Top Law Schools

Bulla wrote: They've been attacking me non stop trying to hijack this topic in many ways and i ignored them many times. But for the sake of this discussion, i will ignore them.

Here is the first thing I said:

blueapple wrote:I wonder if OP's boyfriend goes to Northwestern

And here is the next thing I said:

blueapple wrote:

Bulla wrote: Then if we talk about Yale and Harvard others will jump in and say why them why not NYU and Standford. The list goes on and on.

Yes. How are you not getting what people are trying to say? Everyone is asking: Why do you think Northwestern is different from/worse than Yale, Harvard, Stanford, NYU, Chicago, Columbia, Michigan, Duke, Penn, UVA, Berkeley, Cornell, Georgetown, UT...?

So sorry that my first comment was so attacking and hijacking that you couldn't answer my question.

Bulla wrote:They've been attacking me non stop trying to hijack this topic in many ways and i ignored them many times. I was simply responding to them in the same manner that they did initially. Their French comment ? But for the sake of this discussion, i will ignore them.

Neither of these 2 people commented on the French. Pay attention. Their only "attacks" have been to try to pin you down to explain statements you have made.

Also that avatar fucking isn't Nancy Pelosi.

Law schools will not do things that hurt their rankings because that would impact the donations they receive and potentially some of the employment prospect for their students because law cares so highly for prestige. To suggest a school should not care about rankings is not good because that would harm those that attend the school in the form of less money for scholarships and potentially fewer jobs. The letter to the ABA is great because all law schools would have to play by the same rules if the aba made a change and thus they would not have to worry about taking a hit in the rankings in order to fight the good fight. Change will come from the ABA and schools petitioning for that change is a good start. So great job NU and whoever else signed on to the letter. You're fighting for change.

Jclubb wrote:Law schools will not do things that hurt their rankings because that would impact the donations they receive and potentially some of the employment prospect for their students because law cares so highly for prestige. To suggest a school should not care about rankings is not good because that would harm those that attend the school in the form of less money for scholarships and potentially fewer jobs. The letter to the ABA is great because all law schools would have to play by the same rules if the aba made a change and thus they would not have to worry about taking a hit in the rankings in order to fight the good fight. Change will come from the ABA and schools petitioning for that change is a good start. So great job NU and whoever else signed on to the letter. You're fighting for change.

Do you even understand the merits of their letter to ABA ? Their comments on 503 as an ABA standard.

The Council is circulating for notice and comment a proposal that retains the requirement of a law school admission test in the Standards. This requirement is important in enforcing the requirement of Standard 501that a“law school shall not admit an applicant who does not appear capable of satisfactorily completing its program of legal education and being admitted to the bar.” Further, an admission test is helpful to schools in evaluating applicants and most schools, even if the admission test requirement was removed from the Standards, would continue to require such a test. Finally, the requirement of a test score and requiring schools to publish information about the test score profile of their entering classes is a helpful data point for students considering the study of law and where to apply/attend

The easiest way to enforce Standard 501’s requirement that we only admit capable students is to measure how those students we admit perform in the program and on the bar exam

The requirement of a standardized admissions test negatively impacts efforts to diversify the profession.The many law schools attentive to rankings by U.S.News routinely wait list or deny admission to students who the school believes can succeed in the educational program and pass the bar exam. In fact, many of these students’ admission test scores are–in predictive terms–indistinguishable from applicants who are admitted. And many of these students are diverse along any measurement of diversity. But the heavy weight put on these test scores by U.S. News inhibits the ability to admit these students for fear of harming the law school’s rankings.

The denial of admission has less to do with the abilities of the prospective students and more to do with maintaining metrics to ensure rankings success

blueapple wrote:

Bulla wrote:If you want, i can always make a new topic with a poll about all these law schools practice. I bet you we can see Asha jumping on TLS with a reply saying "we care about you and you and yes you there" Lets call them all out since our fan Pelosi here is naming them and others want to see other Top tier law schools being called out.

