OTOH, a big chance to UC Modesto to increase enrollment.
They'd have to start it first.
What do you mean start it?
My law school roommate from Chicago once told me about SF "pedestrians [in SF] have way too many rights"; the corollary is true here in the US, "people have way too much time/many ways to sue someone."
It's not Modesto State? #GoTitans!
Not getting in Berekely is not pushing students to Merced. They will select UCLA, Irvine, Santa Barbara or San Diego.
My son was accepted into UC Riverside with a nice scholarship package but never considered it once UCLA and later Berekely came calling.
Yeah, my bad. Got my Highway 99 paradises mixed up.There is no UC Modesto. UC Merced, yes.
Yeah but there should be some ripple effect, right, as 3000 rejected Cal students push lesser-qualified students out of Irvine and the other branches.Not getting in Berekely is not pushing students to Merced. They will select UCLA, Irvine, Santa Barbara or San Diego.
My son was accepted into UC Riverside with a nice scholarship package but never considered it once UCLA and later Berekely came calling.
Yeah, my bad. Got my Highway 99 paradises mixed up.
True. It will ripple through the UC and Cal State system, perhaps even to Turkey Tech, er Cal State Stanislaus.Yeah but there should be some ripple effect, right, as 3000 rejected Cal students push lesser-qualified students out of Irvine and the other branches.
So help me understand why I am supposed to be outraged by this decision.
From my understanding, the university keeps adding to the enrollment numbers without really addressing the fact that there's no place for these students to live. It's the middle of the Bay Area.
They can wring their hands about "killing the dreams of students," but let's at least keep in mind the real reason the university is fighting to add to enrollment:
"The university has said that it stands to lose at least $57 million in tuition by not admitting the additional students."
There is no UC Modesto. UC Merced, yes.
Good memory, that was right when I was graduating from law school. It took a lawsuit for "us" to get that right. Supreme Court said it was a violation of First Amendment for a total ban. Rule I believe is that "we" can advertise but not actively solicit. (I should know but 100% of my clients come through referrals.)Weren’t lawyers banned from advertising on any media until the 1980s? Maybe that was just the ABA’s stance. There always have been ambulance chasers, but not to this degree. Every seventh commercial I see on local channels is for Morgan & Morgan or one of its local clones.