Law School Discussion

Officially fed-up with Hastings...

anner

  • ****
  • 169
    • View Profile
Re: Officially fed-up with Hastings...
« Reply #30 on: February 19, 2005, 07:31:07 PM »
chill dude!  Don't take it so personally, geeeez...

I think this board is cathartic for some of us to vocalize our annoyances with this whole process.  Maybe it does nothing, but it least you get it out. 

i realize it is hard to pick up sarcasm in between two dimensional lines, but really, i was just being my neurotic self and getting it out of my system. I was mostly joking to be honest... Its not like i am yelling and screaming about leop, urm status etc (see the berkeley acceptance thread for SWB05.  Crazy. That was full blown insanity- and i think it sounds like the chick really deserved to get in).  Nor am i calling to declare california its own country with no chance for new residents.

I was just saying that it is kinda sucky that it is way tougher to get into a state school here than any other part of the country.  thats all. I am sure your folks are very nice, love the warm weather, and have goofy accents to boot.  I wasnt directing anyhting at them OR you. 

it just seemed like a good idea to post because I am out of money so i have to stay at home, hate resorting to television, and felt like posting something was a good distraction.




TBoneUCLA

Re: Officially fed-up with Hastings...
« Reply #31 on: February 19, 2005, 07:57:00 PM »
chill dude!  Don't take it so personally, geeeez...

I think this board is cathartic for some of us to vocalize our annoyances with this whole process.  Maybe it does nothing, but it least you get it out. 

i realize it is hard to pick up sarcasm in between two dimensional lines, but really, i was just being my neurotic self and getting it out of my system. I was mostly joking to be honest... Its not like i am yelling and screaming about leop, urm status etc (see the berkeley acceptance thread for SWB05.  Crazy. That was full blown insanity- and i think it sounds like the chick really deserved to get in).  Nor am i calling to declare california its own country with no chance for new residents.

I was just saying that it is kinda sucky that it is way tougher to get into a state school here than any other part of the country.  thats all. I am sure your folks are very nice, love the warm weather, and have goofy accents to boot.  I wasnt directing anyhting at them OR you. 

it just seemed like a good idea to post because I am out of money so i have to stay at home, hate resorting to television, and felt like posting something was a good distraction.





yo, you hardly need to tell me to chill. i am not the one ranting and raving, allbieit sarcastically. i was merely highlighting the point that everyone that lives in cali came for the weather and we are all residents/products of that fact. and to be QUITE honest ........i have to hightlight the fact that michigan, virginia, texas, minnesota, illinios, north carolina, wisconsin and even washington (8 out of 50 states) have one (count em) ONE top tier in-state school to get admitted to. we have the luxury of choosing from FOUR top tier law schools! to complain about not getting into hasting without in-state help fails to realize that the BEST in-staters are going to boalt and ucla and are not taking up your space at hastings in the first place.

to play devils advocate to you, i would rather have all four wonderful schools and have them not give in state preference, then to only have one teeny tiny school that did give preference.
and any ways, new york and florida are very populated like cali, and they have NO top tier public schools to choose from. i think we are lucky! the uc system freaking rocks! by far the best public school systme in the coutry- no comparison. flaws and all.

TBoneUCLA

Re: Officially fed-up with Hastings...
« Reply #32 on: February 19, 2005, 08:07:36 PM »
and i have to add this-

i do understand your complaing man. i am not a hater, and i do in fact have a sense of humor. but you post for people to read, and you cannot get deffensive if people dare to respond!
i couldn't read your post without touching on the otherside of your complaint and revealing truths that do, in some ways, quelch the fire behind it.
if you disagree with the points i make, then disagree. but dont get pissed off (or even offended at all) on a board like this if people have other opinions or bring different viewpoints that are worth consideration to the table. we are all gonna be doing alot of debating in law school. best to start practicing now

Snuvy

  • ****
  • 222
  • Trust me, I'm a lawyer.
    • View Profile
    • Email
Re: Officially fed-up with Hastings...
« Reply #33 on: February 20, 2005, 02:40:28 AM »

1. Boalt is one crazy mofo.  However, all UCs have higher Cali precents because, obviously people from California want to go to those schools to get the in-state tuition, so a large precentage of Ca kids apply versus other states.  This, doesn't mean it has "Cali" preference.

