tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5164886390834386622.post566945178829583061..comments2023-10-30T08:41:06.178-07:00Comments on Inside the Law School Scam: Form letter law students were asked by their schools to send members of CongressLawProfhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05174586969709793419noreply@blogger.comBlogger48125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5164886390834386622.post-34739630486201662432012-02-22T15:29:20.271-08:002012-02-22T15:29:20.271-08:00@knifecatcher - THANK YOU.@knifecatcher - THANK YOU.anonnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5164886390834386622.post-50716910766777865552012-02-22T05:20:44.739-08:002012-02-22T05:20:44.739-08:00Or maybe this:
"Foregoing bar review courses...Or maybe this:<br /><br />"Foregoing bar review courses is risky, particularly since the ability to practice law hinges on passage of the bar exam."<br /><br />Unspoken but implied:<br /><br />"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"Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5164886390834386622.post-22300782200964557602012-02-22T05:17:16.472-08:002012-02-22T05:17:16.472-08:00From the letter:
"Foregoing bar review cours...From the letter:<br /><br />"Foregoing bar review courses is risky, particularly since the ability to practice law hinges on passage of the bar exam." <br /><br />And the unspoken but implied---<br /><br />"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."Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5164886390834386622.post-69482846381354739062012-02-21T19:32:08.880-08:002012-02-21T19:32:08.880-08:00While I support access to education in all forms, ...While 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?<br /><br />I 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.Miscellaneous Lawyerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10090128614779179569noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5164886390834386622.post-42667842459830577382012-02-21T16:17:14.167-08:002012-02-21T16:17:14.167-08:00The ABA should write a letter telling the schools ...The 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?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5164886390834386622.post-19658872591207344522012-02-21T11:21:15.120-08:002012-02-21T11:21:15.120-08:00Reading this entry gave me a feeling of disgust. ...Reading 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.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5164886390834386622.post-59892371357234183682012-02-21T09:10:14.840-08:002012-02-21T09:10:14.840-08:00This thread is a good example of why this blog nee...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.CaptBackslapnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5164886390834386622.post-66562887557594046842012-02-21T04:35:25.503-08:002012-02-21T04:35:25.503-08:00By failing to make rigorous, realistic actuarial a...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.<br /><br />But 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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />http://www.calbarjournal.com/February2012/TopHeadlines/TH1.aspx?source=patrick.netknifecatcherhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14042774949819771257noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5164886390834386622.post-70051754766040313112012-02-20T18:48:43.650-08:002012-02-20T18:48:43.650-08:00made an inaccurate statement about student loans, ...made an inaccurate statement about student loans, so let me correct myself about bankrupcy. I was remembering issues like SOL for student loans <br /><br />http://www.finaid.org/questions/bankruptcyexception.phtml<br /><br />Again, I am not the one advocating right wing solutions while pretending not to do so.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />I don't exclude the arguments regarding bankruptcy or any of the market based argument. I merely state that its not enough. <br /><br />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.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5164886390834386622.post-47389030339443572962012-02-20T18:41:05.695-08:002012-02-20T18:41:05.695-08:00I can't believe this debate has been hijacked ...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! <br /><br />Whether 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!<br /><br /> They don't care about you. They won't Miss You In A Heartbeat and you don't got Nine Lives. <br /><br />So Stand Up and don't Breathe a Sigh.<br />Get yourself the scamblogger's Rocket, take a Photograph and Pour Some Sugar on it.1980rocknoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5164886390834386622.post-49358088978724787912012-02-20T18:37:06.288-08:002012-02-20T18:37:06.288-08:006:25
(1) None of the solutions are anymore likely...6:25<br /><br />(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. <br /><br />(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.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5164886390834386622.post-20008261708353157472012-02-20T18:29:41.156-08:002012-02-20T18:29:41.156-08:00You wouldn't know complexity if it came up and...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.<br /><br />For 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. <br /><br />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.<br /><br />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. <br /><br />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.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5164886390834386622.post-82914587555549277782012-02-20T18:25:35.767-08:002012-02-20T18:25:35.767-08:00"Moreover, to answer you directly- you do rea..."