Shortly afterwards, Congress and the Obama administration went even further than the letter requested, by getting rid of government-guaranteed private educational loans altogether, and replacing them with direct loans from the federal government. This change permitted students to borrow 100% of the cost of attendance at any ABA-accredited law school from the government, no matter what that figure might be.
March __ 2010
U.S. Senate
Washington, DC 20510
I am a first/second... year law student attending Your Law School. As your constituent and a member of the American Bar Association Law Student Division, I request your support for law students and recent graduates struggling to meet their student loan obligations during this economic downturn.
Specifically, I request your support of two important issues: (1) raising the Stafford Loan limits to at least $30,000 per year, and (2) incorporating bar exam study loans under the definition of an education loan.
Eighty percent of students finance higher education with student loans. On average, law students graduate with $85,000 in law school debt in addition to $20,000 in undergraduate school debt. Many law students must supplement their federal loans with more expensive and less flexible private loans. Recent graduates in the legal profession are having difficulty finding jobs in the current economy and consequently struggling to meet their debt obligations.
One important way to help reduce the reliance on expensive private loans is to increase the cap on the amount that law graduates may borrow annually under the Stafford loan program. Because Stafford loan caps are not automatically adjusted for inflation, under the current Stafford loan cap, law students can only borrow $20,500 per year, which does not adequately cover the cost of a legal education today.
I urge you to support an increase of the cap to at least $30,000. This increase mirrors the amount permitted for medical and veterinary students. Law students should be able to enjoy the same privilege, particularly since tuition has increased 448% at public law schools and 224% at private law schools in the past twenty years. Stafford loan caps should be raised so that law students like me can receive the low interest rates, flexible terms, and benefits for those entering public service (loan forgiveness, deferment, forbearance, and assistance) that only federal loan programs offer.
Additionally, I ask you to please support the inclusion of bar study loans in the definition of an education loan. Because law students across the country prepare for the bar exam after they graduate, the loans they will need do not fit within the definition of an education loan under Title IV of the Higher Education Act. No federal loan program covers the costs of bar exam review courses or exam fees, and because of this, all bar loans must be obtained through private lenders, which offer fewer repayment options and less flexibility compared to federal loans. The price of a comprehensive bar review course is typically between $2,000 and $3,500, and law school graduates must also borrow for living expenses while studying. Graduating law students cumulatively borrow over $450 million each year in private bar study loans.
Foregoing bar review courses is risky, particularly since the ability to practice law hinges on passage of the bar exam. Amending Title IV to include bar study and licensure loans under the definition of education loans will allow law school graduates to obtain federal loans for test review and examination costs. Passing the bar and obtaining a law license are essential to becoming a practicing attorney.
Being able to finance a legal education with federal loans is critical to the diversity of the legal profession and the judiciary. Students who otherwise could not afford a legal education can attend law school and become lawyers on the promise of a federal education loan. Congress can provide needed relief for law students during the economic recession by raising Stafford loan caps and including bar study loans within federal education loan programs.
Sincerely,
Your Name
I recommend changing the title of this post to "Law Students Were Solicited by the ABA to Ask Congress for an Increase in Their Non-Dischargeable Debt"
ReplyDeleteWow. The letter right there states that tuition has increased 448% and 224%. The only reason for those outrageous increases was because of government-guaranteed loans (what lender would lend a law student who's never worked in his life that kind of money without a government guarantee?).
ReplyDeleteSo, of course, the response is to provide more loans (directly this time) to students who have no chance of paying back the loans, all in the name of providing equal access to a legal education for all.
And, this is coming from the same organization whose president blamed the student(s) for being in debt and not having a job.
There's a sucker born every minute. And there will always be charlatans to take advantage of them.
ReplyDeleteHoly lamb chop, Batman! The sheep are petitioning Congress to subsidize the mutton packers!
