Law ball rip-off!

28/4/2014

ANDREA HENSON

The law ball is not an equal access event. At $130 per ticket, the price for an evening of drinking, dancing and fancy eating is a steep one, and many students are being priced out of the experience.

Held once again at the swish Peninsula Docklands, the Corrs Chambers Westgarth Law Ball ticket includes a three course meal, all you can drink beer, wine, sparkling and the obligatory softies, plus a city-bound bus to take you to the after-party.

De Minimis contacted the Peninsula Docklands and as it turns out, a five hour dinner and beverage package including security hire costs only $90 per person. So why are we being charged an extra $40 per person?

Will Davidson, the LSS treasurer confirmed that the LSS also receives “very substantial sponsorship” from a certain law firm to hold the event. Yet the ball is apparently run with the aim of “breaking even”. Where is the money going? Good question. The LSS declined to provide a break-down of costs for the event.

The surplus $40 from each of the 500 ball attendees gives event organisers a hefty $20,000 to play with, even more when you consider that non-students pay an extra $10. So where is our money going? A 3km bus ride? Hiring a C grade band to play at us while we eat (oh, and ‘shame’ on us if we don’t know them)? And how much could the after-party venue, which is accepting 500 paying customers, possibly charge for a Thursday night reservation? The figures don’t seem to add up.

It is questionable how much of these extra event costs are even necessary and will actually be appreciated. Think about your previous ball experiences; have you ever eaten all three courses? Do you think you will make it to the after-party? My first thought is, ‘Heck yes I’ve paid for it!’ However; on a more realistic assessment of the situation, I don’t know whether I’ll be able to pull myself together after trying to drink my money’s worth. I’d much prefer the option of deciding at the time and not having it included in the price of my ticket.

This highly anticipated event has not always been so exclusive. Held at the same venue, in 2011 tickets were sold at $110 for students and concession tickets were available for $70. The after-party, and its tab were walking distance away which meant no bus costs. The LSS has not offered concession tickets since.

The LSS has a tough job of balancing the quality of the event with making it reasonably priced, and at the moment the balance is not right. Furthermore, this balance is not restored by securing us 20% off at a formal-wear store. If you can afford to buy a new suit for every event you’re not the one in need of financial relief!

A greater focus on equal access needs to be factored into the law ball and LSS events more generally. This focus needs to prevail over making the event trendy, luxurious and exclusive. The Law Ball is an event for ALL students and not all students have $130 to spare.

Alexander Thomas

28/4/2014 02:32:34 pm

Curious little paragraph I found under the 'about section' in De Minimis:

We would like to thank the Melbourne Law Students' Society who helped get us off the ground financially, and the Graduate Students Association for their continued support

Peter Botros

28/4/2014 03:45:35 pm

Yes, De Minimis was funded and published by the LSS from 1948-1976. Wherein lies the curiosity? Are you suggesting that the LSS should be immune from all criticism because of this? Or maybe that this is where the law ball money has gone....

29/4/2014 05:11:57 am

Seems akin to someone on welfare complaining about how the government spends taxpayer dollars.

Anonymous

29/4/2014 03:30:01 pm

Peter, you would do well to acknowledge that the current iteration of DM was funded with MULSS money, in 2011, when the then-editor had no other way to get it off the ground.

29/4/2014 05:11:47 pm

Noted Anonymous, thank you for your clarification. The point still stands.

29/4/2014 06:21:09 am

Well Alexander, I can see your concern. But the fact is that even people on welfare have the right to criticize the government budget and also the right to vote. Today, De Minimis is wholly funded by the GSA, and we would not refrain from criticizing them if we thought it was worth while.

29/4/2014 07:06:34 am

Nice set of principles.

Paul Osborne

29/4/2014 07:54:43 am

DM isn't criticising the LSS on any substantial point here. You just seem like a pack of quibbling babies to be honest...

Mr Mirror

30/4/2014 09:23:42 am

Paul isn't criticising DM on any substantial point here. You just seem like a pack of quibbling babies to be honest...

29/4/2014 03:10:44 pm

Kind of a bad analogy but was having a poke at the whole vibe of this rag.