Yale, Harvard, Stanford, NYU, Chicago, Columbia, Michigan, Duke, Penn, UVA, Berkeley, Cornell, Georgetown, UT...?

Do you think that my picture is Nancy Pelosi?

omg
amazing

I'm just baffled now. The dean of NU was one of 6 or so deans objecting to a proposed change to ABA standard 503. The NU dean and others object to requiring a standardized test for admission, in part because it harms diversity. What is the issue with that? They would like to get rid of the LSAT and be able to engage in a more holistic assessment because getting rid of the LSAT would remove its importance in the rankings. How does this connect to anything you've been upset about?

Bulla wrote:

Jclubb wrote:Law schools will not do things that hurt their rankings because that would impact the donations they receive and potentially some of the employment prospect for their students because law cares so highly for prestige. To suggest a school should not care about rankings is not good because that would harm those that attend the school in the form of less money for scholarships and potentially fewer jobs. The letter to the ABA is great because all law schools would have to play by the same rules if the aba made a change and thus they would not have to worry about taking a hit in the rankings in order to fight the good fight. Change will come from the ABA and schools petitioning for that change is a good start. So great job NU and whoever else signed on to the letter. You're fighting for change.

Do you even understand the merits of their letter to ABA ? Their comments on 503 as an ABA standard.

The Council is circulating for notice and comment a proposal that retains the requirement of a law school admission test in the Standards. This requirement is important in enforcing the requirement of Standard 501that a“law school shall not admit an applicant who does not appear capable of satisfactorily completing its program of legal education and being admitted to the bar.” Further, an admission test is helpful to schools in evaluating applicants and most schools, even if the admission test requirement was removed from the Standards, would continue to require such a test. Finally, the requirement of a test score and requiring schools to publish information about the test score profile of their entering classes is a helpful data point for students considering the study of law and where to apply/attend

The easiest way to enforce Standard 501’s requirement that we only admit capable students is to measure how those students we admit perform in the program and on the bar exam

The requirement of a standardized admissions test negatively impacts efforts to diversify the profession.The many law schools attentive to rankings by U.S.News routinely wait list or deny admission to students who the school believes can succeed in the educational program and pass the bar exam. In fact, many of these students’ admission test scores are–in predictive terms–indistinguishable from applicants who are admitted. And many of these students are diverse along any measurement of diversity. But the heavy weight put on these test scores by U.S. News inhibits the ability to admit these students for fear of harming the law school’s rankings.

The denial of admission has less to do with the abilities of the prospective students and more to do with maintaining metrics to ensure rankings success

So I just reread the letter because I thought I misread but nope. I'm right. Go NU. This letter does exactly what I thought. No idea how you think this helps you.

Keep in mind that this paragraph

The Council is circulating for notice and comment a proposal that retains the requirement of a law school admission test in the Standards. This requirement is important in enforcing the requirement of Standard 501that a“law school shall not admit an applicant who does not appear capable of satisfactorily completing its program of legal education and being admitted to the bar.” Further, an admission test is helpful to schools in evaluating applicants and most schools, even if the admission test requirement was removed from the Standards, would continue to require such a test. Finally, the requirement of a test score and requiring schools to publish information about the test score profile of their entering classes is a helpful data point for students considering the study of law and where to apply/attend

is NOT by the law school deans. It's a quote of what the ABA proposes and what they disagree with. The rest of the quotes are what the deans propose. Not sure why they're put together in this way.

A. Nony Mouse wrote:I'm just baffled now. The dean of NU was one of 6 or so deans objecting to a proposed change to ABA standard 503. The NU dean and others object to requiring a standardized test for admission, in part because it harms diversity. What is the issue with that? They would like to get rid of the LSAT and be able to engage in a more holistic assessment because getting rid of the LSAT would remove its importance in the rankings. How does this connect to anything you've been upset about?

