Law Schools
Tuition Jumps 15% or More at Some Public Law Schools
Posted Aug 3, 2009 12:09 PM CST
By Debra Cassens Weiss
Faced with declining state funding and shrinking endowments, many public law schools are increasing their tuition.
Budget cuts hit hard this year as states struggled to balance their budgets, the National Law Journal reports. Some schools are trying to reduce the disparity in tuition for in-state and out-of-state residents by giving bigger increases to in-state students.
The article says these schools are reporting increases:
• Indiana University’s Maurer School of Law, raising tuition 24.5 percent for in-state students, bringing the annual total to nearly $25,000.
• The University of Iowa College of Law, raising tuition 20 percent for in-state residents and 13 percent for out-of-state students.
• The University of Colorado School of Law, raising in-state tuition by 16 percent for first-year students, 20 percent for 2Ls and 12 percent for 3Ls.
• The University of Texas School of Law, raising tuition 16 percent for in-state students and 11 percent for out-of-state students.
• The University of Minnesota Law School, raising tuition by 15 percent for in-state first-year students and almost 8 percent for out-of-state students as well as in-state 2Ls and 3Ls.
Figures on overall tuition increases aren’t available yet. For the 2008-09 school year, the average increase in public school tuition was 9 percent for in-state students and 7 percent for out-of-state students, according to the story. The average annual tuition for in-state public law school students was $16,836.
- How B of A’s GC Got Fired: Leave Now, and Leave Your BlackBerry Behind
- Schools Ranked by 'Super Lawyers' Produced
- Law Firm Price Wars Break Out as Some Try ‘Loss Leader’ Bids for Work
- Five Questions for Law Firms Abandoning Lockstep Compensation
- Judge Jails 2 Attorneys for Contempt in 4 Days
- Reed Smith Will Ask Nonequity Partners to Pony Up Possibly 15% of Pay
- Court Deputy Ordered to Apologize or Face Jail After Taking Lawyer's Paperwork
- Skadden Jumps on the Bonus Bandwagon
- ABA Executive Director Resigns
- Nasty Attitude to Co-Worker, Naughty Word in E-Mail Cost 2 Their Jobs
Should Supreme Court Justices Be Able to Review News Accounts Before Publication?
Comments
George Patsourakos
Aug 3, 2009 12:30 PM CST
It is unfortunate that tuition has increased by more than 15 percent at some public law schools.
On the other hand, in-state tuition at most public law schools is still less expensive than it is at private law schools.
Flag this comment
J.D.
Aug 3, 2009 12:31 PM CST
This shouldn’t be a surprise. When the government screws up, prices on gov’t-run entities go up.
Imagine if Hillary got her way and the gov’t completely controlled our health care right now. Does anyone think that as public tuition went up, public health care costs wouldn’t?
Socialism kills.
Flag this comment
B. McLeod
Aug 3, 2009 1:07 PM CST
The National Law Journal article provides a very good account of the gradual privatization of the nation’s “public” law schools. Legislatures across the country are increasingly choking off the dwindling stream of tax support for the schools. Following a year where market conditions caused 20-30% losses in endowment funds, the continuing state cuts are forcing tuition increases. If this trend is allowed to continue unchecked, tuition will become very expensive indeed, and the “public” law schools will eventually remain so in name only. Every entering class will become limited to a blend of the very wealthy and students on scholarship, and the historic purpose of the “public” law schools will cease to be carried out.
Flag this comment
ewwwe
Aug 3, 2009 1:58 PM CST
how else are the law schools going to pay for dozens of McShill lobbyists to go online and defend the legal educatopm industry?
Flag this comment
Purtend J.D.
Aug 3, 2009 1:59 PM CST
Comment removed by moderator.
Flag this comment
Steve
Aug 3, 2009 2:07 PM CST
While the availability of loans has led to tuition increases all over the “industry”, two things could help keep them from becoming oppressive.
1) Locked in tuition prices for 3-4 years after original admission date, so existing students don’t get the old bait and switch.
