As far as I've been able to determine, the one concrete step that has so far come out of all this back and forth is a pledge by the ABA Section of Legal Education and Admission to the Bar to come up with a benchmark for what constitutes an acceptable default rate on law school loans by graduates of ABA-accredited schools. To that end, the Section has published a proposed revision of Standard 510 of the ABA Standards for the Approval of Law Schools.
At present, Standard 510 requires ABA-accredited law schools to "take reasonable steps to minimize student loan defaults." Reasonable steps shall include provision of debt counseling to students when they first take out law school loans and again before they graduate. (Question: Do any law schools actually provide debt counseling to law students, and if so what does this counseling include?). "Reasonable steps" are not otherwise defined, so under the present rule it appears that law schools which make provision for debt counseling at the appropriate times, or belong to universities which at least nominally provide such counseling (see below), are in compliance with the Standard, as long as they don't fall afoul of Interpretation 510-1 of the Standard, which states vaguely that default rates "shall be considered" in assessing the extent to which schools are complying with this Standard.
So, in response to one of Sen. Grassley's many concerns, the Section is proposing adding a new Interpretation 510-2 to the Standard:
For law schools not affiliated with a university, the school’s student loan cohort default rate shall be sufficient, for purposes of Standard 510, if it is not greater than 10% for any of the three most recently published annual cohort default rates. If the school’s cohort student loan default rate is not sufficient under this Interpretation, the school must submit a plan for approval by the Accreditation Committee for coming into compliance with this requirement.An anonymous commenter has pointed out on this blog and elsewhere that this interpretation of the Standard, if adopted, would allow law schools to advertise extremely low default rates. At present and for the foreseeable future almost all law school loans will be directly from the federal government, and since the students taking out these loans will be eligible for Income Based Repayment, people with no prospect of ever repaying back more than a small portion of what they owe can still avoid default, in the technical sense of default, by staying in IBR for 25 (soon to be 20) years.
The ABA's initial response to Sen. Grassley includes a chart of the law school loan default rates at the 19 independent -- that is, non-university affiliated -- ABA law schools. The overall default rate for the graduating classes of 2006 through 2008 was less than one per cent. Given that these schools include several very low ranked, very expensive instiutions where we can be quite certain that large percentages of the graduating classes are not getting jobs that allow them to make the payments due on their loans, these numbers indicate that the percentage of law graduates in technical default on their loans is a very poor proxy for either the actual financial situation of these graduates, or the risk these loans pose to taxpayers.
The comments here and elsewhere regarding this proposed revision to the Standards don't mention that this new benchmark for unacceptable default rates applies only to law schools not affiliated with universities, which means that 181 of the 200 ABA-accredited law schools would not have to worry about hurdling even this low bar. Each of those 181 schools will be considered in compliance with Standard 510 if "the university, of which the law school is a part, provides to law students the reasonable steps described in this Standard." What this means, I suppose, is that university-affiliated law schools are considered in compliance with Standard 510 if debt counseling is at least nominally available to law students somewhere within the universities with which the schools are affiliated.
I imagine the reason the ABA is considering applying nominally stricter standards to the 19 independent ABA-accredited schools is that those schools are subject to direct regulation by the Department of Education, in a way that university-affiliated law schools are not (I'm guessing that for federal regulatory purposes the default rates that count for university-affiliated law schools are the overall default rates of graduates the universities with which they're affiliated. Hopefully people who know more about this subject than I do can clarify the situation).
Of course if the ABA Section of Legal Education and Admission to the Bar wanted to create benchmarks that would at least begin to measure the extent to which law graduates are having trouble paying back their loans, it could do so quite easily, by for example requiring law schools to report how many of their graduates are eligible for IBR nine months after graduation (at some schools this figure probably approaches 90%). But the Section, whose membership features a large number of law school administrators and faculty members, doesn't seem interested in doing anything like that. Instead it appears to be creating a new standard which, if adopted, certainly won't improve law school transparency, and may well harm it (if for example prospective law students end up interpreting very low default rates as good evidence for the value of law degrees).
In any event, the comment period for the proposed change to Standard 510 runs until Tuesday. Anyone interested in doing so can email a comment to Becky.Stretch@americanbar.org.