What they say is not what they simply do when it comes to diversity. You have Prof. Paul Campos commenting on Harvard aggressive admission practice pursuing diverse applicants that they know they won't accept. So why do it ? Because you can ?

Jclubb wrote:

Bulla wrote:

Jclubb wrote:Law schools will not do things that hurt their rankings because that would impact the donations they receive and potentially some of the employment prospect for their students because law cares so highly for prestige. To suggest a school should not care about rankings is not good because that would harm those that attend the school in the form of less money for scholarships and potentially fewer jobs. The letter to the ABA is great because all law schools would have to play by the same rules if the aba made a change and thus they would not have to worry about taking a hit in the rankings in order to fight the good fight. Change will come from the ABA and schools petitioning for that change is a good start. So great job NU and whoever else signed on to the letter. You're fighting for change.

Do you even understand the merits of their letter to ABA ? Their comments on 503 as an ABA standard.

The Council is circulating for notice and comment a proposal that retains the requirement of a law school admission test in the Standards. This requirement is important in enforcing the requirement of Standard 501that a“law school shall not admit an applicant who does not appear capable of satisfactorily completing its program of legal education and being admitted to the bar.” Further, an admission test is helpful to schools in evaluating applicants and most schools, even if the admission test requirement was removed from the Standards, would continue to require such a test. Finally, the requirement of a test score and requiring schools to publish information about the test score profile of their entering classes is a helpful data point for students considering the study of law and where to apply/attend

The easiest way to enforce Standard 501’s requirement that we only admit capable students is to measure how those students we admit perform in the program and on the bar exam

The requirement of a standardized admissions test negatively impacts efforts to diversify the profession.The many law schools attentive to rankings by U.S.News routinely wait list or deny admission to students who the school believes can succeed in the educational program and pass the bar exam. In fact, many of these students’ admission test scores are–in predictive terms–indistinguishable from applicants who are admitted. And many of these students are diverse along any measurement of diversity. But the heavy weight put on these test scores by U.S. News inhibits the ability to admit these students for fear of harming the law school’s rankings.

The denial of admission has less to do with the abilities of the prospective students and more to do with maintaining metrics to ensure rankings success

So I just reread the letter because I thought I misread but nope. I'm right. Go NU. This letter does exactly what I thought. No idea how you think this helps you.

Fortunately i am not a blind fan. I usually look ahead, are they really aiming for innovation and more diversity from their comment to ABA or simply opening the door to less accountability ? We've seen it with their tuition raise this year and you should know many are not happy with that decision.

Bottom tier law schools will be making back flips if ABA relaxes their standards. Predatory schools are out there in many forms.

Because not many applicants are applying to law school, it is hurting their yearly budget and they aim to relax the standards so it doesn't affect their Rank when they comply with it.

Bulla wrote:

A. Nony Mouse wrote:I'm just baffled now. The dean of NU was one of 6 or so deans objecting to a proposed change to ABA standard 503. The NU dean and others object to requiring a standardized test for admission, in part because it harms diversity. What is the issue with that? They would like to get rid of the LSAT and be able to engage in a more holistic assessment because getting rid of the LSAT would remove its importance in the rankings. How does this connect to anything you've been upset about?

What they say is not what they simply do when it comes to diversity. You have Prof. Paul Campos commenting on Harvard aggressive admission practice pursuing diverse applicants that they know they won't accept. So why do it ? Because you can ?

Yes? This is what schools do. But that doesn't have anything to do with why you have such a problem with this letter (which isn't even exclusive to NU).

Bulla wrote:

A. Nony Mouse wrote:I'm just baffled now. The dean of NU was one of 6 or so deans objecting to a proposed change to ABA standard 503. The NU dean and others object to requiring a standardized test for admission, in part because it harms diversity. What is the issue with that? They would like to get rid of the LSAT and be able to engage in a more holistic assessment because getting rid of the LSAT would remove its importance in the rankings. How does this connect to anything you've been upset about?

