Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The In-State Tuition Break, Slowly Disappearing

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 52 posts

Re: The In-State Tuition Break, Slowly Disappearing

#31

Post by louisphilippe »

mhays wrote: post #20

To cite my own experience, I pay around $30,000 a year for my instate J.D. program. My school-appointed mentor, who graduated in 2004, paid $4,000 a year. I see this as unfair, not only in the sense that my generation has to take out extraordinary loans to access education, but also in the sense that I am forced to pay $100,000 just to participate in our justice system. And I am one of the lucky ones benefiting from…

My school-appointed mentor, who graduated in 2004, paid $4,000 a year. I see this as unfair, not only in the sense that my generation has to take out extraordinary loans to access education, but also in the sense that I am forced to pay $100,000 just to participate in our justice system.

Abraham Lincoln could become a lawyer simply by studying books from the library and passing the bar exam. No tuition was needed. Virtually all professions should have entry based on passing tests and paid apprenticeship. There is zero reason why entry needs to be mediated through expensive academic institutions staffed by professors who are generally not practitioners. If people want to go to law school as a luxury, that is fine, but it should not be required to participate in the justice system.

Re: The In-State Tuition Break, Slowly Disappearing

#32

Post by mattstreet »

cmurf wrote: post #19

It's almost impossible for out of state students to "get residency" and pay in state tuition rates. This is due to most states setting the age of majority for tuition classification only, to 25. Age of majority for voting and dying in wars is 18. Age of majority for drinking alcohol is 21. But tuition? Nah, you don't get that until you're 25, even if you're a resident of that state. So in effect, you only get the in…

This screwed me over. I couldn't get any financial help because my parents wouldn't fill the FAFSA, it wasn't until the year I turned 25 that I could get any aid or loans.

Now I'm a computer science professional pulling down a decent salary, the government lost out on about 7 years of taxes because of their policies.

Re: The In-State Tuition Break, Slowly Disappearing

#33

Post by joshuaheard »

louisphilippe wrote: post #31
mhays wrote: post #20

To cite my own experience, I pay around $30,000 a year for my instate J.D. program. My school-appointed mentor, who graduated in 2004, paid $4,000 a year. I see this as unfair, not only in the sense that my generation has to take out extraordinary loans to access education, but also in the sense that I am forced to pay $100,000 just to participate in our justice system. And I am one of the lucky ones benefiting from…

My school-appointed mentor, who graduated in 2004, paid $4,000 a year. I see this as unfair, not only in the sense that my generation has to take out extraordinary loans to access education, but also in the sense that I am forced to pay $100,000 just to participate in our justice system. Abraham Lincoln could become a lawyer simply by studying books from the library and passing the bar exam. No tuition was needed. Vi…

California does not require a JD to take the bar exam. Instead you can apprentice with an attorney or judge.

As an alternative to taking out massive student loans, you can enter a part-time program and work full time to pay your tuition. That is what I did. I worked full time as a paralegal and went to school at night, then studied on weekends. I only took out one small loan to take time off to study for the bar exam and pay the associated costs.

Re: The In-State Tuition Break, Slowly Disappearing

#34

Post by mhays »

louisphilippe wrote: post #31
mhays wrote: post #20

To cite my own experience, I pay around $30,000 a year for my instate J.D. program. My school-appointed mentor, who graduated in 2004, paid $4,000 a year. I see this as unfair, not only in the sense that my generation has to take out extraordinary loans to access education, but also in the sense that I am forced to pay $100,000 just to participate in our justice system. And I am one of the lucky ones benefiting from…

My school-appointed mentor, who graduated in 2004, paid $4,000 a year. I see this as unfair, not only in the sense that my generation has to take out extraordinary loans to access education, but also in the sense that I am forced to pay $100,000 just to participate in our justice system. Abraham Lincoln could become a lawyer simply by studying books from the library and passing the bar exam. No tuition was needed. Vi…

>There is zero reason why entry needs to be mediated through expensive academic institutions staffed by professors who are generally not practitioners. If people want to go to law school as a luxury, that is fine, but it should not be required to participate in the justice system.

I would have agreed with you before I came to law school, but now I see why having intense legal training before being able to practice is required.

Being an attorney requires a very specific type of thinking which is somewhat different from normal human reasoning. It is less about understanding what is wrong or right morally, and more about knowing who or what sources have power, what laws and rules are relevant, and which levers should be pulled to argue for your desired outcome. It is this "thinking like a lawyer" that law school purports to teach, maybe even more so than the actual law itself.

Being an attorney is a huge responsibility, and I think the American Bar Association is right to set the bar high for prospective attorneys. My only gripe is that this bar seems to be not only ability and knowledge based, but also intensely financial as well.

Re: The In-State Tuition Break, Slowly Disappearing

#35

Post by mhays »

danieltillett wrote: post #22
mhays wrote: post #20

To cite my own experience, I pay around $30,000 a year for my instate J.D. program. My school-appointed mentor, who graduated in 2004, paid $4,000 a year. I see this as unfair, not only in the sense that my generation has to take out extraordinary loans to access education, but also in the sense that I am forced to pay $100,000 just to participate in our justice system. And I am one of the lucky ones benefiting from…

Well I am not sure if the USA needs anymore lawyers. If I were in charge I would make the tuition $500,000 pa and use the money to pay court appointed defence attorneys a decent wage and give them a reasonable workload. Fewer lawyers and more justice.