ReplyDeleteYou will have to explain to me, since you are into incremental reform like focusing on public student loans rather than the cutting the cost of education directly, why leaving us at the mercy of private loans is better? The above cost you are mentioning would still be paid by the consumer through the private loans, which have worse terms than the public loans.
ReplyDeleteI say you are an incremental reformer because when the actual reasons for cost are mentioned you focus once again on student loans. Its odd to focus on incremental solutions on one day, and then, you are against it on another day. For example, here, public loans in terms of cost to students are preferable to private loans. This can not be debated. Its a simple matter of math both in terms of interests, and, in terms of repayment terms and whether one will have to pay the debt in its entirety at all.
That's an incremental reform.
Now, I think it sucks. Why? Because it does not address the cuts in education that has pushed cost onto the individual students in the first place. But, I am not into incremental reform because I don't think it works. However, you have said you are.
You are going to have to explain to me why this is not just some kind of Libertarian bent against public loans versus a comparative economic analysis of public versus private loans.
Bruh Rabbit
Special note: If any one here calls me an idiot for not getting this argument, that means you have no rebuttal to my problems with it. Save both our time, and just actually answer my criticism.
"The above cost you are mentioning would still be paid by the consumer through the private loans, which have worse terms than the public loans."
ReplyDeleteI think this is what people here will disagree with, assuming those loans are not guaranteed by the government. With law school tuition increasing rapidly and job prospects shrinking, it would be unlikely that private institutions would continue with the free flow of money.
So, in short, you are ideologues who believe that what you say will happen because the market magically will make it so.
ReplyDeleteYou are factually wrong. The largest growing area of student loans is private student loans. Why? To match tuition increases.
http://studentlendinganalytics.typepad.com/student_lending_analytics/2011/10/this-week-in-financial-literacy-.html
"The private student loan market is showing clear signs of growth after increasing at double-digit
rates through the late 1990s and early 2000s and then abruptly falling as a result of the 2008
financial market crisis.1 Private loans are not a form of financial aid and are among the riskiest
ways to pay for college. Private student lenders are not required to provide the important
borrower options and protections that come with federal student loans, such as unemployment
deferments, income-based repayment, public service loan forgiveness, and cancellation if the
borrower dies, is severely disabled or is defrauded by a school. Like credit cards, private loans
typically have variable, uncapped interest rates and offer little, if any, repayment flexibility. But
unlike credit cards, private loans are virtually impossible to discharge in bankruptcy.2
Nevertheless, at the peak of the private loan market in 2007-08, a majority of private loan
borrowers could have borrowed more in safer, more affordable federal student loans."
http://ticas.org/files/pub/Private_Student_Lending_on_the_Rise.pdf
This is with worst terms for the students. This again isn't a matter of opinion
"Sallie Mae, the largest private lender, recently reported a 20% increase in loan originations so far this year and a 29% increase in loan originations in the third quarter of 2011 alone.4 Wells Fargo has been reporting growth in private loan volume every quarter for the last two years.5 Discover Financial, which recently acquired Citibank’s private loan business, saw their private loan portfolio grow more than three times as much in the most recent quarter as compared to the same time last year.6"
ReplyDeleteThe above was for 2011 alone.
"But unlike credit cards, private loans are virtually impossible to discharge in bankruptcy."
ReplyDeleteWell this would be a problem with the market handling the problem.
Others would say that at least if the market handles it, they would be okay with it.
Others would point out that the market has its own problems. Consider housing. Has the price of housing come down anywhere in the past few years, perhaps? Not an elegant solution, but it counters the point that taking the federal government out of it could help to bring down tuition.
Personally, I would agree that this is part of an incremental approach, and many other steps are needed to correct the present problems. I also don't think it's as simple as telling the government to GTFO out the student loan business.
(1) Bankruptcy is not a market response. It is a government intervention interfering with the contract between parties. Its a response I agree with, but i don't magically turn it into a "market response" because I am not an ideologue limiting my choices to market responses.