2. People choose schools for the craziest of reasons--weather is one of them.  It just sucks that there is not a wide enough range of UC law schools to catch all the Cali residents.  Unlike the case with undergrad, in which we have 7 campuses (soon to be 8.) 

3. In-state preference for the UCs would be nice.  Since I, my parents, and so on are FUNDING them through tax dollars.  If they were privates, I would have no complaints.  However, I just feel that it sucks that out of state kids can "take spots" (even though they do pay a larger tuition.)

Those are my two cents.  :)

TBoneUCLA

Re: Officially fed-up with Hastings...
« Reply #34 on: February 20, 2005, 04:35:04 PM »

1. Boalt is one crazy mofo.  However, all UCs have higher Cali precents because, obviously people from California want to go to those schools to get the in-state tuition, so a large precentage of Ca kids apply versus other states.  This, doesn't mean it has "Cali" preference.

2. People choose schools for the craziest of reasons--weather is one of them.  It just sucks that there is not a wide enough range of UC law schools to catch all the Cali residents.  Unlike the case with undergrad, in which we have 7 campuses (soon to be 8.) 

3. In-state preference for the UCs would be nice.  Since I, my parents, and so on are FUNDING them through tax dollars.  If they were privates, I would have no complaints.  However, I just feel that it sucks that out of state kids can "take spots" (even though they do pay a larger tuition.)

Those are my two cents.  :)

um, snuvy, did you not read what i was explaining to anner?
we have four great top tier public law schools in cali. most states have NO top tier public law schools. some states(maybe 8 out of 50) have one top-tier public law school. if you add up those facts you have one final quotient- california as a  state provides 4 TIMES the spots to pay in state tuition to go to a top tier law school than the rest of the 8 states that offer such a thing. MOST people live in a state without that potential AT ALL (*florida, new york)

i mean, if we want to talk about fair, than every single state should have a good half dozen top tier public law schools so that everyone from that state can get a super education at half the cost. now i know that is 300 top tier public law schools, but that is what i call "fair" ;)

Snuvy

  • ****
  • 222
  • Trust me, I'm a lawyer.
    • View Profile
    • Email
Re: Officially fed-up with Hastings...
« Reply #35 on: February 20, 2005, 05:11:48 PM »


i disagree. if each state put as much money into public schools as california did, those states would have great law schools too.

the residents of california pay taxes that go directly towards education, creating great UC/CSU/JC programs.  thus, other residents are coming and getting into a great program that the state of california helps subsidize.

i understand that out of state students pay larger education fees, but they still can't compare to that of other similar private schools.

for example boalts instate is 17,000 whereas it's out of state is 29,000, yet stanfords tuition is at 33,000.  so i feel that if out of state students want to attend an state insitution, the price should be atleast that of similar competition.

this way, it gives no incentive or breaks to out of state students, which i feel is more fair, this way whatever school they choose to go to, isn't based on cheaper costs that are subsidized by california residents.

not to mention that everytime an out of state student takes one of our seats, an in state student who has (or family has) contributed towards california taxes for education is not going to recieve a return on those taxes.

thus, i'm sorry that california has a great public education program, but other states could also if they beef up their taxation.

states are different, and it's never going to be fair, otherwise i'd want a disney world here in california...disneyland just doesn't cut it.

but if a state (not saying your state, or whoever's state) has low taxes and then the people complain they don't get the same public services as a state with much higher taxes, then make a commitment to change your state rather than flee from it and take advantage of another state's programs.

