<p>Exactly Ikf725! Maybe we should borrow a tool from the private sector and try to get law school professors (and staff) paid a low base salary and a high bonus, calculated from the earnings of the graduates? Then when their students don't prosper, they don't prosper!</p>
<p>lkf725, where is "all that money" going?? Lets take Princeton as an example. The university occupies a 500 acre campus consisting of 166 buildings. The faculty alone numbers about 700 and the students benefit from sponsorship of 38 varsity sports, 40 club teams, 200+ clubs and an endless variety of university sponsored arts and academic events. The university has an enormous library system at its students disposal too. The annual expenditures are broken down as follows; academic(37%), physical plant(22%), student aid(14%), admin(%), library and athletics(9%), and misc(7%).</p>
<p>Student fees account for a mere 22% of the monies needed to operate this huge enterprise and is exceeded by endowment funding(37%) and sponsored research(23%). The remaining amout comes from gifts(tyvm) and miscellaneous sources. </p>
<p>I suspect that the expense/income profile for P'ton is typical of most private research universities adjusting for endowment income which at 37% is substantial.</p>
<p>Instead of asking 'why so much?", I would be grateful for it being so little.</p>
<p>Originaloog ~ How did those numbers look in 1980? Princeton was fabulous then too, and I suspect that the absolute value of the dollars was much lower, but maybe I'm wrong?</p>
<p>Back from law school to college, and focusing on "no merit aid" schools. Suppose the college spends the same (possibly excessive) amount of money but gives no tuition discounts or other need-based aid and reduces tuition reflect the savings. How large a reduction in tuition would that be? Then, of course, we could ask whether government grants or serously subsidized loans or some other method should and could be devised to make premium education available to those who cannot pay the adjusted price.</p>
<p>Dstark, a brilliant post. It is good to expand it beyond the law school analogy. I mentioned this topic to my law partner and his reaction was big deal wrt to law school tuition. He was reacting to their relative problems compared to the problems of the poor and working people whose law that we do. </p>
<p>As to how this country will remain great or at least the same with the policies we have, it won't. Pursuing a dog eat dog third world economic model with the wealthy retreating behind their gated walls, for the last 25 years while the workers are distracted by God, gays and guns, is taken its toll as we descend deeper into the third world econmic model, with public health and educational stats leading the way.</p>
<p>*<strong><em>Paticularly good.</em></strong>**
.... The professional schools are the canary in the mineshaft; you'll start to see the same issues with undergrad, as scholarship money and federal loans cover an ever-decreasing proportion of the costs of school and state schools get out of reach of the non-wealthy."</p>
<p>"Ariesathena, take your understanding of what is happening to law students and expand it to what is happening in the economy. The lower and middle class in this country have been getting killed with tax policies and other economic policies for over 25 years."</p>
<p>"At least law students have a chance to make it financially. Most of the people in this country are in trouble and they don't even know it yet. We are distributing the economic pie to fewer and fewer people. The pie is growing for only those at the top and for the rest, the economic pie is starting to shrink"</p>
<p>"We used to view higher education as a social good. ...As a society we are shifting more of the cost burden to individuals." </p>
<p>We are also shifting more of the cost of health care to individuals. We are shifting the costs of pensions to the individual. Since most individuals are not seeing their incomes go up in real terms they are getting squeezed. What you are feeling as a young person, millions of Americans are feeling right now. But these Americans don't even have a chance. You have a choice and a chance. Unlike millions of Americans, you are choosing to take on the debt. You are choosing to take an economic chance. Hopefully, it will work out for you.</p>
<p>The two schools with the most CEO's in the S&P 500 (undegrad school) were Harvard and Wisconsin. I don't thinkl UM would put you at a disadvantage unless you want to work on Wall St. where some schools have a near lock by tradition.</p>
<p>A good analogy about the economy is the one about the frog who will jump out of boiling water, but will stay in the water till he dies of overheating if you gradually heat the water. That is what the economy is like as a large part of the population loses about 1% a year of real earning power.</p>