ReplyDeleteUnder no stretch of the imagination could bankrutpcy be considered a "market response." the fact you are calling it "market response: illustrates the ideological bent of those who claim they are interested in reform.
If "market' here is going to be "whatever I like" is market, then it has no meaning at all (its the equivalent of saying keeping governments hand off my Medicare). Nor, does it make much sense to argue that with bankruptcy, that suddenly makes private loans better, since all else being equal (if both public and private loans are subject to bankruptcy), that means the public loans are still better on its terms and cost to the student.
(2) You don't have bankruptcy protection for student loans, including private ones, so you aren't talking about something actually in place. We are dealing with what's available,a nd under those circumstances, what is the best available option.
(3) The problem, of course, is the solutions you are willing to consider on the table. the solutions must be "the market" as you strangely define it.
I dont' care what others would say if they have no basis in reason and proveable arguments. So far, you are batting zero on that front to explain why the ideological driven argument for students to face more cost rather than less.
Actually, I think focusing on public loans may be the key to driving down costs. Because public loans are the fuel that feeds the machine; without them hardly anyone would be able to afford to pay the ever increasing tuition. And as currently structured, the public loan system is so irresponsible with the taxpayers' money that it makes the mortgage bankers who made $400,000 no doc, no down payment loans to waitresses and gardeners look prudent. After all, unlike student loans, they got collateral and the waitresses and gardners actually had jobs.
ReplyDeleteLets take an example. The letter fixes average debt for graduating law students in 2010 at $105,000. At 6.8% interest the payment to pay this off in ten years is $1208 per month or about $14,500 per year. To pay this requires an income of $97,000 if the graduate dedicates 15% of her pre-tax income to debt service. If LawProf's drilling down into the employment statistics has taught us anything it is that, for your average law student at your average law school the liklihood of earning almost $100K is near zero. It is pretty common for law students to have $150K in debt, which requires payments of over $20,000 per year. Again, for the average law student at the average law school that is almost half of likely pre-tax income.
So I have a modest proposal. Underwrite the loans and loan no more than the amount the student can be expected to repay from the income s/he can be expected to earn based upon earnings data for similarly situated students. For example, if earnings for recent graduates from x law school with credentials placing them in the middle of the entering class is $45,000 and then loan a similarly situated student no more than someone with that income level can be expected to repay (about $50,000 total debt load).
Of course x law school charges $40,000 per year in tuition, so the student could not afford to attend. And neither could hardly anyone else applying to x law school. So x law school has a problem and a choice:
(1) find self pay students willing to pay $40,000 (fat chance);
(2) get a tuition subsidy from its university (fat chance) of, if it is a state school, the legislature (worth exploing, legislatures used to subsidize law schools before federal loans made it unnecessary);
(3) go out of business; or
(4) find a way to provide a legal education that someone with $16,500 in federal loan support can afford, say for tuition of $20,000 or so. Its not impossible, as LawProf has frequently pointed out Harvard was charging less than this (in current dollars) twenty five years ago. My T14 law school charged me about $13,500 (in current dollars) in 1975.
If you want to bring down a bubble, stop pumping air into it.
RPL
I should be clear that when I say you I m referring to anyone who buys into a particular argument that does not make much sense. Not you personally.
ReplyDeleteRPL
ReplyDelete(1) There is no reason to conclude that public loans drive costs. The fact that loan are currently mostly public is not proof of what you argue. The existence does not prove causation. In fact, the rise of private loans in face of existing government caps disproves your argument.
(2) The mortgage crisis- empirically- not what people believe- were a product of private sector speculation. So, its interesting you would use that to defend an argument about public being worse than private. I think part of the issue here is separating out deeply held beliefs from what empirically can be shown. That's important because reform can not happen through magical thinking.
(3) Your solution is nonsensical. Its the kind of magical thinking in which you impose some limit, and magically the problem goes away. the cap would produce more private loans. that's what the above data already shows. Yet, this can't be true because you don't want to believe it rather than because the evidence is wrong.
