i can't find the newspaper article i was reading the other day, but from memory, the figures report that law students pay 87% of their tuition cost (the rest footed by the government). on the other hand, science and engineering students pay about 28% of their tuition cost. funding is diverted from law students to pay for engineering/science. (i don't have the reference on me at hand, but i think it was in the Australian.)Forbidden. said:
it's unequitable but that's the way the system works. the government can afford to screw law students over because:
(1) apparently it costs nothing but 'talk and chalk' to teach law,
(2) we have higher graduate salaries comparatively (although on par with engineering i would say),
(3) because it is seen as a 'prestigious' program, and therefore should be given less government funding than national priorities like nursing and education.
at the same time, class sizes are UNSW law school have increased from 35 to 44 students, having moved to the new building. the dean of the law school has stated that we cannot bring down class sizes because we lack funding.
i don't think people should complain that law students are well off. we're not. just because we have our own libraries, moot courts and computer labs, doesn't mean we're a rich faculty compared to, say, the business faculty. libraries, courts and computer labs are to us what chem labs and engineering equipment are to science/engineering students.
until we all become partners at top tier law firms, we should not be seen as a privileged, elitist bunch. we are under the same pressures as other uni students.