How about a libertarian think tank accepting government funding? Probably better.

29/4/2014 05:07:34 pm

A libertarian think tank accepting government funding would be hypocritical because they are against welfare. Even if we accepted financial support from the LSS, we are not against the LSS spending money. This is an article about the cost of law ball.

30/4/2014 07:56:36 am

I can't respond to your response to the think tank analogy. I think you're missing the point.

I'm not saying you can't diss a body that funds you because you owe it to them not to be critical, but because you're not being true to yourselves if you accept funding from a body you diss. It doesn't undermine the logic or validity of the diss itself, it just totally undermines your credibility, principles and reputation.

30/4/2014 07:57:24 am

Ignore the first sentence that comment ended up right where it was meant to be.

30/4/2014 09:16:46 am

So, if I am understanding you correctly, you ARE saying that we cannot critique the LSS, but not because they fund us (which they don't), but because it undermines our principles?
Our principles are independent reporting, and being open to all students.
If you feel strongly about what we should/should not be publishing, please feel free to submit something to us at DM.Editor@outlook.com to that effect, or better yet join us at the Corkman on Tuesday 6th (12.30-2.30).
[note; this is a genuine invitation, no sarcasm intended]

30/4/2014 09:41:36 am

No, not understanding me correctly, but that's OK.

T Abbott

29/4/2014 01:06:55 pm

Dear Alexander,

Are you interested in politics?

Tony.

29/4/2014 03:03:18 pm

I've been waiting for this day!

Law baller

29/4/2014 01:17:44 pm

It's worth pointing out that the law ball is by no means compulsory. If you feel as though you're not getting your money's worth, you are free to boycott the event by staying home. It's not a hurdle requirement.

Alternatively, run for Activities Officer next year for the opportunity to put your vapid cost-cutting ideas to the test.

Neither here nor there

29/4/2014 01:55:15 pm

Yeh, you poor kids don't have to come, geez... The fact that it's not compulsory is hardly an argument.

Are you kidding me?

29/4/2014 05:16:05 pm

It's not worth pointing that out. Go pick up a dictionary and look up the words 'equal' and 'access'.

30/4/2014 04:46:01 am

I've just consulted my dictionary and it seems to me that access to the law ball is equal for everyone who buys a ticket, except for non-law students (who have to pay $10 more).

anon

29/4/2014 06:26:37 pm

As someone that largely appreciates all of the hard work that the LSS puts into making Law School a more tolerable place, I think you do a great disservice to us all by selling their efforts short.

30/4/2014 01:08:09 am

I think the point being made here is that every year many students are unable to attend, or decide not to go to the ball because it is too expensive for them. The event could be made cheaper and yet it is not.
There is no issue about how much effort is put into LSS events or the positive contribution they make to Law School life.

anon1

30/4/2014 03:47:10 am

Anon, the author has presented no evidence to suggest that the ball could be made cheaper. One phone call to a venue a story does not make.

To title the ball a rip-off without investigation, as is apparent here, paints this article as a knock-down of the LSS with little more to recommend it.

A quick comparison of the cost of the LSS ball against the price of other like balls suggests that this is the going market rate. Perhaps all the societies are in cahoots and we've uncovered a conspiracy?

Anon2

30/4/2014 04:17:18 am

Other society's don't have sponsors, or may run their events for a surplus. If there is no truth to it, why doesn't the lss just show us the breakdown?

30/4/2014 04:16:52 am

'the author has posted no evidence to suggest the ball could be made cheaper'
I disagree:
- not including the after party in the cost of the ticket
- not providing a bus to the after party and holding it at a closer venue
- not hiring a band/DJ and sticking to a playlist
These are ways the article details that the up-front cost could be reduced, and how it has been reduced in the past.
- lets also not forget the option of providing two courses instead of three which is not mentioned

I understand the cost is not an issue for all students and there are many for whom it presents no problems. It is however important to understand the varying needs of all law students. I am even aware of a facebook event group attempting to create their own cheaper evening in substitute for having to fork out money for a law ball ticket. This article presents the issue in an overly aggressive manner, but there is no denying that the issue is there, and that it needs careful consideration and discussion.