LawProf - As a recent first time borrower, I can vouch that the University of Texas does require debt counseling, and that it the functional equivalent of online traffic school, only much shorter and easier (you could literally guess until you get all the questions demonstrating that you understand the implications of borrowing). I am lucky to have some contribution from my family and a fairly substantial scholarship to help minimize my first year debt load, and I am tentatively hopeful to be able to get a paying job over the summer, of which I will apply all of my earnings toward the cost of my education, but the debt counseling session did not accomplish anything for me.
ReplyDeleteLawProf - why in the world would you link to that nut's anonymous comments? So I guess in order to get attention here you should pick imaginary fights with other posters who were making completely tangential (and correct) points. And then proceed to endlessly repost like a madman. You need to block the IP address of people who abuse their anonimty instead of openly encouraging them.
ReplyDeleteanonymity*
ReplyDeleteThank you for this. This was better written than anything I could have done.
ReplyDelete5:13: His/her point about the Section promulgating a formal default standard which will as a practical matter end up being very deceptive seems valid.
ReplyDeleteAt least texas has the traffic school thing. I didn't get any counseling, unless you mean them asking me to read and sign these long forms telling me this was real debt that had to be repaid.
ReplyDeleteLawProf - Cool. So from now on I when I find some valid new point I will proceed by attacking other posters as a**holes for not doing research )incorrectly) and accusing them of being pro-ABA (incorrectly) for mysterious reasons and then add my valid point at the end as if it was part of the original discussion. Squeaky wheel and all that...duly noted.
ReplyDeleteIf you're not going to moderate the comments the least you can do is not encourage the bullies.
...also I'm the guy who introduced you to OWS. I guess I went about it the wrong way.
ReplyDeleteBro, you totally pwned that idiot. Do a point by point summary with citations to the comments so new readers can see what you mean. If it's too long spread it over multiple comments.
ReplyDeleteI don't like to moderate comments, but I'd appreciate it if threads didn't degenerate into shouting matches about who showed who was totally wrong about X,Y and Z. Everyone here seems to agree that this revision to the Standard would be a bad thing, so how about letting the Section know your view?
ReplyDeleteIncidentally, readers can find all of the ABA's accreditation standards here: http://www.americanbar.org/groups/legal_education/resources/standards.html
ReplyDeleteIt's an interesting read.
LawProf - You're an a**hole that you can't even do his own research!!! Stop fucking obfuscating the main issue I find so important. Something something fuck off something.
ReplyDeleteNow lets get back to the meat of the matter...anything the ABA does needs to be revised.
(I'm starting to catch the drift, no? Thx!)
@5:25 butthurt nutcase continues to be butthurt.
ReplyDeleteHere is my proposed new Standard 510. I look forward to reading other people's ideas.
ReplyDeleteStandard 510. STUDENT LOAN PROGRAMS
A law school shall take reasonable steps to ensure the ability of students to repay educational loans, including (a) provision of debt counseling at the inception of a student’s loan obligations and prior to graduation, (b) maintaining tuition levels that correspond to their graduates' earning power, (c) collecting data on the number of graduates who (i) default, (ii) enter the Income Based Repayment program, (iii) put their loans on unemployment deferment or (iv) put their loans on economic hardship deferment.
Interpretation 510-1
Law schools will calculate, on an annual basis, the number of graduates who (i) default, (ii) enter the Income Based Repayment program, (iii) put their loans on unemployment deferment or (iv) put their loans on economic hardship deferment. The sum of these four numbers, divided by the number of graduates in any year, hereafter referred to as the "non-performing student loan rate" shall be considered in assessing the extent to which a law school complies with this Standard.
Interpretation 510-2
The law school’s obligation shall be satisfied if its non-performing student loan rate is not greater than 25% for the two most recent years. If the non-performing student loan rate is greater than 25% in two consecutive years then the school must submit a plan for approval by the Accreditation Committee for coming into compliance with this requirement.
5:37, I just want you to get the glory you deserve. You pwned that loser all over the last thread but readers of this thread won't see your genius if you don't tell them bro!
ReplyDeleteHere is the current Standard 510 for comparison:
ReplyDeleteStandard 510. STUDENT LOAN PROGRAMS
A law school shall take reasonable steps to minimize student loan defaults, including provision of debt counseling at the inception of a student’s loan obligations and prior to graduation.
Interpretation 510-1
The student loan default rates of a law school’s graduates, including any results of financial or compliance audits and reviews, shall be considered in assessing the extent to which a law school complies with this Standard.
Interpretation 510-2
The law school’s obligation shall be satisfied if the university, of which the law school is a part, provides to law students the reasonable steps described in this Standard.