What they say is not what they simply do when it comes to diversity. You have Prof. Paul Campos commenting on Harvard aggressive admission practice pursuing diverse applicants that they know they won't accept. So why do it ? Because you can ?

If aggressively pursuing these applicants is true, no idea if it is or not, then yes, that's bad. But that's not what the majority of this thread has been talking about and also has nothing to do with the aba comment. I also think that it does not actually harm their "diversity". Pursuing applicants they know they won't admit is a bad thing but does not really deal with diversity in my opinion. I'll admit this may be up for debate but I'm guessing they probably pursue non diverse candidates with lower scores as well. I received emails from Harvard and didn't get in (based on my numbers I was not particularly surprised) but I knew my chances going in and did not think they were some symbol of me having a great chance at getting in.

I've updated my previous response.

Bulla wrote:

A. Nony Mouse wrote:I'm just baffled now. The dean of NU was one of 6 or so deans objecting to a proposed change to ABA standard 503. The NU dean and others object to requiring a standardized test for admission, in part because it harms diversity. What is the issue with that? They would like to get rid of the LSAT and be able to engage in a more holistic assessment because getting rid of the LSAT would remove its importance in the rankings. How does this connect to anything you've been upset about?

What they say is not what they simply do when it comes to diversity. You have Prof. Paul Campos commenting on Harvard aggressive admission practice pursuing diverse applicants that they know they won't accept. So why do it ? Because you can ?

Jclubb wrote:

Bulla wrote:

Jclubb wrote:Law schools will not do things that hurt their rankings because that would impact the donations they receive and potentially some of the employment prospect for their students because law cares so highly for prestige. To suggest a school should not care about rankings is not good because that would harm those that attend the school in the form of less money for scholarships and potentially fewer jobs. The letter to the ABA is great because all law schools would have to play by the same rules if the aba made a change and thus they would not have to worry about taking a hit in the rankings in order to fight the good fight. Change will come from the ABA and schools petitioning for that change is a good start. So great job NU and whoever else signed on to the letter. You're fighting for change.

Do you even understand the merits of their letter to ABA ? Their comments on 503 as an ABA standard.

The Council is circulating for notice and comment a proposal that retains the requirement of a law school admission test in the Standards. This requirement is important in enforcing the requirement of Standard 501that a“law school shall not admit an applicant who does not appear capable of satisfactorily completing its program of legal education and being admitted to the bar.” Further, an admission test is helpful to schools in evaluating applicants and most schools, even if the admission test requirement was removed from the Standards, would continue to require such a test. Finally, the requirement of a test score and requiring schools to publish information about the test score profile of their entering classes is a helpful data point for students considering the study of law and where to apply/attend

The easiest way to enforce Standard 501’s requirement that we only admit capable students is to measure how those students we admit perform in the program and on the bar exam

The requirement of a standardized admissions test negatively impacts efforts to diversify the profession.The many law schools attentive to rankings by U.S.News routinely wait list or deny admission to students who the school believes can succeed in the educational program and pass the bar exam. In fact, many of these students’ admission test scores are–in predictive terms–indistinguishable from applicants who are admitted. And many of these students are diverse along any measurement of diversity. But the heavy weight put on these test scores by U.S. News inhibits the ability to admit these students for fear of harming the law school’s rankings.

The denial of admission has less to do with the abilities of the prospective students and more to do with maintaining metrics to ensure rankings success

So I just reread the letter because I thought I misread but nope. I'm right. Go NU. This letter does exactly what I thought. No idea how you think this helps you.

Fortunately i am not a blind fan. I usually look ahead, are they really gaining innovation and more diversity from their comment to ABA or simply opening the door to less accountability ? We've seen it with their tuition raise and you should know many are not happy with that decision.