<p>I'm not sure if it is increased costs of higher education that will wake people up to this. So many students go into business schools or take business foundation courses. An important function of these courses appears to be justifying the vision of American society favorable to the corporate elite with decreased corporate taxation and regulation, increased outsourcing etc..</p>
<p>I don't think business schools spend much time at all on anything you mentioned. Most business majors already accept free enterprise as a given and taxes are just part of keeping score. We only discussed taxes with regard to comparing before and after tax scenarios of various investment decisions. The rate was not the point except as it changed the decision matrix.</p>
<p>Barrons I actually agree with you. I half completed an MBA before dropping out for law school. They just assume relatively unquestioned conservative economic assumptions.</p>
<p>Yup, if you want alternative economic outlooks/assumptions you need to go to the liberal wing of the econ dept. Most schools have one.</p>
<p>that is a long way of paying them. is that really that long? i felt discouraged of having one loan? was it took that long in paying it off?</p>
<p>Try also checking good student loan articles on this site. CLICK</a> HERE to see the site.</p>
<p>This thread was dragged up from its coma....</p>
<p>To quickly answer a question - it is simply not possible for a law student to work during the week and not affect studies. Most students are not able to get paying jobs for their first summer, and it is more important for them to get legal experience than money. Many schools will not let their students take on ANY job until their second year. After that, hours are limited to about 15 per week.</p>
<p>As I said earlier... do the math. You aren't saving much money. Law school costs about $200/day at the cheap schools. I'm not sure how earning $15/day in minimum wage work will really be very helpful. Again... still six figures worth of debt. Run the math before criticising.</p>
<p>As for CEO compensation... I'm of two minds. One of them is that, in many cases, it is absurd. The CEOs of failing companies are prime examples - I've often said that there's no reason to pay someone $6 million to run a compan into the ground - I'll do it for half that. ;) (There's also dead weight loss economically when wealth is too concentrated.) OTOH, many CEOs are so very talented that they add more to the economy than they take out in jobs. In short, their compensation is less than the value added to the company and the economy as a whole. If the people who invent and market life-changing products - Google, Microsoft - get rich, fine. We're better off with them than without them. I do think that our economy will only thrive when people can be rewarded for their work and innovation - hence my waffling on the CEO compensation issue, as it can serve to further the goal of compensating those who add value to a company but can serve as a disincentive to work and undercompensate those who add economically.</p>
<p>This is where the liberals hate me... but y'all only have your predecessors to blame. Before the 1930s, law was largely made by state elected officials. I know some of my state elected officials. The "little guy" has access to these people. During the 30s, for many very altruistic reasons, law-making was concentrated at the federal level and done concurrently with a radical expansion of lawmaking via administrative agency. Realistically, the only people with access to Congress are very wealthy individuals or corporations - the "little guy" has no way of communicating his requirements to Congress or appointed admin. agency heads. Want our laws to be favourable to the little guy? Move lawmaking to the state and local levels, where he can actually have an effect, as an individual who is not superhuman. Want to keep the status quo of laws that cater to the already wealthy? Keep the current system of nationalised legislation and courts that clean up the mess (if you can pay an overly indebted law grad to litigate for you).</p>
<p>i have always felt that the maximum unsubsidized Stafford loan limits are a good indicater of how much a student should borrow each year. Even then, you are starting out with an albatross around your neck unless you have someone heavily subsidizing your finances. The amounts H and I borrowed for college and graduate schools sound paltry these days which is really scary to me, since I know how hard it was to pay off that money, and how we had to live so that we could meet those payments. We could not afford house, new car any amenities for a long time. We were in our thirties when we started our family, and nursery school was a financial challenge for us since we were still paying our own school bills. We were paying for our kids AND for ourselves. Now that we are finally in position of being able to afford our lives, college tuition for the kids is the centerpiece of our budget. I do not want our kids to have to go through this. It can really zap the motivation, depress you when you are paying off those bills for what feels like an eternity. 3-5 years; you can see the light at the end of the tunnel. 10-20 years; you can do less time for murder.</p>