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?" <br /><br />Just because it's possible doesn't mean it's likely to happen. <br /><br />"its more likely given the cost of education than trying to convince Americans they don't need education." <br /><br />Who's arguing that? But maybe, just maybe, we don't need 45,000 new lawyers ever year in the United States.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5164886390834386622.post-7873250785879111052012-02-20T18:24:53.175-08:002012-02-20T18:24:53.175-08:00You wouldn't know complexity if it came up and...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.<br /><br />For 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. <br /><br />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.<br /><br />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. <br /><br />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.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5164886390834386622.post-80669829696547453592012-02-20T18:09:13.113-08:002012-02-20T18:09:13.113-08:00If this were the only post that leans this way, an...If 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.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5164886390834386622.post-29178789428848084852012-02-20T17:26:04.180-08:002012-02-20T17:26:04.180-08:00...talk about changing the subject and obfuscation......talk about changing the subject and obfuscation.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5164886390834386622.post-16936503721856495112012-02-20T17:09:27.628-08:002012-02-20T17:09:27.628-08:00oh captain, my captainoh captain, my captainAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5164886390834386622.post-27465482461508089782012-02-20T16:56:12.264-08:002012-02-20T16:56:12.264-08:00The "article" here is a form letter that...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. <br /><br />"either you get that prioritizing certain policy directions over others is ideological or you don't."<br /><br />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?<br /><br />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.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5164886390834386622.post-43976836384192657772012-02-20T16:38:56.768-08:002012-02-20T16:38:56.768-08:00a. "Yes, because if funding is restored we ca...a. "Yes, because if funding is restored we can all rest assured that state universities will lower their tuition."<br /><br />If 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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />In fact, its more likely given the cost of education than trying to convince Americans they don't need education.<br /><br />(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.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5164886390834386622.post-64274243030467374372012-02-20T16:06:47.292-08:002012-02-20T16:06:47.292-08:00"addressing the underlying cost issue by rest..."addressing the underlying cost issue by restoring state funding to universities to make school avoidable like CUNY Law School is now" <br /><br />Yes, because if funding is restored we can all rest assured that state universities will lower their tuition.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5164886390834386622.post-54910614747139148962012-02-20T15:39:16.914-08:002012-02-20T15:39:16.914-08:00"and you keep saying, well but there are othe..."and you keep saying, well but there are other examples."<br /><br />What? No I haven't...what other examples? I have only posted three comments (12:45, 2:20 and 3:02). <br /><br />"It just underscores you are changing the subject."<br /><br />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.<br /><br />"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."<br /><br />umm...who? where? A few idiots maybe....<br />Those people simply need to be ignored. Its about money and who gets it from whom, not ideology.<br /><br />And Im not for incremental reform...im for real reforms as soon as possible.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5164886390834386622.post-48235695773562713902012-02-20T15:27:46.956-08:002012-02-20T15:27:46.956-08:00I understand the "for the sake of argument&qu...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.<br /><br />I 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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />Again- a specific- not your theorectical.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5164886390834386622.post-87713942427376182082012-02-20T15:23:37.752-08:002012-02-20T15:23:37.752-08:00I am becoming less enthusiastic about becoming a l...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.<br /><br />This profession is completely void of a single speck of nobility and honor attributed to it.<br /><br />Doctors and Engineers are far superior men.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5164886390834386622.post-14808308904850866982012-02-20T15:02:26.021-08:002012-02-20T15:02:26.021-08:00Yeah man, you have serious comprehension issues an...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.<br /><br />Let 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?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5164886390834386622.post-64068052117300235962012-02-20T14:31:58.641-08:002012-02-20T14:31:58.641-08:00The entire premise of what you choose to focus on ...The entire premise of what you choose to focus on is arguing this.<br /><br />You 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. <br /><br />Even your attempts to pretend you aren't ideological is consistent with what right wingers do.<br /><br />"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."<br /><br />Your basis for asserting this?<br /><br />"because student loans would include bankruptcy protection like every other kind of loan. "<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />Your denial can't change the focus.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com