Because not many applicants are applying to law school, it is hurting their yearly budget and they aim to relax the standards so it doesn't affect their Rank when they comply with it.

I thought your whole point was that they shouldn't put so much weight on the LSAT and that was elitist because diverse applicants have greater obstacles doing well on the LSAT. Why are you now upset that they might "relax standards"???

Relying on the level of material a school sends you as an indication of your chance at getting in is a bad idea. Looking at Lsn or even coming on here to ask your chances is a better idea. Had you come on here and stated your desire to get into NU with your numbers before applying I'm sure you would've gotten a whole lot of retake advice

Also I'm pretty sure we concluded you cannot use their tuition increase as evidence that they aren't going by what they say because they are giving out more scholarships, or may be giving out more scholarships (don't remember whether someone provided a link to proof). Either way you cannot say that the tuition increase goes against what they said because you have no proof that students are actually paying more. Also tuition increases are just a fact of life at law schools. Not saying I agree or that we should give them a pass on it. Just saying it doesn't go against what they said and doesn't help your case in any way.

A. Nony Mouse wrote:

Bulla wrote:

A. Nony Mouse wrote:I'm just baffled now. The dean of NU was one of 6 or so deans objecting to a proposed change to ABA standard 503. The NU dean and others object to requiring a standardized test for admission, in part because it harms diversity. What is the issue with that? They would like to get rid of the LSAT and be able to engage in a more holistic assessment because getting rid of the LSAT would remove its importance in the rankings. How does this connect to anything you've been upset about?

What they say is not what they simply do when it comes to diversity. You have Prof. Paul Campos commenting on Harvard aggressive admission practice pursuing diverse applicants that they know they won't accept. So why do it ? Because you can ?

Jclubb wrote:

Bulla wrote:

Jclubb wrote:Law schools will not do things that hurt their rankings because that would impact the donations they receive and potentially some of the employment prospect for their students because law cares so highly for prestige. To suggest a school should not care about rankings is not good because that would harm those that attend the school in the form of less money for scholarships and potentially fewer jobs. The letter to the ABA is great because all law schools would have to play by the same rules if the aba made a change and thus they would not have to worry about taking a hit in the rankings in order to fight the good fight. Change will come from the ABA and schools petitioning for that change is a good start. So great job NU and whoever else signed on to the letter. You're fighting for change.

Do you even understand the merits of their letter to ABA ? Their comments on 503 as an ABA standard.

The Council is circulating for notice and comment a proposal that retains the requirement of a law school admission test in the Standards. This requirement is important in enforcing the requirement of Standard 501that a“law school shall not admit an applicant who does not appear capable of satisfactorily completing its program of legal education and being admitted to the bar.” Further, an admission test is helpful to schools in evaluating applicants and most schools, even if the admission test requirement was removed from the Standards, would continue to require such a test. Finally, the requirement of a test score and requiring schools to publish information about the test score profile of their entering classes is a helpful data point for students considering the study of law and where to apply/attend

The easiest way to enforce Standard 501’s requirement that we only admit capable students is to measure how those students we admit perform in the program and on the bar exam

The requirement of a standardized admissions test negatively impacts efforts to diversify the profession.The many law schools attentive to rankings by U.S.News routinely wait list or deny admission to students who the school believes can succeed in the educational program and pass the bar exam. In fact, many of these students’ admission test scores are–in predictive terms–indistinguishable from applicants who are admitted. And many of these students are diverse along any measurement of diversity. But the heavy weight put on these test scores by U.S. News inhibits the ability to admit these students for fear of harming the law school’s rankings.

The denial of admission has less to do with the abilities of the prospective students and more to do with maintaining metrics to ensure rankings success

So I just reread the letter because I thought I misread but nope. I'm right. Go NU. This letter does exactly what I thought. No idea how you think this helps you.

