Jump in tuition

July 27, 2009
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
By now, most people from Indiana who currently attend or are planning to go to Indiana University Maurer School of Law in Bloomington are aware of the 24.5 percent tuition hike approved for next year. I’m not sure how many know about the increase for the 2010-11 year of 8.1 percent. I read about it in the Indiana Daily Student, the school’s newspaper.

Based on 2008-09 figures from the law school’s Web site, students enrolled in 2010-11 will pay nearly $30,000 a year in tuition and fees. That doesn’t factor in living expenses. I don’t know how much out-of-state tuition is supposed to increase, but the Bloomington school is definitely closing the gap between the two. According to the Indiana University School of Law -- Indianapolis Web site, tuition per credit hour for in-state students will increase about 13 percent next year.

State contributions to public schools have been cut or lessened because of the economy, meaning that schools will need to find that money elsewhere, but tuition increases of this magnitude may end up backfiring.

Increasing tuition this much in two years will inevitably price some students out of law school. Those already in law school now may have to scramble to find loans to cover this increase. Most likely, those loans will have to be private and will come with a high interest rate – if a student can even get approved for them.

With costs rising so dramatically, some students may just decide to fork over the extra money to attend a private school, perhaps even one outside of Indiana. If we are worried about brain drain, we should be keeping students in state. Chances are they’ll be more likely to stay here and get a job.
ADVERTISEMENT
  • With the cuts in aid, many students are
    feeling the pinch. Hopefully the current administration
    gives them some much needed relief.

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
  1. It appears the police and prosecutors are allowed to change the rules halfway through the game to suit themselves. I am surprised that the congress has not yet eliminated the right to a trial in cases involving any type of forensic evidence. That would suit their foolish law and order police state views. I say we eliminate the statute of limitations for crimes committed by members of congress and other government employees. Of course they would never do that. They are all corrupt cowards!!!

  2. Poor Judge Brown probably thought that by slavishly serving the godz of the age her violations of 18th century concepts like due process and the rule of law would be overlooked. Mayhaps she was merely a Judge ahead of her time?

  3. in a lawyer discipline case Judge Brown, now removed, was presiding over a hearing about a lawyer accused of the supposedly heinous ethical violation of saying the words "Illegal immigrant." (IN re Barker) http://www.in.gov/judiciary/files/order-discipline-2013-55S00-1008-DI-429.pdf .... I wonder if when we compare the egregious violations of due process by Judge Brown, to her chiding of another lawyer for politically incorrectness, if there are any conclusions to be drawn about what kind of person, what kind of judge, what kind of apparatchik, is busy implementing the agenda of political correctness and making off-limits legit advocacy about an adverse party in a suit whose illegal alien status is relevant? I am just asking the question, the reader can make own conclsuion. Oh wait-- did I use the wrong adjective-- let me rephrase that, um undocumented alien?

  4. of course the bigger questions of whether or not the people want to pay for ANY bussing is off limits, due to the Supreme Court protecting the people from DEMOCRACY. Several decades hence from desegregation and bussing plans and we STILL need to be taking all this taxpayer money to combat mostly-imagined "discrimination" in the most obviously failed social program of the postwar period.

  5. You can put your photos anywhere you like... When someone steals it they know it doesn't belong to them. And, a man getting a divorce is automatically not a nice guy...? That's ridiculous. Since when is need of money a conflict of interest? That would mean that no one should have a job unless they are already financially solvent without a job... A photographer is also under no obligation to use a watermark (again, people know when a photo doesn't belong to them) or provide contact information. Hey, he didn't make it easy for me to pay him so I'll just take it! Well heck, might as well walk out of the grocery store with a cart full of food because the lines are too long and you don't find that convenient. "Only in Indiana." Oh, now you're passing judgement on an entire state... What state do you live in? I need to characterize everyone in your state as ignorant and opinionated. And the final bit of ignorance; assuming a photo anyone would want is lucky and then how much does your camera have to cost to make it a good photo, in your obviously relevant opinion?

ADVERTISEMENT