Or maybe the whole purpose of the requirement is so that students are aware of IBR? Who knows, but more importantly who really cares if (big if I know) there is employment and salary transparency?
ReplyDeleteThat's a ridiculous comment for a number of reasons, most easy to understand being that Standard 510 existed long before IBR was put into place.
ReplyDeleteI think the root of the argument here may be that some people view IBR as a bad thing (because it's a taxpayer subsidy of education), while others view it as a good thing (because it's a taxpayer subsidy for education!).
ReplyDeleteIf you view IBR as a good thing, you don't want the rates reported because it might lead to the cancellation of IBR.
6:19,
ReplyDeleteI see that, but the government already knows the rate of return on student loans. We loan X dollars each year to students from this school and we get X dollars paid to us whether it's due to IBR or deferments. I'm sure it would have a much greater impact (for better or worse as you describe) if one published ROI per school.
5:52--I really like your draft--it's terrific. If people have suggestions for improvement, let's hear them. Otherwise, let's write letters to the ABA with this proposal. I'm not naive--I know the ABA won't adopt this. But that's not the point: We need to put the issues on the table and force them to respond. That's the only way to get the ball rolling.
ReplyDeleteI especially like 510(b)--what could be more simple than maintaining tuition levels that correspond with earning power!
Two questions: (1) You seem to know more about this area than I do. Can I count on you to have covered all of the relevant loan-default-like categories? I'm not asking you to identify yourself but if I and others base our letters on your language, will we have plugged all the holes?
(2) I'm a little concerned about the schools gathering this info rather than it coming from the Dept of Ed. But I guess the problem here is that the ABA has no power to require the Dept to release particular data. Maybe some of us could note in our letters that it would be easier/better for all if the Dept of Ed published this info by school--or at least sent it to the schools? But the obligation, as in your draft, is on the schools--so they collect the data if Ed doesn't provide it.
I know that a lot of the comments here tend to snipe and criticize, but I'm serious in liking your draft. And this seems like a really important topic. For tonight and tomorrow, could we engage in some group sourcing and suggest ideas to make 5:52's draft even better (if people see ideas for that).
What would Standard 510 look like under your ROI system? Write your draft of Standard 510 so I can better understand what you mean.
ReplyDelete6:26, thanks.
ReplyDeleteTo answer your question, as someone who had to figure all this out due to earning an income way below my required student loan payment, I think I know all the ways students can skip out on payments without technically "defaulting" but I'm not 100% sure.
On the schools collecting the information, I agree but my draft was just a start. I would like to see other proposed Standard 510s as well. If they're voting on a change to Standard 510, this is the time to make our voices heard.
Can't the aggregate data just be FOIA'd from DOE?
ReplyDelete6:34--maybe, this is where it gets embarrassing that we're a bunch of lawyers who don't know how to do things! Any FOIA knowledgeable people out there? Or anyone who knows how to probe the DOE website to see if they already report this anywhere?
ReplyDeleteI don't think they report it right now, but regardless why should we have to do the work that the ABA should be doing? That being said, threatening to get the information ourselves may spur the ABA into action.
ReplyDeleteHey, could we ask the financial aid people at our law schools some of these questions? Any profs reading this might have an inside line to those folks, but I suspect at least some of them would answer questions from current students or alumni at their own schools. So we could call/email and say something like: "I'm thinking of submitting a comment to the ABA on their accreditation standards [sounds very grown up and business like] and I'm trying to figure out how info on loan repayment gets collected and distributed. Does our school get info from the Dept of Ed on how many of our grads are in default? What about IBR--do we get info on that? Do you have any idea if schools can get that info from DOE?"
ReplyDeleteIf a number of us ask at different schools, someone might hit upon a financial aid dean who is knowledgeable and willing to respond. We only need one! Then post the info here for all of us to use.
One thing about 5:52 is that we should work on the line "The law school’s obligation shall be satisfied if its non-performing student loan rate is not greater than 25% for the two most recent years."
ReplyDeleteImagine 100 people graduate in 2010 and 100 graduate in 2011. What if in 2012, 26 members of the 2010 class are nonperforming and 26 members of the 2011 class are nonperforming. Did that hit the trigger? What if in both 2011 and 2012 there were 26 nonperforming members from the 2010 class. Did that hit the trigger? What if in 2011, 26 members of the 2010 class were nonperforming, and then in 2012 26 members of the 2011 class were nonpeforming?