2) Having last year’s increase percentage or a recent average placed on the LSAC info sheets and/or on the various rankings systems like US News.
Once you protect the current students, and warn the future students, this becomes less of an issue.
Flag this comment
ewwwe
Aug 3, 2009 7:27 PM CST
btw, my comment above was not directed at any particular poster or person, just at the large number of online posters who seem to defend an exploitative law school industry
Flag this comment
James
Aug 3, 2009 10:01 PM CST
There’s a lot of exploitation in the world. By now everyone should realize that attending a T3 / T4 law school is akin to smoking. “It’s bad for you!”
However even with the surgeon general’s warning on cigarette packages and the fact that we’ve known tobacco is unhealthy since the 50’s there are still people suing the tobacco companies for misleading advertising.
So here’s the warning that needs to be placed on the front cover of all T3/T4 guidebooks in bold letters.
“Warning. Attending this school may jeopardize your ability to secure meaningful employment upon graduation. $150,000 is an excessive amount to spend on education at a low ranked diploma mill.”
Flag this comment
B. McLeod
Aug 4, 2009 12:15 AM CST
It’s funny, but the “exploitative law school industry” has been very, very good to me. I can see, though, that the whole system must be rigged. I mean, if a freakin’ genius like # 7 crapped out, what else could it be?
Flag this comment
tim
Aug 4, 2009 7:52 AM CST
Law schools find everyone 100,000 a year jobs so of course the 15% raise is justified.
Law school take care of their students. It is only good that students pay for that service.
Flag this comment
LS
Aug 4, 2009 11:26 AM CST
Once upon a time in law school land, it was perhaps true that getting a law school education was good for your career, regardless of whether you ended up practicing.
Oh how things can change. Today, in reality land, caveat emptor applies to anyone even THINKING about going to law school given the cost of said education.
Flag this comment
Steve
Aug 4, 2009 7:42 PM CST
Except for the erroneous and derogatory use of the term “diploma mill”, I wholeheartedly agree with the sentiments in #8.
Prospective students are just NOT getting accurate salary and employment stats from any of the sources they would consider credible.
It doesn’t even OCCUR to them that the stats in most school’s brochures could be so far removed from reality. So as they continue to overvalue the worth of a J.D. in their own minds, the public schools see an untapped revenue stream. And good luck getting any sympathy in the state legislatures or among the voters for “poor struggling” young lawyers.
Flag this comment
pedro
Aug 7, 2009 6:20 AM CST
Law schools aren’t worth what they charge you. You don’t get any ebenefit from them other than the degree. I haven’t give a dime back to my law school and don’t plan it on it.
Flag this comment
dude
Aug 7, 2009 6:42 AM CST
Even though he/she could have said it better, #8 has a point…I bet your law loan payment will be as high as as your mortgage or rent…
Flag this comment
Rutgers grad
Aug 7, 2009 7:02 AM CST
I switched from a private law school in NYC on the same level (T2) after my first year. Here’s what I got: smaller classes, a nicer campus, the ability to park, more diverse student body and teachers, more class offerings and HALF THE PRICE.
As a practicing attorney, I make a monthy contribution to my school. I will increase that this year. I also contribute to its public interest law group.
Very proud of my schools traditions, and that I was able to receive an incredible education for a reasonable price.
I want to make sure this opportunity remains open to the citizens of New Jersey forever.
Flag this comment
Not so synical
Aug 7, 2009 7:13 AM CST
Sure, tuition is going up and it may be wise for people to think twice before going to a private T3/T4 school.
There are, however, still some good value schools out there. By that I mean schools which are respected regionally, have high bar passage rates, high job placement rates and the in-state tuition won’t completely rob you of financial independence.
For instance: Alabama (12K), BYU (10K), Florida (12K), Georgia (13K), Ole Miss (9K), Wisconsin (14K), Tennessee (13K), Washington (19K), George Mason (18K) and Kansas (15K). Just to name a few.