Anon1

30/4/2014 04:45:33 am

Let's also not forget the option of holding the ball at McDonald's, which is not mentioned in the article.

30/4/2014 07:01:33 am

good banter.

Mr Banter

30/4/2014 07:17:32 am

#banter

Free Fanta Banter

1/5/2014 03:53:18 am

Why not Hungry Jacks? #freerefills

kfc good too

1/5/2014 04:59:49 am

will banter exist at MLS after 2014?

Red Rooster Fan

1/5/2014 05:37:16 am

I fear the banter will die with the passing of the 2014 class

pouring out a 40

1/5/2014 05:52:03 am

RIP

Mr. Law Ball Fan

30/4/2014 07:12:06 am

Centrepieces, theming, security guards, busses, photobooths, audiovisual costs, medical attendants, entertainment (band, DJ, etc), security deposit (which you need to budget to lose), printing costs etc.

Sure, you can run a ball at a lower cost if you hold it at your local reception centre and have Babba perform. However given it's the only black-tie event run all year - why shouldn't it be a little bit fancy? Why shouldn't we have one really special night a year? It's $10 more than last year. Buy 2.5 less coffees less this week and enjoy the extra course being served on the night.

dancing queen

30/4/2014 07:28:27 am

How dare you speak ill of Babba

MLS student on Austudy

30/4/2014 07:41:51 am

The severe lack of empathy coming from some comments go to the heart of this article. Law Ball should be made accessible to everyone at Melbourne Law School. It is undeniable that a price tag of $130 is a burdensome cost to some law students. Without some form of subsidy (e.g. cheaper tickets), a minority group within the law school is being left out. The author is merely making that point. Maybe we should all take a breather from our entitled little worlds to actually take notice of the inequity here. If we can't even acknowledge this, students at the law school should consider getting the LSS to account for the $20,000 (plus sponsorship money).

Sigh....

30/4/2014 09:30:11 am

Oh lord, can you just shut up?

Instead of whining like a baby, go start a poor student's law ball at a reception centre out in the suburbs with a cost-effective meal at McDonalds beforehand instead of trying to ruin the majority's fun who are happy to shell out the $130 for, presumably, their one lavish night of the year.

My diamond shoes don't fit my feet

30/4/2014 09:51:53 am

wow, way to belittle the financial struggle of disadvantaged students. There is a hell of a lot of middle ground between a $130 meal and McDonalds.
Let me guess, you live at home, don't pay rent or don't work, and your parents are payed for your tuition? Poor little you, entitled to your one lavish night of the year.
And by the way, reality check, a majority of students are NOT attending the ball.

Ah yes, the big picture.

1/5/2014 03:29:44 am

I really like this comment, made in relation to expensive law ball tickets: 'Maybe we should all take a breather from our entitled little worlds to actually take notice of the inequity here'.

Monash

30/4/2014 09:25:26 am

$135/140 for Monash Commerce Ball sponsored by KPMG.

Definitely a conspiracy.

http://www.monashbcss.com.au/commerce-ball/

... and it was awesome!

30/4/2014 09:01:27 pm

Melbourne uni engineering ball $85- no sponsors

Incredulous

1/5/2014 03:09:10 am

You realise that the Engineering Ball caters for a much smaller crowd than the law ball and commerce balls, right? The sit down capacity for San Remo is 650 at its tightest.

The Engineering Society also receives money from UMSU via grants and has a member sign-up cost.

Myopia

30/4/2014 12:05:34 pm

Perhaps the author should direct Will Davidson to section 21(b) of the LSS constitution which requires that the accounts and books showing the financial affairs of the association be made available for inspection by members?

http://mulss.com/images/uploads/LSS_Constitution_-_As_at_29_August_2012.pdf

John Azzopardi

30/4/2014 12:30:37 pm

I am not aware of anyone who has asked to see our budget being denied that. Please feel free to contact me at lss-vicepresident at unimelb if that has been the case and it can certainly be rectified.

simple math

30/4/2014 05:36:29 pm

If you are trying to equate the cost of the ball tickets to a certain number of drinks or meals, or a certain amount of utility overall, then you are totally missing the point. I think the way the numbers are being dealt with by the author and several of the commenters is a little ridiculous. You pay to ATTEND the ball and then it is up to you to make the most of your night. It is with your control to eat all your meals, eat other people's untouched meals, or not eat your meals at all. It is also within your control to try and be happy since you've already paid for your ticket, and it is within your control to not purchase a ticket in the first place.

