Eagleionline

A request for reduction in tuition ignores the fact that the current economy has had a crippling effect on colleges and universities. You reference the endowment as a resource to reduce tuition. This same endowment probably lost 20% over the course of 2009 alone. Most universities are in the unenviable position of having to lay off faculty members. Moreover, the endowment is not just a sweet little slush fund to use for a rainy day. My guess is that donations from alumni have diminished since the economy generally and legal profession specifically have been struggling. Maybe we can take the money out of the faculty's raise for 2010. Oh wait, they're not getting one. Would you support a reduction in faculty headcount or in courses to offset the tuition reduction? In turn, such change could potentially damage the school's reputation and subsequently the value of your degree. While the sound of a tuition reduction sounds sexy, I think it is entirely unrealistic.

I support a tuition reduction.

I also support dramatically (an temporarily) increasing the availability of ‘law school loans’ to offset the use of federal PLUS loans for the classes of 2009-2012. The school loans are fixed at a 5% interest rate (as opposed to 8.5% for PLUS loans), and presumably the grace periods are under the control of the school. This would mean a student unfortunate enough to graduate unemployed would be able to negotiate with the school to extend the non-payment grace period or forbearance instead of the likes of Citibank. It also would allow the school to back some of its 'community' rhetoric with its financial resources. If the school truly believes in the eventual financial success of its students, it should consider lending to us thereby tying the school's financial futures to ours.

Something else that might help...not charging students $11 for lunch. I get that most of the frosh who share our cafeteria probably have mother and father footing their bill (which I appreciate when they are nice and buy me food at the end of the semester), but some of us are paying for our meals ourselves and it is way overpriced.

Also, unless we are willing to actually drop out without such a reduction in tuition, I see very little reason for BC to lower tuition. We're all clearly stupid enough to keep shelling out $40K/year for a useless degree, why should they cut us a break?

I agree with above comment that the endowments are probably not a legitimate source for relief, but I also think Pete has a point generally that it is bothersome that we are dumping all this money in their pockets and we see it being spent on less than vital resources for students. For example, I'm not really sure what adding to the career services department is going to accomplish when it comes to GETTING US JOBS.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supply_and_demand

"Supply and demand is an economic model of price determination in a market. It concludes that in a competitive market, price will function to equalize the quantity demanded by consumers, and the quantity supplied by producers, resulting in an economic equilibrium of price and quantity."

And to the 3L complaining about $11 lunches -- pack a lunch. I assure you, you can get by on a few dollars a day for food if you cook/prepare for yourself.

S&D, I enjoy how authoritatively you misapply a simple concept.

But seriously, think about it... supply is static here. And of course demand outweighs supply. Whatever combination of people comes up with tuition amounts and increases is not shooting to meet market demand; I'm sure there are 280 people out there in the universe who would love to get a BC Law degree in exchange for $60k a year.

What's really going on here is that in order for a BC Law degree to be worth something, the school needs to stay competitive. The question is: would students be better served by enjoying a small tuition reduction, or by keeping the pressure on to fund the school to help find them a job/keep their future degrees prestigious. I don't want to put words in Peter's mouth, but I think that he's saying the school can probably handle what would be, in the scheme of things, a negligible decrease in revenue without sacrificing services or status.

In response to the first 3L comment:

What is the purpose of the endowment? All would agree that it can't be treated as a "rainy day fund." The current economic situation is hardly a rainy day; its the storm of the century. If now isn't an appropriate time to use our resources, when is? Why do we press our alumni to "give, give, give" and yet, we aren't making use of the fund during a time of considerable need.

In addition to the endowment, we wouldn't have to strain ourselves to think of examples of wasteful spending all around the school. Cutting out an unpopular class or two won't harm our prestige. Having unemployed and debt-ridden graduates will.

Not to beat a dead horse, but I cannot take someone seriously who complains they don't have enough money b/c they spent it on over-priced crappy cafeteria food.

Do you buy coffee everyday too?

Do you not google "[name of website] coupon code" every time you make an online purchase? Ok, that last one was only half-serious...