If you want to have a real solution either (1) forgive the debt and/or (2) cut costs.
None of the convoluted "market solutions" are going to do that because you leave the private sector off the table. Again empirically, any argument doing that is consigning students to a worse fate, not better one. That's just a matter of simple logic.
I recall seeing this form letter a while back. I immediately wanted to punch a law school administrator - or ABA pig - in the face. The schools simply want to keep the gravy train rolling along. They obviously do not give a damn about the students, or recent graduates.
ReplyDeleteThe fact that they are recruiting the law school victims/students in this scheme is reprehensible. It is akin to a wife beater "encouraging" his wife to drop charges - or he might beat her worse next time.
This is an example of the take-home exam fallacy. Some students prefer to have a take-home exam since it will give them more time to work on the test. It doesn't occur to them that the other students will also have more time, neutralizing any benefit.
ReplyDeleteIt's the same reason why average men think polygyny is a good idea. It doesn't occur to them that under polygyny the most handsome rich dudes will snap up all the girls and leave them single.
So too with student loans. 50k in Stafford loans would be great if everyone else was locked out of them. Otherwise it's completely unproductive. Except of course for law school faculty and administrators.
"There is no reason to conclude that public loans drive costs. "
ReplyDeleteNone except the basic economic laws of supply and demand, of course.
And now for the lying ideologue. When you can't when an argument by actually addressing it, you change its terms.
ReplyDeleteSo, please tell me where in that Econ 101 course that you are babbling about 1201 does it say that if you eliminate public loans, that will magically end private ones?
By the way, the law of supply and demand from econ 101 has been proven wrong. Its not a law. Its assumption. it says that people will act rationally. If that's not true (which it isn't) then the whole assumptions about how they will act is not true, which the law of supply and demand argues based on rational behavior, so its not proven true.
For example- let's go outside of education. Are people rational about their own health care? The answer to that is no. They aren't worried about cost,t hey are worried about their health regardless of cost.
The same issue, I might add, is true of education. People make irrational decisions on education. Your argument depends on them doing something that has nothing to dowith how they make decisions.
All that being said- the real problem, of course, is that's not even the point- your ideologically driven argument. It doesn'te xplains why private loans should be prefered over public loans.
You and the other right wingers here can not explain that so you change the subject.
if anyone can explain to me what 12pm is talking about, please do so.
ReplyDeleteThis situation is nothiong like he examples given.
The underlying problem with Prof arguments are that they are ideologically rather than fact and reason driven.
Again, explain to me, why an incremental reformer would want students paying more for their debt, and indeed, ultimately more debt, and worse terms.
So, far, all I have gotten is that people either don't understand what a market is, or want to change the subject.
The problem is that you are limiting the argument into some sort of ideological box. The answer is not to argue about public vs private loans, etc., but to have simple reforms like: cannot subsidize education with private loans, reintroduce bankruptcy, have the schools with some skin in the game, only allow schools who limit tuition based on some sort of salary metric to have access to federal loans, etc. Why argue about ideology? Ideologues should be dismissed out of hand.
ReplyDeleteDon't worry about the cost of your Bar preparation course. If you don't have a job lined up for the Fall, you're one of the lucky few who gets a discount rate.
ReplyDeleteABA Letter: TLDR
ReplyDeleteTranslation: Dear Congressman, I am a law student. Please look the other way while my law school continues to ass rape me. P.S. to my law school dean, can I please have another sir?
1245
ReplyDelete(1) I am not the one arguing for incremental reform, which when you look at what's being offered up first relies on ideological assumptions. Indeed, the defense of the choices are all ideological responses.
I favor wholesale reform including bankruptcy re-introduction for all loans (public and private), addressing the underlying cost issue by restoring state funding to universities to make school avoidable like CUNY Law School is now, addressing the underlying way we do education in the U.S. in general, loan forgivenance of those with debt now, etc. I realize not all of this may happen, but at least I am thinking in terms of what would be real solution so that any compromise later would come closer than what is being suggested now, which takes ideological limitations of the right as the only choice one can go with. So long that is the case, the incremental changes will likely favor the private sector.