We can fix this by eliminating the two year thing, moving to a cumulative nonperforming rate (total number of nonperforming graduates divided by total number of post IBR graduates). I say we just eliminate the 2 year thing and say that if the nonperforming rate is ever over 25% for any graduating class then the alarm is triggered.
I would either take the two year thing out, or a
Here it is with the above change:
ReplyDeleteStandard 510. STUDENT LOAN PROGRAMS
A law school shall take reasonable steps to ensure the ability of students to repay educational loans, including (a) provision of debt counseling at the inception of a student’s loan obligations and prior to graduation, (b) maintaining tuition levels that correspond to their graduates' earning power and (c) collecting data on the number of graduates who (i) default, (ii) enter the Income Based Repayment program, (iii) put their loans on unemployment deferment or (iv) put their loans on economic hardship deferment.
Interpretation 510-1
Law schools will calculate, on an annual basis, the number of graduates who (i) default, (ii) enter the Income Based Repayment program, (iii) put their loans on unemployment deferment or (iv) put their loans on economic hardship deferment. The sum of these four numbers, divided by the number of graduates in any year, hereafter referred to as the "non-performing student loan rate" shall be considered in assessing the extent to which a law school complies with this Standard.
Interpretation 510-2
The law school’s obligation shall be satisfied if its non-performing student loan rate is not greater than 25% for any graduating class, in any year. If the non-performing student loan rate is greater than 25% in any year, for any graduating class, then the school must submit a plan for approval by the Accreditation Committee for coming into compliance with this requirement.
Actually, we might want to stop tracking the data after five years. It wouldn't make sense to track the loan repayment rates for students who graduated 20 years ago. Perhaps we can track it for five years. Here is the proposed standard with this new fix as well.
ReplyDeleteStandard 510. STUDENT LOAN PROGRAMS
A law school shall take reasonable steps to ensure the ability of students to repay educational loans, including (a) provision of debt counseling at the inception of a student’s loan obligations and prior to graduation, (b) maintaining tuition levels that correspond to their graduates' earning power and (c) collecting data on the number of graduates who (i) default, (ii) enter the Income Based Repayment program, (iii) put their loans on unemployment deferment or (iv) put their loans on economic hardship deferment.
Interpretation 510-1
Law schools will calculate, on an annual basis, the number of graduates who (i) default, (ii) enter the Income Based Repayment program, (iii) put their loans on unemployment deferment or (iv) put their loans on economic hardship deferment. The sum of these four numbers, divided by the number of graduates in any year, hereafter referred to as the "non-performing student loan rate" shall be considered in assessing the extent to which a law school complies with this Standard.
Interpretation 510-2
The law school’s obligation shall be satisfied if its non-performing student loan rate is not greater than 25% for any of the most recent five graduating classes. If the non-performing student loan rate is greater than 25% for any of the most recent five graduating class, then the school must submit a plan for approval by the Accreditation Committee for coming into compliance with this requirement.
Writing regulations is hard.
ReplyDeleteI just thought of the grads who go into public service. They go into IBR, but in a relatively benign way: Forgiveness after 10 years and some schools provide additional help with LRAP programs (which cover some of the IBR payments). Plus, they're serving the public interest. To the best of my knowledge, universities don't count as "public interest" organizations--even if they're public. (I base this on a friend with high law school debts who works as a staff member at a public university. We were commiserating that she doesn't qualify for IBR.) So law schools can't scam any public interest exception by hiring their own grads.
ReplyDeleteSome of us may differ on this, but I don't think I would want to penalize schools for grads who go into public interest. Schools are crass enough that they might start discouraging grads from that route! What's the best approach to this? Create an exception for public interest workers? Or is the 25% high enough that we think it provides for this? I think I lean towards the express exception, since schools may differ on percent of grads going into public service. What do others think?
Writing regs: Definitely hard.
7:57,
ReplyDeleteOne funny thing I learned about public interest jobs is that they do not all qualify for IBR's public interest "forgive your loans in 10 years" rule. For example, I know a low paid federal government lawyer who is treated as a private sector employee under IBR because her department
"opted out" of IBR public interest forgiveness.
I can think of a few solutions to your concern:
1. We could exclude public interest folks. So if you go on IBR but you also qualify for the public interest IBR system (you have to requalify for that every year) then you are not counted as a nonperforming loan.
2. We could say the 25% rate is high enough (or maybe we need another rate).
3. We could decide not to distinguish between public interest and private sector workers because private sector workers don't really make that much more and, regardless, we want to put pressure on law schools to lower tuition regardless of what sort of jobs their graduates take.