Fortunately i am not a blind fan. I usually look ahead, are they really gaining innovation and more diversity from their comment to ABA or simply opening the door to less accountability ? We've seen it with their tuition raise and you should know many are not happy with that decision.

Because not many applicants are applying to law school, it is hurting their yearly budget and they aim to relax the standards so it doesn't affect their Rank when they comply with it.

I thought your whole point was that they shouldn't put so much weight on the LSAT and that was elitist because diverse applicants have greater obstacles doing well on the LSAT. Why are you now upset that they might "relax standards"???

They play with words and twist them. They bring diversity into an accountability debate about ABA standards. Two different topics. I don't see the merits of their comments. You don't serve diverse applicants by increasing tuition. The cost of a JD should not be a quarter of a million.

Do i agree with the structure of LSAT ? Absolutely not as it doesn't prepare applicants for law school nor expose them to law school materials.
Do we need a better standardize test that teaches law school materials ? Yes we do
Do we need to relay on other standardized tests such as GRE ? May be, that is not a bad thing
Do we need to relax ABA standards ? Hell no.

Jclubb wrote:Also I'm pretty sure we concluded you cannot use their tuition increase as evidence that they aren't going by what they say because they are giving out more scholarships, or may be giving out more scholarships (don't remember whether someone provided a link to proof). Either way you cannot say that the tuition increase goes against what they said because you have no proof that students are actually paying more. Also tuition increases are just a fact of life at law schools. Not saying I agree or that we should give them a pass on it. Just saying it doesn't go against what they said and doesn't help your case in any way.

They have to comply with Gainful Employment, if their data shows that they take out more loans from DOE and have less employment, if they fail it twice, they are at risk of losing title iv funds. When Harvard one of its program failed gainful employment, they closed the program. So even ivy schools can be predatory.

Harvard Program Fails Federal Gainful Employment
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/13/upsh ... aling.html

Bulla wrote:

Jclubb wrote:Also I'm pretty sure we concluded you cannot use their tuition increase as evidence that they aren't going by what they say because they are giving out more scholarships, or may be giving out more scholarships (don't remember whether someone provided a link to proof). Either way you cannot say that the tuition increase goes against what they said because you have no proof that students are actually paying more. Also tuition increases are just a fact of life at law schools. Not saying I agree or that we should give them a pass on it. Just saying it doesn't go against what they said and doesn't help your case in any way.

They have to comply with Gainful Employment, if their data shows that they take out more loans from DOE and have less employment, if they fail it twice, they are at risk of losing title iv funds. When Harvard one of its program failed gainful employment, they closed the program. So even ivy schools can be predatory.

Harvard Program Fails Federal Gainful Employment
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/13/upsh ... aling.html

Okay I'm sorry but I have no idea what this has to do with anything?? Could you please explain how this excuses the fact that you claim the tuition increase hurts diverse students without proving nu hasn't actually lowered the amount students pay by offering scholarships? I just don't think your gainful employment comment has any merit here as elite law schools are so sought after because of the high number of graduates with gainful employment.

This is better than Game of Thrones.

Jclubb wrote:

Bulla wrote:

Jclubb wrote:Also I'm pretty sure we concluded you cannot use their tuition increase as evidence that they aren't going by what they say because they are giving out more scholarships, or may be giving out more scholarships (don't remember whether someone provided a link to proof). Either way you cannot say that the tuition increase goes against what they said because you have no proof that students are actually paying more. Also tuition increases are just a fact of life at law schools. Not saying I agree or that we should give them a pass on it. Just saying it doesn't go against what they said and doesn't help your case in any way.

They have to comply with Gainful Employment, if their data shows that they take out more loans from DOE and have less employment, if they fail it twice, they are at risk of losing title iv funds. When Harvard one of its program failed gainful employment, they closed the program. So even ivy schools can be predatory.