<p>Aries, you take on paying top salaries for CEOs of failing companies is a popular one, and an easy take. Unfortunately, finding someone to captain a sinking ship is not easy. Yes, there are volunteers for large amounts of money, and though you will do it for half the going rate, getting someone with experience to navigate through the nightmare of a company going under and making the "less bad" decisions at each point is a tough go. My husband has done the job for large amounts of money, and the stress, the scrutiny, the lose-lose scenario makes it a high paying job on any pay scale that rewards for the experience/knowledge/decision making matrix. When you actually get into the mechanics of putting together, keeping together and dismantling companies that have a significant impact on the economy, on others' lives and with the government, regulatory agencies, press and public opinion jumping on every wrong move (when often there is no right move), they are quite complex, and those guys are not being paid as payoffs. Not to say that there are not abuses, as there are in every enterprise, but the free market is pretty danged efficient in coming up with the going price of jobs. This is a field both H and I know well, and it is not as simple as many people put it.</p>
<p>I think that there is a big difference between undergraduate debt and professional school debt. Those attending law, medical and MBA schools can look upon debt as an investment in themselves and a likely lucrative profession.</p>
<p>Undergrad debt is another matter for many students. For many students excessive debt is like a prison, limiting their choices upon graduation. It can limit choice of entry level jobs because a decent pay is paramont. Taking some time off to travel unfettered? Forget it. And some students may feel forced to return to the nest because the cost of rent is right. And finally it can potentially filter down to impact important decisions like marriage and buying that first home.</p>
<p>No college or undergraduate "experience" is worth the potential costs of excessive student debt iMHO.</p>
<p>I'm pretty sure that in VT, it's still possible to "read for the law", working with and studying under a practicing attorney and then taking the bar exam. You wouldn't end up with many, connections, but without debt it would be a lot easier to do the legal aid type of jobs that some aspiring lawyers want to do anyway.</p>
<p>Agreed w/ undergrad v. professional debt... if only for the reason that you're done at the end of professional school. I do know people who had so much undergrad debt that they couldn't take on more for grad school.</p>
<p>Originaloog notes,"I think that there is a big difference between undergraduate debt and professional school debt. Those attending law, medical and MBA schools can look upon debt as an investment in themselves and a likely lucrative profession."</p>
<p>Response: Frankly, I am surprised that you don't believe that undergraduate debt isn't "an investment in themselves" as professional school debt. To me, they both are investments in the student's life. HOWEVER, it is easier to justify professional school debt because lawyers and doctors can make enough money to cover their debt relatively easily and quickly if they work in the private sector.</p>
<p>I think that oringaloog was probably talking about the amount of debt. I personally don't think that a student should take on more than $10,000 of debt for undergrad - that works out to about $100/month in payments - but that students can take on more for professional school. $100,000 of undergrad debt is just silly, considering that grad school tends to be more important.</p>
<p>OK college student here: PLEASE GIVE ME ADVICE:</p>
<p>I was accepted at UCLA and UC Berkeley - The cost of attendance is about 26k a year. Berkeley has given me a 10k scholarship, plus a 1500 Pell Grant, plus about 7k in Cal Grant. </p>
<p>On the other hand, UCLA gave me no scholarship, but I still would receive the 1500 Pell Grant and 7k Cal Grant (this is because I neglected to file my FAFSA before March 2 deadline!).</p>
<p>My heart is set on UCLA - but I am a liberal arts major, History to be exact and Im not sure what I want to be doing. I surmise that my loan amount will be the difference of about 10-15k for 2 years or 25-30k for 2 years, and I would like to go to grad school…</p>
<p>Any advice?</p>