Home (Post) Mobile Authors Say Anything Register Login

Tuesday, February 12, 2008

Because They Can: Part 1

From the Grand Forks Herald:

The University of North Dakota’s law school wants to start a series of steep tuition increases for new students.

For North Dakota residents who enroll in the law school this fall, the plan would raise tuition 15 percent each year for four years. A year’s tuition would increase from about $6,000 to $10,620 during the 2011-12 school year.

Students already in the law school would see their tuition bills go up as well, but the increases would be smaller. Law school officials say UND’s tuition is cheap compared to law schools at comparable universities.

The Board of Higher Education’s budget, audit and finance committee has endorsed the proposal. It goes to the full board later.

Why is is tuition going up?

Not because professor pay is going up.

Not because of high energy costs.

According to “Law school officials” tuition is going up because “UND’s tuition is cheap compared to law schools at comparable universities.”

And what’s the deal with the arbitrary 15% increase for 4-consecutive years?  What dark hole did they pull that figure from?

The role of a publicly financed university is to provide the best education at the lowest cost, right?

At what point did UND Law School become a revenue source for the state?  At what point did the Board of Higher Education start rubber stamping policies that will drive more young people out of the state? (Hint: It started a long time ago)

Driving up the cost of education because it is cheap should tell every North Dakotan that the unelected and unaccountable policy makers in the North Dakota University System are out of touch and actively trying to hurt the state.

Comments

I guess we shouldn’t need to subsidy the law school then, right?


What’s going to happen to US industry when the global warming extremists like John McCain double the price of electricity?  I would think all these factories will close and set up in countries where they aren’t scared of technology.


The Whistler's signature
The Whistler on February 12, 2008 at 03:57 pm

Well, given that most lawyers earn six figures, exactly why we should be subsidizing that is beyond me.

Bike Bubba on February 12, 2008 at 04:49 pm

Dustin, if that’s their comment, I’d write to your regional newspaper about the issue.

But I think they have a plan with the money.

dirl126 on February 12, 2008 at 08:01 pm
Avatar for Jordan

the starting salary for attorneys in north dakota is about $34,000 not six figures.

source: http://www.payscale.com

Jordan on February 19, 2008 at 03:51 pm
Rob
Rob
19182 comments
Send a private message

That may be the start, Jordan, but I don’t know a lot of lawyers who have been in the job 5+ years who aren’t very well off.

And I know a lot of lawyers.


When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.

-- Thomas Jefferson

Rob’s recently listened-to songs:

robport.gif border=0

Rob on February 19, 2008 at 03:56 pm

My Condolences Rob.

On a serious note they probably got more debt than income at that point.


What’s going to happen to US industry when the global warming extremists like John McCain double the price of electricity?  I would think all these factories will close and set up in countries where they aren’t scared of technology.


The Whistler's signature
The Whistler on February 19, 2008 at 04:02 pm

It probably makes a difference what kind of law one practices--government law can keep a guy around $50k/year virtually indefinitely. 

Honest law, on the other hand, tends to be much more lucrative.  I remember hearing that a friend of mind just starting out was getting something like $120/billable hour.  Now you don’t get to keep all that when you’re not yet partner, but do the math.  Even 1000 billable hours per year gets you well beyond that $100k mark.

So again, I dare suggest that we don’t need to be subsidizing education for those who do very well in terms of salary.  For that matter, why subsidize it at all?

Bike Bubba on February 20, 2008 at 08:12 am

I dare suggest that we don’t need to be subsidizing education for those who do very well in terms of salary.  For that matter, why subsidize it at all?

Right, if the idea was to help young folks out then they would keep the tuition as low as possible. 

On the other hand they say they can raise it to the market.  If they’re not offering a discount to the students why subsidize it?

The Dean of the law school really screwed up in all but admitting that this is for the benefit of the faculty and not the students.


What’s going to happen to US industry when the global warming extremists like John McCain double the price of electricity?  I would think all these factories will close and set up in countries where they aren’t scared of technology.


The Whistler's signature
The Whistler on February 20, 2008 at 08:44 am
Page 1 of 1        

Post a Comment


Before commenting, please recite:

Grant me the serenity to ignore the trolls,
the courage to debate with honest opponents,
and the wisdom to know the difference.

Name   
Email   
URL   
Human?
  
 

Upload Image    

Remember my personal information

Notify me of follow-up comments?

Note: Notifications will only be sent to confirmed email addresses. Confirm your email address here.

    

By submitting your comment you agree to our terms of service.