Obviously, if you were to spend $130 on alcohol at a bar or a shop, you would get more than you will be able to drink at the ball. The point is that you are paying for an experience, and a well-rounded experience that many of your peers will also be partaking in. This is why you pay $4 for a coffee at a cafe - the coffee costs about 10 cents but you pay to sit at the cafe and enjoy the company of whoever you are with.

It is certainly true that not everyone has the same amount of expendable income, but as is the case with everything else, it is up to you how you allocate your funds. If you are unhappy about the $10 price increase, then you should step back and think about how $10 is just $10, and how the amount of time you've spent feeling annoyed is probably worth more than that.

The job of those organising the ball is to create a great event in the hope that many law students can attend the event and have a good time together. In doing so, the organisers consider several things, from meals to entertainment to transport. If you are mad that one of your preferences hasn't been met, then consider the fact that the ball is for many people, and not just for you. Someone else next to you in class might actually be pleased to have three meals at the ball. It is simply unfair to get annoyed at the organisers for not meeting every single one of your preferences.

Relatedly, things like entertainment and decoration add to the experience and cost money to secure. If you think you're just paying for meals and security, then you're dreaming. As I have already mentioned, you can eat a meal in the safety of your own home for a lot cheaper than a ball ticket, and it is your choice to come to the ball for the overall experience it offers.

Finally, to all the people complaining, I hope you remember to use your free $25 of cab money tomorrow because that equates to about 20% of your ticket, and the organisers have certainly made a lot of effort to maximise your experience.

Have fun to those who are going, and to those who are not, have a good night tomorrow!

missing the point

30/4/2014 07:11:12 pm

I think you've missed the point, it's not about not getting your money's worth, or not getting what you want, it's about not getting the chance to participate in the event because it's too expensive. You almost got there when you acknowledged that not everyone has the same disposable income, but then your answer is what? Don't buy it if you can't afford it? That's the problem. It should be organised so everyone can afford it. The event is clearly aimed at those with money to burn, author hit the nail on the head about the suits.

1/5/2014 04:44:36 am

You have to take into account the type of activity you are missing the chance to participate in. This activity is organised as a BALL so it has to be to some extent expensive.The LSS kindly organises several other events frequently throughout the year that involve free drinks or cheap drinks and absolutely everyone can attend those events. Tonight's event is meant to be a little bit fancy so as to fit the definition of 'ball', which is different from an event that is intended for people with money to burn.

Even if it were at it's most base level the ball would cost no less than $100 given the sheer volume of people attending and the kind of venue required to accommodate that. This not only points to the fact that a lot of people are attending tonight, but that a desire to include everyone does affect the price.

Challenge Accepted

1/5/2014 03:48:02 am

Speak for yourself, I fully intend to try and drink greater than $130 worth of alcohol. That is the experience I am paying for and I see the higher ticket price as a challenge.

It's all relative.

1/5/2014 01:11:03 am

Some people are always going to say it is too expensive.

I'd say most people here complaining that the price is too high would be silent if it was $100? Does that $30 more really make it 'too expensive' for you to attend?

It is a question of preferences. No one in this course does not have access to $130, or in reality the extra $30 extra on the price they would like to pay. They are choosing not to. If it was $300, then maybe. But the marginal cost between arguments here is $40, this is not 'too expensive' for anyone.

I think this comes back to the core gripe of most people with this article: it reads more as a whine about the event not being to the author's tastes than it does a legitimate discussion of the costs. The use of blatant assertions and poor reasoning to back up the 'where does the money go' argument (which is pointless in itself), just outrages readers. The author obviously has no experience in business. Insurance costs? The band? The busses for 1000 drunk people at 11:30pm?