(2) If you are going to favor incremental reform, then its on you to explain why incremental "reform" should include changing aspects in favor of making the debt situation worse for students by having them rely more on private debt rather than better by having them rely less on more expensive debt. If you are ignoring the private loans by going after the public, you need to explain why this is the case given the impact. This is not an approach that suggestions addressing all issues without regard to ideological views.
The entire premise is ideologically driven by the choices of (a) priorities under so-called incremental approaches and (b) ignoring the 800-lb guerrila in the room- which is to cut the underlying cost so that education is not (1) denied to people (which would be the result of simply focusing on student loans) and (2) if they get an education it is not a life destroying one. Right now, on top of adding costs, the arguments as stated denies people the right to an education.
Bruh Rabbit
PS My problem is that I have seen this game before. All of the solutions as described help the private sector and does little in the long run to help students and the middle class. This is what occured with Obamacare. As written, it does little to address cost, does a lot to push pseudo market based solutions on people by forcing them to buy private sector insurance that offers worse terms and still increasing costs.
Again, no one has been able to explain why you would go after reducing the cost of loans as a way to address the increasing cost of going to college for students if one is claiming to be an incrementalist. Everything should be on the table- including private sector loans, loan forgivenance, bankruptcy, etc.
"than what is being suggested now, which takes ideological limitations of the right as the only choice one can go with. "
ReplyDeleteBut who is seriously arguing this? Ron Paul and some idiots? And even if the ideology of the "free market" won out (for arguments sake), it still would be better than what we have today because student loans would include bankruptcy protection like every other kind of loan.
But really, I have no interest in ideological arguments - just a colossal waste of time. The system we have in place is not based on some sort of grand ideology (despite what the extreme right might say) but based on the powers that be sucking out as much money as possible from younger generations with the least amount of skin in the game as possible. We are seeing this in every part of the economy. Its economic warfare and not an ideological fight....buying into the false ideological argument shows just how much they've won.
The entire premise of what you choose to focus on is arguing this.
ReplyDeleteYou can, of course, practice the fine art of denial, but its again on you to explain why you choose to focus on public loans over private ones. Not me. I am not the one who made this ideological. You are.
Even your attempts to pretend you aren't ideological is consistent with what right wingers do.
"I am not ideological," and then you post shit like this with is ideological, "if the ideology of the "free market" won out (for arguments sake), it still would be better than what we have today."
Your basis for asserting this?
"because student loans would include bankruptcy protection like every other kind of loan. "
Which has nothing to do with the right wing winning out. Indeed, its not even what's being argued here. Instead, we get the purely, there is something wrong with public loans over private loans.
In other words, you are changing the subject of what the article is about. You can live in your fantasy world where this is not about ideology all you want. The reality is that its going to end up hurting students even while denying that's what's happening since you aren't focusing on bankruptcy, but here in this article on public loans without regard to the cost of private loans.
Your denial can't change the focus.
Yeah man, you have serious comprehension issues and you really want a fight. Do you not understand what "for argument's sake" means? Do you not comprehend by my earlier post about reasonable reforms that I have zero interest in a free market solution? Do you not comprehend that by my use of "for argument's sake"? Once again you focus on a side issue (something I don't believe in) to continue arguing your pretend ideological fight. Its called tilting at windmills.
ReplyDeleteLet me spell it out for you in caps since you seem to need explicit statements - I DO NOT BELIEVE IN A FREE MARKET SOLUTION. I DO NOT BELIEVE SWITCHING TO PRIVATE STUDENT LOANS SOLVES A DAMN THING. Get it? All I said was that private student loans that included bankruptcy protection would be better than what we have now (as would public student loans with the same protection)....focus on the bankruptcy part of the statement. That is the key. BUT ONCE AGAIN, THIS IS FOR ARGUMENTS SAKE TO DEMONSTRATE HOW CRAPPY OUR CURRENT SYSTEM IS AND NOT MY PREFERENCE. Comprende?