I understand all the negative feelings our society has towards lawyers, and I don't blame anyone for having them. But there are a lot of us who are entering the profession because we have a sincere desire to do good.

I also think that if you talk to those interested in justice equity, especially public defenders, they will tell you that, while there may be too many lawyers in some places, there are many, many underprivileged communities that are underserved by our legal system.

Re: The In-State Tuition Break, Slowly Disappearing

#36

Post by bruceb »

mattstreet wrote: post #32
cmurf wrote: post #19

It's almost impossible for out of state students to "get residency" and pay in state tuition rates. This is due to most states setting the age of majority for tuition classification only, to 25. Age of majority for voting and dying in wars is 18. Age of majority for drinking alcohol is 21. But tuition? Nah, you don't get that until you're 25, even if you're a resident of that state. So in effect, you only get the in…

This screwed me over. I couldn't get any financial help because my parents wouldn't fill the FAFSA, it wasn't until the year I turned 25 that I could get any aid or loans. Now I'm a computer science professional pulling down a decent salary, the government lost out on about 7 years of taxes because of their policies.

One could argue because of this policy the govt didn't have to pay out for a lot of students who parents did pay up as they should have.

Re: The In-State Tuition Break, Slowly Disappearing

#37

Post by Retra »

danieltillett wrote: post #22
mhays wrote: post #20

To cite my own experience, I pay around $30,000 a year for my instate J.D. program. My school-appointed mentor, who graduated in 2004, paid $4,000 a year. I see this as unfair, not only in the sense that my generation has to take out extraordinary loans to access education, but also in the sense that I am forced to pay $100,000 just to participate in our justice system. And I am one of the lucky ones benefiting from…

Well I am not sure if the USA needs anymore lawyers. If I were in charge I would make the tuition $500,000 pa and use the money to pay court appointed defence attorneys a decent wage and give them a reasonable workload. Fewer lawyers and more justice.

Money is only a barrier if you aren't significantly wealthy. That's tautological enough that you should understand why your proposal doesn't help anything.

Re: The In-State Tuition Break, Slowly Disappearing

#38

Post by jalonso510 »

mhays wrote: post #34
louisphilippe wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My school-appointed mentor, who graduated in 2004, paid $4,000 a year. I see this as unfair, not only in the sense that my generation has to take out extraordinary loans to access education, but also in the sense that I am forced to pay $100,000 just to participate in our justice system. Abraham Lincoln could become a lawyer simply by studying books from the library and passing the bar exam. No tuition was needed. Vi…

>There is zero reason why entry needs to be mediated through expensive academic institutions staffed by professors who are generally not practitioners. If people want to go to law school as a luxury, that is fine, but it should not be required to participate in the justice system. I would have agreed with you before I came to law school, but now I see why having intense legal training before being able to practice is…

Are you still in law school? I've been practicing for about five years and still haven't come across a time where something I learned in law school was useful/necessary. Especially for transactional lawyers, it really already is basically an apprenticeship system where you learn everything you need to know on the job while supervised by more senior lawyers.

Re: The In-State Tuition Break, Slowly Disappearing

#39

Post by aswanson »

mhays wrote: post #34
louisphilippe wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My school-appointed mentor, who graduated in 2004, paid $4,000 a year. I see this as unfair, not only in the sense that my generation has to take out extraordinary loans to access education, but also in the sense that I am forced to pay $100,000 just to participate in our justice system. Abraham Lincoln could become a lawyer simply by studying books from the library and passing the bar exam. No tuition was needed. Vi…

>There is zero reason why entry needs to be mediated through expensive academic institutions staffed by professors who are generally not practitioners. If people want to go to law school as a luxury, that is fine, but it should not be required to participate in the justice system. I would have agreed with you before I came to law school, but now I see why having intense legal training before being able to practice is…

And yet, programmers, with far less forgiving requirements, manage to accomplish as much against far more objective requirements. Your comment seems to convey your field is riddled with political bullshit.

Re: The In-State Tuition Break, Slowly Disappearing

#40

Post by huherto »

mc32 wrote: post #3
hga wrote: post #2

An extremely poor article. The only examples of this reported problem cited are a university that simply increased its size to accommodate more out-of-state students, and UCB, the very best state university in the nation, one that's the equal of many of the best private ones in many fields. If that's the best the NYT can do, perhaps we don't have so much of a problem after all....

What amazes me is that out of state students would have to pay out of state while someone in the state without a visa could get in state tuition. I'm not against in state tuition for visa offenders, but at the same time there seems to be an unfairness with regard to out of state students who would have to pay the "full price".

This probably varies per state.

But I know that often people that do not have access to instate tuition because they lack the visa requirement. Yet they grew and have lived most of their lives within the state.

Post reply on HN