receive 0% state funding.  Meanwhile, Michigan receives 3% state funding but only has 25% in-state.  Anyone know?

kmac128

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 116
    • View Profile
    • LSN
Re: UVA IN-STATE
« Reply #1 on: March 05, 2008, 08:42:57 AM »
more smart ppl in virginia.

R.P. McMurphy

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 318
    • View Profile
Re: UVA IN-STATE
« Reply #2 on: March 05, 2008, 11:03:13 AM »
more smart ppl in virginia.

i laughed.
LSN | Washington & Lee University Law Class of 2011

uvawannabe

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 24
    • View Profile
    • Email
Re: UVA IN-STATE
« Reply #3 on: March 05, 2008, 01:37:12 PM »
Why does UVA still have a quota of 40% in-state residents? They currently receive 0% state funding.  Meanwhile, Michigan receives 3% state funding but only has 25% in-state.  Anyone know?

Because it's the law.

It's the law that an institution that receives 0 state funding has to admit 40% Virginia residents?  Why not 90% 

uvawannabe

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 24
    • View Profile
    • Email
Re: UVA IN-STATE
« Reply #4 on: March 05, 2008, 02:52:32 PM »
Well, I'm not a lawyer yet, but that strikes me as a violation of something!  The state of Virginia can't single out a particular non-profit institution and declare that they admit 40% VA residents!  If UVA genuinely receives 0% state funding, under what rationale does the state government impose anything upon UVA Law that it doesn't also impose on other non-state-funded non-profits?  Granted, UVA law is still technically part of UVA, but I"m not sure what that even means if UVA Law receives no state funding.  What -- it's on UVA "property"?  OK, why not just move? 

And if UVA Law doesn't receive any additional OPERATING independence by being 100% FINANCIALLY independent from the state, then what's the point of being financially independent?? If the state is gonna dictate to the school what to do anyway, might as well take the state's money! It's sorta like if I'm in college and don't wanna be bossed around by my parents, I'll pay for college myself.  But if my parents are gonna boss me around anyway, hell -- I might as well let them pay my tuition and make them pay for the right to boss me around!

If I'm an alum, I'm going to ask why I should donate money to the law school when the law school is forgoing state money while receiving no apparent benefit for doing so.


uvawannabe

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 24
    • View Profile
    • Email
Re: UVA IN-STATE
« Reply #5 on: March 05, 2008, 03:49:00 PM »
dude come on...it's the University of Virginia. it's all in the name. plus, the legislature can do what they want. only a judge can overturn and that proly won't happen anytime soon. Also, if the law school "moved" they would have to disassociate from the school. They couldn't be UVa Law anymore. it's probably a lot more complicated than we know.

Exactly.  They're still part of the larger UVA institution, even if the law school doesn't take state money.  Therefore they're still controlled by the state legislature, and they're still a public institution.  They still grant in-state tuition to in-state residents.   

I mean, why would they necessarily WANT to get rid of that quota entirely?  I think that's a good thing.  Maybe not for you, but regardless of the current funding situation, for many years a lot of VA tax dollars have gone into building a world-class higher education system in the state.  VA residents should certainly be given the opportunity to take avantage of that over out-of-state residents.

Quit whining about it, Wannabe, if you don't like it then go to Penn.

So much for diversity -- having 40% of the class from a single state.

In any case, I still don't understand why the school doesn't just take state money then. On their website, they make it sound like it's such a big coup that they're 100% financially independent. I always thought financial independence was a means to an end -- the end being the ability to have CONTROL. Why not just enjoy the big endowment AND enjoy the state funding too??

Read page 3 -- the caption under the dean's picture.

http://www.lawweekly.org/pdf_archives/20080229.pdf

Poetgirl80

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 129
    • View Profile
Re: UVA IN-STATE
« Reply #6 on: March 05, 2008, 05:00:47 PM »
<<<---- would GLADLY contribute to UVA's cause to become more financially independent by kicking them 40k/yr out-of-state tuition. Heck, I'd legally sign my inheritance over to them as an endowment if they'd let me into their GLORIOUS institution. I love you UVA! :D

(no, seriously... send me a contract-- I'll sign it)

uvawannabe

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 24
    • View Profile
    • Email
Re: UVA IN-STATE
« Reply #7 on: March 05, 2008, 05:17:37 PM »
dude come on...it's the University of Virginia. it's all in the name. plus, the legislature can do what they want. only a judge can overturn and that proly won't happen anytime soon. Also, if the law school "moved" they would have to disassociate from the school. They couldn't be UVa Law anymore. it's probably a lot more complicated than we know.

Exactly.  They're still part of the larger UVA institution, even if the law school doesn't take state money.  Therefore they're still controlled by the state legislature, and they're still a public institution.  They still grant in-state tuition to in-state residents.   

I mean, why would they necessarily WANT to get rid of that quota entirely?  I think that's a good thing.  Maybe not for you, but regardless of the current funding situation, for many years a lot of VA tax dollars have gone into building a world-class higher education system in the state.  VA residents should certainly be given the opportunity to take avantage of that over out-of-state residents.

Quit whining about it, Wannabe, if you don't like it then go to Penn.

So much for diversity -- having 40% of the class from a single state.

In any case, I still don't understand why the school doesn't just take state money then. On their website, they make it sound like it's such a big coup that they're 100% financially independent. I always thought financial independence was a means to an end -- the end being the ability to have CONTROL. Why not just enjoy the big endowment AND enjoy the state funding too??