Harvard Program Fails Federal Gainful Employment
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/13/upsh ... aling.html

Okay I'm sorry but I have no idea what this has to do with anything?? Could you please explain how this excuses the fact that you claim the tuition increase hurts diverse students without proving nu hasn't actually lowered the amount students pay by offering scholarships? I just don't think your gainful employment comment has any merit here as elite law schools are so sought after because of the high number of graduates with gainful employment.

How can you serve diverse student body if you're going to saddle them with student loan debts ? Should a JD cost a quarter of a million ?

When you're talking about serving diverse students, you serve them by providing 1) quality education 2) have a meaningful career center 3) don't saddle them with excessive debts.

Bulla wrote:

Jclubb wrote:

Bulla wrote:

Jclubb wrote:Also I'm pretty sure we concluded you cannot use their tuition increase as evidence that they aren't going by what they say because they are giving out more scholarships, or may be giving out more scholarships (don't remember whether someone provided a link to proof). Either way you cannot say that the tuition increase goes against what they said because you have no proof that students are actually paying more. Also tuition increases are just a fact of life at law schools. Not saying I agree or that we should give them a pass on it. Just saying it doesn't go against what they said and doesn't help your case in any way.

They have to comply with Gainful Employment, if their data shows that they take out more loans from DOE and have less employment, if they fail it twice, they are at risk of losing title iv funds. When Harvard one of its program failed gainful employment, they closed the program. So even ivy schools can be predatory.

Harvard Program Fails Federal Gainful Employment
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/13/upsh ... aling.html

Okay I'm sorry but I have no idea what this has to do with anything?? Could you please explain how this excuses the fact that you claim the tuition increase hurts diverse students without proving nu hasn't actually lowered the amount students pay by offering scholarships? I just don't think your gainful employment comment has any merit here as elite law schools are so sought after because of the high number of graduates with gainful employment.

How can you serve diverse student body if you're going to saddle them with student loan debts ? Should a JD cost a quarter of a million ?

When you're talking about serving diverse students, you serve them by providing 1) quality education 2) have a meaningful career center 3) don't saddle them with excessive debts.

Okay. Again your gainful employment comment fits nowhere and you have yet to prove the tuition increase means anything because of potential scholarship increases. Maybe stop rehashing the same arguments that we've already shown don't have merit and provide new evidence

Jclubb wrote:

Bulla wrote:

Jclubb wrote:

Bulla wrote:

Jclubb wrote:Also I'm pretty sure we concluded you cannot use their tuition increase as evidence that they aren't going by what they say because they are giving out more scholarships, or may be giving out more scholarships (don't remember whether someone provided a link to proof). Either way you cannot say that the tuition increase goes against what they said because you have no proof that students are actually paying more. Also tuition increases are just a fact of life at law schools. Not saying I agree or that we should give them a pass on it. Just saying it doesn't go against what they said and doesn't help your case in any way.

They have to comply with Gainful Employment, if their data shows that they take out more loans from DOE and have less employment, if they fail it twice, they are at risk of losing title iv funds. When Harvard one of its program failed gainful employment, they closed the program. So even ivy schools can be predatory.

Harvard Program Fails Federal Gainful Employment
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/13/upsh ... aling.html

Okay I'm sorry but I have no idea what this has to do with anything?? Could you please explain how this excuses the fact that you claim the tuition increase hurts diverse students without proving nu hasn't actually lowered the amount students pay by offering scholarships? I just don't think your gainful employment comment has any merit here as elite law schools are so sought after because of the high number of graduates with gainful employment.

How can you serve diverse student body if you're going to saddle them with student loan debts ? Should a JD cost a quarter of a million ?

When you're talking about serving diverse students, you serve them by providing 1) quality education 2) have a meaningful career center 3) don't saddle them with excessive debts.

Okay. Again your gainful employment comment fits nowhere and you have yet to prove the tuition increase means anything because of potential scholarship increases. Maybe stop rehashing the same arguments that we've already shown don't have merit and provide new evidence

I seriously don't know if you're acting or want to ignore the arguments because you're not doing anything other then running around in a circle with your same response. I wonder if you confuse your entire classmates on a particular topic in class.