In the end who cares if the LSS makes a bit of extra revenue off this in the first place. It is arguably more progressive to make people pay a bit extra for the ball, to fund smaller services which don't have as robust a business model. As I suspect was the case for De Minimis in the early days.

Inherently someone has to decide what is going to be included in the ticket and the cost/what is included trade-off. The guys from the LSS have gone through the grueling process of being elected and have tried to put together a great event. The cost may be on the upper end for balls for other courses but it certainly is not unheard of. Does that fact that almost all if not all of the tickets have been sold not show that the price is right? Instead of being upset, why not run a fundraiser and subsidises $40 off the tickets of the people for whom that extra money is 'too expensive'?

Kill the Book Fairy

1/5/2014 03:26:56 am

This is a legitimate suggestion to ease the financial burden of financially disadvantaged students:

Eliminate the Book Fairy Scheme. No students need it. The government under it's various student support services provide up to $1000 a semester for students either on Youth Allowance or AUSTUDY. No-one in the law degree needs to spend $1000 a semester on textbooks. So my question is then why the book fairy? Why do people need funding to obtain textbooks that the Government is already providing more than adequate funds for.

Instead of directing the book fairy funds to a use that is not required, why not put them towards the cost of law ball, and decrease the overall cost and resultantly the individual ticket price.

Before anyone then claims that this is also directing an advantage towards the 'living at home, privately schooled, parent-funded students', that is not the point. The point raised is about equal access. Diverting funds from the Book Fairy which are not required due to Government support would decrease the cost of the tickets for everyone, and thus increase equal access.

Nice

1/5/2014 03:31:38 am

Good call

Really?

1/5/2014 03:58:24 am

You're suggesting you cut a book subsidy to fund law ball? Think outside your own world... first of all there are international students who cannot get Government support. Second of all, I would say a lot of students spend that $1000 on other things. If you don't spend it on books the Government doesn't take it back.

1/5/2014 04:31:36 am

Haha yep like when I get given money for rent and then spend it on other things and then have a cry cause I can't afford rent. Oh silly me!

My Heart Breaks

1/5/2014 04:39:15 am

International Students? Really? Wow....my heart breaks for them as they travel around the globe, mostly funded by their parents, and study overseas on the coat tails of their family...yeah nice argument.

Got it right

1/5/2014 03:34:53 am

What is the organisers' objective in organising law ball? Organise a fun and safe event that a large number of law students would want to attend. If I am not mistaken, the event was a sellout and the capacity of this venue is quite large. They clearly got it right. No single event will appeal to everyone. Perhaps a 'cost-efficient' law ball wouldn't have achieved the same success? I think the organisers have gauged the desires and the general vibe of the student population perfectly - the demand for tickets shows this. (Well done guys). Perhaps if after the ball complaints were heard like .. "that was a bit extravagant, over-the-top etc" you may have a point. But in the years I have attended, I've never heard that and bet my bottom dollar this year will be the same.

Access Allen

1/5/2014 04:08:38 am

I think you're missing the point... Selling out on tickets does not make the sale price equitable. The same people might be missing out year after year due to cost. The fact that most people can afford it is neither here nor there. Obviously, without an empirical study, who knows what law students can afford. Though, we have clear sentiment here that some people can't. The real question is do we want to cater for the majority who can afford it or for everyone? Your post suggests that you believe in the former proposition. I think you should try looking it from the person who can't afford it's perspective, if they do exist.

1/5/2014 04:34:57 am

Hm let's settle this. Someone give an example of how someone could not afford law ball for reasons outside of their control. The reasons of course that would have to be applicable to at least some portion of Melbourne Uni law students.

ICJ

1/5/2014 04:45:04 am

And on this day we uncovered the positive jus cogens right of access for all law students to a fancy ball.

John Stuart Mills

1/5/2014 05:18:24 am

To take your argument to its logical conclusion I propose a hypothetical:

X is a MLS law student and can afford to pay $0 for the ball. X is the only law student unable to pay more than $0 for the ball. X cannot attend the ball. One student is precluded access to the ball.