Not sure what we should do.
P.S. Note the default rule that the ABA currently has, as ridiculous as it is, doesn't take the public interest thing into account either.
ReplyDeleteTake for example Hassan Jonathan Griffin who, although he is working as a public defender (which I'm pretty sure counts as public interest) is also counted as a defaulter. He was even denied admissions to the bar on character and fitness grounds because he defaulted.
http://abovethelaw.com/2011/01/character-fitness-fail-for-graduate-with-no-plan-to-pay-off-his-debts/
So if Character and Fitness doesn't award any points for public interest work, maybe we shouldn't either.
Not to digress, but isn't it weird that Mr. Griffin was denied C&F because he defaulted on and "did not have a plan to repay" his student loans, when tons of people on IBR are in the exact position that he's in except for the fact that they filled out a few forms?
ReplyDeleteCould prolonged use of IBR be a C&F issue at some point?!
That's so weird that a government department can opt out of public interest loan forgiveness. The whole IBR thing gets more and more suspect.
ReplyDeleteIt's a good point that the current standards don't offer any exception for public interest. It's the type of thing that law schools wave around when they're all indignant about a rule, so I want to think through some answer.
Another thought: Anyone sending a letter to the ABA should copy Grassley, right? Whoever is handling the issue in his office probably would want the additional ammo/info. Was Boxer the other Senator who wrote the ABA? Anyone else to copy?
I would copy Grassley and Boxer, but only if your letter is so well written that you wouldn't mind them reading it at a hearing or something!
ReplyDeleteI think people should also consider copying the National Advisory Committee on Institutional Quality and Integrity. Sounds like a mouthful, but they are the agency that accredits the ABA to accredit the law schools. As I understand this, the ACIQI had many reservations about the ABA's work when they were reviewed in June. Specific concerns focused on the ABA's failure to require sufficient monitoring of student loans and placement outcomes. The ABA has a year to get its act together, and this ridiculous standard seems to be its attempt. So if we copy ACIQI then they will know others are concerned with the ABA's laxness.
ReplyDeleteOthers here, I think, have written about this. I'm just noting them as people worth copying. See http://www2.ed.gov/about/bdscomm/list/naciqi.html then (if you want to see the ABA specific stuff), click spring 2011 meeting report and go to p. 12 (in word version).
Given the ACIQI and other concerns, I'm not sure it's even necessary for letters to propose a particular alternative standard. It would be good if some did, but others could simply note how inadequate the ABA's proposal is. That tells Grassley, Boxer, ACIQI, etc that they need to keep the pressure on.
Sorry, I should have said NACIQI throughout rather thann ACIQI. What a name!
ReplyDeleteAnybody else get the bad feeling all of these comments are from the same person? All identical style, etc.
ReplyDeleteLawprof - you attract some serious shut-in cases.
9:43 = the mentally ill guy who keeps trying to derail this discussion. And I am not any of the other commenters as Lawprof can verify from my IP.
ReplyDeleteGo away please.
Thanks for the NAICIQI info 9:42.
ReplyDelete"I'm not sure it's even necessary for letters to propose a particular alternative standard. It would be good if some did, but others could simply note how inadequate the ABA's proposal is."
ReplyDeleteI agree with this. We could propose an alternative Standard 510, but the main point should be that the ABA standard is inadequate.
LawProf what I'm really trying to undestand in reading the ABA proposed changes and many of the comments here, is what is the point. How is the provisions outlined by the ABA going to change anything?
ReplyDeleteSubstantively it changes nothing, but it gives the ABA something to say when people accuse them of not doing anything about student loans.
ReplyDeleteNow the ABA can respond with, "we have instituted a rigorous student loan default rate measure that law schools must comply with, along with penalties for schools who fail to comply."
This is an interesting statement by Dean Kramer of Stanford University,
ReplyDeleteBut others in legal academy feel that the transparency issue is overblown. "The economy is in the tank, things are down," said Larry Kramer, dean of Stanford Law School. "Nobody was thinking about 'transparency' five years ago, because the job market was so rich there was no reason to quibble over statistics."
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203537304577031962440836218.html
Ignoring the fact that five years ago they were talking about the topic, why is Dean Kramer worried? Are things so bad that Stanford is fudging their employment statistics?!
I want somebody to explain to me how transparency remedies the current problem. Most lemmings know the situation, but they believe they will beat the odds.