Flag this comment
J
Aug 7, 2009 7:39 AM CST
These tuition hikes are unbelievable. It cannot possibly cost a public law school or private law school $25,000 to $30,000 to edcuate a law student for one year. These schools are completely money hungry and are doing their students and the general public a great disservice. During my time at Villanova Law, I asked an assistant dean to provide us with an accounting of student tuition, and where it was spent. He flat out refused to provide such information, which is a pretty telling story.
Flag this comment
BB
Aug 7, 2009 8:54 AM CST
Always lots of comments how there are too many lawyers. Doesn’t simple economics dictate that if there is too much supply (of law graduates) that raising prices should reduce the demand (for a legal education)? These schools must be altruistically looking out for the betterment of the industry. The real question is, and the more interesting story would have been, how many of these schools are also reducing class sizes?
Flag this comment
Erin
Aug 7, 2009 8:56 AM CST
The cost of a JD is undoubtedly high (tuition (plus 25+ years of interset to pay of the loan) + 3 years of no wages). One must compare this cost with the salary he will receive (minus loan payments). Is this salary higher than the salary you would receive without the JD?
I went to a tier one school. I received a great education (although I had zero practical lawyering skills upon graduation but a heck of a lot of theoretical skills). If I could do it again, there is no way I would have gone to law school. I wanted to work in the public sector, but I must be a slave to a large firm in order to repay my student loans.
Law school tuition is an anti-trust price fixing case. Law school is more expensive than undergrad, yet, in undergrad, you have labs and kinds of other true costs that the school pays for. In law school, you have a chalk board and maybe some technology.
Flag this comment
stealthlawprof
Aug 7, 2009 9:01 AM CST
J- The assistant dean’s refusal to say where the money is going is telling, but don’t think you were being singled out. I wonder whether the assistant dean even knew. No one at my school except the dean knows where our revenue goes. The best we can tell is that about 40% of the revenue goes straight to the undergraduate school.
All I know with assurance is this—last year I had over 750 contact hours (# of students x credit hours), but the first four students I taught paid enough tuition to cover my salary and benefits. Everything else went somewhere else.
Flag this comment
Kim K.
Aug 7, 2009 10:00 AM CST
I continue to be amazed by the comments posted about T3 and T4 schools and how they are robbing their students and, by virtue of their ranking, making it nearly impossible for their graduates to find “meaningful employment.” If your definition of “meaningful” employment means a starting salary of six figures, most law school graduates across tier levels aren’t getting “meaningful” employment. Tier 3 and 4 law schools have turned out many successful lawyers who make a great living, are highly respected, and serve their communities. Some have become state and appellate court judges. No matter the tier, it is simply not prudent to go into deep debt to obtain any kind of education on the assumption that you’ll come out with a six figure job waiting for you. Go to school, don’t go into debt, learn the law, pass the bar and get to work. There is work out there for Tier 3 and 4 graduates, even in this economy.
Flag this comment
B. McLeod
Aug 7, 2009 10:29 AM CST
#15, I am glad to find that there are still some grads who feel that way.
# 16, great list of schools, and well-informed.
Flag this comment
Larry
Aug 7, 2009 1:06 PM CST
#2 comment. The cost of state (and private) tuition has been on the rise for years; especially under that well known socialist Bush. A Democrat has been in power for 200 days and suddenly we blame everything on him? You can hate the fact that your guy didn’t win but reason still dictates! If you don’t like socialism then we should scrap state education (all levels), Medicare for grandma and grandpa, the police, fire, road maintenance, pay no taxes and rely on the second amendment. The problem with having no government is the people who like to blame the government are the type of people who have to blame someone, so they blame each other, which is very dangerous when you are relying on the second amendment.
To those more thoughtful posters. Law school is indeed very expensive but applicants need to look beyond the sticker price. Law schools offer a lot of scholarships to those with the right academic profile; you just have to apply to schools who will find your profile attractive. Also, it is not unreasonable to believe that if you are an attractive candidate then your profile would likely suggest that you should graduate high up in your class (if you work hard enough). Many hiring partners would argue that, outside of the top 20 schools, where you graduate in your class can be more important than which school you went to. Less debt, better job prospects.