To relieve this inequity the ball must be priced at $0 for all law students, so as not to preference the majority.

The alternative is to provide a subsidy. But Book Fairy already services the 'access' requirements of students in financial distress. To suggest otherwise would require either that you preference access to a social event over access to education, or that you require both but fail to understand the finite nature of funds.

Lit review: John Stuart Mill by Amartya Sen

1/5/2014 05:35:24 am

The ball is priced at $0 for all law students. X buys a ticket. Y misses out. Y writes angry article which is published by DM. Comments flow. Same end point achieved.

Equal access should exist for things that are crucial to either survival or capacity to live life to the fullest. Granting equal access in this scenario would achieve neither and probably hinder both. Further, there will always be angry people anyway. Probably better to spend brain energy on getting food, housing and education to those who need it.

Matt

1/5/2014 05:22:05 am

This article would have had some merit in the hands of a better author. Making one phone call to a venue and basing your entire article on inferences from that, without any evidence that you spoke to the people who actually organised the event, is journalism worthy of ACA.

The Law Ball is just that - a Ball. It's fancy and a little bit extravagant. The price is comparable to similar events across other faculties and institutions. Your proposal to allow guests to customise what their ticket purchase gets them shows how little you know about running such a large scale event.

Contrary to your final statement, the Law Ball is not an event for all law students. There is no inherent right for law students to attend. It is a social indulgence. It does not take away from the resources of the LSS to provide other activities/initiatives (if the Treasurer says it's cost neutral, I believe him). There are a variety of other (I would argue more important) events that are run at no cost to students or are subsidised by the LSS. Think all the careers events/panels, the number of competitions run, book fairy, yoga, STS tutes.

If you want the price of Law Ball to drop ($100, $110? How low?), that will take away from other events the LSS runs. That wouldn't very equitable, would it?

Ulaanbaatar

1/5/2014 05:45:46 am

To my fellow ball attendees I shall look forward to guzzling many a beverage with you all tonight.

To those melancholic commenters on this page without a ticket, I shall guzzle an extra beverage for each of you and let the bubbly nectar dribble down my many chins.

;)

1/5/2014 05:53:39 am

a/s/l?

1/5/2014 06:31:24 am

Great to see people expressing their opinions. If you have an opinion piece you want published (on any issue), send it to DM.Editor@outlook.com

No.

1/5/2014 06:39:59 am

I agree.

1/5/2014 07:30:41 am

I agree with no. DM has lost all credibility (if it ever had any in the first place this year).

Also, maybe change the byline?

To Be Honest With You Diane

1/5/2014 09:05:25 am

Never been to a law ball. Can't afford it, can't budget for it. Have a FEE-HELP limit that I'm still budgeting for, on top of loans for book prices that I can't afford, and rent close enough to uni so I don't commute 3+ hours a day. It's never been feasible to go.

But mostly I don't go because some of you are a bunch of privileged wankers (LSS not inclusive, I think you do a fine job) that often don't see how lucky you have it, or how much of a bubble you live in. If you're able to drink your coffee every day of the week, and can cut it down by 2.5, then you're already doing financially better than the people who can't afford to attend. We can't even afford the coffee.

Enjoy your fancy thing.

Got your money?

1/5/2014 09:45:10 am

I know how you'll be able to afford rent, books, coffee AND law ball. Get a job. You are super privileged because you live in Australia, near the Melbourne CBD and you can easily find 20 hours of work a week at 20-30$ a fortnight whilst studying. You've been able to do that since you were about 15. That's what all the 'privileged' kids are doing.

clueless

1/5/2014 10:43:53 am

Oh a job! What a fantastic idea! How do you think us poor kids have been paying our rent? Or buying or food? Or supporting our families? I know for you silver spoon kids a job just means disposable income, but the rest of us have always had jobs to make ends meet. You insulting little wanker.

hehe

2/5/2014 12:33:35 pm

haha so much trolling good stuff

Jobman

2/5/2014 05:27:04 pm

http://www.reactiongifs.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/get-a-job.gif

2/5/2014 12:44:36 pm

hehe that was a fun nite

Comments are closed.

Law ball rip-off!

Archives