I am becoming less enthusiastic about becoming a lawyer. I am getting cold feet here. I don't want to become part a group of elitist, bitter men filled with vices and pettiness.
ReplyDeleteThis profession is completely void of a single speck of nobility and honor attributed to it.
Doctors and Engineers are far superior men.
I understand the "for the sake of argument" makes no sense in the context of an actual real example. I am asking why the focus on those policies which would tend to move the system tot he right, and you keep saying, well but there are other examples. yes, there are. They aren't he ones being pushed consistently on the table. So you can keep babbling about how I don't get the point all you want. It just underscores you are changing the subject.
ReplyDeleteI don't care what you cap or claim you support. I care what is actually being pushed, and universally, on these sorts of blogs, the end result are right wing outcomes in terms of priorities.
People aren't what they say they. They are what they prioritize and do. That's the yard stick by which I am judging these arguments about "I am for incremental reform" and yet arguing that somehow a system that incrementally reduces cost is bad.
Again- a specific- not your theorectical.
"and you keep saying, well but there are other examples."
ReplyDeleteWhat? No I haven't...what other examples? I have only posted three comments (12:45, 2:20 and 3:02).
"It just underscores you are changing the subject."
You're the one consistently changing the subject from actual reforms to some pretend ideological fight. Its all in your head. I only care about reforms. You're doing exactly what you're accusing me of doing.
"I care what is actually being pushed, and universally, on these sorts of blogs, the end result are right wing outcomes in terms of priorities."
umm...who? where? A few idiots maybe....
Those people simply need to be ignored. Its about money and who gets it from whom, not ideology.
And Im not for incremental reform...im for real reforms as soon as possible.
"addressing the underlying cost issue by restoring state funding to universities to make school avoidable like CUNY Law School is now"
ReplyDeleteYes, because if funding is restored we can all rest assured that state universities will lower their tuition.
a. "Yes, because if funding is restored we can all rest assured that state universities will lower their tuition."
ReplyDeleteIf you are going to debate a point that "X" is not possible, you may not want to cite the example that rebuts your beliefs. If CUNY exists, that means other CUNYs can exist.
Moreover, to answer you directly- you do realize money can be earmarked to pay for just this specific issue, as well as capping tuition in the process? Its as likely an outcome as babbling on about student loans.
In fact, its more likely given the cost of education than trying to convince Americans they don't need education.
(b) As for 3:39, either you get that prioritizing certain policy directions over others is ideological or you don't. Since I am responding to the specifics of the article here, I have no idea what you seem to think you are responding to.
The "article" here is a form letter that was circulated by the ABA to all of its student members. Its not even an article. You're the one shoehorning in policy choices and ideology.
ReplyDelete"either you get that prioritizing certain policy directions over others is ideological or you don't."
You are extremely simplistic. Now I understand why you cling to ideological arguments. You have no idea that complex forces are behind "policy" choices....especially 30 years of educational policy. Again, its about a protected class of people and their ideology is, how can I extract as much money as possible from other people?
Also enjoyed how you ignored your previous insistence that I used all these "examples" and that I support some sort of free market solution. "Oh, I was proven wrong? Well I'll just completely ignore it and move on to another fallacious argument"....a true ideologue indeed.
oh captain, my captain
ReplyDelete...talk about changing the subject and obfuscation.
ReplyDeleteIf this were the only post that leans this way, and were this the only "scam site" that lend this way, you might actually have a point that the posts are not leaning almost always towards right ward choices.
ReplyDeleteYou wouldn't know complexity if it came up and bit you on the ass. The arguments here are all fairly simple minded "government and student loans bad" without much thought as to why the debt exists or how to prevent the need to accumulate the debt in the first place. When presented with an unexplainable example like CUNY Law, the rebuttal is "yeah, like that will happen." That's a really complex response to an example that doesn't fit the arguments here.