ReplyDeleteLet me supply an extreme anecdote that illustrates this point (true story);
A lemming that I know began law school at a major toilet thinking he/she will get a good job coming out school. The lemming attends despite numerous warning from many practitioners, and even warnings made by family (some of whom are lawyers). The lemming is living large and in charge all throughout 1L courtesy of the tax payer. We are talking about an apartment with no room mates in a major city, fairly new car, newest cell phones, out every weekend, vacations, etc.. Mostly everything financed by the taxpayer.
After 1L the lemming, now in the bottom of the class, begins to see that getting a job will not be that easy. Does the lemming cut back? NO! The lemming specifically states “I know I am never going to live like this again, so I might as well get as much pleasure in a big city before going into the legal market. After all there is still a small shot that things will work out, and if they don’t, I am screwed as is, why should I quit now?”
Somebody on this board please explain to me how transparency will alleviate the perverse and unusual mix exhibited by lemmings of i) hubris both as to a view of one’s own value and view as to others’ lack of value, ii) perverse optimism stemming from (i), iii) short term pleasure seeking that can be irrationally satisfied by access to easy loans that will never be repaid and iv) an eventual desperateness/sadness that fuels crazy behavior.
AS LONG AS THE FEDS GUARANTEE GAMBLING, THIS WILL NOT FUCKING IMPROVE. YOU CAN HAVE ALL THE TRANSPARENCY IN THE WORLD. THERE IS NOT ENOUGH WORK IN THIS FIELD ANYMORE SUCH THAT PEOPLE CAN PAY BACK 100k PLUS LOANS BACK. THE TAX PAYER WILL EAT THE EXCESS FOR NO REASON.
When the economy is bad everyone is affected. That has been true always and will be true always. But Stanford graduates do not have near the problems that many other students have.
ReplyDeleteIf you're concerned more about loans than transparency then you should definitely be writing the ABA on the new Standard 510 since it pertains precisely to loans.
ReplyDeleteI don't know where everyone gets the idea that 0Ls are not trying to make rational decisions. Before I went to school, I spoke to numerous practicioners, worked in a firm, and heavily dug into USNWR. I based my decision on debt load and average starting salary with rank thrown in as some nebulous X-factor. It was as rational a decision as I knew how to make given the available information. The problem was that the information could not account for the recession and, more importantly, we're now finding out that the information available is/was a collection of half-truths that in no way conveys the facts on the ground.
ReplyDelete10:47 doesn't get that transparency is a means to other reform. strategy fail by the commentatortariat.
ReplyDeleteExactly 11:10. The law applicants that I know are relatively risk averse people who carefully researched the decision. Their only flaw is that they trusted the school's placement numbers.
ReplyDeleteWho could turn down entry into NYLS when they have 99% employment and the median salary for grads in the private sector is $160,000?
11:10 and 11:17,
ReplyDeleteThey are not risk averse. They suffer from either the hubris of “I will eventually beat the odds, and the doom everyone else is suffering from does not apply to me” or a desperation of “what else am I going to do?” To wit, a solid portion of them, not all, recognize that there are plenty of blue collar alternative careers, but they view it as “low class work.” No amount of transparency will deter them. Nothing. I speak to people that have read the newspaper, seen the Fox News segment on the issue, listened to my plight, but you know, “it will be different for them.”
At a bare minimum if they had any level of risk aversion coupled with a will to make a bare bones investigation, then they should know by the end of 1L what the score really is, but with every set back the willful blindness of the above kicks in: “ I struck out at OCI, but if I just finish 2L with good grades it will be ok. (I am going to deliberately not look at all the negativity around me, as that’s not going to be me). I do not have a job, and its now 3L, but hey, once I pass the bar it will be ok.”
I do not hate the lemmings. In fact, I would support any action that would help them, including total loan forgiveness (although I think bankruptcy is more equitable), even though I incurred no debt in LS by living like a miser and attending a low ranked school with a scholly. (I was mocked for living like that though). Given the irresponsibility of other parties in this country, I would not oppose giving the lemmings a break.
However, this BS has to stop. Transparency is not a vehicle for change, as I see it. With respect to true conservatives, if they really cared about how their money is being spent, they would care more about the Federal Guarantee than bankruptcy reform because whether or not a lemming can discharge debt doesn’t alleviate the fact that the tax payer is going to pay the debt in the end. If you are a true liberal, then you should care that the LS model represents one of the greatest forms of class bias in this country by astoundingly over-advantaging the children of the rich.