Bulla wrote:

Jclubb wrote:

Bulla wrote:

Jclubb wrote:

Bulla wrote:

Jclubb wrote:Also I'm pretty sure we concluded you cannot use their tuition increase as evidence that they aren't going by what they say because they are giving out more scholarships, or may be giving out more scholarships (don't remember whether someone provided a link to proof). Either way you cannot say that the tuition increase goes against what they said because you have no proof that students are actually paying more. Also tuition increases are just a fact of life at law schools. Not saying I agree or that we should give them a pass on it. Just saying it doesn't go against what they said and doesn't help your case in any way.

They have to comply with Gainful Employment, if their data shows that they take out more loans from DOE and have less employment, if they fail it twice, they are at risk of losing title iv funds. When Harvard one of its program failed gainful employment, they closed the program. So even ivy schools can be predatory.

Harvard Program Fails Federal Gainful Employment
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/13/upsh ... aling.html

Okay I'm sorry but I have no idea what this has to do with anything?? Could you please explain how this excuses the fact that you claim the tuition increase hurts diverse students without proving nu hasn't actually lowered the amount students pay by offering scholarships? I just don't think your gainful employment comment has any merit here as elite law schools are so sought after because of the high number of graduates with gainful employment.

How can you serve diverse student body if you're going to saddle them with student loan debts ? Should a JD cost a quarter of a million ?

When you're talking about serving diverse students, you serve them by providing 1) quality education 2) have a meaningful career center 3) don't saddle them with excessive debts.

Okay. Again your gainful employment comment fits nowhere and you have yet to prove the tuition increase means anything because of potential scholarship increases. Maybe stop rehashing the same arguments that we've already shown don't have merit and provide new evidence

I seriously don't know if you're acting or want to ignore the arguments because you're not doing anything other then running around in a circle with your same response. I wonder if you confuse your entire classmates on a particular topic in class.

You are the one who every time we make an argument against your crazy accusations comes back to the same exact thing. I'm willing to listen to your arguments but you have so far only said the same things which we have shown don't help your case. I'm begging you to please give me something new to prove wrong. Because the way it stands you just keep rehashing things weve already proved don't help you.

Bulla wrote:So we're ok with the constant tuition increase for a JD ? Just because you can do it doesn't make it right and the norm.

A. Nony Mouse wrote:

Bulla wrote:You don't get $100 million donation and decide to raise tuition on students. What is the justification ?

You use the $100 million for scholarships for students who don't have any money, while still charging for students that do.

Do we have any evidence which backs this up ? May be a breakdown of class of 2020

This is literally what every needs-blind undergraduate institution in the country does. They make the rich pay sticker and subsidize the kids who need it. Now, I'm not saying it's the exact same at the graduate level, because it's not (merit-based aid and all), but it's not an unheard of mechanic. Harvard, Yale, Princeton, and even, yes, Northwestern does it at the undergraduate level.

For example, "NU has increased [undergraduate] financial aid for students by 55 percent in the last five years, with about $160 million available for the 2016-17 year." - The Daily Northwestern (the flagship student newspaper) Yet, over the same period, NU has raised tuition every year. Because of the gigantic needs-based scholarship increases over the past five years, the people getting impacted by the tuition increases are the rich kids, not first generation Sally with a household income of $35,000.

Also, like nony pointed out. Do we have any evidence to the contrary at the graduate level?

Edited to make comment nicer to OP

I believe we have done all we can to address ops arguments. She doesn't have any new ones so our work here is done. Crazy wild accusations proven to be such and I have come to the realization that op cannot/willnot see reason and therefore further arguing would be pointless. From here on in I will simply observe.

(Unless something about me or my comments is brought up or it gets super insane and I can't hold back lol)