ReplyDeleteFor example, the simple minded "bankruptcy" will solve the problem ignores the fact that at one point we had bankruptcy protection, and it still did not prevent the rise in costs.
Before you say it,t hat does not mean I am against bankruptcy protection for student loans. It means I realize its limitations. IN short, the complexity you claim to care about is exactly why I find the arguments here simple minded. I wish I were projecting onto the situation, but I have been scanning these blogs for several months. I have wanted to see someone get at the roots.
You and others mostly gloss over things like CUNY Law by pretending the example doesn't exist, but it illustrates a deeper point. That if you can cut cost directly by keeping tuition down as a goal of the state, you never need visit the loan issue in the first place.
Those arguments are ignore as "later goals." I am asking why? I have yet to see an answer. Why choose student loans over tuition reduction as your first goal.
"Moreover, to answer you directly- you do realize money can be earmarked to pay for just this specific issue, as well as capping tuition in the process?"
ReplyDeleteJust because it's possible doesn't mean it's likely to happen.
"its more likely given the cost of education than trying to convince Americans they don't need education."
Who's arguing that? But maybe, just maybe, we don't need 45,000 new lawyers ever year in the United States.
You wouldn't know complexity if it came up and bit you on the ass. The arguments here are all fairly simple minded "government and student loans bad" without much thought as to why the debt exists or how to prevent the need to accumulate the debt in the first place. When presented with an unexplainable example like CUNY Law, the rebuttal is "yeah, like that will happen." That's a really complex response to an example that doesn't fit the arguments here.
ReplyDeleteFor example, the simple minded "bankruptcy" will solve the problem ignores the fact that at one point we had bankruptcy protection, and it still did not prevent the rise in costs.
Before you say it,t hat does not mean I am against bankruptcy protection for student loans. It means I realize its limitations. IN short, the complexity you claim to care about is exactly why I find the arguments here simple minded. I wish I were projecting onto the situation, but I have been scanning these blogs for several months. I have wanted to see someone get at the roots.
You and others mostly gloss over things like CUNY Law by pretending the example doesn't exist, but it illustrates a deeper point. That if you can cut cost directly by keeping tuition down as a goal of the state, you never need visit the loan issue in the first place.
Those arguments are ignore as "later goals." I am asking why? I have yet to see an answer. Why choose student loans over tuition reduction as your first goal.
6:25
ReplyDelete(1) None of the solutions are anymore likely to happen than any other solution. Therefore, I tend to focus on the direct issue of tuition cost rather than hoping the indirect approach involving theoretical assumptions about markets will solve the problem of cost.
(2) Your second argument is so strange as to be completely disconnected from reality. You think that any changes you are suggesting regarding financing law school education will be limited to law school? Wow. No, the reality is that these policies will be shaped by broad considerations about education in general.
I can't believe this debate has been hijacked by the right/left Hysteria.So, Hello America? We got a Long, Long Way To Go!
ReplyDeleteWhether you're Republican or a Democrat, the scam will screw you. For many of these kids who got tricked, It's Too Late for Love!
They don't care about you. They won't Miss You In A Heartbeat and you don't got Nine Lives.
So Stand Up and don't Breathe a Sigh.
Get yourself the scamblogger's Rocket, take a Photograph and Pour Some Sugar on it.
made an inaccurate statement about student loans, so let me correct myself about bankrupcy. I was remembering issues like SOL for student loans
ReplyDeletehttp://www.finaid.org/questions/bankruptcyexception.phtml
Again, I am not the one advocating right wing solutions while pretending not to do so.
When I see a full range of arguments being supported on average, I will be happy to say that's what I see. Anyone who thinks this is Democratic versus Republican really does miss the point. They are the same party.
I don't exclude the arguments regarding bankruptcy or any of the market based argument. I merely state that its not enough.