Yet, go to any publication that has discussed the issue, left or right, and has comments from people in the know. The right wingers love the fact that lawyers, whom they view as parasites, are suffering, irrespective of the cost. The left wingers love the fact that people with ambition, i.e. wanted to make some money, are suffering for their desire to do so. Neither group cares about the fiscal or inherent disaster of the situation.
Given that, I do not see how transparency is a vehicle for larger reform. Even if more people knew there were massive defaults, the majority would share the sentiments of the left and right wing archetypes I described, and would neither care that they are being fleeced nor that young people are being turned into slaves.
Perhaps you could explain it to me differently? How will transparency change any of this?
Based on the disturbed tone and general incoherence, I suspect 11:54 = 5:13PM last night = 5:25PM last night (his perception is so warped that he demanded credit for OWS!) = the guy who ruined the other thread by repeatedly ending his posts with questions like, "what about compound interest?"
ReplyDeleteSir, you have issues and no one wants to delve into the snake ridden swamp that is your mind. Get help and please shut the f*ck up so people can talk about issues without your posts introducing into the debate like your disturbed thoughts intrude into your thought process.
I'm sorry to tell this to you, but it's better that you hear this on an anonymous than if you hear it in the real world. Please go try to fix yourself.
12:03,
ReplyDeleteI am not the same individual from last night. I do not think my thoughts are incoherent, and I do not think I am disturbed. Moreover, I am not here to offend anyone, nor have I said anything offensive to anyone here, unlike you who proceeded to insult me.
My posts are long winded because they are flushing out a complex phenomenon.
Succinctly stated: lemmings believe they will beat the odds and transparency will not stop this. No matter what the numbers say, they will continue to go to LS regardless of the price tag. Many of them (not all) will incur irrational expenses on top of the already irrational expense of tuition and other proximate LS expenses, despite not having decent grades and/or family connections to secure employment capable of paying the loans back. The Tax Payer will i) foot an exorbitant bill ii) payable to bad people to iii) create debt slaves. Whatever transparency reveals, members of the political left and political right will do nothing to solve the problem because of their disdain for this group of people: future lawyers. This is despite the fact that remedying this problem advances goals that are very near and dear to both political parties/ideologies.
Why am I incoherent and/or disturbed?
Because:
ReplyDelete1. You are the guy from last night. He ended his posts with questions just like you do.
2. Earlier you demanded credit for the Occupy Wall Street movement.
3. You believe you have the ability to read every person's minds, providing direct quotes stating what they think.
4. You make conclusions about the efficacy of transparency before any experimentation.
You know what? Whatever. I don't even care. Carry on.
12:27,
ReplyDeleteDude, I don't know who this guy was or is from last night. I feel really bad that I sound like, what appears to be a raving lunatic. So, forget about answering my questions, and sorry for intruding on this discussion. Not my intention.
http://northwesthistory.blogspot.com/2011/11/open-letter-to-my-students-no-you.html
ReplyDeleteIs there such a thing as a Law and History professor?
ReplyDeleteat 1:09:
ReplyDeleteYes, but he serves coffee at Starbucks for a living next to the attorney and engineer who work the same shift.
11:54, hey 11:10 here. I can only speak for the people I know and I just graduated in May. In my experience, we were mostly striving types who were fairly risk-adverse. That's why we weren't in business as the thought of hard work in exchange for security appeared to be a better deal to us than the risk involved in putting in hard work and mabe not paying off in business. This calculation was based on the available data we had. For the most part, we did not expect to win the get rich, Biglaw lottery. We thought that the majority of us were getting into a profession where a comfortable lifestyle was purchased by more years of school and hard work. Transparency would have given us a better understanding of how many JDs get this opportunity and at least allow us to make informed decisions. If I'd have known, I may not have gone.
ReplyDelete"That's why we weren't in business"
ReplyDeleteExactly. You go to law school to exchange tuition money and study power for the advertised job security.
hey 11:10,
ReplyDeleteThanks for responding to me in a civil tone. I appreciate your point about being risk averse, but I really think it’s more than that. I was just reading one of the scam blogs, and a recent thread involved trying to dissuade a lemming from going to LS. The Lemming says HE KNOWS it’s a bad deal, but he thinks he can overcome for one reason or another. There are about 20 responses now explaining to him why its bad, buttressing what he already knows. Maybe I am wrong, and maybe what I am saying does not make sense, but I really do not seek how you can stop these kids without pulling the Federal Guarantee. I do appreciate what you say about your own circumstances. There are some people that really think/thought it was a safe bet.