Read page 3 -- the caption under the dean's picture.

http://www.lawweekly.org/pdf_archives/20080229.pdf

Yeah, well, that caption points out the obvious reason why they would try to become financially independent, and I'll bet my bottom dollar that there will be a huge public fight with the VA legislature and citizenry over this.  They're trying to get financial independence precisely because they don't want the quota, because they think it's dragging them down in the rankings. But they'll still never be able to fully divorce themselves from UVA and become a private law school because that would end up hurting their reputation, at least for quite awhile. (See George Mason as an example --they used to be a satellite campus of UVA and while they're fairly well respected now, it's taken them 30 years and a TON of money to get to where they are).

But that doesn't change the fact that it is part of a public instition, and IMO I think it's totally fair that they take a large percentage of in-state students.  I highly doubt you'd be saying this about a lower-ranked school.

Well, now that UVA Law is off the public teet, I'm sure they have much more leverage to "negotiate" -- they'll probably lower the quota to 25% then 10%, which is still a lot to take from a single state. Again, if the state is not giving the school any money, they're not really in much of a position to dictate FORTY PERCENT of the school's student body!!

You seem pretty hung up on the fact that the law school uses the UVA name -- that the law school "owes" the university something.  By that logic, the law school should just license the damn name and be done with it -- then they'll be totally free to do what they want w/o state intervention.

uvawannabe

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 24
    • View Profile
    • Email
Re: UVA IN-STATE
« Reply #8 on: March 05, 2008, 05:47:10 PM »
dude come on...it's the University of Virginia. it's all in the name. plus, the legislature can do what they want. only a judge can overturn and that proly won't happen anytime soon. Also, if the law school "moved" they would have to disassociate from the school. They couldn't be UVa Law anymore. it's probably a lot more complicated than we know.

Exactly.  They're still part of the larger UVA institution, even if the law school doesn't take state money.  Therefore they're still controlled by the state legislature, and they're still a public institution.  They still grant in-state tuition to in-state residents.   

I mean, why would they necessarily WANT to get rid of that quota entirely?  I think that's a good thing.  Maybe not for you, but regardless of the current funding situation, for many years a lot of VA tax dollars have gone into building a world-class higher education system in the state.  VA residents should certainly be given the opportunity to take avantage of that over out-of-state residents.

Quit whining about it, Wannabe, if you don't like it then go to Penn.

So much for diversity -- having 40% of the class from a single state.

In any case, I still don't understand why the school doesn't just take state money then. On their website, they make it sound like it's such a big coup that they're 100% financially independent. I always thought financial independence was a means to an end -- the end being the ability to have CONTROL. Why not just enjoy the big endowment AND enjoy the state funding too??

Read page 3 -- the caption under the dean's picture.

http://www.lawweekly.org/pdf_archives/20080229.pdf

Yeah, well, that caption points out the obvious reason why they would try to become financially independent, and I'll bet my bottom dollar that there will be a huge public fight with the VA legislature and citizenry over this.  They're trying to get financial independence precisely because they don't want the quota, because they think it's dragging them down in the rankings. But they'll still never be able to fully divorce themselves from UVA and become a private law school because that would end up hurting their reputation, at least for quite awhile. (See George Mason as an example --they used to be a satellite campus of UVA and while they're fairly well respected now, it's taken them 30 years and a TON of money to get to where they are).

But that doesn't change the fact that it is part of a public instition, and IMO I think it's totally fair that they take a large percentage of in-state students.  I highly doubt you'd be saying this about a lower-ranked school.

Well, now that UVA Law is off the public teet, I'm sure they have much more leverage to "negotiate" -- they'll probably lower the quota to 25% then 10%, which is still a lot to take from a single state. Again, if the state is not giving the school any money, they're not really in much of a position to dictate FORTY PERCENT of the school's student body!!

You seem pretty hung up on the fact that the law school uses the UVA name -- that the law school "owes" the university something.  By that logic, the law school should just license the damn name and be done with it -- then they'll be totally free to do what they want w/o state intervention.


No, what I'm hung up on is that they are a PUBLIC, STATE SCHOOL.  They will be that regardless of their funding situation unless they officially become a private institution and separate entirely from the University of Virginia.  What that would do to their reputation has little to do with the "owing" the university at large anything; it would have to do with the hit they would take from a lot of things that come with going private.  For example, the cost of building new facilities (because they would have to do that), or more importantly, the PR disaster that would surround such a decision. 

And if you think for a second that UVA as a whole or the VA government would EVER allow for the law school to separate and then "license" the UVA name, for any amount of money, you are sorely mistaken.  As I said before, VA is extremely protective of their public schools.  The idea of UVA Law separating from the university alone would cause such an uproar down here that it's making my head hurt just thinking about it.  I really think there would be rioting.


I'm not arguing with you about most points.  My original question was -- what's the POINT of being financially independent if you still have to take orders from the state legislature?? Seems like the worst of all worlds.  If everything you say is true, then the law school should just say "screw it," accept the fact that they're beholden to the state, and at least get the money!

uvawannabe

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 24
    • View Profile
    • Email
Re: UVA IN-STATE
« Reply #9 on: March 05, 2008, 07:37:09 PM »
The point is that there is the provision for a lower quota.  If they had to take the normal 66% in-state their rankings would be totally screwed.  But my point is that no matter what, for UVA Law there is no negotiation with the state legislature.  VA will not let them go without a fight, I think most of the state would rather see the school burn to the ground than let it go private (and would maybe act upon this urge).

Prediction: the quota drops to 25% within 3 years,