BC Law is a not-for-profit educational institution. In other words, the purpose of BC Law is not to maximize value for its shareholders (it has none), but to do the best job it can to deliver a high quality educational service.

Peter proposes taking some money out of BC Law's huge endowment to reduce tuition for students. This is something that students should support, in whole or in part (e.g. giving a tuition to some who demonstrate the most financial need).

At the end of the day, BC Law is very, very wealthy. It can afford to be compassionate with tuition for one year, and there are certain people who need help. Those comments above that stand for the proposition that BC Law shouldn't decrease tuition because BC Law doesn't have to miss the point: BC Law should decrease tuition (at least for some) because it can.

For my part, I would support a modified proposal: the tuition itself is not really the problem; students at BC Law have ready access to credit. The difference in $2,000 in principal over a 30 year loan is negligible. I would support a proposal that decreased students CURRENT cash flow constrains. The person above who said lower the prices in the cafe should be awarded a metal and given the opportunity to speak at graduation. That is an excellent idea. Another idea is to promise to forebear principal and/or interest payments for X additional months post-graduation for those students who are unable to find jobs.

Another idea would be to fund these proposals by sacrificing X members of the faculty (a heretical idea). When I graduated a few years ago, BC Law was trying to hire "10 in 10" - ten additional faculty members in 10 years. In retrospect, this was ill-time, because it did not anticipate financial malaise in the general economy. Why don't we put this proposal on hold in favor of the students?

Many of Alumnus's points are valid, but just to refute the $2,000 principal argument... $2,000 principal at 8.5% fixed interest rate over 30 years grows to approximately $23,000. That is not really negligible.

BC dining services has a commitment to paying its employees a living wage. I support this commitment by paying a little extra for my lunch or (most often) by bringing my own lunch and not complaining about the admittedly exorbitant prices in the cafeteria. The larger argument, that BC Law should be working to help its graduates in a down economy, is a good one. I do not think the administration is doing everything they can do about this either. However, the argument that helping law students means paying cafeteria staff less than a living wage is shortsighted and inappropriate.

another 2L: every day you bring your lunch you actually are doing the opposite of helping the cafeteria pay their employees a living wage. Your money is worth more to you today than a concern over repaying something across 30 years of your life, particularly considering the state of the economy today. Reducing the money you are spending today will benefit your far more today and in the immediate future than a tuition reduction of $4,000 that will have a negligible impact for the first few years you are in this dreadful job market.

Ignoring that, the advice to pack your lunch clearly undercuts any concern for paying the employees (many of whom are college students who are working to pay their tuition) and their pay. If the school is concerned about paying a living wage, they can continue to do that and take less of a profit on their food services and still lower the cost to students who struggle even in a good economy to pay living expenses while in law school full time (not every law student is a 23 year old fresh out of college student who's parents still pay for their food - some of us don't have or don't rely on alternative aid from our family to survive). I'm fairly certain the food services at BC are for profit. I'll gladly pay a competitive price for the food here and allow the employees to earn a living wage. Otherwise, I'll continue eating from Subway and let those folks earn their living wage. Better food, lower cost.

In response to 2L, it's true that 2,000 in principal now grows to about 23,000 in principal and interest at 8.5%, but only if you assume that the student makes zero interest and principal payments during all 30 years. In other words, you are assuming that the student will make a "balloon" payment at the end of the loan.

While this is theoretically possible, student lenders don't generally structure student loans this way. Most of the time, students will pay a percentage of principal and interest over the life of the loan, which decreases interest payment substantially.

In any case, I think we both agree that more could be done to ease the debt payments for current students or recent grads.

Just out of curiosity, for all those commenters above who think that students are paying more at lunch to guarantee that the workers there get a "living wage," I wonder if you have any evidence that the price of a sandwich at BC is tied to the workers salary. I don't think so. At least, I don't think it's tied any more to the workers' salary as, say, the "cost" of tuition. Just wondering.

Everyone wants a handout. What's new?

I'm glad we stopped debating the quality of Pete's proposal, and instead, are discussing cafeteria sandwiches prices.

This is why I buy my sandwiches from Wal Mart. Maybe they could open up a law school with competitive tuition rates, too...