i understand your example about new york and florida, but if their state wanted to provide a great educational system for their residents, they can, it's not impossible, but they choose to prioritize other programs instead.

in state schools provide opportunities for in state students to gain an education who could otherwise not afford it.  and i feel it sucks to force an in state student to either attend an in state school or not be able to go to school, because the privates are just too expensive.  thus, everytime a seat that could have been available for an in state student is given away to an out of state student, that applicant could be denied an education in law.

i obviously do not agree that all in states should exclude all out of states, becaues that limits diversity and learning.  however, if a commitment was made towards california residents then i would feel a lot more secure with why we pay taxes for education, and why we bother having public schools in the first place.  otherwise, strip them of their funding and force them all to privatize.

obviously we disagree, but no hard feelings, right?    :P

anner

  • ****
  • 169
    • View Profile
Re: Officially fed-up with Hastings...
« Reply #36 on: February 21, 2005, 12:41:29 AM »
rock on snuvy! 


TBoneUCLA

Re: Officially fed-up with Hastings...
« Reply #37 on: February 21, 2005, 01:24:24 AM »
snuvy,

we can agree to disagree. no problem at all there. but i think we do pay those taxes for haveing SO MANY public schools, cal state and uc alike. there must be over 20 schools in the system, right?

giving an edge to in staters....they could say they do. would that make you feel better? what if you still didnt get in though? what then? it is such a small percentage of people that THAT factor would matter for. you would be SO on the acceptance bubble for that to matter, you couldnt know if that was why you did or did not get in anyways. i dunno. i just think we have a great system and it is best to focus on that then to bite the hand that feeds you...

and by the way.  33k a year/29k a year. same difference

anner

  • ****
  • 169
    • View Profile
Re: Officially fed-up with Hastings...
« Reply #38 on: February 21, 2005, 08:39:47 AM »
actually- not the same difference.  it is $12,000 altogether.

in my opinion that is a lot.


And wanna know WHY there are so many schools?  Look at the population.  Cali has TWO MAJOR cities- the population itself is extremely high, and the concentrations of people in these spaces is much higher than anywhere else. 

We NEED those schools.  It is not like they are doing us favors. 

And we are paying for them in our taxes. Snuvy said this, but i think we do deserve a chance- not for free, but i think if you score above the 90th percentile...

its not like you are too stupid for your degree.

Snuvy

  • ****
  • 222
  • Trust me, I'm a lawyer.
    • View Profile
    • Email
Re: Officially fed-up with Hastings...
« Reply #39 on: February 21, 2005, 12:40:48 PM »

  ::high-five:: anner!

*Ahem* three major cities...let's not forget San Diego  ::)

I like our system a lot, and I'm not going to give them an ultimatum: "Change or be dumb!"  Rather, it's just what I feel, people are in different boats, and we're forgetting that many people have to go to a public school or can't afford law school altogether--look at the undergraduate example: all the work being done at the UCs to continually expand diversity outreach.  For those in this group, it is unfair to compete against out of state students, because in one hand, yes the out of state need to pay more tuition, but the in state would be denied a law school education all together, because even a fourth tier law school is more expensive than the UC:

Example:
California Western: 26,2000
In State UCH: 13,735
Out of State UCH: 24,401

Thus, it brings me back to my point: If a student is denied a spot at UCH (our lowest ranked public law school) and doesn't have the money to churn out an extra 36,000 dollars for three years at a tier four school, then how is that fair to california residents who already support the system!  I would rather have the out of state student attend a comparable private law school than be swayed by the location/weather/price/etc of a public law school.

Not to forget that an out of state student can become an California resident after a year.  So with the Boalt example, it would actually be a savings of 36,000 in three years, versus that of being at stanford for three years.

Oh yeah, fun tidbit, I believe if you cut a line across California horizontal like an hour above Los Angeles, you would have half the population below it, and half the population above it.   :P

what is going on with california weather! we're having biblical-like flooding! boo!