If any your mind that translates to "he's right ersus left' you need to examine the way you think because you are excluding certain arguments while claiming to embrace them all.
By failing to make rigorous, realistic actuarial assumptions in deciding who to lend money to and how much to lend, the federal government avoids politically uncomfortable trade-offs. Everyone can go to college. And if you can get accepted into law school, the government will finance that, too.
ReplyDeleteBut as the economist Herbert Stein once said, “If something cannot go on forever, it won’t.” The federal government’s gamble that higher education will continue to result in higher personal incomes eerily echoes Wall Street’s risky assumption that historical patterns in real estate values would carry forward forever and enable many sliced-and-diced mortgage-backed securities to attain AAA ratings.
While it may be politic, even patriotic, to assume that the higher-education-equals-higher-income equation is fact, for investors it remains, at best, aspirational. Since 2008, private investment in nearly any market has been reluctant. The capitalists aren’t taking this education-equals-high income bet; if they did, the terms they would demand would likely change the choices that student borrowers are now making.
http://www.calbarjournal.com/February2012/TopHeadlines/TH1.aspx?source=patrick.net
This thread is a good example of why this blog needs some way to make it so most comments aren't just listed under "Anonymous." God knows no one needs to sign up for anything else, but either requiring a name entered for each comment, or some system of auto-assigning handles to an IP, or SOMETHING, would make it a lot easier to casually follow the comment threads.
ReplyDeleteReading this entry gave me a feeling of disgust. I guess bonuses at law schools are down this year and the school administrations have resorted to the ultimate low of asking their gullible students to petition the government to for more rope ... money ... with which to hang themselves. I wonder if the law schools ever considered lowering their outrageous tuition costs in order to alleviate any pressures that students have with financing a legal education? That would be too easy. I know some schools have at least held their tuition costs in check over the past couple years, but this doesn't mean they are saints by any stretch of the imagination. Law school is still outrageously priced relative to the perceived rewards. Like every bubble, it can't go on forever. If the government doesn't increase the aggregate borrowing limit, I guess the only options will be for schools to lower tuition or students will need to borrow more private dollars (or ask mummy for a handout). Frankly, the better outcome would be for the government to deny any increase in aggregate borrowing limit. Once the federal monies dry up, I'm going to have fun watching the law school-industrial complex fall into oblivion. Maybe then I'll be able to find a permanent legal job when fewer students are actually attending law school as opposed to merely fewer students taking the LSAT.
ReplyDeleteThe ABA should write a letter telling the schools to cap the amount they can charge for tuition/fees or they lose their accreditation. Why charge $45,000+ to learn a profession that at one time was almost free?
ReplyDeleteWhile I support access to education in all forms, I can't agree with a proposal that effectively gives students the means to pay whatever the law school wants to charge. Why not, instead, cap the tuition fees, or find another way to reduce the cost to students of legal education?
ReplyDeleteI approve of this reform in that it reduces the dependence on private loans. This is always going to be a good thing, because private loans are always more expensive. The problem is that you often can't get a private loan if you are unlikely to be able to repay it. That is what banks are best at, managing risky loans. So by removing the restrictions on government loans, you are removing the role of banks in managing risk.
From the letter:
ReplyDelete"Foregoing bar review courses is risky, particularly since the ability to practice law hinges on passage of the bar exam."
And the unspoken but implied---
"And heaven knows these folks can't be expected to pass the bar exam by simply relying on the woefully deficient product that we, the law schools provide over a three year period."
Or maybe this:
ReplyDelete"Foregoing bar review courses is risky, particularly since the ability to practice law hinges on passage of the bar exam."
Unspoken but implied:
"And if there are fewer people taking bar review courses it cuts out some additional income to some of our esteemed colleagues that like to pocket a little supplemental income from said bar review courses for charging students again for something they've presumably already paid to learn"
@knifecatcher - THANK YOU.
ReplyDelete