If you graduate from law school hating your alma mater for all the debt they forced you to get into, you only have yourself to blame. We really don’t live in a socialist dictatorship; nobody forced you to do anything. Read the Gulag Archipelago!
Flag this comment
Stephen Trachtenberg
Aug 7, 2009 1:12 PM CST
Re: # 20 above. Under ABA rules 40% of the revenue may not go to the undergraduate school. Look it up.
Flag this comment
The Dude
Aug 7, 2009 1:26 PM CST
Anybody know whether BYU Law has raised its tuition? It was $7500/year when I graduated a couple years ago. That’s a pretty slammin’ deal!
Flag this comment
recent grad
Aug 7, 2009 1:56 PM CST
The list #16 provides is a bit deceptive. It doesn’t include the “fees” the school tacks on, the parking/travel expense, books, living expenses, etc. I graduated from one of those schools, had scholarships to pay half my tuition, and still have $70,000 in debt. It was a great school and I had a job waiting when I graduated, but it was by no means inexpensive. The advice to not go into debt to get your education is hard to live by. Even working and getting scholarships, I am coming out with substantial debt. My student loan payments are more than my mortgage. I went to law school because I want to be a lawyer and love the work, but it would be nice if the pay were enough to make up for the incredible expese of getting the degree. Tuition was more than $450 per credit hour, before the required student fees and parking permits were tacked on - and this is cheap compared to many law schools!
Flag this comment
B. McLeod
Aug 7, 2009 2:57 PM CST
Indeed, # 24, but there certainly have been some controversies (one, very recent, and involving the sacking of a dean) over whether the undergraduate schools are accurately reporting fund retention ratios.
Flag this comment
memeboy
Aug 7, 2009 3:20 PM CST
#3 has it right. Law school endowments (beyond the control of the schools) were cut by as much as 40% and at many state schools the endowments are not that large to begin with. To make matters worse, legislatures have cut back on state support, in many cases to the point that they are now providing less than 20% of the budget. That leaves tuition to pick up the large loss in revenue.
It does not seem that the law schools are raking in the profits. A school with 200 students at 30K each will have $6M revenue but $1-3M will be returned to students as scholarships. $4.5M only pays salaries for 30 profs. There are other sources of revenue, but there are other expenses as well.
Flag this comment
gea
Aug 8, 2009 9:52 AM CST
Clients do not care where you went to school. There are thousands of lawyers who have graduated from 2nd and 3rd/4th tier law schools who not only make good money, feed their families and make alumni contributions. The point is not whether the lsat or C average undergrads should be allowed to go to law school, it is whether ALL law school should be so expensive. My suggestion is to get rid of the fancy dancy classrooms, fancy dancy sod and prices will go down. imo.
Flag this comment
gea
Aug 8, 2009 9:58 AM CST
Addendum: Game Point - No matter which school you went to—you still have to pass the same state bar! 2nd point, your cient only wants to know by word of mouth that you have won cases for their neighbors and the fact that it took you two or 3 times to pass it will not phase your client, unless they are genetically competitive.
Flag this comment
B. McLeod
Aug 9, 2009 3:34 PM CST
Except in Wisconsin, where you don’t.
Flag this comment
will
Aug 10, 2009 6:29 AM CST
tuition will continue to rise as long as the law schools lie about their salary and employment stats
Flag this comment
pedro
Aug 10, 2009 8:14 AM CST
Under Obama college education should be free. Everyone should get free education, housing and health care.
spread the wealth to all man kind
Flag this comment
Doug
Aug 12, 2009 7:01 PM CST
Those of you thinking of going to law school, please give it serious thought. Lawyer jobs are disappearing, law salaries are shrinking a law school tuitions are increasing.
Flag this comment
Add a Comment
We welcome your comments, but please adhere to our comment policy.
Commenting has expired on this post.