Link to that thread? I'm curious.
ReplyDelete3:13,
ReplyDeleteIn addition to some of your points, I don't think incoming 0L's realize how hard it is to hang out a shingle. Aside from the upfront costs, there's so much to learn about practicing law that it's almost impossible to learn on your own.
4:00,
ReplyDeleteGoogle JDU. It will be the first or second thread.
why couldn't you just link it?
ReplyDeleteI have drafted a letter to the ABA, which I plan to email tomorrow. I want to thank both LawProf and the many commenters on this blog for their thoughts on this issue: I incorporated many ideas that I found here, although with some of my own perspectives. I hope many of you will write letters as well--there were many, many fruitful ideas here. All best, DJM
ReplyDeleteThanks DJM! I just had coffee (I'm networking) with a practicing lawyer and his life was so depressing. Doesn't make that much and works a lot. at least he graduated 30 years ago without huge loans.
ReplyDeleteCheck out Kramer four years ago: http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2007/10/22/stanfords-larry-kramer-the-state-of-our-profession-is-bad/
ReplyDeleteNote that statement about law schools "forcing most [students] to graduate with a mountain of debt."
What's with the guy now?
ABA finally to act on placement info?
ReplyDeletehttp://www.abajournal.com/news/article/aba_committee_appears_poised_to_adopt_new_jobs_placement_standard/
But this proposal doesn't include loan info--so letters on 510 are still important!
Wow is that the same guy?!
ReplyDelete"The current proposal would also require a law school to post the bar passage rates and employment outcomes of its graduates by job status and employment type, including the number of graduates working in jobs requiring a law degree and the number of those who are not; and the number of unemployed graduates who are and who are not seeking work. The employment data, which will be contained in a chart to be referenced in the standards, is largely identical to the recommendations of the Questionnaire Committee, which the council will consider in early December.
ReplyDeleteBoth proposals would also require law schools to disclose how many graduates are working in full-time or part-time jobs."
If this is true then it's odd to see how quickly the ABA did a 180. Literally just a month or so ago they passed a rule, that LawProf and LST commented on, saying that they would no longer distinguish between full and part time employment, and they would stop distinguishing between legal and non-legal work.
Perhaps the lawsuits, LawProf, DJM and others deserve some credit for this.
On the the debt counselling -
ReplyDeleteGeorgetown had mandatory counseling at the beginning of 1L and at the end of 3L explaining loans, repayment options, and financial advice. There was even an additional optional seminar where they gave pretty detailed advice. All of it was very good - likely a product of the outstanding talent of the head of the financial aid office and his assistants, who could abley explain both the big picture and the details like (how is your FICO score calculated). This sort of advice was available, I'm not sure how many people took advantage of it, but we were actually required to attend some of the sessions and I got a lot out of it. The quality of the session was largely a result of this individual's talent, but I would say that all law grads would benefit from that type of advice and counseling, and it is good to see the ABA start requiring it.
I'm impressed, I must say. Seldom do I encounter a blog that's equally educative and
ReplyDeleteinteresting, and let me tell you, you have hit the nail on the head.
The issue is something which not enough folks are speaking intelligently about.
I am very happy I stumbled across this during my search for something regarding this.
Review my blog :: leicht abnehmen tipps
Also see my site :: Steinzeitdiät Erfahrungen
Hi there to every body, it's my first pay a quick visit of this webpage; this website includes awesome and in fact fine stuff in favor of readers.
ReplyDeletemy webpage :: wordpress tutorials
I have been surfing online more than three hours today, yet I never found any interesting article like yours.
ReplyDeleteIt's pretty worth enough for me. Personally, if all web owners and bloggers made good content as you did, the web will be a lot more useful than ever before.
Also visit my page was heißt glutenfrei
My partner and I stumbled over here by a different web address and thought I may as well check things out.
ReplyDeleteI like what I see so i am just following you. Look forward to looking over your web page
for a second time.
Here is my site - Thai Massage Wiesbaden bewertung
What's up, after reading this remarkable post i am also glad to share my knowledge here with colleagues.
ReplyDeleteAlso visit my site - diät logi
Very good post! We will be linking to this particularly great post on our site.
ReplyDeleteKeep up the great writing.
my web blog wordpress theme creator
My web site: wordpress getting started